The city should have pulled the plug on this project years ago.
It takes resources away from active transportation and pedestrian safety projects, it ignores the city's alleged equity goals and it doesn't do what PBOT and the BTA promised it would do.
The need to keep up with other bike cities so that beaurocrats and politicians --most of whom don't ride --can slap each other on the back and give each other awards is not a compelling justification for this program.
@euphonious, Agreed. It's a silly waste of money for something I've never heard a soul actually advocate for. If you want to use a bike, buy a bike. There is a decent bike for virtually every budget. If you want to rent a bike, there are a dozen convenient places to rent one. There will be no net gain in people coming to Portland because we have bike share while some other city doesn't.
@Commenty Colin The BTA advocated hard for it, and actually had an online petition and a campaign to email the City Council in favor of it. They got their members --which they have lots --to clamor for it.
What they didn't tell their members was that the funding they were agitating for was originally supposed to go for pedestrian and bike safety improvements to SW Barbur Blvd.
Oops.
But what's a little white lie to your own members when you're in the hunt to be Cycling Magazine's most Platinumest Bike City ever?
I think I mentioned this in a different thread the other day, but a successful bike share system is one that is used by people who don't live in the area where it's operating (because those people will just use their own bikes). The target shouldn't be close-in residents. The target should be people who work in the area but live out in the suburbs; and tourists. There's far more of those people in places like New York or London than in Portland, but we still have our fair share and enough to make a modest system like this work.
With that in mind, having most of the bikes downtown makes perfect sense; equality of access outside of the central core is pretty much irrelevant. The map there is actually a pretty decent attempt at covering the most important areas. I'd question the North Portland block (which seems to have been thrown in there as a sop to a low-income area rather than any logical reason); and omitting Washington and Laurelhurst Parks seems like a mistake.
As for the budget, it's important to ask how much marketing there is going to be for incoming tourists (adverts at the airport and on the MAX?). That's absolutely essential to make this thing more than just a boondoggle.
"Equality of access outside of the central core is pretty much irrelevant."
Really? The bulk of Portlanders live in East Portland and we pay more in property taxes due to "tax compression."
Downtown bike share is irrelevant to us.
Let the hotels pay for bike share- I couldn't give a rat's ass about tourists. Let them rent bikes from the existing bike rental businesses. While we are at it- why doesn't AirBnB pay for bike share, since they are bringing in so many crappy tourists to displace residents.
This is beyond stupid.
One can still advocate for bikes while understanding this to be a failing idea.
At least for tax-paying citizens.
Tourists, in the summer, will applaud our tax-funded giveaway.
But is that enough to generate more business?
The city should have pulled the plug on this project years ago.
It takes resources away from active transportation and pedestrian safety projects, it ignores the city's alleged equity goals and it doesn't do what PBOT and the BTA promised it would do.
The need to keep up with other bike cities so that beaurocrats and politicians --most of whom don't ride --can slap each other on the back and give each other awards is not a compelling justification for this program.
I truly don't care that New York has one.
What they didn't tell their members was that the funding they were agitating for was originally supposed to go for pedestrian and bike safety improvements to SW Barbur Blvd.
Oops.
But what's a little white lie to your own members when you're in the hunt to be Cycling Magazine's most Platinumest Bike City ever?
With that in mind, having most of the bikes downtown makes perfect sense; equality of access outside of the central core is pretty much irrelevant. The map there is actually a pretty decent attempt at covering the most important areas. I'd question the North Portland block (which seems to have been thrown in there as a sop to a low-income area rather than any logical reason); and omitting Washington and Laurelhurst Parks seems like a mistake.
As for the budget, it's important to ask how much marketing there is going to be for incoming tourists (adverts at the airport and on the MAX?). That's absolutely essential to make this thing more than just a boondoggle.
Really? The bulk of Portlanders live in East Portland and we pay more in property taxes due to "tax compression."
Downtown bike share is irrelevant to us.
Let the hotels pay for bike share- I couldn't give a rat's ass about tourists. Let them rent bikes from the existing bike rental businesses. While we are at it- why doesn't AirBnB pay for bike share, since they are bringing in so many crappy tourists to displace residents.
One can still advocate for bikes while understanding this to be a failing idea.
At least for tax-paying citizens.
Tourists, in the summer, will applaud our tax-funded giveaway.
But is that enough to generate more business?