I have a few questions about this. Why only credit cards? This will limit who can use the bikes.Would the bikes be out year-round? Some people will ride bikes in the winter. If they are not out year-round, when will they be out? The GPS systems seem a little strange. If someone's in a hurry to get somewhere using a bike, will they really be looking at that?It is a lot of money, especially when the city is having a hard time covering other things. This is a nice program, but why was it brought up so suddenly? Bike shops already rent bikes. And there are boat rentals in a couple of the parks which benefit the city and I believe the city does not pay the companies to do it, the company pays rent TO the city. --- On Tue, 1/25/11, Eric Sundquist <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Eric Sundquist <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Bikies] City investing in Rental bikes To: "Brenda Konkel" <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Date: Tuesday, January 25, 2011, 10:49 AM Brenda, you've forgotten more than I'll ever know on the city budget, so I am willing to believe yout that the pot of money for this might be the wrong one. And of course Arthur was treated shabbily. But Parks already maintains some sidewalk and bike facilities; TE on the other hand mainly designs things. So putting it in Parks would make sense to me. But the pushback on this list and in comments on your blog really isn't about those details. If your blog head had been "City spends $300k to provide multimillion-dollar bike-share program," it would have then been fair to point out the money is coming from a contingency fund, that Arthur got shafted, etc. But it would also be fair to clarify that the project isn't for riding bikes in parks, and that the project would be designed to boost transit ridership, support efficient development and reduce traffic. On the equity side, raised by some, it would also be useful to point out that a bike share program could provide low-cost, car-free job access to low-income residents. Overall, looking at what the city spends on transportation and development, this is likely a very good investment. It would be even better of S&M or some other multimillion-dollar project to facilitate sprawl in Mount Horeb had gotten a tiny haircut to pay for it. Those are the boondoggles, not this. From: Brenda Konkel <[email protected]> To: Eric Sundquist <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Sent: Tue, January 25, 2011 6:12:12 AM Subject: Re: [Bikies] City investing in Rental bikes The confusion over the "parks" issue is because the money is being put in the parks department according to the fiscal note. Why is the money going to parks and not David Dryer's section where the bike coordinator is? And, $100,000 is not a rounding error when there are many services the Mayor couldn't find the money to fund, like ice skating rinks, and community services, and staff for the council, and government television and Arthur Ross's position and on and on and on. In a year of "tough choices" to keep taxes low because of the economy, this is not a small deal. It's 1/10th of the fund that is used to pay for police over time, extra costs for snow plowing and other emergencies. This should be considered with the budget along with all the other city priorities. I'm sure its a great program, but I'm not sure this is the time to be doing it with this money. On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:08 PM, Eric Sundquist <[email protected]> wrote: George, with all due respect, wackos don't need a reason to complain about liberals (or about anything else). They killed HSR over the pennies per household operating cost, and nearly killed health care over fictitious death panels. There is nothing you can do to satisfy a wacko. Non-wacko fiscal conservatives, otoh, might realize that that the money here is a rounding error in the road budget, and realize that the benefits to the city and its residents are potentially much greater than $100k per year. B-cycle and other bike-share programs have been great in other cities where, by the way, local sponsors always pay for all or part of the cost. They are not "leisure" bikes, despite Brenda's headline implying they are for park riding. They are mainly for transportation, though I'm sure some people use them for fun as well. You pick one up at one kiosk by your starting point and return it to another kiosk by your destination. That works great with transit; you can come to town on the bus and get to a destination that's not right on the bus line. Minneapolis started its public/private program (not B-cycle, but another vendor) last June, and now it is discussing how to best expand it. Denver's first year was 2010 also, and the results, from a press release: · Short-term Memberships (24-hour kiosk, 24-hour online, 7-day, 30-day) Purchased: 32,922 · Annual Memberships Purchased: 1,784 · B-cycle Rides: 102,981 rides · Miles Ridden: 211,111* Health benefits included: · 6,333,332 calories burned · 1,810 lbs. lost According to a survey of our members, 43.16% of Denver B-cycle trips replaced car trips, resulting in the following environmental and economic benefits: · 312,121 lbs. of carbon emissions avoided · 9,613 lbs. of toxic air pollutants avoided · 15,868 gallons of gasoline not used · $41,256 est. saved on gasoline · $311,126 est. saved on car parking *Average ride of 2.05 miles From: George Perkins <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Mon, January 24, 2011 10:12:39 PM Subject: Re: [Bikies] City investing in Rental bikes I remember the original red bike program, even did some intermittent volunteer work getting junkers ready to ride. I occasionally rode red bikes (despite having my own bikes). They were somewhat handy and I was always pleased to see someone else riding them around. I paid real estate taxes then, and even more so now. In these times of economic stress, all of the regional taxing authorities raised taxes. Ouch! The higher taxes combined with a right-wing noise machine helped elect a tea-bagger Republican Gestapo State and Federal government and could tip the vote against many other progressive, needed programs locally, regionally or nationally in the coming years. (The RTA’s going to try to get a ¼¢ sales tax referendum to help fund needed bus service - I can hear the gears grinding already on that one). Giving the right-wingnut wackos another reason to say “see, I told you so, those liberals are at it again” at this time is just plain stoopid. Instead of spending $100,000 city money this year, $100,000 the following year, and another $100,000 the year after that for shiny-new credit-card only leisure Trek bikes, let’s just revive the original red bike program at half the cost or less. Local bike shops and volunteer organizations could put together a proposal… Or perhaps keep Arthur Ross’s position in the city budget and fund a bike/ped manager AND a bike/ped coordinator city position instead? _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org -----Inline Attachment Follows----- _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
