|
Post by slh1234 on Jul 31, 2011 14:50:52 GMT
The hills are a bit steep in SF. All the bikes would end up at the bottoms of the hills because noone would be bothered to cycle to the tops. You Americans and your funny attitudes. The city area of San Francisco is mostly flat. Even if your statement is partially true it's easily balanced by using vans to transport bicycles to the more popular source stations (which still reduces traffic, because lets face it nobody in SF uses public transport because there isn't any except Caltrain). The hills aren't that steep. I imagine the chief problem to bike share schemes in the US is one single thing: American attitudes to going anywhere using any mode of transport other than their car, and lack of respect for anyone who thinks differently. A secondary problem is that you can't actually walk/cycle to many places due to lack of under/over passes around your freeways, but this is easily fixed with a little investment. It'll be interesting to see whether they're successful: www.sfmta.com/cms/bshare/indxbishare.htmFirst, Steve is not American. If you look at his profile, he lives in Devon, UK. You might also find my comments in a later post about what alternative traffic is normally like in San Francisco. This is from someone who lived there for several years. I actually just moved last month. Caltrain is not transportation in San Francisco. It connects the south bay (San Jose/Silicon Valley) with San Francisco, with an occasional route that goes as far south as Gilroy. However; the MUNI in San Francisco has the city itself quite well connected and the BART connects with longer routes and routes that go to the East Bay/Oakland area, and as far south as Millbrae (about mid peninsula). San Francisco has quite a good public transportation system, and it is quite heavily used. What's more, systems such as BART and Caltrain have facilities where you can take your bike onboard with you and ride it at the end of your route. The bike racks are almost always full. You do realize that there is no freeway through San Francisco, don't you? In major cities that do have freeways, there are always "Arterial streets" or "surface streets" or "local routes" or whatever the local vernacular calls them. Freeways are not a hindrance to bike traffic. I'm not sure where you're from, but if you've spent much time in San Francisco you will probably notice some interesting things about the demographics that would probably challenge your statements about American attitudes, even if that was anything more than a generality based on anything more than a prejudice and/or preconceived notion. Some interesting links by the public transportation facilities in the bay area: www.caltrain.org/www.bart.gov/www.sfmta.com/cms/mhome/home50.htmAnd to plan routes using public transportation in the bay area, people often use this: www.511.org/edit: After thinking a bit more: Many metro areas in the US also have bikeways/pedways that are away from the streets themselves so that bikers can get pretty much all over town without riding on the streets much at all. These tend to be in areas with milder climate. My current home is such an area.
|
|
|
Post by cybertiger on Jul 31, 2011 15:20:25 GMT
So from your quotes: 150,000 trips - interesting, but not in the goal Doubling that - interesting, but not in the goal 6,000 - 15,000 annual users - interesting, but not in the goal Planned expansion and planning board grants - interesting, but not related to the goal at all. Those are numbers without full context. To define success as per the stated goal, we need to answer where those riders came from, or what they would have done without this program. Have they just eliminated the need for people to ride their own bike? Walk? Metro? Taxi? Car? When that is explored and answered, then we'll be closer to defining success against their stated goal. Is that clear enough on how the hell I'd define success with that program's stated goal? Oh excuse me I was considering it to be a business, and a clearly profitable one at that. I thought that was how success was defined in the world capital of capitalism. If you can think of a better way to spend $5 million to permanently improve the transport system in DC, perhaps with the possibility that it will one day pay itself back, I'd love to hear it. $5 million typically does not go very far when it comes to transport budgets, even for a country such as the US where you spend so little on your public transport systems.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Jul 31, 2011 15:40:36 GMT
Oh excuse me I was considering it to be a business, and a clearly profitable one at that. I thought that was how success was defined in the world capital of capitalism. In the last of the quotes that you pulled out, did you notice that they were getting 1.9 million dollars in federal funds. Did that sound capitalistic to you? You didn't quote anything that indicated capitalistic success. I didn't see anything in the story that indicated that was true, either. Did you? If you can think of a better way to spend $5 million to permanently improve the transport system in DC, perhaps with the possibility that it will one day pay itself back, I'd love to hear it. Did you see anything in the story that indicated that it may one day pay itself back? I didn't see it in that story. $5 million typically does not go very far when it comes to transport budgets, even for a country such as the US where you spend so little on your public transport systems. You claim to know so much about the US, but when we begin examining what you say, it seems you know so little. As for me, it if pays for itself, then great. But let's not jump into numbers thrown out without context and from that, even without a single number examining returns, start concluding that it is such a great money maker, or that it is something that is going to give such great benefit. We need a little more info than a feature story to draw those conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Jul 31, 2011 16:12:57 GMT
slh1234, that $1.9 million was only for 20 new stations. There was no info about the total cost of the program, but it is likely several times that. Got to figure in maintenance costs, etc. as well. I'd like to know how much taxpayer money per trip or per user, etc. this is costing. And how much fare money it is taking away from cabbies, for example. Typically a govt funded program is equivalent to throwing money down a rat hole.
In Japan, there are many small businesses that rent bikes out on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis. Makes a lot more sense.
|
|
|
Post by cybertiger on Jul 31, 2011 17:09:23 GMT
I've no intention to start a Europe-US flame war, compared to Europe the public transport network is non existent in the states, and attitudes to using it are as stated at least comparatively. SF might have a great public transport network by US standards but compared to most European cities it sucks. Though admittedly we do throw a hell of a lot of money away funding public transport here (I'm not arguing either system is better, just that the attitudes are in general very different).
I've spent only a little time in the states (SF & surrounding area), and attitudes to using public transport were shocking from the Americans I talked to (which I admit is a very biased subset), and the few people I talked to who actually use public transport agreed that in general this was the case compared to Europe.
I spent quite a while researching the funding for the project before I posted and I guess I'll make a more detailed post with substantiating links when I have time.
edit: apologies to steve for assuming he was American.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Jul 31, 2011 18:05:22 GMT
cybertyger, in the USA we value our independence (personal as well as National ) far more than most people in other countries. We even penned a Declaration to that effect a couple hundred years ago. When it comes to transportation it means we generally insist on having the ability and personal freedom to go where we want, when we want, and not be tied to somebody else's schedule or rules - we get enough of that from our employers. This freedom of movement comes with a price of course, but which the vast majority are more than willing to pay. It's inefficient, but there is far more to life than efficiency.
Any number of 'efficiency' minded groups, over the last hundred years or so, have attempted to convince us to ditch our private transportation for public transportation, and in most parts of the country it has failed miserably. Even the majority of those who ride subway systems in places like NYC will still usually have private transportation at home, even if it's only a motor scooter.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jul 31, 2011 18:40:30 GMT
Ah the range. $25k out of pocket subsidized $15k or so to go 23miles in the snow, priceless. I knew our deficit was being put to good use. Funny how there are endorsers but they have not popped even for the $25k. "The data is presented below: Date Temperature (F) Driving Efficiency Cabin Efficiency EV Range Notes 12/30 30 66% 13% 27 1/2 28 64% 15% 25.6 1/5 36 69% 18% 24.7 1/6 28 73% 12% 25.6 1/7 32 66% 15% 23.4 snowing 1/10 33 60% 45% 25.6 1/17 22 68% 12% 26.4 1/18 32 66% 16% 22.8 slippery ice 1/19 38 83% 28% 27.9 1/20 34 89% 32% 31.2 72 eco 1/21 29 79% 21% 27.2 icy 1/24 8 68% 6% 26.6 0.1gal used due to temp"" gm-volt.com/2011/01/26/real-world-chevy-volt-ev-range-experience-in-cold-weather-driving/
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Jul 31, 2011 19:20:46 GMT
TRbixler, you think that's bad. Wait till drivers in Arizona and vicinity learn about what heat and discharge cycles does to Li-Ion. batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/how_to_prolong_lithium_based_batteries Elevated temperature is anything that dwells above 30°C (86°F), and a high voltage is higher than 4.10V/cell. When estimating longevity, these conditions are difficult to assess because the battery state is in constant flux, and so is the temperature in which it operates. Exposing the battery to high temperature and being at full state-of-charge for an extended time can be more damaging than cycling. Manufacturers do not like to talk about these environmental conditions and release information only in confidence when so requested. They'll be swapping out batteries every 2 years, maybe more often. PS: In case anyone is wondering about the credibility of the information on this site: * Research is performed by the Center for Automotive Research at the Ohio State University in collaboration with Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the National Institute of Standards Technology.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Jul 31, 2011 20:09:32 GMT
I've no intention to start a Europe-US flame war, compared to Europe the public transport network is non existent in the states, and attitudes to using it are as stated at least comparatively. SF might have a great public transport network by US standards but compared to most European cities it sucks. Though admittedly we do throw a hell of a lot of money away funding public transport here (I'm not arguing either system is better, just that the attitudes are in general very different). I've spent only a little time in the states (SF & surrounding area), and attitudes to using public transport were shocking from the Americans I talked to (which I admit is a very biased subset), and the few people I talked to who actually use public transport agreed that in general this was the case compared to Europe. First point, if your intent was not to start a flame war, then you might need to change tack a bit. Coming on to educate us Americans about our funny attitudes is probably a very good way to get a flame war started just as it would be for us to come on trying to educate you with your funny ideas, don't you think? Remember your earlier statement of lack of respect for anyone who disagreed? Do you see any of that in the way you approached this thread? Second point, I find it very difficult to reconcile your claim to having spent time in the Bay Area with your earlier claims about SF having no public transportation other than Caltrain, and the statements about freeways. I don't know how you could be in SF and not at least see the cable cars, or the working railroad museum that is worked into part of the transportation system there. Did you not know what the ferry terminal was? Third point, suppose we drop the contention above and just say everything you said up to this point in this post is true. Then at best, you have offered us second hand opinions. When I was working in the Paris area, a couple of the guys I was working with gave me an alternative breakout of RATP which basically translated as "Be prepared to go by foot." If I left it there, then I could pass along a second hand opinion to you that would imply that the Paris public transportation system was inferior to San Francisco. However; I have used the Paris public transportation system. I've also used the San Francisco public transportation system. I used the Seoul public transportation system when I lived there, and likewise the Kunsan public transportation system. In Novi Sad, Serbia, the people I was working with transported me where I needed to go, so I know nothing about their public transportation system or even if they have one. In Auckland, I drove. Most other places I've been to I was either driven, or I drove myself. The point being, I can compare the Paris system with San Fran first hand - not just pass along what some people told me. Basically, public transportation is a PITA anyplace I've had to use it. It gets me where I'm going, though, and in places like San Fran where parking is so difficult and expensive, it made sense to use it. I'm sure you'd be surprised to know that I actually found it to meet my needs as well as the Paris system. Fourth point, even if everything you say, and everything I say is 100% accurate, what we have presented is opinions. "Best" is subjective any way we want to look at it. I look at it as how they met my needs, and how big of a PITA they were to use. We would need a definition for "better" or "best" other than "someone said ... " I spent quite a while researching the funding for the project before I posted and I guess I'll make a more detailed post with substantiating links when I have time. edit: apologies to steve for assuming he was American. I look forward to seeing that research.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Jul 31, 2011 21:08:16 GMT
CuiriousGeorge, I did see the meaning of the 1.9 million, but thank you for pointing it out as I didn't.
In your next post, I think your point can be summed up by saying "We don't have to be like you. We don't really want to be like you," and leaving it there. If expressed like that, I fully agree with the sentiment.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Jul 31, 2011 21:56:26 GMT
CuiriousGeorge, I did see the meaning of the 1.9 million, but thank you for pointing it out as I didn't. In your next post, I think your point can be summed up by saying "We don't have to be like you. We don't really want to be like you," and leaving it there. If expressed like that, I fully agree with the sentiment. That works also. Different strokes for different folks (a'la 1960's ). Feel free to express yourself however you wish, and I'll do the same. That's also a freedom we enjoy in this country. Although there are those who would curtail that particular freedom. Don't really care if you agree or not.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Jul 31, 2011 22:06:41 GMT
That works also. Different strokes for different folks (a'la 1960's ). Feel free to express yourself however you wish, and I'll do the same. That's also a freedom we enjoy in this country. Although there are those who would curtail that particular freedom. Don't really care if you agree or not. Well, then, let me just say, I wish I had a "like" button for that post .
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Jul 31, 2011 22:53:16 GMT
That works also. Different strokes for different folks (a'la 1960's ). Feel free to express yourself however you wish, and I'll do the same. That's also a freedom we enjoy in this country. Although there are those who would curtail that particular freedom. Don't really care if you agree or not. Well, then, let me just say, I wish I had a "like" button for that post . Ok. I'll accept that. You should know something about me. I spent 30 years in the USMC. During that time I shed blood ( mine and the 'enemies'), took lives and saved lives on behalf of this country and the principles which so many now speak of in derogatory terms. I do not, and will not, tolerate those who strive to usurp or contaminate those principles, regardless of whatever reason they may put forth, or who they might be.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 31, 2011 23:33:55 GMT
curiousgeorge: As a fellow veteran, I can only hope that what we see happening since the 1960's is something us older fellers will diligently work against continueing to happen. I remember Ike talking about if we had a very strong military that people in power would be wanting to use it for dishonorable means. Ike had his faults, but one thing he understood was the horrors of war, and that to go to war you needed it to be just. And he also understood the 2nd amendment. That was his main reason that the US did not need a large paid army etc. We already have one ready at all times that would fight with a furry never seen.
We are giving freedoms in the name of security......a very foolish thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Aug 1, 2011 0:08:45 GMT
curiousgeorge: As a fellow veteran, I can only hope that what we see happening since the 1960's is something us older fellers will diligently work against continueing to happen. I remember Ike talking about if we had a very strong military that people in power would be wanting to use it for dishonorable means. Ike had his faults, but one thing he understood was the horrors of war, and that to go to war you needed it to be just. And he also understood the 2nd amendment. That was his main reason that the US did not need a large paid army etc. We already have one ready at all times that would fight with a furry never seen. We are giving freedoms in the name of security......a very foolish thing to do. I understand your comment, but others may not. I think you meant dishonorable 'ends' , rather than 'means'. As to freedom v. security, there is a need for both but the balance needs to be in favor of individual liberty even tho that means that the individual must accept a degree of individual responsibility that many are not willing to shoulder. Responsibility is a heavy burden for those not accustomed to it. It is much easier to shift that burden to others, and along with that to also shift the blame for failure.
|
|