 |
Re: Marin IJ Editorial: Bike riders should be a SMART priority
Author: mook
Date: 11-10-2016 - 15:55
Looking at the editorial again, they say it's $20K per locker THAT HOLDS UP TO 4 BIKES. That's $5K/bike. Actually, that's not far from the prices I saw on the internet for low-tech non-electronic lockers (around $2K for the box, plus site and labor expenses and operating expenses).
What it sounds like is the BikeLink thing that's done in Folsom - locker has a little card you take with you after dropping your money, or in at least one spot with communications swiping your card. They also sell passes. When you get back, you reinsert the card (possibly adding money if you overstayed your time) to get the bike back. Large locker with screen sides. Sound like what's proposed?
The transit company might not have to buy the locker for BikeLink. In Folsom, the city provided a prepared site at light rail stations, then BikeLink installed and operates the lockers. City still operates some older low-tech lockers itself for monthly rental, too. It's expensive for the USER, but not horribly so for the transit company. And if it IS BikeLink or somebody like them, SMART should get a cut of the revenue.
And it took them $100K to find these guys when I found them on the internets with a single search, first page returned? If SMART needs to be embarrassed about something related to this, the cost of the search is an appropriate target. The cost of the lockers themselves, given what was published, probably less so. If the bike people want more than a basic set of lockers, they can band together and work with SMART to build a bigger program (has happened in Sacramento).
BTW there's no such thing as secure bike RACKS. Racks by definition are in the open and easy to attack. For security, the bike has to be enclosed in a locker or parked at an attended location. Even the bike cage in our building at work, with a padlock on the gate (only registered users had keys, supposedly) and accessed at the guard shack for the loading dock, required that bikes be locked to something inside and not parked overnight. If you can see the bike, somebody will want to steal it.
What it sounds like is the BikeLink thing that's done in Folsom - locker has a little card you take with you after dropping your money, or in at least one spot with communications swiping your card. They also sell passes. When you get back, you reinsert the card (possibly adding money if you overstayed your time) to get the bike back. Large locker with screen sides. Sound like what's proposed?
The transit company might not have to buy the locker for BikeLink. In Folsom, the city provided a prepared site at light rail stations, then BikeLink installed and operates the lockers. City still operates some older low-tech lockers itself for monthly rental, too. It's expensive for the USER, but not horribly so for the transit company. And if it IS BikeLink or somebody like them, SMART should get a cut of the revenue.
And it took them $100K to find these guys when I found them on the internets with a single search, first page returned? If SMART needs to be embarrassed about something related to this, the cost of the search is an appropriate target. The cost of the lockers themselves, given what was published, probably less so. If the bike people want more than a basic set of lockers, they can band together and work with SMART to build a bigger program (has happened in Sacramento).
BTW there's no such thing as secure bike RACKS. Racks by definition are in the open and easy to attack. For security, the bike has to be enclosed in a locker or parked at an attended location. Even the bike cage in our building at work, with a padlock on the gate (only registered users had keys, supposedly) and accessed at the guard shack for the loading dock, required that bikes be locked to something inside and not parked overnight. If you can see the bike, somebody will want to steal it.
