Today thousands of cyclists around the country hit the streets for Bike to Work Day in the United States. In a country dominated by the car, bike transit - as opposed to recreational cycling - is still somewhat of a novelty. Even in large, densely populated cities, you’re more likely to find shared cars than shared bikes. And despite the fact that a car costs 40 times more than a bike, daily fees for renting bikes often exceed those for renting a car. (See WashCycle for a good missive on this.)

But several major cities in Europe have embraced the idea of shared bikes. Shared bikes are low-cost rental bikes parked at stations across the city, optimized for one way trips. For-profit companies like Cyclocity or SmartBike work in conjunction with city planners to help link transportation nodes that are too close for a bus or car, but too far to walk. And unlike shared cars which must be returned to the same parking space, bikes can be returned to any station in the system.

Members provide a refundable deposit (~$200) and pay a nominal annual fee (~$15).  Whenever they need a bike, they simply swipe a card to release an available bike. Rides under 30 minutes are usually free, with increasing fares after that. Most bikes have internal gears and solid tires minimizing muss and fuss - ideal for commuters.

Paris announced this week that it is introducing 20,600 shared bikes at more than 1,400 stations across the city by July 15. The idea has been popular in other European cities, from Lyon to Munich, but with nearly one shared bike for every thousand Parisians, the Bastille Day rollout is nothing less than… revolutionary (see statastic below).

Several US cities including San Francisco, Portland, and Chicago are studying the idea of shared bikes, but it looks like Washington DC will be the first American guinea pig. Early indications are that the DC plan will initially be modest. Like shared cars, shared bike systems greatly benefit from network effects. But now that the planet is heating up, this is no time to be modest. The more shared bikes, the more locations near potential riders, and the users more likely to give it a try, the more profitable, etc.

So can DC match the French passion for shared bike? Not just yet. In order to have the same density of shared bikes in DC as in Paris, Washington would need 5,700 bikes or about 80 Smart Bikes per square mile. And if shared bikes help gets tourists off of those goofy Segways, all the better.

Previously, I hypothesized that widespread adoption of the shared cars would decrease demand for streetside parking (especially with this concept), allowing for more, safer bike lanes. Shared bikes and shared cars could easily work in harmony with one another - there are certainly times when you need a car. But it is time for local leaders to shun the one-car, one-driver paradigm and shared bikes are a great way to start.

.

.

.

.

.

While there have been great expectations for e-books before, it may be e-paper technology that provides a much needed impetus to push e-books into the mainstream. Displaybank forecasts that the flexible display market will grow from $280 million in 2010 to to $12.2 billion in 2017. Not bad, considering that the entire U.S. book market earned $25 billion in 2005. (For Statastic’s full essay about the future of e-ink and e-books, visit here.)

But the market for e-paper and flexible displays extends far beyond e-books. Imagine instantly customizable billboards, or ever-changing e-paper facades that wrap the outside of skyscrapers.

Perhaps the promise of a new advertising medium will finally drive the development of e-paper; e-books sales certainly haven’t. While Sony keeps pitching its rather pedestrian $300 black and white 7″ e-reader, LG Philips taunts us with a 14″ flexible e-paper display featuring more than 4000 colors. Fujitsu and HP are even jumping into the fray with e-reader prototypes. Unfortunately, these new e-readers likely won’t be ready for the consumer market until well into the Gore-Obama administration.
.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Chart courtesy of Tech-On based on research from Displaybank.

Today the US Postal Service (USPS) rolls out its new “forever stamp.” The same stamp that you buy today will still provide postage for a 1 ounce letter in 2017 or even 2107.

So are the forever stamps a bargain for consumers or the Postal Service? A little of both. They eliminate those annoying 1 and 2 cent stamps for consumers and smooth revenue for the USPS. Maintaining consistent pricing has been a challenge for the Postal Service. Looking back at the inflation-adjusted price of stamps since 1945 (for nominal prices, check out spudart), stamps have ranged from $.22 in 1956 and 1957 to $.49 in 1975.

Historically it was difficult to hone price increases to match inflation for one simple reason: we don’t have a currency smaller than the penny. Raising the price from $.03 in 1957 to $.04 in 1958 constituted a nominal 33% price increase. Today a 1 cent increase only means a 2.4% price increase. The implication is that with more expensive stamps, it has become easier for the USPS to track inflation keeping the real cost of stamps more consistent. Expect this to continue in the future as the USPS ties the price of the forever stamp as closely as possible to inflation. Regardless of their effort, it seems likely that a secondary market in forever stamps will crop up. Why? Arbitrage.

According to the USPS web site, there is no limit to number of forever stamps you can buy. So someone playing in the futures market of stamps (statastic is not promoting this) would wait until the day before the next forever stamp price increase. An investor would fork over $4.1 million to buy ten million forever stamps the day before the next penny price hike. By holding a futures contract guaranteeing a buyer for all of the stamps at 41.9 cents each, the speculator could turn an overnight profit of $90,000 - assuming the USPS doesn’t make this illegal first.

.