JCishome wrote:
Thanks elsquid. Anyone have any idea how those numbers match up to the projections?

On a related note, is there interconnectivity between the JC and Hoboken systems? It seems to me I saw some of their bikes in our racks (not to turn this into a Sharks vs. Jets thing).

tommyc_37 wrote:
I guess it's almost as convenient to just drop off a Citibike at the Paulus Hook ferry and pick another one up at WFC. But it's annoying that you can cross rivers and boroughs with the same bike, but not from JC. It's almost like, well what's the point of an integrated system? Oh well, maybe it will change over time.

Either way; I just signed up yesterday so I'm excited to get started. I'm low on the experience scale of urban street bicycling, so I have a lot to learn and I guess I should probably get a helmet.

hero69 wrote:
i believe there are usually plenty of citibikes to be had around wfc in the am

tommyc_37 wrote:
Is it the same policy with dropping off bikes between separate boroughs?

tommyc_37 wrote:
Does anybody know if I can hop on a Citibike in JC, jump on a ferry, and ride the Citibike and drop it off near my office in Manhattan? It's not clearly answered in the FAQs on Citibike's page (says you can use it on both sides of the Hudson, but doesn't mention picking up on one side and dropping off on the other).

JerseyCityFrankie wrote:
Getting a citibike station close to the Hoboken PATH station would make perfect logical sense and I wonder why the nearest JC citibike station isn't as close as possible? As it is, if you want to get off PATH at Hoboken station the nearest citibike station is at River Drive South and Newport Parkway and in my opinion it should be right up against the Hoboken boarder at 14th St at Newport Green park, where there is PLENTY of room for it in a very bike friendly corner of town.

dwocius wrote:
i wonder if the JCPD has more pressing matters than impounding bikes.

Monroe wrote:
Is it unthinkable that maybe Fulop and Zimmer could fix this in a five minute phone call??

Frank_M wrote:
Quote:

ianmac47 wrote:
Even if its not actually illegal to park commercial bikes at public racks, its a small system without much of a budget. Hoboken might be able to file a lawsuit to get the JCPD to stop, or it might bankrupt the bikeshare system before it gets that far. Even so, the duration of a few months should be enough time for the council to actually make it illegal to park the for profit bikes at public racks.

Isn?t one of the relative benefits of the Nextbike system used by Hudson Bike Share that the bikes can be locked to any rack using their integral cable locks during the rental period? That seems as reasonable as the freedom to park a rental car in a public space.

If HBS is stationing un-hired bikes at public racks, that?s different, but in order to make the distinction, law enforcement would have to pay close attention and create an ongoing public expense in the process. Or... we could just spring for more public bike racks.

ianmac47 wrote:
Even if its not actually illegal to park commercial bikes at public racks, its a small system without much of a budget. Hoboken might be able to file a lawsuit to get the JCPD to stop, or it might bankrupt the bikeshare system before it gets that far. Even so, the duration of a few months should be enough time for the council to actually make it illegal to park the for profit bikes at public racks.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

ianmac47 wrote:
Seems like a pretty easy solution is to simply have the JCPD cut off the locks on the Hoboken bikes and impound them.

I was thinking the same thing. I am not seeing how this is an issue to the extent that it has a very simple solution. Surely there is some sort of statute in the books that prohibits the use of public property for private gain without proper approval. The Council should petition the mayor to direct the JCPD to impound all the offending bikes. That should get the attention of Zimmer and her cohorts. Pretty ballsy on their part to suggest a "solution" of CitiBike placing stations in Hoboken. Hoboken really, really made a mistake in choosing to go with a different system. The logical solution was the one adopted by JC: align yourself with a system already in place across the river which has already worked out the early kinks of any such implementation and which has the added benefit of being of use to potential customers across both sides.

ianmac47 wrote:
Seems like a pretty easy solution is to simply have the JCPD cut off the locks on the Hoboken bikes and impound them.

elsquid wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
... By the same logic, a person, or a couple, that chooses to remain child-free can and should be able to avoid paying school taxes. And, since I never get sick, I should be allowed to pay less taxes to support hospitals. The thing about taxes is that we all have to pay them, whether we derive a direct benefit or not.

This argument can get very reductionist on all sides, but there are huge differences between your examples (and many public services) and constant pandering to the privately owned passenger car.

We accept taxation to pay for other people's children's education, to fight other people's fires, to police other people's neighborhoods, etc., because to some degree, we all have at least the potential to need these services or are affected by them in some way; they are broadly essential to the community.

I don't have children, but, you know, somebody has to. I hope my apartment never catches fire, but it might, and also I don't want you to die in a fire.

Transportation is essential too. But I didn't say "cars," I said "transportation."

Yes, we're all willing to pay for some accommodation for privately owned passenger car transport (even though they are the dirtiest, most dangerous, least sustainable form of ground transport, a mode that every level of government has the official goal of reducing).

But prioritizing that one FORM of transport over all others, to the insane degree that is currently practiced, is a different story. Your (correct) logic that transport is everyone's business indicates that biking and walking and mass transit are also everybody's business, and it's perfectly fair for users of those modes to demand a bigger share of resources, both because it's our choice and because it also happens to be good policy on a dozen other grounds.

bodhipooh wrote:
... By the same logic, a person, or a couple, that chooses to remain child-free can and should be able to avoid paying school taxes. And, since I never get sick, I should be allowed to pay less taxes to support hospitals. The thing about taxes is that we all have to pay them, whether we derive a direct benefit or not.