Looks like our post yesterday wrangled up some official statements and a hit in mainstream media. Gary Welsh, manager of Transportation Services told the National Post, "At this point in time we can’t seem to operate a public bike system at no cost to the city, which is contrary to what council proposed."
Mr. Welsh assures us that negotiations continue:
“This doesn’t mean the program is being abandoned, we’re still looking at the viability of the program and how we can enable it in the future,” Mr. Welsh said.
“I think it would be beneficial to the city. It’s needed by residents of Toronto and we’re just trying to develop a system that we know will work and something that will not be a significant cost to the city.”
The official line is being awefully vague: just what is going to cost more? Through the grapevine I've heard that, in fact, the staff were able to negotiate a "No Cost" deal with Bixi (but we'll take all the benefits, thank you very much), but that it required a loan guarantee, which the City Manager's office quickly squelched.
Aren't the staff supposed to produce a report for City Council? City Council and the general public should hear in more detail about what happened and this shouldn't just die and disappear within the city bureaucracy.
Why are there expectations that Toronto should put absolutely no investment into a program that could yield so many benefits? Bikesharing is a powerful tool for getting more people on bikes: Paris' Velib has encouraged many more to buy bikes and start riding regularly. Cycling yields health benefits, it's good for the environment and it even reduced traffic congestion and reduces our transportation costs (the confused yelping of right-wing commentators to the contrary).
A loan would pay for the initial start-up infrastructure that would be paid for through user fees. Bixi designed a system that would be financially self-sufficient, which is more than what car drivers or TTC riders can say, both of which require lots of subsidies.
Bixi will be financially self-sustaining after only three years. Our highway system: never.
By the end of its first season, almost 11,000 Montrealers had become Bixi regulars, and the system had more than 110,000 day trippers. Best of all, the non-profit company expects to be financially self-sustaining after its third year. Ottawa-Gatineau and Toronto are considering adopting Bixi, and cities around the world are taking notice: Public Bike has won contracts to bring the system to London and Boston in 2010. A deal with Minneapolis is also in the works. Revenue from these exports will recoup some of program's $23-million investment, and any surplus will be spent on improving Montreal's system.
City Councillors are taking the official line coming from the City Manager's office: the city were unable to negotiate a No Cost deal. Let's demand something better from our councillors: Get this report to a vote!
Comments
hamish (not verified)
taking some time to get it right is ok; and then...
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 11:08I think we all know that at some point in our lives we've acted a bit too quickly without quite enough forethought etc. and the result wasn't good, or could have been way better eg. the send/post button.
So taking more time isn't necessarily bad.
TO be cycnical again - is this a way of derailing the core focus of the bike infrastructure program for this upcoming year? The City has really seemed uninterested in providing better biking for Bloor as a set of examples in Yorkvile. the Annex and then excluding Bloor in the west end bike study, and maybe this is a way of killing off, or at least deflecting, roadical changes. Designed to fail may have been the plan - it did take the City 30 years to put in the Wellesley lanes after first plan...
brian
Biking Vs. Skiing
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 12:08Hi all,
I wonder how many folks in the cycling community know about the City of Toronto's TWO ski/snowboard hills : Centennial Park in Etobicoke, and North York Ski Centre at Earl Bales Park, Bathurst and Sheppard? Anyone? The precedent lies here.
These two facilities have state-of-the-art infrastructure consisting of landscaped, groomed hills with full snowmaking capability; two Bombardier Snow Cat groomers and several Skidoo snowmobiles with toboggan sleds; both hills have double chair, poma, and rope tow lifts; each facility has a chalet with changerooms, lockers, snack bars, reception desks, administration offices, staff rooms, and storage.
Moreover, each ski hill operated by the City Of Toronto has a Snow School, a Ski Patrol, and Rentals. Yes, rentals. You can rent a pair of skis, boots, poles, or snowboard, for a few hours, on a hourly scale. They even have staff that fit and equip renters professionally (it's required by insurance).
You can go to Earl Bales or Centennial and book a ski or snowboard lesson with absolutely no experience on snow whatsoever, and a friendly, CSIA certified snow professional will teach you how to ski or snowboard. All you need is money, time, and some warm clothes.
I percieve little difference between skiing and cycling. I have worked for the City of Toronto in both cycling instruction and ski instruction roles. The same problem applies to both : the City does little to PROMOTE what it offers to the public. Most citizens don't even know Earl Bales and Centennial exist. Or that rentals and lessons are available there. The problem is endemic. But it can be corrected.
I would be pleased to assist the cycling community to explore how the City operates these facilities, and establish a business case for cycling instruction, rentals/sharing, and infrastructure improvements, with a focus on promotion and communication.
Brian
Matias Marin (not verified)
Bike Sharing
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 11:23It's funny. Many of the comments I have seen posted on message boards in regards to this issue over the past few days have mirrored a sentiment I have felt for over two years now:
Why did the municipality(be it the bureaucracy or council) not engage the public more about this issue when planning such a massive and important project?
I am not sure there is a simple answer to that question, but let me lay out something for everyone, so they understand whats happening with Bixi, and why a road block has been hit.
Public Bicycle Systems Company is owned entirely by the Montreal Parking Authority. The Montreal Parking Authority is owned by the Municipality of Montreal. Much like Toronto, Montreal has many financial woes, and the 23 million dollars they have invested so far into the venture is significant.
Toronto was only willing to adopt "Bixi" if PBS Company was able to initiate the service with minimal assistance from the municipality. This minimal assistance was not to go beyond the allotment of land(such as sidewalk or parking space) for Bixi stations to go. The thinking was that generally speaking Bike Share systems generate significant revenue, that will hopefully pay for all the capital investment. PBS Company obviously was not able to round up the 11-15 million dollars necessary to open a Toronto Bike Share system. As Montreal is financially stressed as well, it would be very politically unpalatable for a politician there to make a motion to spend such a significant investment for a service in ANOTHER MUNICIPALITY. Toronto is so stressed financially, that we did not intend to afford this through tax dollars. We expected to give the winning bidder the premium space with a premium arrangement, but no funds(which from a business perspective is a FANTASTIC deal). Our City Managers office thinks this project is not the best idea, so they are not willing to support the idea of finding 15 million for a capital investment loan. The irony in all of this is that for Bixi to have qualified to even enter the bidding process, they had to claim they were able to take care of the financial requirements, without assistance. That means one of two things has likely happened:
It is technically a serious breach of policy for City Hall to give Bixi the funding that Toronto's bike lobby is calling for them to provide. It goes against the tender that the City released, and if Council was to seriously consider Bixi a funding priority, it would be in there best legal interest to reopen the competitive bidding process, and then move forward to fund the winning contractor.
Let's keep our integrity and do what's right.
I would like to see the bidding process reopened, so that a COMPETITIVE bid can occur, which has yet to happen for this project. I would like to see transportation services show us as citizens our options, much like the TTC did when they chose new streetcars. If not, I would like to see the City's bureaucrats get out of the way, and let the free market take care of this service.
What makes anyone think that if our bureaucrats can't handle running a ski hill well, that bureaucrats from Canada's supposedly most corrupt municipal government will be able to run a massive public bicycle system for us here in Toronto?
An article for your thoughts:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2010/02/19/busi...
Sincerely,
Matias Marin
CEO Public Nature Corporation
publicnature@gmail.com
PS Public Nature was the only other company to submit an Expression Of Interest for the Toronto Public Bicycles Project. We were not allowed to enter the competitive bidding process, for reasons, that still elude us, and had little to do with our ability to deliver. I encourage anyone interested in this issue to look more deeply into it, and not just believe the talking points being thrown out by a variety of interest groups.
hamish (not verified)
Maintaining the Gardiner costs maybe $11M annually?
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 14:55Thanks to previous comments posters for excellent informed PofViews; quite helpful and thoughtful for showing us nuanced options and arguments. And maybe the bidding process should be opened up again, the Bloor RFP shows that the foundation that is set in the RFP process can tilt somewhat the result that the RFP gets, (as it should, just we're kinda getting screwed around with Bloor).
The annual operating cost of the Gardiner is either $8M or $11M - I can't remember. Using this road, while paid for by public dollars, is limited to only those with motors, and pedestrians and cyclists are not allowed on it.
So a valuable transportation service is given away totally by the CIty, and yet nearby the ferry to the Island is actually to the point of making money.
So it's totally a question of public priorities - maybe we should consider selling off some land in the path of the Front St. Extension project, though I still hope for a sensible transitway there - silly me...