How People Use Bike-Share Spaces vs. Parking Spots
citylab.com
citylab.com
Use of space is a huge issue within cities and a liveable approach based around the principle pedestrian first focusing on walkability, bikeability, public transport, and public spaces https://www.knightfoundation.org/features/livable-cities/
The private car needs to become a 'guest' and not the primary means of moving around a city. Neither should it become unwelcome, just easier to get around by any other mode of transport. https://twitter.com/awjre/status/879963479406411776
Oslo tried to ban cars, but there has been a huge backlash, without the right sort of support some of the most vulnerable (i.e. people with physical disabilities) just cannot live successfully in cities. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jun/13/oslo-ban-cars...
The reality is that care share, car clubs, and strict city wide parking control are key. Ideas like the Workplace Parking Levy implemented by Nottingham are key to delivering real investment in public transport and cycle infrastructure while reducing unnecessary car journeys http://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/environment/lets-clear...
On top of that, the cities are politically avoiding the inherent value in on-street parking. In Bath, the going rate for a city centre parking permit on the open market is £3,000 per year, but the permits are sold by the council for £150.
Cities need to recognise the huge discounts we give to car owners, while we cut funding for public transport because it is too expensive and people are not using it enough. It's one hell of a viscous circle.
Traditionally having all car owners share all parking space makes sure that when you drive your car somewhere, for example to visit a friend, you can actually park there. If all parking space is privately owned that model tends to break down.
The problem is that to have a functioning city (as opposed to a suburb) you need to have a high enough population density. And you cannot have a high population density if you have to reserve a huge amount of space for cars.
The tricky thing is to design a city (or set policies to move in a certain direction) such that it is not one-size-fits-all. Slowly banning cars slowly from the parts of a city with the highest densities allows people who like to live without cars to move in and people who need a car to move to areas with a lower population density.
(Amsterdam keeps track of the price of land because basically the city rents out land and doesn't sell it. Price real estate owners pay is based on the estimated price of the land)
Costs in what sense? The whole argument here is that cities subsidize car space, so the cost to the end consumer doesn't prove anything.
> Traditionally having all car owners share all parking space makes sure that when you drive your car somewhere, for example to visit a friend, you can actually park there. If all parking space is privately owned that model tends to break down.
Depends. If it's privately owned by parking suppliers, then presumably you can buy parking. Or if it's privately owned by residents, then you can use your friend's parking.
Besides, you can always have alternate options for visiting friends.
If you want to have a car (or otherwise rely on cars) it is an extremely bad idea to rely on a privately owned parking supplier who can set prices at any amount. Additionally, if everybody reserves space on his/her own private property for visiting guests, you are wasting an enormous amount of space. Wasting space is bad because you want to have as high population density as possible within constraints set by your life style.
So the obvious solution is to pool all that space and then let the local government set the price for using it. And then of course, it is best to just pay that as property tax.
Of course, if you don't need a car, then it is better to live in an area where cars can not park. And that space is use for something else.
> If you want to have a car (or otherwise rely on cars) it is an extremely bad idea to rely on a privately owned parking supplier who can set prices at any amount.
"If you need to eat, it is an extremely bad idea to rely on a privately owned food supplier who can set prices at any amount."
> So the obvious solution is to pool all that space and then let the local government set the price for using it.
Okay, maybe that can work if
> And then of course, it is best to just pay that as property tax.
Wait what? Why? That space is valuable, if the cost to the end user at the point of the transaction is zero then you're making people who walk/bike/bus subsidize people who drive, which means the poor subsidizing the affluent, not to mention it'll get overused. Why would you want to do that?
Cars should be optional things, and if the government subsidizes them people will tend to drive everywhere and push for vast swathes of parking everywhere (see: almost every city in the US) which hurts every other form of transportation.
This is where you lose me. It is better for the government to charge per use so that people have the incentive to use parking space efficiently. Making the parking free at the point of use just encourages overuse.
Of course, you always run into people with mistaken believes in economic incentives, such as charging per kilo of garbage. By and large those cause more problems then they solve. The best option to make people miserable is to let a private company collect parking fees on behalf of the local government. Then you can be sure that a lot of that money will be wasted on expensive officies, salaries for management, etc.
If there is an actual shortage of parking space, and replacing parking space with bike lanes, etc, may cause such a shortage, then charging for parking makes sense.
If most people living in a residential area are convinced they need a car, then charging for parking is just going to make people unhappy and is likely reducing the value of property in that area.
The point here is to use money as a means to allocate a scarce resource, and to make car drivers pay the fair cost of operating their car. This will re-balance the incentive structure to push people to walk, use public transit, bike, use delivery services, etc. Covering the cost in property tax doesn't allocate the cost to people who drive.
But this works really well!!! I live in an area where instead of paying x per month for garbage collection, I pay about €3.50 per bag for a particular kind of bag that I can leave at the curb and have picked up. This way I am incentivized to produce less waste (also, recycling is a little bit cheaper) . https://keywaste.ie/domestic/domestic-waste-services/
Similarly, there is no free street parking. We have some street parking, but it's still too cheap because it's almost always full (about €3 per hour but only during enforcement hours). However! There is a private garage around the corner where I can park for €22 per day if I care to. If I don't care to, I am wealthier as a result. In the end, so are my neighbours, because none of us is paying for parking we don't need.
That's the main problem with the approach taken by local governments to ban cars: they always fall short of actually solving the mobility problem which cars have been solving for decades. Governments are shortsighted and focus on reaching their goals (get rid of cars), but in the process they fail to provide alternatives such as improving and extending the reach of mass transit services.
Of course they can't in cities today because nobody wants to play sitting duck in 50mph traffic.
It's hard to see this as any more than a thinly veiled "but I need my car!" by people who have likely never in their life met a disabled person.
Be careful with your presumptions, we're all strangers here.
Cars aren't just means of transportation. They also provide shelter and comfort.
If that was true then they would be riding handycles instead of a car.
Moreover, I fail to see the relevance of your point. Local and central governments are invested in eliminating the best options available to a significant portion of society, and are failing to even consider introducing any alternative services. Claiming that people with disabilities could use another means of transportation fails to address the issue.
The backlash is pretty dishonest, though. The car-free area (a small part of downtown) will have more handicap parking spots than it does now, sidewalks are being improved so they're larger and universally accessible, and the disabled benefit from cycling infra too—I see people riding mobility scooters in bike lanes in Oslo, much as in this video, but not so many specialty bikes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSGx3HSjKDo
It's generally the Joe Schmoes who cry "but what about the disabled" and "but what about people who NEED to use cars for their work?", blithely ignoring the points above, and the fact that trade and service unions welcome the change because they'll be allowed too, just like in pedestrian streets, and they'll have an easier time of getting around when they're not trapped in car traffic by people who drive through downtown just because they can and they don't want to use the tunnels.
Are private cars the primary means of getting around any city today?
I would have thought it was already totally impossible to 'get around' a city like San Francisco, London or New York by car. Where on earth would you park securely at each stop? I can't imagine ever even attempting to drive into a major city. Maybe if I had a very specific plan of getting to a particular hotel that I knew had a car park with spaces that had enough headroom for my car, etc. But driving into a city to just 'get around' without a plan? Surely that's suicide?
I don't think any of the vehicles in a city are private cars - aren't they almost all taxis and commercial vehicles making deliveries?
There are a lot more cities (and a lot more total people in them) like Dallas, Houston, Baltimore, Detroit, Phoenix, St Louis, Pittsburgh, Miami, Los Angeles, San Diego, Columbus, etc where cars are the primary means of getting around.
It is San Francisco, London, and New York that are the outliers.
You should have limited that list to the US, in Europe many other capitals and big cities have extensive public transportation networks that are used as primary means of transport in the city by a wide range of the population, in a wide range of journeys.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1U9f-g8ETvljw-YAZbFpW...
In the UK 6M people drive to work each day, 1M of them live within 20 minute walking distance of work, and 3.5M live within 20 minute bike ride of work.
However to blame them for making a transport choice over another transport choice is to not recognise that Local Authorities and National Governments have direct responsibility for ensuring there is real perceived safe choices.
There is no point berating people for choosing to drive to work, when the bus service takes you to the central bus hub and you have to buy two tickets to get to work. Unless your local authority provides end to end protected cycle networks why would you get on a bike?
I mean 26% of people drive to work in London? Their definition of London can't be what I think it is then. I would have thought almost literally nobody is driving themselves to work in central London. Offices in London don't have car parks do they?
Guess it depends how you define city. I like in a town that is on the top-100 list of "most densely populated cities in the US" and I'm right next to #1, #2, and #3 most densely populated. (Manhattan and others aren't on this list, but "NYC" is).
My city, yeah people definitely use private cars to get around. There are cars literally parked on both sides of EVERY street!
Lol come visit Detroit sometime. Make sure you drive or rent a car, though; you'll need it to navigate our eight-lane roads and ridiculous highways.
On the other hand people have shown again and again that they are willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars every year for what the car gives them.
In Vancouver, public transportation gets half it's funding from property tax and fuel tax. And more than 70% of commuters drive. So not only are car drivers funding roads, they're also funding public transportation.
http://buzzer.translink.ca/2013/03/translink-101-where-does-...
Then what happens if people stop driving and take public transportation? Their costs go up and revenue goes down. Double whammy.
'Use' taxes only cover about 1/3 to 2/3rds of road expenditures (in the US). https://taxfoundation.org/how-your-state-s-road-spending-fun...
If everyone used public transportation, all the property taxes and so forth used on roads could go to public trans instead.
If you mean some sort of mass transit that doesn't use roads how do you transport freight and how do emergency vehicles get around?
Sorry, doesn't work.
Where I live, the main causes usually quoted are: overweight freight, roads over capacity, salt and winter.
Public transport is the best answers, but even so rush hours is still hard to manage.
Rush hour is a global issue that could actually be mitigated by more flexible schedules and increase in remote work. So we shouldn't try to solve it by transportation alone.
Interestingly jobs that can't be remote (factories, etc) usually already use alternative schedules that avoid office rush hours.
I have a share in a car sharing cooperative with about a dozen cars, from a smart to a Mercedes transporter within five minute walking distance. Renting a car costs you $3-4 per hour plus 50 cents to 1$ per kilometer (half after 100 kilometers)
The problem with car sharing is that people tend to use their cars all at the same time: morning commute, afternoon commute, evening errands/leisure
Car sharing only makes sense for the occasional use of a car (which happens ca. 5 times a year, when I really need it) and not if you need a car on a regular basis, like getting to work.
But then, it doesn't only make a ton of sense, it also offers very considerable savings at no downside. That, of course, only works when there's good public transport available as an alternative to car ownership.
However it is used effectively in cycle track design. A 4m wide bidirectional cycle track can become effectively omnidirectional at rush hour significantly increasing capacity in one direction.
However, one passenger ride sharing increases total miles driven. So in ultra congested city's it can actually make things worse.
I use bike for small hops, public transport for commuting to work, and occasionally I use car sharing when needed.
For anyone that hasn't been to China: the bike share bikes don't have a docking area. People can park them wherever they finish with them. They have a little lock on the frame that stops the back wheel from moving until you scan a QR code on the bike with an app, then it unlocks.
Given the huge bike theft problem where I'm from (London) I don't think that system would work because thieves would just pick the bike up, put it in a van, and break the lock later. It probably happens in China too, but apparently not enough to deter the companies from doing it that way.
It works because the bikes have very different frames compared to normal bikes, are easily recognised and therefore worth little to nothing on the black market.
Vandalism is a much bigger problem than theft. I haven't heard of theft of these bikes being a problem at all.
In Bristol, UK they recently started a bike sharing system that didn't require docking but had issues with theft and vandalism so they had to change plan and introduce fixed parking spots. They even cancelled the service in part of the city.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/jun/29/chinese...
IF you're talking about bikes being left in the way of pedestrians, I haven't experienced it, and I'm sure you could get people to think a bit more if needed.
In any case it's magnitudes less of an inconvenience as that currently created by cars. Considering that about 2/3 of people in central Berlin don't own a car, there's really no reason not to compare the status quo with city almost free of cars. It would be drastically different, as you could reasonably double the space available for the public: eliminate two lanes of parked cars, and make most streets one-way. Most traffic lights could be eliminated, biking speed would double without waiting for cars and red lights. There'd be space for almost anything, from small gardens to sports, right in front of your house.
Other thing is that there is also NextBike alongside Lidl-Bike and that is a bit unfortunate.
Sure, there are rental options, here and there, but for someone like me who leaves almost every weekend, there's not a much better option financially than a few years old used car. I almost never use my car for in city trips, it's primary purpose is to drive my bike(s) to places worth riding them.
Bike share is great for getting home from the bar. It's too far to commute via bike share for me (~11 miles) without having to stop and exchange bikes to meet the time limit, so I ride my own bike to work every day. I'm pretty fast, as someone who's been an off and on racer most of my life, and my normal non-racer friends that commute much shorter distances on the bike share bikes (like 4 miles, from the loop to wicker park) tell me they occasionally go over the half hour limit as well. I think doubling the limit to an hour would dramatically increase the utilization of the divvy bikes. Which would then be a problem, as access to them seems almost perfectly balanced now (although the largest problem I have when using them is finding an open place to drop them off). The bike share infrastructure is very dependent on large vehicles moving bikes around, because of the rush hour problem - everyone's taking from the same places and dropping off at the same places.
All that is to say, Bike share is nice, but it's one piece of a much larger problem that public transit works to solve. The single biggest thing I believe would help the transit situation is more office buildings with free showers that allowed people to bring their bikes inside. Not having to worry about being smelly, or getting your bike stolen would in my experience double the number of bike commuters.
Here are some of my notes for improving traffic in the city:
Traffic
App for parking 30% of car traffic is circling
Sensors across sidewalks
Tunnels and lights timing, rewards slowdown before entering tunnel and speedup after leaving it
Safety - less cars less congestion
Pollution https://www.insidescience.org/news/driving-fee-rolls-back-as...
Cars should have sensors to stop if pedestrian, better achieve vision zero than slower speeds
Economic growth
Every minute in traffic - economic minus
Move truck Deliveries to night time
Replace windows UV and soundproofing of windows subsidized, especially for childproof windows
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_diagram_of_traff...
Vision Zero
Sensors for cars Self driving technology Google broadband - economic growth
I'd personally prefer if we pinched a page from London and introduced a daily charge for any vehicle entering Manhattan, with the funds allocated to the MTA. Say $50 per day, and allow the taxis to bump their base fare by a dollar or two to recover that cost.
In 2015[1] ~2.6 million cars entered and left Manhattan daily over 47 toll-free bridges controlled by the NYC DOT, with another ~1.5 million entering and leaving via bridges and tunnels controlled by the MTA or the Port Authority. A total of 3.9 million cars crossing. Assuming we halve it, we wind up with ~1.95 million cars per day coming and going. Let's round it up to 2 million because I'm lazy.
2 million cars at $50 a pop represents $100 million per day, or $36.5 billion dollars. Let's assume that half of those people switch to public transport. Now it's "only" $18.25 billion per year.
The MTA's capital budget for 2016-2021 is $27 billion. And it took 2 years of haggling to get to that. It sounds like a lot, and it is, but it struggles to both expand the system and fix the creaky, unreliable existing systems.
There is, of course, a fatal flaw: it would require the cooperation of the Port Authority, the State of NY, the City of NY and the MTA to introduce the fee simultaneously and ensure the money actually gets spent on the MTA.
Good luck with that.
[1] http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nyc-bridge-traffic...
Congestion pricing is certainly an effective way to combat induced demand. Exceptions an be carved out for carpooling etc. and I have an app in the works for that.
I have come to realize that a lot of solutions can come without running for office in a political machine. You can just build new technology and apps and change the system. I think a Steve Jobs or Zuckerberg changed the world for the better more than a Bill Clinton or Bush.
Also, as far as I know, the main problem MTA has is with the pensions. It's why it took on so much debt and why the Verazzano Bridge is the most expensive bridge in the USA.
There's no free lunch in dynamic systems. As I noted:
> Better traffic flow in one area creates incentives to drive in that area, creates incentives to live outside the range of public transport and so on.
If the tunnel gets faster, more people will pile up behind the clever traffic lights you propose. Net travel time between home and work will come out the same, or worse, depending on the exact paths in play.
Reducing driving by making it more attractive to drive hasn't proved out as a strategy. The only way to reduce traffic and keep it reduced is to make it less attractive to drive.
If you want to reduce congestion, you have to go to the demand side: congestion charging.
I am sure we can stave off induced demand if we have the proper mechanisms. For example you can reduce congestion AND charge money for driving into the city.
I've gone through three Berlin winters now with going everywhere by bike. It's a one-time investment in some good clothing, mostly for hands, feet, and your head. After that, it can actually be a lot of fun to drive on fresh snow, or through the blizzard.
In my experience, cars become a lot more of a problem in winter: they're more likely not to see you because it's dark, and because rain and snow are terrible for your vision if you're behind a windshield. There are also fewer people on bikes, so they don't expect you and pay less attention. With snow, there's also a tendency for odd-shaped large pieces of ice to end up right in your path, i. e. slightly to the right of the cars' track.
Whilst looking out to avoid hitting cyclists a motorcyclist must also keep an eye on larger motor vehicles, of course.
How do you get the necessary traction in eg: a braking scenario on snow? Are there special tires for that?
Yes, cars in the winter can be horrible. Anytime Vienna gets a few centimeters of snow, it's pure chaos.
But, to be honest, it never seemed worth it. They're quite good with clearing the roads of snow, and even when they are not/it stays cold, I always expected it to clear away the next day and didn't bother investing money in it.
With full snow cover, car traffic happens in a sort of extreme slow-motion. The city also sounds vastly different, with the snow softening all noise. It actually makes for a strangely surreal/serene experience. The more unusual conditions are, the more people actually start making eye contact/get in a good mood/bond over the shared experience of chaos.
Biking on a flat, packed snow-cover is actually not too bad. It's only when it becomes ice after a few days that you really have to pay attention, and the biggest danger is irregular-sized clumps of ice which cars like to put in your path.
My dad uses a tricycle in anything more than an inch or so of snow, as a little skid on a trike is much less likely to have you coming off than on a regular bike.
The more high quality bike infrastructure there is, the less of a difference you're going to see between seasons. People are willing to tolerate sub-optimal weather on their bikes if the bike paths themselves are low-stress and well-maintained.
We have a car, but we only very rarely use it to travel into the city. Bike is usually far better, even with kids.
Venice is probably a better place to go to to see what a city without cars is like.
And seriously if you don't know what he mean you either never been in holland or you never left it so you don't have comparisons points.
As for Venice try live there for a week and buy your own grocery, you might revisit your judgement. Inability to ride bike, or for delivery vehicles to acces housing pose another sets of issues.
Cars remain necessary.
* If it's that far away it probably isn't "urban". 15 km is doable for most able-bodied people in 45 minutes or so.
(edit) Before somebody says 'BUT LA (or the bay or whatever) IS BIGGER THAN THAT!' - note that what the US calls "urban" is generally "suburban" by any reasonable definition of the word. Fremont's not a city, just a parking lot with a mayor, as described in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlTvSUCCqPo )
* There's no bad weather, only bad clothes (if it's a snowstorm, then you shouldn't be driving either)
* It's called a bakfiet, or a trailer, or their own bike
* See above. Also, rail, bus, etc.
* Trailer, taxi, or short-term car rental (car2go, zipcar, etc.)
* For urban centers, trains or buses, for rural areas, you will find a number of companies happy to let you use their vehicle for a period of several days in exchange for money
* In general, that would be somewhere out of aforementioned urban area so the previous answers reply. Some cycles have motors fitted to them - "motor-cycles" they're called, I think. For people who really, really need to zoom across urban centres (carefully and with extra training), ambulances, police cars, and fire engines remain an option.
- Rain: There is waterproof clothing. It's actually quite fun to bike through rain.
- Sweat: Workplaces should offer a place to take a shower–many actually do. But it's also acceptable to break a sweat from time to time. you only start smelling after x hours anyway, because that's a biological process. I'm also not sure if I don't sweat more in public transport or the office itself: remember, most of the world doesn't use AC.
- Cold: I've spend many hours on a bike in 0degF weather and it's not a problem. The only "heavy-duty" clothing you need is for hands and your head.
- Gravity: What goes uphill, must come downhill. With the right gearing, hill's aren't a problem. They just take longer in one direction than the other. Electric bikes are also an obvious solution to this, especially when they charge with brake energy.
- Children: Child-seats in the back, or child trailers are quite common. The latter carry two children easily.
- Visitors: "Bike-Sharing" also means sharing bikes with out-of towners.
- IKEA: is the prototypical first stop for freshmen here in Germany, almost none of whom have a car. They seem to somehow manage, usually by renting a truck. Besides: I don't know any cars that could fit the usual IKEA haul.
- Visiting the provinces: Public transport (+bike on public transport), or car sharing
- Speed: Public transport again, or taxi, or car sharing: I have an archive of 12000km of rides through a dense city (Berlin), and I average 22km/h during the day, and 25km/h at night. That's almost exactly the average speed of a subway traveller (including changing trains etc.). It's also about as fast as a car during normal daytime, and much faster than rush hour traffic.
Whatever floats your boat.
I would like to remind you that you do live in a bubble, though. Even if it doesn't quite keep you dry in the rain.
If it's cold you can wear a jacket. It's never that cold in Europe. You can get bikes that carry children.
If you need to go long distances or move large things, sure use a car. I don't think anyone is advocating completely banning them but your objections are silly.
In cities like copenhagen or amsterdam, bikes have enough mindshare that these concerns are pushed to the back of mind. The fact that you can remain healthy, passively, is a massive bonus; and the lack of cars is stark in comparison to other western countries.
Copenhagen is an extreme case of this; nothing much on the roads except for Teslas, some taxis and buses. Everyone else is on bikes.
Also (at least in Germany) you can borrow a cargo bike from Ikea: http://www.ikea.com/ms/de_DE/img/local_store_info/hamburg_al...
First 3 hours free, then 5 EUR/h.
- What if it is raining? You use a raincoat. If it's really raining too heavily, use public transportation (bus/metro/tram). It doesn't happen too often in most areas, as far as I know.
- What about when it is too far away to arrive without being sweaty? There is very little "too far" when in a big city. If it's really too far, use public transportation, or if it's outside the city, a taxi (or equivalent) or rental. If it happens too much, you are not in an area favorable to bikes, sorry.
- What if it is too cold to be outside for long? Are you in an area where it's often below 0°C? If not, it's really not too cold. If you are, well sorry, you are not in an area favorable to bikes either.
- What if it is too far uphill? Public transportation on the way up, shared bikes on the way down. That's how it's done here at least. Or you train to go uphill if you have you own bike.
- What if you need to take a child with you? You use a bike which have an attachment to carry a child. It's very common in the Netherlands.
- Or two people from out of town? They take a bike too. Or they rent a car if they are not confortable using bikes.
- What about bringing back furniture from ikea? You pay Ikea to deliver it to your door. Or you rent a truck.
- How do you leave the city and go out to the surrounding area? If you really need to (most of the time, you don't), you use a taxi (or equivalent) or a rental.
- What if you need to get somewhere faster than a bike can take you? Taxi.
To sum up: they are necessary if your location is not bike friendly (heavy rain often, too cold to be outside, really lackluster public transportation, or not in a big city). Otherwise, you can live without car, you just need to plan ahead for the occasions you go out of the city or need to transport things. It's cheaper in the long run too.
I understand it may be hard to conceive if you always owned a car. Try to buy a bike and use it whenever possible. At some point, you may find that you don't use your car anymore. Or you may not, and you really do need a car, that's understandable too.
Source: 28 years old, living in Paris, I never owned a car. I rely on friends and family car when outside of Paris. If I couldn't rely, I would rent a car when going on vacations and that's it. Unless I move out of Paris, I don't plan to own a car, ever.
> What about when it is too far away to arrive without being sweaty?
Then you'll be sweaty for 10 minutes until it dries. If more people bike, you'll have an easy time convincing your employer to provide showers.
> What if it is too cold to be outside for long?
Pedal faster. It will warm you up and you you won't be outside as long. Double win. Also, wear appropriate clothing. Unless we're talking about Winnipeg or something where you get frostbite within 5 minutes, cold air will not hurt you.
> What if you need to take a child with you? Or two people from out of town? What about bringing back furniture from ikea? How do you leave the city and go out to the surrounding area?
Zipcar or other car-sharing services if you absolutely need a car. Uber and Lyft are also options. They make child seats for bikes and special bikes that can easily carry 2 small children.
> What if you need to get somewhere faster than a bike can take you?
For any bikeable distance in a city, the bike is almost always faster than driving.
I use a bike share a lot, and the bikes really suck. They are heavy, shifting is often broken. They are slow. So for a biking novice a bike share bike is going to be even harder to ride in the city. For me it works, but it's not a cure all for cities..