After going through a request for proposals process to determine which firm will handle the expansion of bikeshare in Seattle scheduled for Summer of 2017, the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) has announced that the preferred firm right now is the Quebec-based Bewegen.

SDOT chose Bewegen over the current bikeshare operator Motivate after the two companies laid out different visions for how Pronto 2.0 would look. Bewegen’s proposal includes a bold vision for Seattle bikeshare with an all-electric-assist fleet of 1,200 bikes. The number of stations would nearly double from 54 presently to 100. The electric-assist bike stations will need to be hardwired into the electric grid, utilizing nearby utility poles. This has the potential to really limit station placement.

Motivate’s alternative proposal included more bikes (1,600) and more stations (160), but only a partial electric-assist fleet. Another key difference between the proposals was that Motivate proposed a smart-bike system, which it just rolled out in Portland. With a smart-bike system, you do not have to drop your bike at a designated station. If you are still within the general service area, there’s only a small fee to leave your bike outside of a station. Biketown (Portland’s bikeshare system) offers a credit to your account if you take a bike from outside a station back to one. This also solves a problem that is common with popular bikeshare systems: overcrowding at popular stations. If a station is full, you can park your bike nearby and not be charged if you are close enough to the station.

Both proposals included concept maps for the proposals. However, Andrew Glass-Hastings, the head of SDOT’s transit division, told the Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board earlier this month that the strategy SDOT wants to see for expansion is to take on a limited geographic area in the first round of expansion and then move out from there. So the concept maps should be taken with a huge grain of rock salt. It will be up to SDOT to decide where stations should go, and how close they are to each other.

Proposed initial service proposal by Bewegen. (City of Seattle)

Motivate's proposed expansion map (CIty of Seattle)
Motivate’s proposed expansion map (CIty of Seattle)

Glass-Hastings told the bike board that there are three priorities for bikeshare expansion in Seattle:

  1. Ensure that the expansion is financially sustainable. SDOT is currently in negotations with Bewegen, but we can be sure that the City Council will take a close look at the financial model moving forward when it gets to them. But it’s clear that SDOT believes Bewegen will provide a model that limits the financial risk to Seattle.
  2. Ensuring station density. Saying that SDOT “knows how bikeshare systems work” the department does appear to be ready to make sure that the system has the station density necessary to succeed. Current Pronto station placement is haphazard, with many located in tucked-away places or on the opposite side of the street from on-street bike facilities. Other cities have learned how to make bikeshare work. As the former transportation commissioner of NYC Jeanette Sadik-Khan put it: “The fact is a successful bike-share system means having stations located every few blocks and putting them where they’re needed.”
  3. Flatten the city. This is where the electric assist bikes come in. Bewegen’s proposal likely wanted to demonstrate what their bikes could do, and even shows stations going up Queen Anne hill. But of course the real limitation for going up Queen Anne Avenue is the lack of bike facilities on that street. However, an electric-assist fleet really can open up bikeshare to a new demographic of rider in a hilly-city like Seattle. It has the potential to truly integrate the system with our transit network and our pedestrian grid.

Unfortunately, all of the likely bids on the table propose scrapping the current set of bikeshare equipment and starting over. Many Seattle residents might have wanted to know that would be the case when the City Council voted to pay $1.4 million to buy the equipment in March in order to keep Pronto solvent. A large number of members of the Council have been expressing skepticism about keeping Pronto running at all right now. At a budget hearing last week, Lisa Herbold directly proposed investing the $600,000 budgeted for Pronto operating funds into general purpose bike facilities. While every dollar adds up, $600,000 is only enough to pay for a half-mile of protected bike lane at a cost of $1.3 million per mile.

But the cost of interrupting a functional bikeshare system is really inestimable at this point. Ridership has definitely suffered due to the stagnation of the system and the snail’s pace at which station placement has improved. If the entire system is taken offline for year or more, that will have a big effect on continuity for the core users that the system does have.

But the more important issue is ensuring that the broader constituency in support of bikeshare, even if they are not able to fully utilize the system currently, is behind the expansion. The Bewegen map has a lot of people concerned that the desired station density will not be achieved for a second time, and we will continue repeating the same mistakes again. We have to get this right the second time. There is a lot of ill-will out there around the current state of investment in a bikeshare system. The expansion proposal will receive a lot of scrutiny from the City Council, the public, and from current users.

Previous articleUrbanists Unite! Tell The Council To Build 1,000 Homes
Next articleTime To Vote
Ryan Packer lives in the Summit Slope neighborhood of Capitol Hill & has been writing for the blog since 2015. He reports on multimodal transportation issues, #visionzero, preservation, and local politics. He believes in using Seattle's history to help attain the vibrant, diverse city that we all wish to inhabit.

10 COMMENTS

    • Seattle should try to sell pronto bikes asap. Seattle because of geography is NOT a bike share city. Bikers here own their own bikes and helmets and know hills. Can you imagine expense and maintenance of E bikes. Yikes!

  1. It’s killing me how much they have royally screwed this up for something that is so desperately needed in this city. Pronto is for the “last mile”, which means putting it in neighborhoods like Ballard and Fremont that are flat, relatively dense and not serviced by the best public transit, but also terrible places to find parking and drive a car. Additionally, tourists would ride it anywhere along our flat bike trails–the burke, ship canal, elliott bay and all the way to Alki. No one wants to ride the bikes downtown! No one. The public transit and walkability downtown is first rate and the bike infrastructure is flat out terrible. Stop focusing on improving the density of the bikeshare stations downtown and in capitol hill until the rest of the city is included in the network.

    • Can you demonstrate where a system that is spread out as much as you are proposing has been successful? I’d be interested.

      • I did not realize including Fremont, Ballard and West Seattle into the transit area was “spreading out.” These neighborhoods are dense, flat and have a basic level of bike infrastructure. That’s proven to be successful in just about every other major city in this country. Putting bikeshare only downtown and in capitol hill, which is hilly and disconnected from the major bike trails is clearly not working.

          • You completely missed my point…I never said last mile from downtown. For instance, I work in Wallingford and I am 1.5 flat miles from the UW rail stop. I could bike to my office on the burke significantly quicker than any of the bus trips to/from the light rail. There’s been many instances for me in Ballard where I could have taken the Rapid Ride line but would have had over a mile walk to wherever I needed to go. I end up just driving instead.

          • I work downtown, and I want to ride bikeshare there. I think your idea that “no-one” wants to ride downtown may be colored by the fact that you work in a different neighborhood. Tons of people want to ride bikeshare downtown – it’s the biggest market in the city…

          • By no one I meant tourists. My point isnt that it should not be downtown. It’s the clearly only putting stations there isn’t enough to support the whole system. Hence the current situation…just upset how poorly it’s worked out. I pay for a yearly membership at the hope I’ll be able to use it someday and I’ve given up…

Comments are closed.