5 ms·

This article is one of the most rediculous thing I've ever read. San Francisco needs those bikes for people to get around because the public transportation in

by tbrock 9y ago

This article is one of the most rediculous thing I've ever read. San Francisco needs those bikes for people to get around because the public transportation in SF is downright awful. The "subway" is composed of cars from many lines that travel through a single tube and then go on the street and become subject to the traffic. I walk faster than many bus lines. If anything, the bikes make life easier for everyone here and that is a good thing.

KirinDave 9y ago
That's sort of besides the point, as the article points out. Many people realize these are in fact an economic boon. But since the rollout was handled poorly (particularly by the city) it's unsurprising that folks objected to parking and space being displaced without any clear explanation of the value proposition.
- tbrock 9y ago
  Does the value proposition of bikes for rent at lower cost than provided by existing bike rentals needs to be explained? A single rack might displace 2 parking spaces at the most.
  - KirinDave 9y ago
    > Does the value proposition of bikes for rent at lower cost than provided by existing bike rentals needs to be explained? The cost of it, its availability, and eligibility certainly needs to be explained. How would anyone know them otherwise? I've seen multiple stations and the signage explaining the program did not answer my questions, but rather referred me to a website. That's not an option for everyone, nor were the signs I saw in a diversity of languages to improve comprehension. Maybe the stations I saw lacked these features and others have them, so I will accept correction there.
    - mrgordon 9y ago
      You might be right here that the stations could do a better job of explaining different options, but it seems like people will tell their friends about it and learn about it that way if its useful. To be honest though, almost every major city has a bike share now so I am a little perplexed that we need to reexplain its value from first principles.
sidlls 9y ago
Those bikes cost money to rent, though. The Bay Area Bike Share costs $3 for a 30 minute rental. That's expensive compared to the Muni. The annual pass is a $124 fee. That's a steep one time fee for someone who's barely making ends meet. These folks who bike generally aren't renting bike shares. They're scavenging cheap used kids' bikes off Craigslist.
- tbrock 9y ago
  The muni pass costs $70/month. One year of bike costs less than 2 months of muni, not sure the cost argument holds up. If you are actually using it to commute, and not to hipster around town, it's very cheap. As another commenter pointed out they even have a program where you can get a yearly pass for $5 if you qualify. I simply can't see this as worse than not having it.
  - sidlls 9y ago
    Sounds like you've never been poor. Often it's easier for a poor person to pay daily than to scrounge for a pass. They don't have $70 in the bank today, but they have enough to ride daily until their next payday.
    - tbrock 9y ago
      That makes sense but why would you be enraged about this if you were in that situation? It's not hurting anyone besides maybe car owners who aren't in the category you mention. I can't afford a lot of things but if having them available improves the life of others why bother complaining if it doesn't harm me.
- Bluecobra 9y ago
  I would think the poorest poor person can afford $5/year: https://help.fordgobike.com/hc/en-us/articles/115000247832-Tell-me-more-about-the-low-income-program- https://help.fordgobike.com/hc/en-us/articles/115000247832-T... "Bike Share for All provides a one-time $5 annual membership for qualifying residents. The program also includes a cash payment option for those who do not have a debit or credit card. Bike Share for All is available to Bay Area residents ages 18 and older who qualify for Calfresh, SFMTA (Low Income) Lifeline Passes or PG&E CARE utility discount."

by tbrock 9y ago

KirinDave 9y ago

That's sort of besides the point, as the article points out. Many people realize these are in fact an economic boon. But since the rollout was handled poorly (particularly by the city) it's unsurprising that folks objected to parking and space being displaced without any clear explanation of the value proposition.

tbrock 9y ago
Does the value proposition of bikes for rent at lower cost than provided by existing bike rentals needs to be explained? A single rack might displace 2 parking spaces at the most.
- KirinDave 9y ago
  > Does the value proposition of bikes for rent at lower cost than provided by existing bike rentals needs to be explained? The cost of it, its availability, and eligibility certainly needs to be explained. How would anyone know them otherwise? I've seen multiple stations and the signage explaining the program did not answer my questions, but rather referred me to a website. That's not an option for everyone, nor were the signs I saw in a diversity of languages to improve comprehension. Maybe the stations I saw lacked these features and others have them, so I will accept correction there.
  - mrgordon 9y ago
    You might be right here that the stations could do a better job of explaining different options, but it seems like people will tell their friends about it and learn about it that way if its useful. To be honest though, almost every major city has a bike share now so I am a little perplexed that we need to reexplain its value from first principles.

sidlls 9y ago

Those bikes cost money to rent, though. The Bay Area Bike Share costs $3 for a 30 minute rental. That's expensive compared to the Muni. The annual pass is a $124 fee. That's a steep one time fee for someone who's barely making ends meet. These folks who bike generally aren't renting bike shares. They're scavenging cheap used kids' bikes off Craigslist.

tbrock 9y ago
The muni pass costs $70/month. One year of bike costs less than 2 months of muni, not sure the cost argument holds up. If you are actually using it to commute, and not to hipster around town, it's very cheap. As another commenter pointed out they even have a program where you can get a yearly pass for $5 if you qualify. I simply can't see this as worse than not having it.
- sidlls 9y ago
  Sounds like you've never been poor. Often it's easier for a poor person to pay daily than to scrounge for a pass. They don't have $70 in the bank today, but they have enough to ride daily until their next payday.
  - tbrock 9y ago
    That makes sense but why would you be enraged about this if you were in that situation? It's not hurting anyone besides maybe car owners who aren't in the category you mention. I can't afford a lot of things but if having them available improves the life of others why bother complaining if it doesn't harm me.
Bluecobra 9y ago
I would think the poorest poor person can afford $5/year: https://help.fordgobike.com/hc/en-us/articles/115000247832-Tell-me-more-about-the-low-income-program- https://help.fordgobike.com/hc/en-us/articles/115000247832-T... "Bike Share for All provides a one-time $5 annual membership for qualifying residents. The program also includes a cash payment option for those who do not have a debit or credit card. Bike Share for All is available to Bay Area residents ages 18 and older who qualify for Calfresh, SFMTA (Low Income) Lifeline Passes or PG&E CARE utility discount."