Tal vez lo mas progresista puede ser lo mas sencillo qual dos tobillos sobre un pedal.

The Toronto Cyclists Union was in Velo City, Sevilla 2011 last week (represented by staffperson Andie and board chair, Heather). The quote in the title means "Progress might be as simple as two feet on a pedal." With a bit of help of my fading Spanish, Google Translate and the subtitles I think I got the phrase pretty close. But I still don't understand why both feet have to be one one pedal. Hmm.. Maybe Guillermo (Gil) Peñalosa (Executive Director of 8-80 Cities) can explain it.

Via BikeLaneDiary and Urban Country.

-Música / Music: "La cumbia de la Bicicleta". Por / By: David Aguilar.
-Animación / Animation: Luz de Mente

herb : 14 years 1 month ago
Tags: bike culture, bike lanes, fun, toronto cyclists union

Bike lane network is just a right-wing conspiracy? Strange times

Wed, 04/21/2010 - 11:03 - www.416cyclestyle.com ©Door Prize Central
14 years ago ago by 'Xander @416cyclestyle.

Councillors Adam Vaughan and Gord Perks are both downtown progressive politicians who are interested in livable communities and pedestrian-friendly streets. Both are white men still in their prime, who, I believe, are occasional cyclists. Like many in this category they feel that they know enough about cycling on Toronto streets, and they are just cocksure enough, that they feel that they can make judgements on the needs of the diversity of regular cyclists, without needing to consult them. There are still a number of people in power who can't see beyond their own cycling experiences to consider what it might mean to cycle in this city if you're not quite as able, young (or too young), white, and masculine.

Turns out even progressive councillors like Adam Vaughan and Gord Perks give little thought to how they would improve cycling in Toronto's core. Perks has shown his support for Vaughan's wish to turn Richmond Street from one-way to two-way traffic. In a letter I've obtained from Councillor Perks to a constituent, Perks says:

[the bike union's] endorsement of this project concerns me. The project has its origins in the previous term when it was used as an excuse by some traditionally anti-bike lane Councillors to oppose the separated lane proposed for University Avenue. Instead of supporting a proposal which would have been in place last summer they argued for looking at other routes in the future. The proposal creates some specific problems for local plans in the area such as making Richmond St. into a two-way more pedestrian friendly street.

Additionally it is part of the ongoing effort supported by the mayor to push cyclists off the main streets in the City and onto side streets.

We haven't heard a peep from either of Perks or Vaughan if they have any plans to follow through with the official Bike Plan, which calls for bike lanes on Richmond and/or Adelaide. It's not only from Ford Nation that we have to worry about killing the Bike Plan, it seems like these two are helping it along by quietly ignoring it. If Vaughan and Perks don't want to provide for safer bike traffic on Richmond, just where would they like to put them all? Where will the cyclists get their long-promised safe bike routes? There is no other politically feasible route in the downtown, which is clearly shown in the work that the transportation planners did for the Bike Plan.

I think bike lanes on University would have been great. But it would have been only an alternative to St. George / Beverly and it's not clear to me that cyclists actually need to choose between one or the other. The separated bike lane plan was proposed in full yet again this year, when it's no longer important to "kill" University bike lanes. Doesn't it seem weird that a right-wing politician would propose separated bike lanes on Sherbourne, Richmond, St. George, Wellington and Harbord just to kill University? He'd be "sacrificing" a lot more than he'd be saving for motorists, if that were his only motivation.

Perks insinuates that the bike union didn't support the University bike lanes. He's wrong. Yvonne at the time said this:

"Certainly physically separated bike lanes are the most effective at providing safe spaces for cyclists to ride," she said. "That certainly stops cyclists from having to jut around a parked car. It's a step in the right direction and I'm glad to see the city is piloting this."

It's surprising that Perks references "local plans" for making Richmond two-way pedestrian-friendly street. If the comment by Adam Vaughan on this blog can be believed, Vaughan seemed to take a step back: "The reason I frame the debate with the phrase two-way is so that the idea gets attention, The assumption is one way streets work." So it seems to me that there is no "local plan", it is still merely at the stage where Vaughan is musing loudly, and where Perks feels the need to support Vaughan's musings.

Richmond is hardly a "side street". The opportunity for a major downtown thoroughfare to become much friendlier for cyclists and pedestrians is just too great to just cave into a politician's musings. It's been proven that separated bike lanes reduce motor traffic speeds; provide comfort and safety to cyclists; provide buffers for pedestrians from cars; and reduce injuries and crashes (Exhibit A: Prospect Park West Bike Path).

Even if the mayor has officially proposed taking cyclists off the streets, this proposal didn't come from the mayor. It never would have occurred to him to put separated bike lanes on all these major cycling routes through Toronto. And if he did, would Ford still be considered "anti-cycling"? And more to the point, if Vaughan and Perks oppose the entire separated bike lane network because Vaughan prefers two-way traffic on Richmond, are they still considered "pro-cycling"?

herb : 14 years 1 month ago
Tags: advocacy, bike infrastructure, politics, safety

Pricing bike-sharing to make it self-sufficient in a car culture

Mon, 03/14/2011 - 22:07 - Take a test drive with DecoBike. The more than 50 docking stations around town already have bikes. ©Miami Beach Launched Bike-Sharing Program
14 years ago ago by City of Miami Beach Communications.

DecoBike is a new bikesharing kid on the block and the first unabashedly for-profit venture. In North America, where public transit is usually starved for funds while large subsidies are provided to ensure people continue to use their private automobiles, for-profit bikesharing may be a model that we'll see in cities where it's difficult to get public support for bikesharing. DecoBike is making a break from the current financing schemes for bikesharing programs, which have largely relied on street furniture contracts (in exchange for ad revenue) as with Vélib in Paris, or through sponsorships to make up the difference in the revenue from memberships and fees - as with BIXI (with the sponsorship comprising that portion that would normally be funded through subsidies in public transit).

Miami Beach, a city of 80,000, will soon be able to use the 1000 bikes and 100 stations that this for-profit company providing out of its own capital. The city will then have the highest ratio of public bikes to citizens of any system in the US. Even though it is self-financed, DecoBike is still getting sponsorship from KLM, which if we compare it to the sponsorship for the 1000 BIXI Toronto system may amount to about $500,000 a year. The question is whether DecoBike needs the sponsorship or if it's just icing on the cake.

DecoBike looks and operates much like BIXI and B-cycle, because it is actually using B-cycle's system of bikes and solar-powered stations where people use credit cards or memberships to take out bikes. The big difference is the price. DecoBike has structured its pricing around two roles: residents and visitors. Residents will gravitate to the $15 per month fee and visitors to the $14 per day (or $30 for 3 day) fee. Let's compare this to BIXI, which in Toronto is charging $95 per year. The comparable charge in Miami Beach would be $180 worth of monthly passes. And BIXI's daily fee is only $5 compared to $14.

Some people have grumbled about the high cost of BIXI Toronto and I predict some in Miami Beach will also grumble. That will in no way detract from it's success. Since large-scale bikesharing is such a new phenomenon almost no one has an idea of what is the "normal" price they'd be willing to pay for the service, so many just compare it to the price of a department store bicycle. They conflate the bikesharing service with a disposable product. A department store bike, being so disposable, force many people to abandon them within a year or two since they are so expensive to repair. In comparison, bikesharing can seem cheap given the convenience of not needing a lock, having someone else do all the repairs and getting a much higher quality ride.

Still DecoBike has done a neat trick by not including a yearly membership. This way the company avoids people having to think about the "big" number and comparing the service to department store bikes. $15 per month feels quite manageable in comparison to $180. DecoBike likely has an additional advantage over other bikesharing services in that Miami Beach is a tourist area, so they're likely to tap a lot of tourists who are willing to pay $14 for a day rental or $5 for an hour rental.

From Bike-sharing blog:

For residents, the longest term for a membership is monthly at $15. There is no yearly membership. For both residents and tourists, there is daily access pass for $14, 3-day access pass for $30 and a special 5-day access pass for $49. All of these plans allow unlimited trips during the term with each trip 30 minutes or less at no charge. Each additional 30 minutes is billed at $4. The stations not only allow sign-ups for access passes, but also allows the borrowing of a DecoBike on an hourly basis. The hourly rate is 30 minutes for $4, 60 minutes for $5 and 120 minutes for $10, in each case, it is a single use. Most of these options are available at the easy-to-use stations.

I'd still be much happier if governments would just subsidize bike transportation as much as they do cars. I'm not sure why we set a double standard where bikes have to be self-sufficient but cars can rely on billions of dollars in oil, highway and insurance subsidies. I also believe that affordable public transit is necessary and a right. There is no way that DecoBikes or even BIXI is going to fill the niche of a truly public system accessible to all. The credit card is a game stopper for many. But in the meanwhile, I'm intrigued that DecoBikes is making a go of it. Maybe soon we'll see governments providing subsidies and passes so the most marginalized can also enjoy the convenience of bikesharing.

herb : 14 years 1 month ago
Tags: bikesharing, BIXI Toronto