The bike rental program in Seattle failed and was very recently withdrawn from service.

It was too small to succeed.

I hope I get lucky and get to try the bikes with the NuVinci hub. Is there any word about adding more to the fleet?

You can't see the map now, but I don't think it was all that small. It's supposed that helmet laws were a big factor in it's failure. Helmet laws depress cycling rates in general, and defeats the spontaneous convenience of bike share, which is much of its appeal. The only only other extensive bike share system that hasn't gained traction is Melbourne, which also has a helmet law. News articles also cited hilly terrain as a factor. But AFAIK, bike share is successful in San Francisco, so are hills really the issue?

I don't live in Seattle proper, but supposedly 500 bikes and 54 stations. Closed 31 March.

I've been to Seattle a few times and San Francisco fewer times. I get the impression that despite the very difficult hills in SF, it's a very bikeable city. Is Seattle any worse? You also have difficult hills, but I think they are fewer and slightly shorter.

As it happens, I'll be in Seattle later this month.

I'm working on my third Rollfast and want to buy a Shelby Traveler that's basically all there at some point, what I really need is to get metal pipes and corner fittings brazed together to build a bike rack!

Then will it fail in Ada County (Boise, Idaho) as well?

I mean it was too small for the size of the city.

That depends on what you count as success, I suppose.

Boise GreenBike expansion will bring bike sharing to parks | Idaho Statesman

The system is expanding, so that's one good sign. However, only 24% of revenue came from user fees, so if the measure is making money, it's not doing so well. They have 7300 members, and had 16,049 rides, May through September. I don't know if that counts as success for Boise. 16000 rides in five months of peak season amounts to fewer rides than in a single day in the dead of winter in New York.

One thing that might be telling though is that they concluded that many of the rides were for recreation, and by people from out of town. That's the opposite of New York, where the bulk of trips are by New Yorkers, with annual memberships, to go places, rather than tourists taking joy rides. So, if the goal was to provide an alternative form of transportation for Boiseans to get around town, and reduce driving, that doesn't make it sound like it's had much of an impact. People will ride for fun, but not if they actually have to get somewhere.

Is this success or failure? I have no idea. But I'm willing to suppose that Boise's better off with bike share than without.

Anyway, just some musing based on the little bit you can glean from one article.

The Greenbelt is heavily flooded and a bridge had to be removed to prevent erosion from dumping it into the Boise River...it's bad all the way to Eagle.


Being in the parks right now is not a good idea.


And since I was born over that way and lived in Canyon County until I was twelve, I still don't call Boise a bike city with a zillion on and off ramps from the interstate, it's worse than Portland to me when I visited...the traffic moves into the neighborhoods as construction and foolish people zoom through at 45 mph and everywhere is the city.

Renting a bike is trivial. There was at least one bike shop that rented bikes for years IIRC.

Having lived in Seattle I wouldn't think it would do well. The hills would be a big factor. Even on a road bike, getting around beyond downtown generally involves a climb that is difficult. Maybe you can go from the industrial area south, through downtown, and then up through Belltown and into the Lake Union area. You could even ride up Eastlake into the U-district, but that's about it without encountering a good climb. You'd be better off walking to Capitol Hill, First Hill, Queen Anne as you'd never make it up. Maybe Rainier Valley is doable. Basically it is a north-south corridor that is relatively flat, but it gets hilly going anywhere else, and you can still encounter hills anywhere, even east-west in the narrow downtown area.

The other factor there is that I don't find it particularly friendly to cycling, in spite of it being considered cycle-friendly. Maybe certain areas are, but I hated being on a bike in Downtown, whereas I ride all through Manhattan without a second thought.

Here's an article that goes fairly in depth about the failure of Seattle's bike share, the only system in the US to close down so far. Helmet laws were a factor, but a lot of other things seem to have gone wrong as well. Another was low station density, along with assorted financial and political issues.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...e-share-scheme

Editing to add, this article has interesting comments debating just why bike share failed:

https://www.citylab.com/transportati...-under/513575/

Guess I'm luckier than the rest. Riding twice a day on fair weather days, I happen to randomly picked another NuVinci hub bike. Always in the Soho area (near Holland Tunnel) in the afternoon. Never around Penn station during the morning.

I picked one up yesterday. Wasn't crazy about it. I like the Sturmy Archers the best

What don't you like about it?

I have a theory (untested): The more athletic a rider you are, the closer you want your gears. I don't like three speed hubs because the gears are spaced so far apart. I end up using only two gears. Citi Bike bikes are geared low, so I use the top two gears. This is true for both models, even though the S-A bikes are geared higher than the Shimano bikes. Old English 3-speeds are geared much higher, and I end up using the bottom two gears.

So if I had a NuVinci, I think I would adjust it a bit here and there, using a narrower range than a 3-speed hub offers.

I rode one with the NuVinci again a week or two ago. They are cool, but I think they might be overkill for Citi Bike. They take some getting used to, and I found myself futzing with it constantly. Since it's completely smooth, with no detents at all, it's hard to know how much you've changed the gear, or where you are in the gear range. It was fun to play with, but didn't add much to the 15 minute ride practically speaking. I think the simple three speed serves Citi Bike better, especially if the NuVinci is more expensive, much as I'd have fun playing with the NuVinci.

Is it possible the NuVinci is more reliable than the current hub gear? Do they still use Sturmey Archer? When they first introduced the "new" bikes, the gears were constantly going out of whack. They seem to have solved that problem. Did they change to a different hub?

My ride was only 15 minutes. WhenI started there was no real indication of where I was gearing wise. It's a lot more turning to get from one extreme to the other and shifting did not seem fluid, it still felt like it was popping into a gear when it finally shifted.

If I had to guess, I would say that the three speeds are having malfunctions as they accumulate mileage. If you think about them these hubs have seen thousands of miles (if not tens of thousands), most of these IGHs are made for recreational usage.(i.e. sub 5k miles) That being said they are also meant to be used by people that somewhat understand how they work, and if not they somewhat baby them. If you get someone with no background with IGHs you could have them twisting and shifting under load causing major wear and tear to the hubs and small parts inside which are a pain to replace. Especially if we are talking about 4-5000 total hubs.

The Nuvinci hubs do not have the steps that a normal hub has. This makes it strange to ride at first, but allows you to have people jump on and move the shifter all they want and cause no damage to the internals. They may cost a little more but in the long run they are more robust and will allow Citibike to not have to replace the small parts inside of the other IGHs. Which will help them to focus on any other issues that may be arising in the bikes.

Bed-Stuy Is Going From Low Ridership to Bike-Share Boom

Heart warming!

Here's why it costs $6K per Citi Bike bicycle | SILive.com

News story about Citi Bike, from ... St. Lou ???

Free Citibike day today (Earth Day).

I don't even use the middle gear, since even on slight inclines or headwinds, it brings my speed down too low, even if I pedal like mad. I rather stand up and push the big gear at 65rpm. They would probably be better off putting a smaller cog in the rear and raise the overall gearing. This way, 2nd gear is more useful, and I can push the big more efficiently.

I was so use to always smashing the big gear on the S-A bikes, even when it is at 65rpm into a headwind, that the few times I had the NuVinci bikes, I automatically crank it to the highest gearing and go anerobic, but then, I realize, I don't have to burn my legs with this bike and could bike more efficiently, so I would crank it down a bit and be off at around 80rpm.

I saw another nuvinci bike by Penn station, but it has the red light so I couldn't use it. When I docked by etc area, I saw another one and checked it out to ride it a bit. The gear selector has a bit of play before it actually adjusts up or down, which I guess could be an issue with this system since the shifter requires 2 cables to pull against each other in order to shift up and down, and any bit of slack in tension will result in looseness of shifting.

Also checked its gearing, which is 1:3 vs 1:2.4 on the s/a setup. This gives it a 78 gear inch vs 62.4 at the highest gear, which allows me to cruise at 21mph @ 90 RPM or higher cadence, while on the s/a, I have to go at a panting 113rpm.