MASS TRANSIT

[datakoll]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/us/27bikes.html?em&ex=1209441600&en=7685f39892a22a28&ei=5087%0A

[Marcus Coles]

datakoll wrote:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/us/27bikes.html?em&ex=1209441600&en=7685f39892a22a28&ei=5087%0A

A relatively cheap bit of "green" advertising exposure.
120 bikes should disappear into the background noise very quickly.


Marcus

[DougC]

Marcus Coles wrote:
> datakoll wrote:
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/us/27bikes.html?em&ex=1209441600&en=7685f39892a22a28&ei=5087%0A
>>
>
> A relatively cheap bit of "green" advertising exposure.
> 120 bikes should disappear into the background noise very quickly.
>
>
> Marcus

I understand what they're trying to do, but I doubt it will work.

What I'd think would be more useful in easing traffic congestion would
be to offer rebates towards purchasing scooters or mopeds (4-cycle
engines ONLY!)--such as, free vehicle registration, and a certain rebate
paid every year for the first three years, as long as the scooter/moped
stays in the ownership and registration of the purchaser. The state
could even tack a minimum mileage requirement on there if they wanted,
to make sure the thing was getting used.

Why not include bicycles with this program? Because they're not titled
and registered, so there's no way to prove that the applicant is
maintaining ownership..... And I would stagger the rebates periodically
over time, just to prevent someone from buying a scooter and qualifying
for the rebates and then immediately selling it off.

That's not getting people on /bicycles/, but it would get people out of
cars, using less fuel, and would be useful over longer ranges than a
bicycle would be. I can't help but suspect that an average person is way
more likely to ride a moped or scooter to work in the morning than they
would ride a bicycle.

Sadly I suspect that results are secondary to the effort.
~