Last Monday, we talked with GRF Seema about the future of Bike Sharing System. As a PhD student in urban planning, Seema has profound knowledge and rich experience in bike sharing system. She used to participate in the construction of bike sharing system in India. Before taking part in the table talk, I thought that bike sharing system is established by government. However, surprisingly, I realized that it actually originates in Amsterdam by some social activists. They would like to protect the environment.

Now Bike Sharing System has spread around the world. It definitely has many benefits, such as providing a convenient way for people to transfer between locations and locations with cheap cost. Especially nowadays provide a way for people in cities who do not have much time to exercise a great way to workout. However, it has problems too. For example, I know that in some cities, theft and violation problem of sharing bikes is commonly seen. Though that is not necessarily the case for everywhere. However, I still believe that with the maturity and development of the system, such problems will happen less and less in the future. Considering all the pros and cons of bike sharing system, I would like to believe we should try our best to develop it and finally it will become a popular way of transition around everywhere in the world.

This week, I attended GRF Seema’s table talk about bike sharing systems. This is a topic about which I knew absolutely nothing prior to that evening, so I was intrigued as to what exactly we would be discussing. Seema is very knowledgeable on this topic, as she was involved in establishing a bike sharing system in India and this is one of her areas of research. Unsurprisingly, it turns out that the first modern bike sharing system was established in northern Europe, specifically in Amsterdam. Since the inception of the Dutch program in 1965, bike sharing programs have spread across the world to many different countries, including most European countries, China, and the United States. It has even become a standard of many college campuses, including Cornell’s, although many students do not take advantage of the system.

Bike sharing has faced its share of challenges, such as theft, vandalism, and safety concerns. The systems are also subject to the whims of the customers – the weather or the placement of bike stations may discourage passerby from using a bike on any given day. The success of a bike sharing system is also heavily dependent on its location; for example, my belief about the Cornell bike sharing system is that the hills and unpredictable weather make it an unfriendly campus for bikes to the general population. I feel that cities are the prime location for bike sharing systems and indeed this is where they have had the most success, especially compact cities like New York City. Bike sharing systems have a potential to make an environmental and social impact, and I am curious to see how they will progress in the future.

At our table talk on Monday, we talked a bit about the history of city bike systems in the United States. Unfortunately, while bikes are great for the environment and health, bike systems have failed to ever gain much traction in the United States. Part of this is due to cities being so large and horizontally constructed that a car is just too much of a necessity. Additionally, it is now economically friendly to have a car in most cities, or just use Uber or public transportation.

I enjoy biking when it is nice outside, but I typically use my own bike. I have never actually used a city bike system, but I think it would be an interesting and fun thing to do if I wanted to explore some part of a city on a nice day. I do not think that Cornell is the optimal place to use a bike sharing system for a few reasons. First, the design of the campus would make biking very difficult, as it would be very physically demanding to bike up the slope from west campus to central campus. Additionally, starting as early as October, Ithaca becomes very cold and icy. It would not be safe to bike in icy road conditions. I also think that many people enjoy walking up and down the slope with others for conversational purposes, which would be disallowed by biking. I want to eventually try a bike system one day, just not at Cornell.

This was really so far the best table talk I’ve been attended!

It was led by our GRF Seema, talking about the bike sharing system in the world. She was very knowledgeable in the city planning, the capital and the history of the bike sharing system, and engaged us in this super interesting conversation. I’m especially interested in this topic because I use bike sharing a lot in the city transporting from subway to school, or for the walk that is too far on foot, yet too close for a car. I never thought about how advertising company would like to fund or start the bike sharing business, which totally makes sense, since they can do advertisement at the bike station and on the bike, and as people riding the bike around the city, so does their advertisement. It’s a business model that is beneficial to everyone, and more sustainable compared to pure funding of the government.

Also, I learnt that the first bike sharing system was in Amsterdam to protest against too many laws in favour of car drivers.

I enjoyed this table talk so much, and I’d love to have more such interesting conversation about business or city planning in the future.

When I first saw Seema’s little poster for the bike sharing systems, I was intrigued. I’ve seen them as I was growing up in New York City and then I saw a couple of the bike sharing stations at Cornell. I thought that having a discussion on the history and thought process behind these bike sharing systems is very cool. The Table-Talk revealed that the initial bike sharing program was actually almost a non-profit attempt to decrease motor accidents. Seema brought up how people use to have these white bikes that were dispersed around several areas over Amsterdam. However, these bikes were repetitively stolen and it’s understandable in how easily a bike can be painted over. The interesting thing is that over time they found systems to where people can place the bikes back. By somehow balancing the cost of maintaining the bikes and finding a crowd to promote the bike sharing programs to, companies were able to justify the cost. We started to discuss the bike sharing system at Cornell and we found one major flaw. Although there are several different stations on the central campus, we don’t see many stations elsewhere such as on West. Thus, there’s an inconvenience when one borrows a bike from central as they have to return back to central to return. The bike sharing system may be an interesting feature of Cornell but I wish they studied how many people actually use it.

Last night, we discussed the history and evolution of bike-sharing systems around the world.  They were first introduced in Amsterdam and in nearby European countries by activist groups (who placed bikes in various areas so that people could borrow them).  However, this led to people purposefully wrecking and stealing the bikes.  Consequently, certain precautions were taken to avoid these circumstances when new bike-sharing systems were introduced, but people still found ways to steal the bikes, etc.  Since larger companies became hesitant to adopt these systems, places such as universities began to bring them to their campuses for their students (and companies were able to advertise on the bikes and bike stands).  Even Cornell has its own bike-sharing system for its students.

Back at home, I enjoy biking recreationally.  While I’m on campus, I (and the rest of the group) discussed how it might be much more difficult: the hilly campus provides a difficult environment for riding a bike; the rainy and snowy weather that is prevalent throughout much of the year could be treacherous and unsafe; the locations of the bikes are very inconvenient to get to.  As a result, I am much more likely to walk places than bike there.  We also talked about how the bike-sharing system has not caught on as much in the United States as it has in other countries: we give preference to car companies and are reliant on cars instead of moving towards a means which is more energy-effective.

This week’s table talk was about bike sharing systems and why and how certain models succeed while others don’t. For example, bike sharing is popular and/or profitable in European and Asian countries like the Netherlands, Norway, and China. In United States cities, it is much less popular for a number of reasons. For example, cities here are more spread out horizontally, making walking and biking less desirable than driving or taking a train. Furthermore, the infrastructure is not adequate for everyone to feel completely safe to bike on the roads. Also, in general, car ownership is not actively discouraged since it is relatively easy to obtain a driver’s license and buy a car. Along with the emergence of car sharing apps like Uber, it seems unlikely that a large portion of the population is going to start using bike sharing in the near future.

Nonetheless, it was very interesting to hear about the origin and evolution of these bike sharing systems. In Amsterdam, the system was created by activists to protest the safety concerns associated with driving in the 1960s. Over time, the system evolved so other entities would be in charge of sustaining bike sharing, like the government or private sector. It was super fascinating to learn about the marketing efforts tied with bike sharing since the stations and bikes themselves are like moving billboards. I personally want bike sharing to take off in America because of the environmental impact but the private sector can get involved and heavily influence its success by investing in the marketing opportunity.

As someone from New York City, Citi Bikes have been around for a while although I don’t see them used often outside of Manhattan and Brooklyn. Many of my friends who live in Manhattan and attend school in the Manhattan have only recently begun using Citi Bikes to get to and from school. This is more for a health reason (to get some exercise) than anything else since the subway system is a convenient alternative. Still, if it is raining or snowing, which happens fairly often, my friends will understandably opt for the subway. However, in the more suburb-like areas of New York City (such as parts of Queens), there is little desire to use Citi Bikes because most people have cars and finding parking spots is easy. Since much of the United States does not look like Brooklyn or Manhattan, I can see why, as we discussed in the table talk, bike sharing systems have not become as popular and widespread as they are in other countries.

I’m a fan of Cornell’s bike sharing system! At least twice around sunset, I have cycled around the Arts Quad, down the slope, and to North campus with my friends, two to a bike and too close to danger.

That’s why I thought the Table Talk system talk about bike sharing systems was a relevant chat for my college experience. I learned that Cornell’s bike sharing system is actually quite inefficient in terms of where the bike sharing spots are located (my friends and I had to hike up the slope with our bikes after gleefully whizzing down it). I also learned where the first bike sharing systems were established and when-somewhere in Europe around 1965.

So it was a nice chat. I can’t wait until it gets warm so I can ride bikes again!

It was really interesting to attend the table talk on bike sharing today. Seema gave us some of the history behind bike sharing, and I was surprised to learn that it actually started in the 1950s/60s in Europe. I had originally thought is started around the 90s/2000s, just because that was around when it started becoming more popular in the U.S.

I personally have not had an experience with using bike share. I am definitely aware of the big red bikes system on campus, but because Cornell is not really what you would call a bikable campus (hills, ice, more hills!), I have yet to try it out. In addition, I find that biking along with cars can be a little scary. Though (I believe?) Cornell has designated bike lanes, the idea of being right next to cars that are much bigger and capable of going much faster seems quite scary. The only place I could imagine biking around on campus is perhaps the Arts Quad, but even then, I don’t really think it’s worth it to pay for bike share just to bike around for fun.

I think it’s quite sad that bike share probably isn’t going to take off in the U.S. more than what it is now. It’s huge in Europe, China, and even Singapore, but I think because of the way many cities in the U.S. are set up, it’s quite hard for bike share to take up a bigger part of our lives. I’m from Atlanta, so my experience with my city is that it is very much a driving city. Many people who work in Atlanta commute from the Atlanta metro area/suburbs, and public transportation isn’t really convinent, so I can imagine the challenges of setting up an expansive bike sharing system there. Though a system does exist, it’s mostly limited to biking around the Atlanta belt line (just a green loop around the city), and the parks in Atlanta. In addition, I learned from this table talk that bike sharing has a lot to do with government policy as well. It is more successful in Europe because owning a car is a lot more hassle. In the U.S., it’s actually quite cheap (compared to Europe).

All of that being said, I do see bike sharing being a good thing and I wish it could be more fesible to use it on a larger scale in the United States. Not only is it better for the environment, it can also be great for our health and be a potentially cheaper way to travel around.

I found this week’s Table Talk about bike-sharing fascinating because I never considered the extensive planning that is involved and how the development of a bike-sharing network across cities intersects with political and economic concerns. Particularly, I found the fact that, when a bike-sharing system is supported by advertisers, the advertisers often focus on placing stations where they want the bikes to be seen rather than where is most effective for motivating people to use the bikes and convenient for those who do to be rather concerning as it reflects yet another area where the interests of advertisers start to undermine the utility of a system or product. There is currently a considerable deal of concern, for example, about advertising undermining the quality of the internet, as users’ attention is constantly being directed away from what they are doing and towards advertisementsm, and as users are constantly subject to surveillance so that the information gleaned from it can be sold to advertisers. Given that advertising can be an effective way of funding the program if the government cannot or is unwilling to, perhaps the systems can still be subject to some sort of government regulation through which the government approves the locations that advertisers select. However, I suppose such an arrangement would at least require the government to dedicate resources to hiring a few individuals qualified to determine whether the location of bike-sharing stations would promote the overall efficiency of the system.

Also, I found it really interesting that the evolution of bike-sharing systems arose out of concern for public safety. While I know that cars are not always the safest option for transportation, living in the U.S., I would considerate choosing to travel by bike far less safe than choosing to travel by car. At least of those I have seen, bike lanes are often incredibly thin and wedged between passing cars on one side and parked cars on the other. This arrangement often seems to create a challenge not only for the bikers but also for the drivers who also have to ensure that they remain strictly within the bounds of their lane and remain aware of the position of any and all bikers within the vicinity of their car. In light of these challenges, I definitely agree with the point raised by a few people that in order for bikes to gain widespread acceptance and usage in the U.S., there needs to be significant investment in infrastructure that will enable people to both be and feel safe while riding them.

Bike sharing is a relatively new concept. It originated in Amsterdam in 1965. There were a lot of vehicle accidents going on and the public started to protest for equal rights for pedestrians and cyclists on the roads. These activists started the first ride sharing system where they painted bikes white and anyone could use them and drop them anywhere in the city. The only issue was, people aren’t as nice as we hope they are. People would steal the bikes or vandalize them. Therefore, the first attempt at ride sharing didn’t last very long. Nowadays, there are millions of bikes being used by many different ride sharing systems. 60% of all systems are found in China, followed by Europe and then the US. With the new age smart technology, it has made ride sharing easier and more structured with tracking on bikes and payment. Seema really knows her bike facts and I was amazed to hear that she was a part of the team that tried to implement the bike sharing system in India! Hopefully one day she’s able to make that a reality!