JerseyCityFrankie wrote:
Boy I hope this works, it would be great for my quality of life! Also, what did old man Bogiano mean when he said he didn't want cyclist on "the opposite side of the street"? Opposite from what?

Monroe wrote:
OK, let's get this straight-I'm not opposed to bike sharing programs, I just don't want to pay for it with higher taxes.

...

Monroe wrote:
One of the drivers for the push for more bikes is that they reduce pollution from cars.

Given that cars now are emitting far less pollutants than ever before, and as new technologies come out and older cars get recycled, we can expect that to far outweigh any incremental increase in bike versus car usage.

That's why cars will continue to be the preferred method of transportation.

And saying 'a high percentage of people don't own cars' is silly. In the context to bike sharing, people who work overwhelmingly do own cars. Not a lot of mass transit from suburb to suburb, or across the great breadth of this land. Every mpg increase of 1 mpg likely covers what benefit of bike riding does for the environment over years and years.

Now, as a daily recreational bike rider during fair months, I totally agree with the health benefits.

Mass transit use and car ownership[edit]

Crowds on an F subway train on a Sunday afternoon.
New York City is distinguished from other U.S. cities for its low personal automobile ownership and its significant use of public transportation. New York City has, by far, the highest rate of public transportation use of any American city, with 54.2% of workers commuting to work by this means in 2006.[4] About one in every three users of mass transit in the United States and two-thirds of the nation's rail riders live in New York City or its suburbs.[5] New York is the only city in the United States where over half of all households do not own a car (Manhattan's non-ownership is even higher - around 75%; nationally, the rate is 8%).[6]


Percentage of workers using public transportation for their commute and the mean travel time for major cities in the United States in 2006.
New York City also has the longest mean travel time for commuters (39 minutes) among major U.S. cities.[4]

Environmental and social issues[edit]
New York City's uniquely high rate of public transit use makes it one of the most energy-efficient cities in the United States. Gasoline consumption in the city today is at the rate of the national average in the 1920s.[7] New York City's high rate of transit use saved 1.8 billion US gallons (6,800,000 m3) of oil in 2006 and $4.6 billion in gasoline costs. New York saves half of all the oil saved by transit nationwide.

The reduction in oil consumption meant 11.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide pollution was kept out of the air.[8] The New York City metro area was ranked by the Brookings Institution as the U.S. metro area with the lowest per-capita transportation-related carbon footprint and as the fourth lowest overall per-capita carbon footprint in 2005 among the 100 largest metro areas of the United States, outranked only by Honolulu, Los Angeles and Portland.[9]

The city's transportation system, and the population density it makes possible, also have other effects. Scientists at Columbia University examined data from 13,102 adults in the city's five boroughs and identified correlations between New York's built environment and public health. New Yorkers residing in densely populated, pedestrian-friendly areas have significantly lower body mass index (BMI) levels compared to other New Yorkers. Three characteristics of the city environment?living in areas with mixed residential and commercial uses, living near bus and subway stops and living in population-dense areas?were found to be inversely associated with BMI levels.[10]

See also: Environmental issues in New York City
Commuting/modal split[edit]

The Verrazano-Narrows Bridge links the boroughs of Brooklyn and Staten Island.
Of all people who commute to work in New York City, 41% use the subway, 24% drive alone, 12% take the bus, 10% walk to work, 2% travel by commuter rail, 5% carpool, 1% use a taxi, 0.6% ride their bicycle to work, and 0.2% travel by ferry.[11] 54% of households in New York City do not own a car, and rely on public transportation.[12] While the so-called car culture dominates in most American cities, mass transit has a defining influence on New York life.

Monroe wrote:
95% of American households own a car, and 85% of people commute by car.

I'd like to know how many commute by bike, and how high that could go up if bike share programs advance.

Luckily, government driven mandates mean that cars not only are using much less gasoline than before, but advanced engineering and materials mean that cars are lighter-although the trend to luxobarge SUV's is slowing that somewhat. But when Ford shaves 700 pounds off the most popular vehicle in their fleet it's a sign of more to come.

So emissions are steadily dropping, mpg going up, cars weighing less all point to less damage to the planet and to the roads the cars use.

And since electric cars get a lot of electricity from coal plants, and who knows what damage their batteries will do to landfills, they aren't a perfect solution either.

Monroe wrote:
Didn't you just write this? Yes, infants don't own cars. But given that 85% of people commute by car, and that 95% of households own at least one car . . . well, you get the idea.

when a high percentage of people don't own cars.

Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
95% of American households own a car, and 85% of people commute by car.

I'd like to know how many commute by bike, and how high that could go up if bike share programs advance.

Luckily, government driven mandates mean that cars not only are using much less gasoline than before, but advanced engineering and materials mean that cars are lighter-although the trend to luxobarge SUV's is slowing that somewhat. But when Ford shaves 700 pounds off the most popular vehicle in their fleet it's a sign of more to come.

So emissions are steadily dropping, mpg going up, cars weighing less all point to less damage to the planet and to the roads the cars use.

And since electric cars get a lot of electricity from coal plants, and who knows what damage their batteries will do to landfills, they aren't a perfect solution either.

Near 100% of households own a TV. And nearly everyone has shoes. I don't get your point.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
95% of American households own a car, and 85% of people commute by car.

I'd like to know how many commute by bike, and how high that could go up if bike share programs advance.

Luckily, government driven mandates mean that cars not only are using much less gasoline than before, but advanced engineering and materials mean that cars are lighter-although the trend to luxobarge SUV's is slowing that somewhat. But when Ford shaves 700 pounds off the most popular vehicle in their fleet it's a sign of more to come.

So emissions are steadily dropping, mpg going up, cars weighing less all point to less damage to the planet and to the roads the cars use.

And since electric cars get a lot of electricity from coal plants, and who knows what damage their batteries will do to landfills, they aren't a perfect solution either.

Near 100% of households own a TV. And nearly everyone has shoes. I don't get your point.

Monroe wrote:
95% of American households own a car, and 85% of people commute by car.

I'd like to know how many commute by bike, and how high that could go up if bike share programs advance.

Luckily, government driven mandates mean that cars not only are using much less gasoline than before, but advanced engineering and materials mean that cars are lighter-although the trend to luxobarge SUV's is slowing that somewhat. But when Ford shaves 700 pounds off the most popular vehicle in their fleet it's a sign of more to come.

So emissions are steadily dropping, mpg going up, cars weighing less all point to less damage to the planet and to the roads the cars use.

And since electric cars get a lot of electricity from coal plants, and who knows what damage their batteries will do to landfills, they aren't a perfect solution either.

elsquid wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
We should also be lobbying ways that put bikes into the hands of a many people as possible. The best way would be to make all bikes and bicycle gear tax-deductible at a state or federal level.

There must be similar things that can be done at a local level like getting corporate sponsorship to hand out bike gift cards to high school grads and low-income families...the City/County returning some budget surplus in the form of bike vouchers to property tax payers...

Wow... More leftist crap about giving things away without expecting people to earn them or do anything to carve a living for themselves. Have we forgotten the most basic of notions that a man (or, woman) can and will derive pleasure and satisfaction from the fruits of his or her labor? I can see making a case for some tax relief to encourage a behavior, as suggested at first, but the idea that cities should give away bicycles is just asinine. The problem with idealists is that they only delve in ideas, never bothering with reality. Give out bike vouchers for paying your property taxes? What happens after a year or two? You get to keep a bike collection? After 10 years? And, what happens after a bicycle handed out by the government breaks down? Who is going to pay to fix it? Because I guarantee you that people that get a free bike will expect free maintenance and repairs for life... Why, you ask? Because they never had to pay for it and don't understand that things cost money and through misguided governmental policies we have decoupled personal responsibility and self esteem from the person and their actions, instead fostering a culture of entitlement.

It's fair to be skeptical of government giveaways of anything; you pay taxes and want the money spent wisely. I agree that things received totally free are often undervalued by the recipients; often a partial subsidy is better. I also think it would be best if private organizations do more to put bikes under butts in Jersey City, as the excellent Newark Bike Exchange does in Newark, and I may have some further thoughts on that in the months to come.

BUT: You are, like so many people, holding bikes to one standard of free-market rigor while not holding motor vehicles to the same standard.

Why is it OK to pay looooooots of our tax dollars to bus public school kids to and from school, and to build and maintain roads and parking lots etc. around those schools so their parents can drive them, all causing more pollution, traffic, road carnage, childhood obesity, etc.--but terrible leftist crap to give kids (or maybe just kids from low-income families) a bicycle and tell them to ride to school like I did?

The city and the school district also already spend lots of your money to give kids (and adults) access to exercise and recreation, via public sports fields, parks, school sports teams, municipal sports and exercise programs, usually free or heavily subsidized, so why would it be crazy to give a low-income kid a bike to promote exercise and wholesome recreation? How is that so different?

If it's OK to give low-income people aid for food, housing, etc., why not cheap transportation (which tends to make it easier for them to get jobs, or better jobs)?

Why is it OK to give away acres and acres of valuable public real estate for people to park their cars in the street? Where is the free market for that? $15 a year for a parking sticker for land worth hundreds at market rates?

You are already being forced by your governments, in a hundred ways, to pay for people to drive and own passenger cars, a transport system that causes immeasurable social harm as well as being extremely expensive for the taxpayer. How about you fight to remove ALL that taxpayer subsidy and centralized planning in favor of the car, and I'll forget all about bike subsidies for all but the poorest people. We won't need them, because when car owners are forced to pay the true free-market value of car use, bikes will become the obvious choice for far more people.

Monroe wrote:
@Pebble, here is the link-several cities in NJ offer inexpensive bikes, which are often donated then serviced by volunteers before resale. All at no cost to taxpayers.

http://www.bikeexchangenj.org/

@elsquid, when almost half of citizens pay ZERO Federal taxes it's obvious the big earners are paying the 'fair share' of the cost of roads, mass transit, etc that are funded by the Federal government. So yes, many 'users' pay nothing to benefit from, well, everything the Federal government provides.

val7101 wrote:
Is the idea that to have bikes up in the heights so people can ride to Grove St or Newport or wherever and dock them and get on the Path or is the idea they take them on the Path and continue riding them in or dock them in Lower Manhattan? Are they doing this during rush hour? Citibikes are big and take up alot of space. And what about the time constraint and the fees if you are forced to go over time because of train delays?
If the idea is just to ride to the station and dock them there, where are they going to put the tremendous number of docking spaces you would need to make this truly effective?
I think the theory is great but the logistics are extremely difficult even without considering the cost, which is exorbitant.
It's not clear what they are really trying to acheive.

Monroe wrote:
Much of the miles driven are user supported-gas tax (thankfully, one that isn't high), Parkway and Turnpike tolls, and NJ income taxes. Subsidies rightly go to mass transit operations for the most part.

Creating another NJ government department to give free bikes and bike repair is dumb. What's next? Free computers? Netflix?

Having a bike isn't a civil right, you know.

Monroe wrote:
Pebs, honey, I already gave you an existing alternative that is in place, works, and doesn't require my taxes increasing to support it.

As far as taxes and deductions, all those people that use that are the ones paying for the 47% of US citizens who pay zero Federal income tax.

Monroe wrote:
Much of the miles driven are user supported-gas tax (thankfully, one that isn't high), Parkway and Turnpike tolls, and NJ income taxes. Subsidies rightly go to mass transit operations for the most part.

Creating another NJ government department to give free bikes and bike repair is dumb. What's next? Free computers? Netflix?

Having a bike isn't a civil right, you know.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
We should also be lobbying ways that put bikes into the hands of a many people as possible. The best way would be to make all bikes and bicycle gear tax-deductible at a state or federal level.

There must be similar things that can be done at a local level like getting corporate sponsorship to hand out bike gift cards to high school grads and low-income families...the City/County returning some budget surplus in the form of bike vouchers to property tax payers...

Wow... More leftist crap about giving things away without expecting people to earn them or do anything to carve a living for themselves. Have we forgotten the most basic of notions that a man (or, woman) can and will derive pleasure and satisfaction from the fruits of his or her labor? I can see making a case for some tax relief to encourage a behavior, as suggested at first, but the idea that cities should give away bicycles is just asinine. The problem with idealists is that they only delve in ideas, never bothering with reality. Give out bike vouchers for paying your property taxes? What happens after a year or two? You get to keep a bike collection? After 10 years? And, what happens after a bicycle handed out by the government breaks down? Who is going to pay to fix it? Because I guarantee you that people that get a free bike will expect free maintenance and repairs for life... Why, you ask? Because they never had to pay for it and don't understand that things cost money and through misguided governmental policies we have decoupled personal responsibility and self esteem from the person and their actions, instead fostering a culture of entitlement.

bodhipooh wrote:
So, are you saying that two wrongs make a right?

The fleecing of our country by opportunists (whether those at the bottom that exploit the social safety net programs, or those at the top that find ever-creative ways to shirk their taxes) is a shame. I denounce them both equally. I'm no party-line simpleton (in fact, most would call me a RINO) but I do believe that we have lost all sense of "work hard and pull yourself up" in our society. And, when I see "free bikes for all!" I can't help but see more government handouts with little thought behind it.

Monroe wrote:
State run bike store in JC? First, nice way to screw the privately owned bike stores. Yeah, let's ask for more suburban tax support while putting people out of work and damaging the tax base!

And, nearby in Newark, you can see a great example of how to provide inexpensive bikes to the poor-people donate bikes, other people donate their time to fix them up and to sell them cheaply.

Putting the state in charge would only screw things up-just imagine the salaries and benefits to the people who would manage it.

http://bike.bgcn.org/

Monroe wrote:
State run bike store in JC? First, nice way to screw the privately owned bike stores. Yeah, let's ask for more suburban tax support while putting people out of work and damaging the tax base!

And, nearby in Newark, you can see a great example of how to provide inexpensive bikes to the poor-people donate bikes, other people donate their time to fix them up and to sell them cheaply.

Putting the state in charge would only screw things up-just imagine the salaries and benefits to the people who would manage it.

http://bike.bgcn.org/