The Toronto Coalition for Active Transportation released the Public Bike Forum report, summarizing the results of the public forum and of the stakeholders meeting with officials that was held this last September.
Highlights:
- one half don't want advertising on bikes
- with no public funding companies would search for a commercial sponsor
- bikesharing creates new behaviours and travel patterns
- the smart bike systems must still be accessible to people with various barriers
- most want around 5000 bikes to start off with
- target the downtown and dense nodes in the suburbs, clusters around transit
- needs to be modular like Montreal's Bixi
- the City needs to put forward a well-defined business plan
- the City should look seriously at Montreal's system for how to do it without advertising
For everyone interested in getting an efficient and useful bikesharing system in Toronto needs to read Jonathan Goldsbie's article in Eye Magazine. It appears that Councillor Heaps is willing to give away the project to Astral Media, the company running the street furniture contract. Heaps claims that the contract specifies that Astral Media gets the first right of refusal, despite the fact the contract states that this is only true if street furniture includes advertising. As we've seen with Montreal's Bixi model that it is very possible to have a self-funding system that requires no advertising.
Is Councillor Heaps giving away a public right to safe and useful public transportation to an inexperienced Astral Media, whose interests mainly lie with expanding the number of eyes who see its advertising? What happened to an open bidding process in the City? Is the City falling back to giving special benefits to inside interests? This is all so frustrating and the Councillor and staff are not exactly forthcoming with answers.
Comments
Alex B (not verified)
IllegalSigns.ca has
Thu, 12/18/2008 - 16:19IllegalSigns.ca has predictably taken a position also - their letter to Eye today explains the situation http://illegalsigns.ca/2008/12/18/ . I think the issue is do we have a competitive rfp or does the contract go to astral without a competitive process, and why exactly was heaps telling bike activists that astral has the right of first refusal when it doesn't. the rest of us just want a bike system that works.
joe
bixi
Thu, 12/18/2008 - 16:30Well, no one really knows yet if Bixi will be an ad-free success. Hopefully it is, and having a Parking Authority administer it is a great idea - it would be cool to see TPA run it - bikeracks in "Green P" lots.
Does anyone know of a large-scale and successful bikeshare system that doesn't run on ads? The darling of the bikeshare world is Paris' Velib, and they have ads everywhere.
Given the choice between an ad-free city of cars and an ad-supported city of bikes, what would you choose?
joe
bixi 2
Thu, 12/18/2008 - 16:34A note about Bixi - the ads aren't on the bikes - but the program is run by an ad company.
herb
Bixi is not an ad company
Thu, 12/18/2008 - 23:04Bixi is a subsidiary of the parking authority which is owned by the City of Montreal. It is not an ad company.
I say we give an ad-free bikesharing program a try since Montreal may have just found the right formula. Why give up on it beforehand?
bike-courier (not verified)
I'll be your huckleberry...
Sun, 12/21/2008 - 12:50As long as they are safe, reliable and accessible they can paint the darn things anyway they like or even have it whistle a commercial jingle at a low volume as I pedal along for all I care.
Illegalsigns.ca has a point but not a defining one in my opinion. I'd rather my city offer an impure, ad riddled service that is used by its residents than simply not for reasons that are credible yet nonetheless aesthetic in the question of whether or not such a program should be implemented.
Ad-free would be nice but not required if held against the purpose of such a program.
Luke Siragusa
Re: I'll be your huckleberry...
Sun, 12/21/2008 - 18:03So would I. But that's not the question: contrary to Councillor Heaps assertion, there are choices and we short change ourselves by not considering them. Blindly buying into Heaps' agenda is to accept this false dichotomy.
bike-courier (not verified)
There's little question that
Mon, 12/22/2008 - 00:59There's little question that Astral was selected by council as the contractor for the street furniture program, I remember viewing a presentation made before at a TCAC meeting and reading press releases afterward myself and I don't pay close attention. I'm not at all keen on the designs that have been shown so far, but I would like a solution to newspaper & magazine racks as their owners seem to have some problems maintaining them. So I'm mixed on the street furniture program myself. Good concept at face value marred by ugly designs IMO. I'm against needless ad space and have a soft spot for people that fight sign pollution, but would tolerate much to see a bikeshare program like the one in France.
However I'm fairly certain that the short presentation given to the TCAC related somehow to its task, while these rental facilities weren't specifically included in the street furniture program bicycle racks and stands certainly were, so maybe that's why they were there.
I guess I don't think that the question really can be about whether there is a competitive rfp because there really isn't one beyond the one that was initially conducted. If there is a question it would be to ask if the proposed facilities are correctly considered to be street furniture?
If it is then there will be ads wouldn't there? One aspect of that program is that the program be paid for with ad revenue and further even generate a revenue stream for the city. I'm sure I'm ignoring a million technicalities, but these seemed to me base tenets of the street furniture scheme.
I can't see how these installations couldn't be considered street furniture given their likely location and function. Other companies may be involved as well but if street furniture they are then Astral will definitely be involved no?, and in a decisive role no?
I'm not saying I like it, but that there doesn't seem to me to be any dirt on it that isn't on everything else.
I am curious to see what the final product will look like, whatever labels and brands it bears.
bike-courier (not verified)
with the technicalities..
Mon, 12/22/2008 - 01:16I guess I just wouldn't want to stop a ball that's rolling, the parking authority idea is grand and there are likely other great options too. I'd sometimes tolerate a great deal to see a program get started within my lifetime, know what I mean?