Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Todd Michael  Edelman's avatar

As I've always said, micromobility share started in Lyon with a poisonous business model... So I fully support public ownership, and am intrigued by getting rid of membership programs.

Preliminarily, at least, I don't like two tiers on pricing. Even if there's a low income discount, other needs or wants are not purely subjective... some heavier people might desire one, newbies might need a bike to get them into cycling: why should they arrive at their job a bit later and/or a bit more sweaty?

If people really want to work out on a shared bike, they can try going really fast or even lengthen their trip.

But yes, more subjectively, some people might want an e-bike but will be disappointed to only find an acoustic... Or there's two people: If one gets an e-bike, perhaps the other one should as well.

Related to pricing, there's of course also arbitrary age limits. What's the point of a local government owning a micro mobility share system if a significant number of tax paying people - riding bikes to work! - can't use the system? Unfortunately, as I understand it, there's not a lot of data about this because people excluded from the systems are under 18 and aren't normally research subjects.

Is the counter argument that for the same price a city can have e.g. 900 e-bikes or 1200 acoustic?

Finally, this is the second time you've made some somewhat disparaging comment about public transportation.

No posts

Ready for more?