Posted on 05/05/2014 4:37:21 AM PDT by Kaslin
Citibike is a success. Unqualified. Raving. Success.
“Citigroup, who was the recipient of over $476 billion dollars of taxpayer bailout money,” wrote Alex Garcia on Townhall Finance in 2012, “has joined forces with the City of New York to sponsor a $41 million dollar bike share program.”
That program became Citibike.
The goal wasn’t quite as ambitious as Obama’s target of a million electric cars on the roads in eight years. But still the program aimed at putting 10,000 bikes in 600 locations around New York City for commuters to share in the name of environmentalism, health and being hip.
And so far the bike sharing program that sold it’s naming rights to a bank that at the time owed the United States Treasury for bailout money received, is living up to it’s storied moniker.
They’ve only put out 6,000 bikes at 325 locations. So at $6,833 per bike that’s a lot like other bailout math we’ve seen in this administration.
Oh, but that’s not all.
“New York City's Department of Transportation has held more than two dozen public meetings aimed at introducing Citi Bike to low-income New Yorkers,” reports NPR, “and it's given away more than 100,000 free helmets.”
Helmets aren’t cheap either. Even assuming a big discount, the city has spent at least a million dollars on free helmets.
But according to the city of New York, bike aficionados, and the Institute for Transportation & Development Policy (ITDP) the program has been an unqualified success.
“The past year has seen sustainable transport flourish,” notes ITDP, “with programs like New York Citibike receiving widespread attention. ITDP has worked with dozens of cities around the world to take steps toward building a better environment for their citizens, and millions of residents are feeling the benefits.”
Why should it surprise us that "Progressives" are harkening back to technology of the past to foist bikes on a people who already rejected them? As I noted yesterday, this is the same group of progressive who use wood as a renewable fuel, the same fuel used by Cro-Magnon Man. If it weren't for old technology "Progressives" would have no technology at all.
CNN calls Citibike one of the best-run bike programs in the world noting: “NYC's CitiBike system averages 8.3 trips per bike and 42.7 trips per 1,000 residents.”
And according to internet site bikeshare.com: “Since its launch, we’ve seen entertainment stars like Seth Meyers, Lindsay Lohan, Mackelmore, and Leonardo DiCaprio riding Citi Bike,” adding “Anthony Weiner made headlines after taking one for a spin.”
I presume they meant Weiner took a bike for a spin, not one of the celebrities.
But underneath the surface there is still more bailout than there is bike to New York City’s bike sharing program.
“The financially troubled company running the city’s bike rental program is considering raising its rates,” reports New York Daily News, “so it can stay afloat, new Transportation Commissioner Polly Trottenberg said Thursday.”
Maybe it’s just me, but perhaps a company doing business for merely 100 days, and subsidized by a private gift, should be doing better than just trying to stay afloat.
The NY Daily News noted that some residents are now calling for the city to subsidize the bike sharing program as they do other forms of public transportation.
That’s because despite the success touted by the ITDP, bike sharing remains largely an amenity of the rich and privileged.
"The rates of low-income ridership of all bike-share programs around the world is pitifully low. So we can only do better," Caroline Samponaro, of Transportation Alternatives in New York told NPR. "The demographic information I've seen to date is that it's more men than women, and only 0.5 percent are low-income New Yorkers."
That’s because behind the feel-good façade are economics that just don’t add up.
For a $95 annual fee bike-share members in Manhattan get all-you-can-use access to the silly looking Citibikes in 45 minute increments.
That’s about half the price of a moderately priced bike at Walmart, and when you buy the bike at Walmart, you get to keep your bike, if you like it.
Really.
You do.
That’s how private property works in America. And that way you can use your bike all the time.
So while the program remains very popular for metro-testicled males in Manhattan, who apparently have money to burn in the quest to remain hip, presumably those with less discretionary income are little wiser with their money. They look at transportation as a way to get from point A to point B, cheaply and efficiently.
But expect NYC to spare no taxpayer expense to keep the program going no matter how little financial sense it makes.
This is more than just a bike program. We’re saving the planet here people.
“We’re talking to them,” Trottenberg told the Daily News about keeping the bikeshare company afloat. “I would put it this way — all options are on the table. I think everyone agrees it turned out to be a real bargain for New Yorkers, who used the system twice as much as users of other cities.”
And when politicians say that they mean taxpayers will eventually get taken for a ride to subsidize the feel-good hippiness of those who know better than you.
Not coincidentally, these are people who often live in Manhattan.
Give out 8 million bikes tithe residents of NYC. At 200 per bike thats 1.6 billion. That’s cheaper than a loan to Solyndra.
"Of course I'd like to borrow a bike.....the cabs aren't ruinning today"
An annual membership of $95? Wow, K Mart has a 21 speed for $85.
Another money-losing transfer payment by proxy
Wait until they start taxing cars out of cities and people are forced to ride bikes.
People who say “the economics don’t add up” and then do not provide any useful information about the economics are stupid.
Nowhere does the article mention that there are 100,000 people paying those annual memberships already. On top of that, there are the daily users paying as well. So maybe Mr. Ransom needs to go back to economics class, because the program is massively oversubscribed, and is adding capacity to deal with the huge demand.
Yes, you can buy a bike at Walmart, but then you have to either leave it on the street where it gets stolen, or haul the heavy P.O.S. up and down stairs in NYC, or try to get it onto your elevator which in most buildings isn’t allowed.
People who decide that they just hate bicycles, because they suspect that liberals like them are really the stupidest sort of shit.
People who say “the economics don’t add up” and then do not provide any useful information about the economics are stupid.
Nowhere does the article mention that there are 100,000 people paying those annual memberships already. On top of that, there are the daily users paying as well. So maybe Mr. Ransom needs to go back to economics class, because the program is massively oversubscribed, and is adding capacity to deal with the huge demand.
Yes, you can buy a bike at Walmart, but then you have to either leave it on the street where it gets stolen, or haul the heavy P.O.S. up and down stairs in NYC, or try to get it onto your elevator which in most buildings isn’t allowed.
People who decide that they just hate bicycles, because they suspect that liberals like them are really the stupidest sort of shit.
Kids here have to be reminded to wear their hats when they ride their bikes in weather like that. You can always tell the scooter/skateboard set, they are walking along and grumpy...
Maybe the Mayor could start another new fad by taking the carriages he banned from Central Park and putting them back on the streets. After all, they don’t use the satanic fossil fuels and there would be a real spurt in employment at buggy whip manufacturers.
I notice that someone is touting richshaws, pulled by the homeless and/or jobless. Now on the surface, this appears to be a twofer— an Environmentally clean and job creating solution.
But it is clear that this thinking is racist. Everyone knows that the group with the highest rate of unemployment are black youth. Harnessing them to rickshaws to pull rich white people around is an obviously racist proposal. Now if you reversed the situation and made only white people pull jobless black youth around, that would be acceptable. However, we’d have to have a government study on whether rickshaws lend themselves to drive-by shootings. That might take years and a billion or so because tenured professors are so busy with their own important research and grants.
Gosh, I wish the world wasn’t so complicated so government bureaucrats would have it easier to develop programs and rules to lead us to the perfect progressive world..
You’ve never been to NYC, clearly. But let’s consider a few facts. First, it’s the most desirable place to live in America. We can tell this by looking at the real estate market wherein people are willing to pay such high prices that 70 story apartment buildings are constructed and all new supply is absorbed instantly.
This means that there is enormous population density. So many people wanting to live in a small area produces that outcome by definition. What this means first and foremost is that when those people want to move around their environment, having them all do it in private automobiles is a really shitty idea. If I have to explain to you just exactly why that is such an incredibly stupid idea, then it’s really not going to be worth talking to you because you are just beneath reason, and it would be like trying to explain something to a shellfish.
Therefore transportation becomes a utility function. There are huge investments required not only financially but in a variety of land use decisions that exceed by a great margin what a private company can provide. The MTA tunnels under your building, builds bus stops and subway entrances on the sidewalks in front of your building, and commits hundreds of other indelicacies including having its own police force, all in the name of moving people around the city in an efficient and cost effective manner. If you think a private company could do that, you are just wrong, and do not know the history of the matter. It’s a utility function, with privileges allocated to it by the government, and responsibilities incumbent upon it.
Now let’s turn to the bike share program, which is a relatively tiny parallel to the other quasi-governmental transit options. As a brand new entity, the bike share program had to make a lot of assumptions about how much to charge, how many people would use it, and how much it would cost to run the project. Certainly it needed to be a government sponsored enterprise, because a private company could not have gotten the sidewalk space allocated for the rental racks.
As the program worked out, it’s exceeded the imaginings of it’s greatest supporters, not to mention the skeptical idiots like the fat-ass ginger twat who wrote this article.
There have been parts of the program that have been more expensive, however. One is that because it’s been so wildly oversubscribed as a commuter tool in the mornings, that the bikes have to be moved back to their starting stations manually. The heavier than expected rates of usage have also meant that there have been higher maintenance costs than were anticipated. Also some of the technology worked poorly. Some of the racks wouldn’t accept the bicycle wheels, or would say there was no bike present when there was one there. It’s a new project, and there have been setbacks operationally, but demand is not one of them.
So, what would you do if you had a product that at its current price point was wildly oversubscribed, but not operationally profitable. Well, you would raise the price, and expand the service. That’s what they are doing, and while it may piss of General Motors and the sad-sack George Washington impersonator driving a muscle car in the picture at the top of the thread, no one in NYC is going to be using one of those things to go to the grocery store, ever.
They are not saying if this is per month, per year or since the program started. I'm guessing per year. At $6833 per bike, that's only $823.25 per trip. For that kind of money, you could take a cab both ways to La Guardia and fly to the west coast and back.
It also means that one out of 23.4 residents is actually taking a trip, probably less because there are most likely a small number of users doing multiple trips.
Back in the 1980s when I was in college, I bought a refurbished $40 bike at a second hand store and used it daily, the equivalent of 5.5 cents per trip. I chained it to a tree where my lady friend lived the day I finished my last final for graduation and gave her the combination, so the actual per trip cost was probably less.
Some areas will rent bikes or even, on rare and happy occasions, loan them courtesy of a local merchant or tourism group. Generally, they are a distinctive bright red color so, if stolen, would be quite noticeable. Of course, it is Japan, so theft is rare and the program works far more economically than what is described for New York City.
I’ve been thinking about safety issues. Now it’s great that someone remembered helmets are de regurre and provided them free to riders who couldn’t afford their own. I assume that knee pads and elbow pads were assumed to be something that everyone could provide with some discrete rags wrapped around the areas.
However, I checked and helmets run from about $20 low end to several hundred dollars. I hope that the City didn’t provide low end safety helments. You get what you pay for, and giving the poor low end helmets would be discriminatory and another form of oppression of the poor by the wealthy elites.
And we know who this is aimed at. This is another coded form of racism. In effect, it is another example of racist unequal treatment, probably to cause concussions and even death among the deserving poor. (note: I did NOT mean they are deserving of death)
The poor should rise up and just rip off these bikes for themselves if they want to ride around NY. It will be a form of reparations for past unequal treatment.
Other than your unnecessary use of profanity, I agree with your position. Bike sharing is a good idea for densely populated markets. Even those who never use it will benefit from less traffic congestion.
I think the role of government should be to put regulations in place to allow bike sharing businesses to compete and flourish. This could take the form of tax incentives, traffic laws, bike lanes (yes, paid for with tax dollars), and standardization (like your example of bike racks). Apparently this is at least being run as a for-profit business rather than just another government boondoggle.
Some of us may have difficulty not being bitter over the bailout connection. A successful idea here and there does not justify the theft of our tax dollars.
As you said, a government role in this project is inevitable. Allowing businesses to compete for a piece of the profit center would be the most conservative approach, in my opinion.
Conservatives are not anathema to the use of fossil fuel to generate wealth (by converting fuel to energy to work), but we are also not automatically opposed to innovation just because fossil fuel is not consumed and additional smog is not produced.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.