Tuesday, May 8, 2012


Why should a cyclist like myself be so opposed to the bike share program that the Bloomberg Administration has put in place?

A. It is a unilateral, shameless, city-sponsored monopoly.

B. As if we have not had enough policy done TO us, rather than FOR us, now future bike policy will be dominated by the FOR-PROFIT company that runs this bike "share," just like car insurance companies control automobile policy.  The city hopes to gain revenue, the corporation does as well, and it will own a sizable stake in the matter--up to 10,000 bicycles at up to 600 locations! 

C. As a cyclist and city resident, my voice just got smaller.

D. I suppose that conceivably, insurance (bike share bikes come with it) and registration aren't far behind, which sucks because:

     1. Cycling should be free.

     2. Cycling is a low-cost transportation alternative for low-income people--always has been--and now that is threatened.

E. It is no one's business where I bike or when I bike and cycling is now being put "on the grid" so to speak (I could be wrong, but I think Alta's bikes will be equipped with GPS for tracking bike trips.). I don't Facebook, My Space, or pay my bills online--I am content to be just a person.

F. IF it is even modestly successful, then the bicycle traffic will be terrible and the city will have been successful in creating the worst kind of congestion.  I know the targets are cars--foolishness--but it will impact serious bicycle commuters.  The system wasn't broke and I don't get this business. 

Labels: , , , , , , ,


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home