In a recent post in the EmpowerTexans blog , the writer claims that Austin's new bike sharing program is a waste of time and money. I couldn't agree less. Just because Austin City Council is prepared to spend $1.8 million on this project doesn't mean it's a waste of money.
First of all, WasteWatch mentions that $200-$400 dollars is all Austinites would pay for a bicycle, but he is totally wrong. Austin has a huge community of bicyclist that pay well over 10 grand for a bicycle. Also, there are a great deal of Austin citizens that would really appreciate decent bicycles to use on a daily basis. A lot of citizens can't afford or have no place to store a road-bike. With this new bike-share program, more people will be able to bike around Austin instead of driving their vehicles.
Secondly, he tries to argue that city council is trying “to get people to stop driving their cars.” I find it hard to believe that anyone on city council would believe that this program, or any program for that matter, would successfully get people to stop driving their cars. I'm sure what city council actually intends is that this program will reduce everyday usage of cars per person, especially in the downtown area. I can definitely see this being a possibility, if nice bikes are at one's liberty for such a minuscule price ($5-$7/day and $50-$60/year). This is a very cheap price to pay considering it would cost well over that price to buy a parking space or to pay for parking every day.
Thirdly, this blogger tries to claim that Austin City Council is foreign to fiscal sanity all because they also support formula 1 and light-rail systems in Austin. In reality these city council members are looking at the big picture. Formula 1 will rack up so much revenue it will be unbelievable. And if this guy or anyone else is worried about the rise in emissions (cost to fix rise in emissions) from the formula 1 races or people travelling to see the races they should stop worrying. Texas is making sure Austin stays in protocol. Plus, the new bike-share program will help keep emissions down.
Fourth of all, WasteWatch tried to compare Austin's bike-share program to Montreal's, saying that theirs failed and so will ours. What he failed to mention was that Montreal spent 13 million to get their program started and their bikes were made out of pure aluminum. Essentially, Montreal provided beach cruisers to their residents for a small price. Austin will be providing road-bikes to their citizens, which makes a huge difference. I'm not sure exactly how Montreal's program ran a 6.3 million deficit, but I'm sure it had to do with spending 13 million on crappy bikes. Since Austin is only spending 1.8 million for nice road-bikes, I don't think we will run into the same problem.
Finally, I do agree with one thing that was mentioned in this article. Austin City-Council should demand that the riders have to wear helmets and those should be provided for an additional small add-on (so those people that have helmets don't have to pay extra). It's technically not illegal to ride a bike without a helmet so I doubt they can force people to wear one, but an option to be provided one would be nice.
In conclusion, I think Austin City Council made a great choice in this program. I personally can't see how Austin would lose money. These bikes would get used on a daily basis by people who work downtown, tourists, and those who are just looking for recreation. Besides that, the bikes will have a built in gps system so they can be traced if someone tries to steal one.
No comments:
Post a Comment