Destroying the environment in order to save it

I live in a student neighborhood here in Ann Arbor and it is customary for people who are moving out and don’t need something to just leave it in the lawn extension (the grassy strip in front of a house between the sidewalk and the street). Yesterday, some student who was moving out left a bicycle there with a note saying “PLEASE TAKE ME.” It was a mountain bike, not an expensive model, but a serviceable Huffy, in good condition but for a few maintenance style repairs. The rear tire was flat and the chain was rusty. So I took it home, fixed the flat (the inner tube needed patching and the valve stem needed to be cleaned up and retightened), and lubricated the chain. I adjusted the derailleurs a bit and then rode it around. Perfectly good bike. For nothing except my labor. It’s only worth around $50, because there are bikes all over the place. The point being, anyone who wants a bike  can get one. 

So today I read about a government program to make sure everyone who wants a bike can get one — but at government expense! They are called “free” or “shared” as if this is some leftist loony tune’s fantasy come true.

Yes, I am serious. Problem is, the “free” bikes move around, because people ride them from one place to another, then leave them. So… the bikes end up in places that are other than optimal for The Program. And because the goal is to save the environment, we have to have plenty of bikes available for anyone who might want one, wherever he or she may be at a given time.

In its opening months, New York City’s bike share system has found itself locked in a perpetual race against its riders — to remove bikes from fully occupied stations, and to refill stations before the supply runs dry.

It is a tricky juggling act, performed across the city’s densest neighborhoods, that officials are still struggling to master.

In the morning, commuters flood Midtown, often leaving residential pockets of the East Village and northwestern Brooklyn bare. Bikes beside transit hubs like Penn Station can disappear almost as quickly as they arrive.

But after confronting software problems that dogged the system at its inception, officials are turning increased attention to the art of “rebalancing.”

The city relies primarily on a fleet of box trucks, hauling bikes by the dozens when cyclists cannot find a way to share effectively.

Directions come from Sunset Park, Brooklyn, delivered by dispatchers with an interactive station map and an evolving sense of traffic patterns. Crews travel in pairs. Loading a truck can take 45 minutes, to say nothing of replenishing a station nearby.

Cyclists tend to work more quickly.

“If we bring 37 bikes,” one worker said beside an Eighth Avenue station last week, “by the time we’re gone there’s two left.”

Well, doh! Of course the bikes will be gone. What did they expect would happen? So the taxpayers have to provide lots of gasoline to truck them all around to keep supplies replenished so that everyone can feel good about themselves for helping to save the environment, at least till winter sets in and its too cold and icy to ride bikes.

Such important and vital concerns simply cannot be left up to the market. The government has to make sure that we all have free bikes, by any means necessary.

Needless to say, if you read the Constitution, there is just as much of a right to a bicycle as there is to health care.


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

16 responses to “Destroying the environment in order to save it”

  1. captain* arizona Avatar
    captain* arizona

    in 19th century london two english socialists were walking down the sidewalk and saw a begger one reached in his pocket for some spare change to give the beggar the other grab him and said stop you are delaying the revolution! most liberals are not this tough and that is what is wrong with obama. the constitution didnt say you couldn’t own slaves until it was explained to the conservatives at bayonete point by then radical republicans at a place called cemetary ridge in pennslyvania on july 3 1863. obama care(I prefer medicare for all)could be an amendment to constitution if obama was tough enough! hopefully mrs clinton will be.

  2. Tom Avatar
    Tom

    Just to point out, they’re subsidized, but they’re not “free”: http://citibikenyc.com/pricing

    I’m less fussed about things like this since the point is to try to encourage people to not use their cars in order to ease traffic flow. Though, admittedly, I don’t know how well it works (if at all). But it’s not an income redistribution program; in fact, the Washington DC bikeshare has come under attack because the subsidies don’t sufficiently flow to the poor.

  3. Man Mountain Molehill Avatar
    Man Mountain Molehill

    Amsterdam tried this. From the wikipedia entry:
    “This so-called White Bicycle Plan provided free bicycles that were supposed to be used for one trip and then left for someone else. Within a month, most of the bikes had been stolen and the rest were found in nearby canals.”

    Turns out, per the same article, this is a really poplar leftist idea. Hundreds of “free” bike plans all over the world.

    I want free government unicycles. It’s good exercise, and it will be really funny to watch. And the administrators of this program are absolutely required to use it as their only means of transportation.

  4. TheAJ Avatar
    TheAJ

    The bike share program is not “free” moron. The NYT article indicates that there are less than 15 trucks supporting 40,000 daily commuters. That sounds like a good ratio to me.

    As far as the term “share” have you ever heard of Zipcar? Its a car “share” program. Its a private company too. It’s called a share program because members can utilize an asset without owning an asset. Your ignorant reaction to immediately conclude SOCIALISM indicates anal-retentiveness and perhaps paranoia rather than any sort of ability to understand the logic behind a local initiative.

    The jealousy / inferiority complex of rural / suburban conservatives is a marvel to witness. All this talk about transferring governing governance from the federal level to the state and local level is, not surprisingly, all talk and really secondary to Hating Liberals. Amusing to see Eric outraged over a local program 750 miles away from him, has no impact on him whatsoever. Why do people who want hate New Yorkers care about and scrutinize every thing the city does?

    This is largely private undertaking with government subsidies, to address a public problem through private sector means. This is was at one point considered by the “libertarians” the ideal method of providing public goods without expanding government. But no, for some ideologues, reading just involves picking up the buzz words, “New York” . .. “government” . . . “Bloomberg” . . “SHARE” . . .

    Wouldn’t it have just made more sense to rename this post “Look, Liberals with an idea! I hate Liberals. Stalin.”

  5. Man Mountain Molehill Avatar
    Man Mountain Molehill

    Something I don’t get. Why should there be a balancing problem? If the system worked as intended, why would someone ride a bike somewhere without riding it back? Why would there be any need to truck bikes around? Are they riding bikes to work and taking the subway home? Do the bikes disappear into a wormhole?? Get stolen??? Where are they? Inquiring minds want to know.

    STALIN STALIN STALIN STALIN STALIN STALIN STALIN STALIN STALIN STALIN

  6. Veeshir Avatar

    If only the real world would stop intruding on such well-meant plans.

  7. Man Mountain Molehill Avatar
    Man Mountain Molehill

    To answer lefty up there, I have heard of Zipcar. It’s a PRIVATE company. It’s not a government program, so why should I care? I guess car sharing makes some sort of sense for people who don’t drive often, just the occasional trip to Hole Fools to stock up on fresh arugula or some such. Some of us have to drive on a daily basis, and need immediate access to a vehicle.

    Why should privately owned Zipcar have any relevance to arguments against spending taxpayers money on yet another leftist masturbation fantasy? Like HOV lanes that actually cause more congestion. There’s a difference between what sounds good and what works, not that you could ever tell the difference.

    Stalin! Stalin! Stalin! Stalin!
    Stalin! Stalin! Stalin! Stalin!
    Stalin! Stalin! Stalin! Stalin!
    Stalin! Stalin! Stalin! Stalin!

    There, happy now?

  8. TheAJ Avatar
    TheAJ

    The Stupidity is strong in this one. There is nothing free about this program. A $95 annual membership gets you 30 minutes free per ride and after that there’s a charge.

    And if you were on wikipedia why didn’t you read up on Citibike? Its supported by corporate sponsorships. Its not run by the government.

    Some of us have to drive on a daily basis, and need immediate access to a vehicle.

    I hope you’re driving on private roads, commie!

    Why should privately owned Zipcar have any relevance to arguments against spending taxpayers money on yet another leftist masturbation fantasy? Like HOV lanes that actually cause more congestion. There’s a difference between what sounds good and what works, not that you could ever tell the difference.

    Well, reading would have answered this question. But maybe that’s too much to expect.

    Anyway, why do you care so much anyway? Its a lefty masturbation dream being implemented in a left city. Nobody in New York really cares about you, why do you care so much about how New Yorkers care to govern themselves?

    Maybe the libertarians here need another lesson here on what their ideology is actually supposed to be out because it looks like for more than a few, its about ideological warfare and crushing liberals. Eric, do you want to take the lead on educating your ignorants?

  9. Frank Avatar
    Frank

    ideological warfare and crushing liberals
    The only warfare going on is by the ideological leftists who comprise Critical Mass demonstrations. My only concern is that next time I’m in The City (SF) it isn’t on the last Friday of the month. I would hate to get blood on the Jeep’s bumper, but hey, what happens, happens.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Mass_%28cycling%29

  10. Frank Avatar
    Frank

    p.s.:
    STALIN, STALIN, STALIN, STALIN
    STALIN, STALIN, STALIN, STALIN
    STALIN, STALIN, STALIN, STALIN

  11. Man Mountain Molehill Avatar
    Man Mountain Molehill

    It isn’t about ideological warfare. It’s about hippie punching! Yeehah!!!!

  12. Ken Mitchell Avatar
    Ken Mitchell

    TheAJ sez: “As far as the term “share” have you ever heard of Zipcar? Its a car “share” program. Its a private company too.”

    Great idea! Too bad that it’s running into problems everywhere, from taxicab companies who see this as unfair competition. So the taxis are “rent-seeking”, lobbying the local governments to block Zipcar from operating at all, or from vising the airport, or doing any of the things that Zipcar (or a half-dozen other competitors) could do better and cheaper than a fleet of government-licensed taxicabs can do.

  13. TheAJ Avatar
    TheAJ

    The only warfare going on is by the ideological leftists who comprise Critical Mass demonstrations. My only concern is that next time I’m in The City (SF) it isn’t on the last Friday of the month. I would hate to get blood on the Jeep’s bumper, but hey, what happens, happens.

    Must be difficult living under the tyranical regime. If only Hussein Stalin didn’t force you to go cross the bay bridge.

    Great idea! Too bad that it’s running into problems everywhere, from taxicab companies who see this as unfair competition. So the taxis are “rent-seeking”, lobbying the local governments to block Zipcar from operating at all, or from vising the airport, or doing any of the things that Zipcar (or a half-dozen other competitors) could do better and cheaper than a fleet of government-licensed taxicabs can do.. 1. You are thinking of Uber. Atleast get your facts straight. 2. Those taxi lobbyists are just doing what every other red-blooded American would do: fight the enviro-nazis looking to “SHARE” hybrid cars.

  14. Man Mountain Molehill Avatar
    Man Mountain Molehill

    After a very short initial period Zipcar costs $73 an hour to drive. This is a good idea why? Budget is advertizing $10.95 a day deals, for example.

    Hey ThugJ or whatever your name is, have any arguments why the free bike is a good idea. Y’know, like cost/benefit analysis, empiracle case

  15. Man Mountain Molehill Avatar
    Man Mountain Molehill

    Weird, it just posted itself. Empirical case, evidence, anything other than insults??? Of course not, you’re just another reflexive lefty with no knowledge or ideas.

  16. TheAJ Avatar
    TheAJ

    After a very short initial period Zipcar costs $73 an hour to drive. This is a good idea why? Budget is advertizing $10.95 a day deals, for example.

    1. I’ve rented for anywhere between $12 for two hours to $32 for two hours max. $73? That’s just bad math.

    Empirical case, evidence, anything other than insults???

    This comes right after Hey ThugJ. The irony.

    The only evidence I need is that Zipcar was recently purchased for $500MM by Avis, 40% premium over stock price. It simply could not produce cash on a standalone basis. However, the company was very innovative and the value of its systems, engineers and model could justify the cost. Now some of this thinking requires business acumen, so I don’t expect you to understand anything I say, but the fact is, the improvement in your rental car experience can be traced back to the growth of Zipcar. Zipcar drove the industry model to eliminate lines by pre-assigning cars, introducing keyless entry, installing EZPass on the windshields. I used Zipcar to get a round in because I can walk down to the garage jump in my car and leave. the $10.95 rental is great if you (a) live in Grand Rapids, Michigan and (b) enjoy going to the airport and waiting in line to pick up your car.

    Can you please continue to spell the word “empirical” as “empiracle?” I find it amusing.

    Hey ThugJ or whatever your name is, have any arguments why the free bike is a good idea. Y’know, like cost/benefit analysis, empiracle case

    How is this argument: For the 7th time, the bike is not free.