The boondoggle that is the "We-Cycle" and Mirte Mallory and Philip Jeffreys is so unpopular with residents and commuting locals who work in Aspen every day (not to mention the taxpayers who're forced to pay for it) there is no way this is going to be a business that thrives.
And then there's that pesky uncomfortable truth of the bikes costing $6,000 each.
just sayin.
"While We-Cycle might appear to be just the thing, the numbers just don't work, and I can't imagine that the program is financially sound, given the assumptions. Poll a bike shop or two. Use a spreadsheet or the back of an envelope. The goals are laudable, and it's great to take advantage of federal funds. But when I work the numbers, I'm convinced the program will never break even.
Around here, suitable town bikes are nearly free! My current townie bike (with dead front shock and XT shifters) cost me a 12-pack! Isn't that about $6,488 less expensive per bike than the startup costs for We-Cycle?
I suggest we dedicate a couple of parking spots in the Rio Grande garage to bike parking and charge users a monthly fee to lock up a bike there. We can grow the service in response to demand. Fewer cars in town is a laudable goal, but there are many ways to achieve it.
Mike Tullar and others have suggested acquiring cheap bikes and painting them the same color for around-town rides. This solution would at least avoid the boondoggle of We-Cycle. But someone would still have to maintain those bikes. We should make it easy for those so inclined to have their own bikes in town. Why not make more bikes in town easy and scalable rather than hard, expensive and “failable”?
(Sam Cox/Basalt)
(Read more? Click title. Comment to discuss)
"Truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident."
No comments:
Post a Comment