Posted on 01/29/2013 7:27:02 AM PST by Lonely Bull
It’s no secret that San Francisco hasn’t invested much money in bicycling improvements — almost nothing until the past couple of years.
But even those relatively small investments have led to a surge in the number of commuters riding their bikes in San Francisco. Over the past decade the number of trips being taken by bicycle have increased by 71 percent.
Now, bike advocates — and the Municipal Transportation Agency — would like to see what happens if they put some real money — perhaps as much as half a billion over the next five years — behind biking.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.sfgate.com ...
Here comes licensing for bicycling.
I would love to ride my bike to work (only 5 miles) if I had a safe lane and I wasn’t interfering with auto traffic.
You gotta think big. This goes hand in hand with the global warming boogeyman as part of the real goal of reduction of independence via the elimination of private cars.
My wife and I mused over the push for bikes. Just imagaine a family trying to shop for groceries, limited by what they could carry in a basket? (And don't humor my be suggesting everyone could pull a little "cart" attachment behind them.)
I suppose if you lived in the city, you might be able to walk to a grocery store within a few blocks of your residence...maybe. I'd have to think you'd need to visit your grocery store at least several times per week, to supplement your pantry. but what if you lived out further in the suburbs, or in a part of town without easy access to a grocery store?
What would you do in inclement weather, or in the winter? What do the elderly, or perhaps those who are otherwise physically handicapped do?
What about shopping for clothing, or home supplies; e.g. toilet paper or tissues, or cleaning supplies? What about pet food, or small appliances? I suppose you could use a delivery service--that must be the liberals' dream--it creates "jobs," and eliminates private citizens from driving, though it's terribly inefficient.
And those folks driving 50 miles to their jobs in the oil fields are just dying to have some of the federal tax dollars go toward SF’s dream of bikes.
More statistical slight of hand from the socialist EnviroTards.
If that 71 percent was a significant raw number they would have published it, that's all you need to know.
Suppose 50 people rode bikes and there was a 71 percent increase you would now have 85 people. BFD How about we throw in $500 million and get a 400% increase? We now have 200 people.
Anyone here ever biked around SF? Not a chance in hell I would.
It's a wonder I survived. Really (especially because I wore Cinelli "death cleats" :-) on Duegi 101 wooden soled shoes. Totally hard core. I really miss silk tubulars.
As an adult, I commuted on a bike for many years both in West-LA and in Silicon Valley (from Los Gatos to Milpitas on a Somec SPX-Air for those who know). It is by far the best way to get through a city. Most of the time, I could keep up with street traffic and beat them splitting lanes at the lights. In many cases, I could beat a competing automobile door-to-door even during off-commute hours when parking time is taken into consideration, even on trips of up to fifteen miles with hills. Free exercise time too. The biggest complaint I had was that my employers didn't want my (then) $2000 bike in my office but outside in a cheesy rack. Safe and secure "parking" boxes were the biggest problem.
Yup. See post 8.
Lets get some of Obama’s stashed money to level the hills. That would make biking much easier and safer...(for the chil’ren)
Great if THEY want to do it with their own money. But THEY probably means US; with federal dollars.
THEY probably want to bill us for THEIR experiment.
But I have no problem with the idea if the citizens there want to do it.
Brilliant. Take one of the most heavily populated cities in the country with some of the longest steepest hills and spend taxpayer dollars on promoting biking. May as well promote riding snails uphill backwards on ice while they’re at it. Would probably be safer
I am impressed (sincerely). But again, I sure as hell wouldn’t.
Besides the list of negatives as a policy is long.
They have 30 mil, no prob, we can magic up the other 470 mil.
The state and I’m betting SF is bankrupt, never a problem for socialists.
Medical costs for the annual heart attacks ER visits, etc from riders that are not fit to do it? Injuries, accidents, all cost factors that are conveniently ignored.
Back to that magical 71 percent. Even without knowing the real numbers, that means very little. With stuff like this, the curve shoots up sharply early on, levels off and then drops significantly as the available pool of potential bikers is used up and then by the attrition of those that don’t stick with it. Think gym memberships and exercise machines at garage sales.
The kooks behind this take a small number, a theoretical rapid growth curve and then extrapolate that growth curve into infinity. Standard operating procedure for their pie in the sky schemes.
They have 30 mil, no prob, we can magic up the other 470 mil.
You won't see me suggesting Federal money. I was simply speaking to riding in San Francisco. There were some VERY simple fixes to some VERY hazardous conditions that took almost no money. Bars on the drain grates were a biggie.
The state and I’m betting SF is bankrupt, never a problem for socialists.
San Francisco is not broke.
Medical costs for the annual heart attacks ER visits, etc from riders that are not fit to do it? Injuries, accidents, all cost factors that are conveniently ignored.
This is a bogus argument from an actuarial perspective; it is tantamount to arguing that exercise is bad for you. With the kind of money they are talking about, I anticipate a dedicated bicycle road and traffic control system similar to the quite successful model in Holland. IOW, it's already been done elsewhere.
Back to that magical 71 percent. Even without knowing the real numbers, that means very little. With stuff like this, the curve shoots up sharply early on, levels off and then drops significantly as the available pool of potential bikers is used up and then by the attrition of those that don’t stick with it. Think gym memberships and exercise machines at garage sales.
Your presumptions about the number of riders in San Francisco is low, but the math is certainly warranted considering the amount of other people's money they're talking about investing.
The kooks behind this take a small number, a theoretical rapid growth curve and then extrapolate that growth curve into infinity. Standard operating procedure for their pie in the sky schemes.
As to the financials, consider this: On an average, a car travels 30mph (less during commute hours), or 400 hours per 12,000 miles per year. At 12,000 miles per year, the total cost of ownership is about $7,200 (Clark Howard is a consumer advocate and no Marxist). Given a total tax rate of about 40%, that comes to $12,000 (and we're not talking about the cost of the 25% of urban real estate devoted to cars). How much time does it take to earn that $12,000 dollars? For most middle-class people, that's 3-4 months' salary, or 500-700 hours. Add that to the 400 hours driving time and we're talking 900-1,100 hours for 12,000 miles, or an average of 11-13 miles per hour of total time invested.
Most people in good physical condition can beat that speed with a bicycle. Considering the impact of regular exercise on their total health and the cost savings for dedicated exercise time, it doesn't look like such a bad deal to me.
I'm sure that to you this looks like a skewed analysis, and it is. People have to work a fixed amount of time and don't get it back. Riding on ice is very hazardous. If you get muddy on your ride, you need to clean up for work, etc. Yet most of those things are accounted in a "bicycle configured" transportation system (showers and changing rooms at work for example). Given the investment in real estate that cars consume, or the balance of trade considerations for oil, it's not that unfair a comparison.
Now I'm NOT trying to convince you of anything; I am simply attempting to get you to think a bit outside that box on wheels and see that, to many, this isn't as "kooky" an idea as it might first appear. There is successful precedent, worldwide, for such a system. There is certainly room in our republic for such an experiment.
We lived for a time in a 3rd story apartment in Antwerp, Belgium without a car. European city living is fascinating. Yes, you had to walk or bike or bus to everything, but there were lot of little quaint shops all around.
The Apothek was next door. The Boulangerie was around the corner. Even before 6a.m., fresh REAL bread was there and waiting. I miss that the most. Two things America cannot make are bread and beer.
A Delhaize grocery store was half a mile away. And the Leonidas chocolate shops were too close. At Christmas we walked to the Grote Markt town square and carried our Tannenbaum back in the falling snow. It was fun. Almost felt like living in a Dickens’ novel.
There were no ugly strip malls that you had to drive miles to. Only “hardship” was having to haul home heating oil to the apartment since there was no central heating. Those were 50lb barrels. Had to roll them back on a dolly from a shop about a km away.
There were no stores like Walmart where you could find anything you needed. You would have to find a stationery store to get paper clips.
Once had to have a refrigerator delivered. Had to pay for a city permit so that the store truck could come and plant itself on the street by our apartment and use its elevator truck to get the refrigerator through my 3rd story window.
I was raised as a country boy and this was my first experience living in a city. I’m back to country living, but must say I miss a lot of the surprising charm of the small craft and food shops in a bustling city. Every shop had its piquant and flavorful aroma.
An Antwerp barber told me that America was nice, but just too big. Too hard to move around in without a car.
This is a bogus argument from an actuarial perspective; it is tantamount to arguing that exercise is bad for you.
Sadly, for a lot of people that kind/level of exercise is bad for them. And they will never (gradually) get in the condition that would alter that. And I threw that in partly because it is just the sort of cost analysis reasoning that the libs are always using. Still, I think that you are overestimating the proportion of the adult population that is sufficiently fit and *motivated* to do bike commuting in a serious, regular manner.
San Francisco is not broke.
Maybe not technically. And I don't know the specifics of its budget. Having the money on hand and actually being able to afford it are not necessarily the same. I don't know what its unfunded pension liabilities and such are, but in my opinion most local governments should be seriously hunkering down, regardless of their current perceived financial well being, not finding new ways to spend.
On the point of the financial burdens of urban auto ownership/use, I certainly don't disagree with you. But if persons want to spend their money in such a manner, that is their choice (for the time being).
The city has an excellent surface transportation system that those people are probably already using. I used to commute from Ingleside to Pacific Heights and back daily for school.
Still, I think that you are overestimating the proportion of the adult population that is sufficiently fit and *motivated* to do bike commuting in a serious, regular manner.
If they do this and really address the problem of secure storage, I'd bet quite a few people would do it just for the convenience, not to mention the money. Have you checked out the cost of parking in downtown San Francisco? It's $300-500 a month.
San Francisco is heavily populated with single males on the make (for obvious reasons). As cities go, they're probably fitter than most, although I'd bet not a few have nether regions so abused as to be unsuited for a bicycle saddle.
As to San Francisco's finances and their claim to what might seem a disproportionate expenditure of Federal funds, consider this: Look at the real estate costs there. Look at the property taxes they pay. Look at the incomes necessary to buy those houses and the taxes that implies. San Francisco is a BIG revenue generator for the Federal government. Yes, they are a profligate, insane, and corrupt home to degenerates, weirdos and a number that should be locked up for public safety, but do they ever make money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.