Remember how Austin and some other American cities left yellow-painted bicycles lying around for anyone to use? And how they were all stolen in a few weeks?
Then Portland said, “Let’s do what Paris does: Rent bikes. Anyone who pays a monthly rental fee gets a key and can unlock and use bikes whenever they want.”
Testes cialis discount overnight – Male reproductive part, these produce sperms and sex hormones. Prostatitis can be considered as a state of mind where a person feels quite sad about some issue that has affected them a lot. cipla cialis online The flavors will enable you enjoy the taste of this jelly medicine is far better viagra pill cost than an ordinary tablet. These viagra pill cost are very few side effects associated with treatment.
Bikes for rent in Paris.
Flickr photo by CeesOK.
That program turned out to be highly successful in Paris. At least, if you don’t count the fact that over half the bikes were stolen in 18 months, and most of the rest had to be replaced due to vandalism. So much for another great scheme for collective transportation.
O’Toole: So much for another great scheme for collective transportation.
THWM: The same could be said of roads too.
Although there are other things that are similar automotive wise.
http://www.zipcar.com/
Fortunately, cars (and other “private” property) are never stolen or vandalized.
So much for another great scheme for collective transportation.
One day, this small-minority ideology wants the collective to make decisions for everyone, and the next day, the collective isn’t responsible enough to leave bikes alone.
Which is it?
Fizzbin!
DS
The Tragedy of the Commons, again. Very predictable.
If it was a good idea it would have been done by the private sector.
If it loses money government will do it for the betterment of the collective.
“If it was a good idea it would have been done by the private sector.”
see: Blackwater, ENRON, Madoff, AIG, Bear Stearns, etc.etc.etc.
“The Tragedy of the Commons, again. Very predictable.”
Why does car sharing work? It’s been successful here in Austin.
Given that the key holder must be on a register of some kind I presume the bikes have been stolen by others who do not have a key.
This should be solvable by making the key a radio key (like my Suzuki car) so that the bike is immobilised when one walks away from it. Each key could be ‘pinned’ to each bike on original pick up.
Then if a bike is not returned to a rack and “deregistered” the original collector of the key can be automatically billed for the value of the bike.
There may be some fundamental problem here but I cannot think of it.
The latest from Antiplanner favorite, economist Edward Glaeser:
Do you really want to be good to the environment? Stay away from it. Move to high-rise apartments surrounded by plenty of concrete. Americans who settle in leafy, low-density suburbs will leave a significantly deeper carbon footprint, it turns out, than Americans who live cheek by jowl in urban towers.
And this:
Henry David Thoreau was wrong. Living in the country is not the right way to care for the Earth. The best thing that we can do for the planet is build more skyscrapers.
http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/Help-the-environment-stay-in-the-city-39422222.html
“There may be some fundamental problem here but I cannot think of it.”
I suppose it is still easy to steal an immobilized bike as opposed to an immobilized car. Maybe you could rig the seat with a tazer 😉
“If it was a good idea it would have been done by the private sector. ”
It was. The company is called JCDecaux. The article linked by Antiplanner details what they got out of it…
“The original contract gave the advertising company a 10-year licence to exploit 1,600 city-wide billboards in return for running the scheme, plus a share in the revenue, estimated at 20m euros for the first year of operation. ”
Very nice. Not profitable enough, though.
“The Tragedy of the Commons, again. Very predictable.”
The Tragedy of the Commons refers to over-exploitation of a resource because the cost of doing so is less than the value of doing so. Alas, I can’t see how this is applicable to this case.
“Why does car sharing work? It’s been successful here in Austin.”
Sometimes it does work well, and in other cases the cars come back trashed. The schemes that work make the driver returning the car responsible for the condition of the car, and crucially charge them the cost of fixing the problem. If the driver brings the car back with mud embedded in the seats, it will be an expensive cleaning bill for them – hence the cars come back in a prestine condition.
That’s what has gone wrong here. Enough people using the bicycles didn’t feel accountable for the condition of their bicycle.
The European Union runs various transport projects, one of which was called Miracles (with slogans including, oh yes, “I believe in Miracles”). One project in the UK included a bicycle loan scheme. Some massive differences, however. You had to be registered, with a valid home address, so they knew where to go to get their bicycle back/get compensation. You had to collect the bicycle in person from a manned lockup, and return the bicycle in person on the same day by evening. Finally, the bicycles were loaned out for free. Why? Because if you loan a bicycle, you have massively less exposure to compensation claims than if the bicycles are rented out – at least under UK law.
The biggest problem with schemes like this is that bicycles are not the most expensive transport technology. How many people cannot afford a bicycle if they wanted one (one of my stable I got for free from a gentleman who was cleaning out his garage)?
Francis King:The biggest problem with schemes like this is that bicycles are not the most expensive transport technology. How many people cannot afford a bicycle if they wanted one (one of my stable I got for free from a gentleman who was cleaning out his garage)?
ws: I think they’re a great idea in tourist heavy cities. I know a lot of bike shops have bike rentals.
Bicycles owned by everyone (or anyone) are a resource. Taking one that belongs to everyone has less cost than the value of the bicycle. The commons need not refer only to natural resources.
Americans who settle in leafy, low-density suburbs will leave a significantly deeper carbon footprint, it turns out, than Americans who live cheek by jowl in urban towers.
According to Glaeser’s own analysis, the difference is on the order of 12%. I wouldn’t really call that “significantly deeper.”
And here’s Glaeser in his paper Sprawl and Urban Growth:
“The latest from Antiplanner favorite, economist Edward Glaeser”
Besides the utter irrelevance of your rabbit trail, ROT defers to Glaeser for his economic expertise, not his scientific knowhow. Environmentally speaking, Glaeser is just another of many dilettantes paying homage to today’s sacred cow (and tomorrow’s phrenology) of carbon clamor, in this case as a basis for elitism.
Chip:
I repeat what I said on another thread:
DS
Why don’t they just give the bikes away. At least that way they could give the bikes to people who really need them. Write it off as a “stimulus”.
highwayman, Roads are not collective transportation. Please realize that car users pay for over 2/3 of road costs. For transit <1/3. Roads benefit all & are used directly by 80%+. Plus roads are static & have continuous multiple use.
D4p, People protect & care for their private property better than public, like jwetmore mentioned, tragedy of the commons.
Dan, Most likely the bike thieves are not part of your “collective”. And collectives eschew individual responsibility; that’s why they are formed. They also like to put the cost burden on others.
bennett, You’re making a logical error about the private sector comparison with the illegal operations of some businesses. Your analogy is not valid. You are assuming that craig said that all ideas by the public sector are good.
. Please try to understand concepts before making blatant accusations.
. You are also missing the point of capitalism providing for wants that people are willing to pay for.
Francis King, The tragedy of the commons princilpe applies because people protect/care for property that they own or are accountable for.
Dan, It’s tough to respond to your nonsensical comments that have no substance. To help you understand, collect all of your comments & show them to any of your high school teachers. The teachers will explain that you don’t make any topical points & you will probably be encouraged to take more English courses in writing to actually make a point with facts & reasoning. (Your vocabulary & grammar are acceptable.) You cannot refute issues by your distractions, name-calling, tangents, non-sequitors, referrals, fact dismissing & such. Imagine yourself arguing a case. How would the judge, opposing lawyer & jury see your side? You have lost every case.
.
.
public bikes
How much big government, nanny state, provide everything for all, mentality are we getting to?
How about individual responsibility? This does not mean anarchy or no public goods.
Why would you end up in a place where you needed a bike, but didn’t have one from home?
Why is it the taxpayers obligation to provide one for you?
If a person cannot afford a bicycle…
Scott Says:
Highwayman, Roads are not collective transportation. Please realize that car users pay for over 2/3 of road costs. For transit <1/3. Roads benefit all & are used directly by 80%+.
THWM: Automobiles need roads, but roads don’t need automobiles.
Roads have existed a long time before automobiles were invented.
Yes freeways/motorways, autoroutes, autobahns & autostrada are post automotive roads, but they are still a minority of roads.
Even in the USA, only less than 2% of all roads are limited access.
Scott: Plus roads are static & have continuous multiple use.
THWM: So in other words they are collective transport.
The needs of roads vs. cars is meaningless.
What is the supposed point? So what that roads can exist without cars? There is no purpose then. Cars can actually travel on flat ground. Roads are much more efficient.
Roads were used for horses. So what? Do want to go back to horses? Major health, space (grazing, barns) & caring issues, besides slowness & such.
You could say that oxygen exists without humans needing it, but humans need oxygen to survive. So what?
Less than 2% of roads are freeways. So what? No point.
BTW, freeways handle something like over 20% of all VMT.
You seem to be implying that the existence of any public good is socialism (collective transport).
You could say that any kind of government is collective or socialistic.
What’s your point? Do want anarchy? Many groups, like the Sierra Club & Greenpeace want to go back to hunting & gathering, or at least an Amish lifestyle.
Would you prefer all user fees? I don’t like the toll option as O’Toole & others mention. A $1/gallon state gas tax (no Federal) would provide plenty of money to maintain & upgrade roads (roughly 1/3 more than now). Transit is way too expensive to be supported by fares. Only Hong Kong & parts of Japan have self-supporting transit.
You seem to ignore that over 2/3 of roads
(all roads, hello, stop bringing up freeways) are paid for by user fees.
Are you against public education because that’s “collective”?
Consider a big difference in public goods for all (roads, police, fire, military, libraries, schools)
versus public goods for a few (transit, stadiums, Medicaid, ethanol subsidies, ~prevailing wages/Davis-Bacon).
Regardless, all (everybody) benefit from roads, over 80% directly by being drivers.
Whereas <3% of miles traveled is by transit.
What’s your game?
You seem to like to throw doubt in, but actually have nothing to substantiate.
You are not even making a point to hold & not refuting any points.
Try this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM It’s a Monty Python sketch about contradiction. You might have seen it. Point is–You disagree without having anything concrete.
Examples of attempts:
“No, you’re wrong.”
“This group _____.”
“What about _______ (something irrelevant).”
“(Ignoring the reasoning) How about studies or data?”
“This article says _____.”
“(I surreptitiously switch my position) What I meant was _____. / I said ____ (opposite of what I said). / I didn’t say _____ (what I said)”
Those have no place in debate. In general, youse cannot back up[ your positions or disprove positions you are against.
Hey,
Dan,
ws,
betty,
& others.
Much of the above paragraphs apply to you too. But when you love the state & think that everything done by policy & such is holy & accurate, you are bound to lose your objectivity.
Please realize the government is inefficient & wasteful.
(The extreme of anarchy would be worse)
Gov doesn’t need to be 40% of GDP. Would 25% be good?
Many programs are made to get votes & actually make many situations worse.
Many programs take away motivation & responsibility, some try to change human behavior against freedom & the wants of people.
You don’t get it and you don’t want to get it.
I don’t want to get your brain deficiency.
It’s really too bad that you are the one who does not comprehend.
I really don’t like my victories when I win by default. But if you don’t want to have a discussion, I win again. You do not even have a position, just being clueless & implying opposition.
When you have limited knowledge & logic skills, you should not even attempt to participate.
Let me give you an analogy: I’m talking about trigonometry & algebra, whereas your skills are just at basic arithmetic, but you don’t even respond along a math angle. You talk about ABCs or some irrelevant nonsense.
You might know something about HVAC, assembly lines, plumbing or whatever your trade is, but it helps to know relevant material on these issues.
This applies to Dan to. You guys are equally inept at making points.
Hey, I’m not Tom Rubin, I haven’t got time for long winded bullshit!
hwm. didn’t your mom caution against throwing bananas to the trained chimp? Please. Have some respect for the cost of the server space at ti.
DS
It’s really a shame that certain people mischaracterize & misunderstand without even trying to comprehend, when it’s beyond their capacity & knowledge.
Maybe if these people read slowly, several times.
I never would think that the girls on “The View” could actually have more communication ability than anybody.
Dan Says:
hwm. didn’t your mom caution against throwing bananas to the trained chimp? Please. Have some respect for the cost of the server space at ti.
THWM: Don’t worry Dan, Mr.O’Toole got $50,000 from Koch, other people are paying for his sever space. It’s not like he has to go work to put bread on the table.
True, but Greasemonkey doesn’t have [killfile] for this site, and often when scrolling past the babble from our favorite sockpuppet axis, accidentally some words are processed by my brain. And I get a brain owie.
DS
I love bananas. K is good for the body & replacing electrolytes due to over-imbibing.
Businesses (ie Koch, GE, DuPont) are great.
Why is there so much anti-capitalism?
Oh yeah, Obuma fools many people & twists the facts around.
Try living without businesses.
Foundations (ie Koch,Castle Rock, John Locke, Bradley-Scaife) are great too.
Although some people just don’t like education.
There are groups that represent unjust coercive causes, and that fabricate & twist issues, for hypocrites, slackers, moochers & the “collective” (ie , MoveOn, CIO, CNU, Progressive Policy); just look at George Soros.
I can see that some brain processing can hurt when not used it.
Scott Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
I love bananas. K is good for the body & replacing electrolytes due to over-imbibing.
Businesses (ie Koch, GE, DuPont) are great.
Why is there so much anti-capitalism?
Oh yeah, Obuma fools many people & twists the facts around.
Try living without businesses.
Foundations (ie Koch,Castle Rock, John Locke, Bradley-Scaife) are great too.
Although some people just don’t like education.
There are groups that represent unjust coercive causes, and that fabricate & twist issues, for hypocrites, slackers, moochers & the “collective†(ie , MoveOn, CIO, CNU, Progressive Policy); just look at George Soros.
I can see that some brain processing can hurt when not used it.
THWM: That was funny!