The Chainlink

Divvy costing taxpayers big...

... according to this item from the Illinois Policy Institute:

http://illinoispolicy.org/blog/blog.asp?ArticleSource=6230

I have real basis on which to form an opinion. I have yet to try Divvy (I have plenty of my own bikes) and don't live in Chicago. A friend at work passed the link along.

Views: 3194

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Tom Dworzanski on October 4, 2013 at 6:17pm

From the article:

  • Five-year cost is $17,105.26 per bike

Seventeen f'n thousand dollars per bike. It's not about quality with that kind of money involved. The quality of operating steel bike sharing was maxed out many many thousands of dollars ago. In fact, it was probably maxed out by Bike Chicago many thousands under their bid as well.

PS. I still love Divvy. I just hate corruption.



h' 1.0 said:

Is there some requirement that the lowest bidder has to be chosen?

If I throw a bike share proposal together and undercut all the others, do I automatically get it?

Bike Chicago sucks ass and learning that they didn't get it brightened my day.

All major search engines must have been down the day the "Illinois Policy Institute" wrote this piece.

Coverage here:

http://bikeportland.org/2012/03/19/alta-bicycle-share-wins-chicago-...

and here:

http://gridchicago.com/2012/bike-sharing-selection-process-tainted-...

and here:

http://www.suntimes.com/11341996-417/rival-citys-bike-sharing-progr...



Tom Dworzanski said:

The article does point out something important though: "Chicago selected the politically connected ALTA despite the fact a local company, Bike Chicago, placed a bid that was nearly 40 percent cheaper." This, like all contracting in this city and state is a big problem I describe here. When someone recently complained about a Divvy situation, I wrote in to the city in support that person and received a reply from someone at this company. I'm sure there are so many layers of sub-contractors in this system that the costs will never be overcome by the revenues because the people who run the system will never let it happen.

Permalink Reply by Tom Dworzanski on October 4, 2013 at 6:25pm

LOL +1000

Thomas Bruzan said:

I'll bet revenues double when Divvy puts out the boys bikes.

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on October 4, 2013 at 7:39pm

Ha!  My first thought on that line was: "what about the benefits of improving transportation to/within neighborhood business districts? How about the potential increase in sales/jobs/tax revenue if businesses near Divvy stations see more revenue?"

Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:

My favorite line from the article: "For every taxpayer dollar spent on bike share programs, that dollar cannot be spent elsewhere in the local economy."

Really?  Well, for every taxpayer dollar spent on item X, that dollar cannot be spent for item Y in the local economy.

The solution is obvious here: stop spending taxpayer dollars on anything.

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on October 4, 2013 at 7:40pm

+1

Daniel G said:

Conservative group hates liberal shit. Especially hates it when liberal shit gets public support in a place liberals live.

News at nine. It's a fucking ruse. Make a weak economic argument for getting rid of things you hated anyway. What's left? The things you like.

h' 1.0 said:

Is there some requirement that the lowest bidder has to be chosen?

Divvy is doing a fantastic job and their program is successful, in a city where bike share's success was anything but guaranteed. It's a bit late to be arguing that we should have gone with a cheaper bid so some other company could have shat the bed, gone home, and left us with nothing.

Republicans believe that all money is borrowed and the 3 trillion the US takes in in taxes just gets dumped in a hole and lit on fire. What actually happens is that money gets spent on important and unimportant things. People whose pet projects didn't get funded become conservative and shut the entire government down.

Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on October 4, 2013 at 7:58pm

Great post, except I'd disagree with that last statement-- the folks responsible for the shutdown don't suck up any less of the gravy than their blue state counterparts.

Daniel G said:

Conservative group hates liberal shit. Especially hates it when liberal shit gets public support in a place liberals live.

News at nine. It's a fucking ruse. Make a weak economic argument for getting rid of things you hated anyway. What's left? The things you like.

h' 1.0 said:

Is there some requirement that the lowest bidder has to be chosen?

Divvy is doing a fantastic job and their program is successful, in a city where bike share's success was anything but guaranteed. It's a bit late to be arguing that we should have gone with a cheaper bid so some other company could have shat the bed, gone home, and left us with nothing.

Republicans believe that all money is borrowed and the 3 trillion the US takes in in taxes just gets dumped in a hole and lit on fire. What actually happens is that money gets spent on important and unimportant things. People whose pet projects didn't get funded become conservative and shut the entire government down.

Permalink Reply by Drewbacca on October 4, 2013 at 11:23pm

That's really the only thing that stuck out to me... if true, I'd love to see the annual budget and how that number is arrived at. It's definitely not a value I can believe without seeing the source.

Tom Dworzanski said:

From the article:

  • Five-year cost is $17,105.26 per bike

Seventeen f'n thousand dollars per bike. It's not about quality with that kind of money involved. The quality of operating steel bike sharing was maxed out many many thousands of dollars ago. In fact, it was probably maxed out by Bike Chicago many thousands under their bid as well.

 

Permalink Reply by Duppie on October 4, 2013 at 11:42pm

This.

It's one thing thing to look at the cost, but you have to look at the benefit as well. IPI makes no attempt at quantifying the benfits.

Anne Alt said:

Ha!  My first thought on that line was: "what about the benefits of improving transportation to/within neighborhood business districts? How about the potential increase in sales/jobs/tax revenue if businesses near Divvy stations see more revenue?"

Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:

My favorite line from the article: "For every taxpayer dollar spent on bike share programs, that dollar cannot be spent elsewhere in the local economy."

Really?  Well, for every taxpayer dollar spent on item X, that dollar cannot be spent for item Y in the local economy.

The solution is obvious here: stop spending taxpayer dollars on anything.

Permalink Reply by Duppie on October 4, 2013 at 11:46pm

That is not the cost of the bikes itself. The majority of Divvy's operating costs are in rebalancing. Spread out over the number of bikes, that number may well be correct.

12 trucks. Two shifts a day. 5 years. You do the math.

Drewbacca said:

That's really the only thing that stuck out to me... if true, I'd love to see the annual budget and how that number is arrived at. It's definitely not a value I can believe without seeing the source.

Tom Dworzanski said:

From the article:

  • Five-year cost is $17,105.26 per bike

Seventeen f'n thousand dollars per bike. It's not about quality with that kind of money involved. The quality of operating steel bike sharing was maxed out many many thousands of dollars ago. In fact, it was probably maxed out by Bike Chicago many thousands under their bid as well.

 

Permalink Reply by Michael Hulburt on October 4, 2013 at 11:52pm
It seems like that number is the $65 million divided by 3800 bikes. Obviously, the bikes aren't the only thing that has to be paid for to get the program running and to maintain it—ental stations, payment software, the bikes, bike and station maintenance, the blue vans that redistribute the bikes, and their drivers, to name a few.

Also, since when does a government-supported project have to turn a profit? Isn't the goal of Divvy to increase bicycling in Chicago, and therefore, the myriad benefits that go along with decreased pollution, healthier people, and safety in numbers with more bikes on the road? (And the positive feedback loop of more cycling infrastructure furthering all the other benefits.) If Alta never turns a profit but ends up doing all that, I'm sure I wouldn't be the only person happy to see my tax dollars at work. So far it seems that Divvy is doing just that and will likely continue to grow.
Permalink Reply by bk (aka: Dr. Mambohead) on October 5, 2013 at 12:02am
y'know...

you give a soldier a free gun?

pretty soon they want a free uniform...

then?

they're in one of 150 countries....

with their socialized medicine
and their gov't food hand-outs....
Permalink Reply by bk (aka: Dr. Mambohead) on October 5, 2013 at 12:09am
y'know?...

you give these homeowners a free sidewalk?...

pretty soon they want fresh water to their houses.... and then?

oh!! oh!!!! sewage is nasty! please have a socialist utopia deal with my dooty! i need government intervention!

lurking socialism is everywhere, comrades
Permalink Reply by Davo on October 5, 2013 at 1:07am

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service