Ford GoBike share on 19th and Mission Streets. Photo by Lola M. Chavez

Bike-sharing needs neighborhoods like the Mission if it’s going to work. Does the Mission need bike-sharing?

[dropcap]To[/dropcap] paraphrase something Sigmund Freud may or may not have said, sometimes a bicycle is just a bicycle.

In this city, that’s a good thing to keep in mind. Bicycles have become all things to all people, and two-wheeled proxies for anything and everything. San Franciscans who merely desire a cheap, efficient and healthful way to get from here to there at better-than-Muni speeds have not relished being lumped in with self-righteous cyclists who seem to think riding a bike is a political statement and a means of demonstrating moral superiority — an indicator that they are, simply, “better” people than those who do not ride

Similarly, cyclists — many of them neither white nor wealthy — have been surprised to learn that the goofy Ford GoBikes they’ve been pedaling around town, perhaps for as little as $5 a year, aren’t a potential substitute for bike ownership without the hassles of maintenance, rampant theft or dragging cycles onto crowded buses or trains but, rather, rolling gentrification. GoBikes have been defaced, vandalized and even lit ablaze. 

There are reasons for all this. But, again, sometimes a bicycle is just a bicycle. Or. As Jon Stewart put it, “It’s just fucking bikes, lady.” 

Bicycles are not gentrifying the Mission; gentrifiers are gentrifying the Mission. This has been a decades-long process, and what we’re seeing now was set into motion years before. The well-off folks paying top-dollar for apartments and condos and for whom twee, artisanal amenities are sprouting like twee, artisanal mushrooms got here without bikes, let alone Ford GoBikes. Take away the goofy, blue bicycles and these folks are not going to leave; burn the bikes and they’ll hop in a Lyft.

The hostile response to GoBikes in the Mission highlights the paradox at the heart of the bike-sharing program. Decisions to keep it out of low-income areas are decried as elitist, but decisions to put it into low-income areas are decried as colonialist. The program is mandated to be revenue-neutral — i.e. it’s run by a for-profit business — and is currently operating without government money. But it is, simultaneously, billed as an extension of public transit and is mandated to serve “communities of concern” — which is not where you’d go to seek revenue.

This last point is key. To truly act as a new wing of public transit and serve everyone — as public transit must — bike shares should be saturating our neighborhoods, especially poor neighborhoods. That’s how it’s worked elsewhere. But, in rejecting bike sharing as elitist, concerned neighborhoods are ensuring it will be.

[dropcap]Complaints?[/dropcap] Erick Arguello has a few. The president and co-founder of the Calle 24 Latino Heritage Cultural District does not appreciate clunky bicycles and their parking-spot-eradicating pods being dropped onto the Mission.

He has his concerns about losing those spots in a neighborhood where gardeners or handymen drive around in pickup trucks. He wonders about the wisdom of having blue or red bikes dotting the Mission and, perhaps, sparking some manner of gang reprisal. He objects to the prominent Ford branding on the bikes, which he decries as not bike-sharing but “corporate bike rental.” He wonders who this is meant to serve in a part of town where people can buy a bike for $75. But, most of all, he doesn’t appreciate that nobody asked him about these concerns. “They never reached out to us,” he says.

And that’s true. The outreach process in the Bay Area wasn’t abbreviated or skimpy. But it was far more cursory than in other parts of the country where bike-share programs are enjoying a more harmonious welcome. Kristen Jeffers has helped promote bike-sharing in several cities, including one in her hometown of Greensboro, N.C. That effort, she says, took about four years, and “brought everyone to the table: The university. Private citizens. City planners. City recreation and park officials.” John Stehlin is a lecturer in the UC Berkeley geography department researching bike-share programs. He spent a month documenting Philadelphia’s efforts. These, he said, were far more “robust” than what we saw here in San Francisco and involved a lot more boots (or wheels) on the ground and fewer websites or hashtags. This seemed to work: After expanding into lower-income black neighborhoods in Philly, African Americans went from comprising 8 percent of ridership to 19 percent.

Emily Stapleton, the general manager for Ford GoBike Bay Area, confirms that “lots of outreach” was undertaken here. There was a website. There was “typically one workshop per neighborhood.” In the one at the Mission, she recalls, “15 or 20 community members were there.” So was then-Supervisor David Campos. She remembers it as a “productive discussion.”

[dropcap]Now,[/dropcap] it’s easy to give the GoBike people a hard time. But the city mandated that one out of five stations be sited in the aforementioned “communities of concern,” and they’ve beaten that. The city also mandated they provide a program for low-income riders that would be at least 60 percent off the yearly price of $149 — and they beat that, too. For the first year, qualifying customers can ride for five bucks cash. You don’t need a credit card; you can show up with 20 quarters  (in year two, the price goes up — to five bucks a month). The prominent Ford branding is suboptimal, but Ford is the company that opted to write the $60 million check enabling bike-share outfit Motivate to run the program (Ford, for what it’s worth, is easier on the eyes than some insidious bank or gibberish-named tech company — and it’s hard to imagine folks impulse-buying a $20,000 automobile because they saw it on a goofy bike). Despite what you’ve heard, no, your path is not being tracked on the bicycles (provided you sign up on the GoBike site and not the Ford Pass site).

So, the GoBike people deserve credit for all that. But one workshop in the Mission with less than two dozen attendees (and David Campos) is not a hell of a lot in the way of outreach. And when you fail to truly reach out to the community, you will find yourself at the mercy of those who anoint themselves spokespeople and gatekeepers for the community.

A concerned city source categorizes the GoBike launch as “not so much outreach as notification.” This rankles people, especially people in the Mission who’ve been “notified” of an awful lot in the past decades. “The Mission District has not been on the winning side of many infrastructure improvements that, maybe, benefited the region or other neighborhoods,” explains Stehlin. In a rapidly gentrifying neighborhood, he continues, it’s easy for the lifers to see any improvements as being made not for them, but those who are displacing them.

That’s understandable. But, especially in this case, it can be self-defeating. Communities — and their self-anointed representatives — can leverage (if you like them) or extort (if you don’t) benefits from those hoping to drop twee shops or luxury housing in their midst. Pro-housing zealots argue that the community benefit of market-rate housing is market-rate housing. That’s a  novel argument. In the case of bike-sharing, it might be true. Bike-sharing, especially when low-income people can get in for five bucks a year, may well be its own benefit. The rich folks vandals have in mind when they’re slashing and burning GoBikes have lots of options. Poor folks don’t.

Sometimes a bicycle is just a bicycle. But the Mission reveals the strains of a bike-sharing program that may have been trying too hard to be all things to all people. The city determined that, because of pension and benefit costs, it would be far cheaper for a private business to run a bike-sharing program than for San Francisco workers to do it. But private businesses want to make money. Public transit, almost by definition, does not. Mandating a private business to operate with the ethos of public transit may strangle its efforts to do either. The city’s demand that bike-sharing be cost-neutral may doom it as effective transit for all.

Stapleton, meanwhile, says GoBike is “doing final review with BART and the community” about putting bike pods in at the 16th and 24th Street stations — without which bike-sharing absolutely cannot succeed in the Mission. “We would like to bring those online in the next several weeks.” The BART people, she continues, “are pretty excited about those.” How will the community react? That remains a burning question.

Follow Us

Managing Editor/Columnist. Joe was born in San Francisco, raised in the Bay Area, and attended U.C. Berkeley. He never left.

“Your humble narrator” was a writer and columnist for SF Weekly from 2007 to 2015, and a senior editor at San Francisco Magazine from 2015 to 2017. You may also have read his work in the Guardian (U.S. and U.K.); San Francisco Public Press; San Francisco Chronicle; San Francisco Examiner; Dallas Morning News; and elsewhere.

He resides in the Excelsior with his wife and three (!) kids, 4.3 miles from his birthplace and 5,474 from hers.

The Northern California branch of the Society of Professional Journalists named Eskenazi the 2019 Journalist of the Year.

Join the Conversation


Please keep your comments short and civil. We will zap comments that fail to adhere to these short and very easy-to-follow rules.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Question: you state
    > Despite what you’ve heard, no, your path is not being tracked on the bicycles (provided you sign up on the GoBike site and not the Ford Pass site).

    Location tracking has been a big issue for me, and I was surprised but interested to read your statement. However, I just went to sign-up on the GoBike portal: and it’s still requiring users to agree to the “FordPass” terms, which are indeed separate from the GoBike terms, but all users are still consenting to have their location tracked:

    So, uh, can you clarify that information please?

  2. Imagine, the Calle 24 Latino Cultural District Council deciding what is right for the Latino Cultural District. The nerve. We should have some unelected body, like the MTA make that decision instead. They know what’s best. And what’s wrong with a large corporation usurping public space and creating a formidable presence in the Cultural District? I like bikes. Bikes are good. And even though Ford bike rentals are more expensive than they purport to be, so what? I don’t understand what they are complaining about.

  3. STop calling it bike “sharing”. It’s BIKE RENTAL!!! Sharing is something you do with your friends . . . At no charge. Bike “sharing” is nothing less than deceptive branding.0

  4. As always, a well written piece. I agree with Calle 24 about 100% of the time. And respect their position. But you make very good points.

  5. Thank you. A bike is a bike and a Ford Bike Pod should be put in at Harrison and 25th, where no parking spot will be taken.
    The mission is the best place in the city to have this bike sharing for EVERYONE, new and been here a long time.

    Not allowing a bike share is misplaced anger at a changing world.

  6. I see it as too little too late with Ford more than happy than to plaster their name all throughout the Mission, which I’m really not sure can be called a “low income area” anymore. Now that it’s “hip”, they’re more than happy to come in? Where were they 20-30 years ago, when Latino workers had to get to work in the numerous shops in the MIssion? Is Ford GoBike saturating the Tenderloin? Bayview? What about low income areas outside SF that are not accessible by public transportation? Are they saturating those areas? I’m guessing not because it’s not “sexy”…. Also, the outreach has been nonexistent to poor…there is a new batch right outside Buena Vista Horace Mann school. There was NO outreach to school officials regarding this. Do they think parents are going to ride their kids to school on the handlebars? It’s just more corporate fuckery in the Mission…and SF in general….

    1. Seems Valencia st could use a few more bike-share stands, like maybe 5….lotz of business there

  7. Really appreciate a perspective from someone other than “Latino control” ! Gentrification is on its way in the mission , sorry but the people moving in here are Spanish also

  8. I loved this article. I like the way you broke everything down!
    The one thing I’d like to add however is that these bikes don’t come with helmets and are generally meant for those who don’t bike as their sole form of transportation. As a city with many cyclist deaths and accidents, it seems a little odd to me to introduce something with that much of a potential hazard.

  9. When will we stop calling these programs “sharing” programs? They are for-profit enterprises. The privatization of public space is wrong. The Mission already has a true bike-share program for low-income residents. The Gobike kiosks are ubiquitous and ugly. Etc.

  10. The first well written piece on the subject I’ve read.

    Sometimes the city ends up shooting itself in the foot over the simplest ideas. Anyone remember the “free WiFi” implementation that crashed after the city got greedy?

    Let’s hope the feedback from both sides helps balance it out. Besides being a bit gaudy, they are pretty handy. I’ve used them a few times so far. Pretty simple to use. The bikes are a bit heavy. Just don’t try to pack em on muni or bart.

    1. In fairness free wifi was killed because one City Council member (Peskin) wanted it killed. Getting a ‘fair deal’ for SF was simply a pretext, which is pretty much Modus operandi for SF’s brand of progressive NIMBYism. To freshen your memory on the debate review San Francisco Antenae-free Union.

  11. Well-written and enjoyable article – glad that ML is considering many sides and views of the issue.

  12. Am I remembering correctly that a few months ago, major City Hall voices were screaming “red card” & “foul”, when a Chinese Company wanted to drop thousands of rental share bikes on the streets?

    And then a few months later all these excessively branded advertisement vehicle bikes showed up with one community meeting that almost no one knew about besides the departing supervisor. And we’ve got to accept the advertising bikes, because, well money talks.

    1. They didn’t want the Chinese Company bc the city had already signed their rights away to the Motivate GoBike deal. (which is ashame bc that bikeshare used a fundamentally better technology) This is been in the making for a very long time.

      I’m surprised there was only 1 meeting. I heard the 24th st association flat out refused the bikeshare in the neighborhood and hence there are none there.

  13. in Precita Park area. 6 parking spots gone in area that parking is hard to find parking as it is. NO notice at all. No outreach. No fair FORD

    1. I agree, the racks just ahowed up in the night and “BOOM” there they were…not fair tonthe residents new or long lived that now can’t park.

    2. Thanks Randy, INDEED. With the challenges we face in this neighborhood for residents who don’t have garages, I couldn’t believe they put a rack at Precita. Also the company, Motivate, that is maintaining and placing these, has top management with less than stellar records with share bike programs in NYC.

    3. You’re not considering the parking spaces newly freed up all the people who’d otherwise be driving but now have the option to rent a bike. That number is surely more than 6.

    4. There’s never enough parking spots unless more people give up their cars and use other forms of transportation. You are fighting against your own self interest.

    5. That station fits in two, maybe three parking spots. But even with your hyperbole the point is moot – there are two streets here flanking three city blocks of undeveloped public space, each with parking on both sides, making this one of the easiest neighborhoods to park in the city. Theoretically this allows people to keep their cars parked, walk to the station and find a more healthy and efficient way to get about. Have to park a couple blocks away and walk? Welcome to SF. Enough with the entitled parking NIMBYism, our city can be better! And more cars, more parking, yadayada continues to make it worse.

  14. How will the community react? Nobody ever asks the community. The self appointed gatekeepers and city funded nonprofits intercede between residents and the City and ensure that an organized citizenry is always excluded from the process.