Are bike share programs understanding the people they are trying to serve?
[Photo Credit: Storee Moss]
Years ago I made the decision to give up my automobile. I purchased a bike, and relied on it as my primary mode of transportation. Originally, the purpose was to increase my exercise and lessen my environmental impact. I soon discovered that I had a sense of freedom and agency with my bike that was exhilarating. The sense of danger and unpredictability was also a new and exciting experience. I had no idea what it would be like to share the road with other vehicles, attempting to cycle in the changing weather patterns, and sort out ways to carry everything from groceries, books, pets, and even other people on my two wheeled contraption! I have never regretted my decision. I have also been transparent with myself that I had the means, privilege and income to make the change in my lifestyle and purchase the bike and equipment.
Cities need to address their environmental impact, but the means and privilege of having enough income to purchase a bike is not a universal thing. So, I have been both excited and critical to see bike share programs grow in major cities. My personal experiences in low income neighborhoods and with diverse groups of people have shown me that often these kind of programs misunderstand how to best serve lesser privileged populations. Most of these programs seem to be designed to target predominantly middle to higher income populations. Some companies like Ford’s GoBike have low income programs, but the way they have implemented the bikes into neighborhoods has often been done so without good communication with the local communities. People feel resentful, angry, and unsure about using the bikes that suddenly show up on their doorstep; often without clear instructions as to how they can use them. They are seen as a sign of gentrification, rather than opportunity and increase to mobility. The bikes are vandalized, stolen and often scrapped or resold rather than used for their intended purpose.
I would guess that the companies designing these programs did not go into the field and actually speak with the populations they are attempting to service. This has been clear in neighborhoods ranging from Philadelphia to Chicago and Brooklyn. In these cities, developers of share programs have followed misguided information dictating that low income populations simply had a “lack of interest” in biking. Better studies and surveys have shown the reverse. Many residents in these neighborhoods were interested in the programs, but experienced a lack of information, accessibility, and communication from the companies. To put it simply, it was assumed that everyone would have the means and access to smartphones, credit cards, the internet, and mobility to obtain special discount programs and passes.
My own discussions with friends and neighbors in Oakland, California have made me feel that the bike share programs have had a habit of a top-down implementation process, conducting little to no interviews with the community members and organizers. My assumption is that these programs would have better success if companies worked with the local communities first, and then utilized this human-centered information to design their marketing and accessibility features. Others share this opinion, as they have critiqued how Ford’s GoBike program was poorly deployed in the Mission District of San Francisco.
Change is slowly happening. I hope that as these programs learn and react to the issues they are facing in various communities they can grow to be more empathetic and understanding of the experiences of their potential users and appropriately change their business models. If companies can design from a more grounded approach that is informed from the actual needs of its target users, then perhaps others can experience the same sense of freedom and agency that I did, and continue to help reduce the environmental impact that we make with so many gas powered vehicles.
