... 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.
Tags:
+1: Of course that would require one of our "esteemed investigative journalists" to actually investigate ...
h' 1.0 said:
If the cost of these bikes really is $5100 each, it would be great if one of our esteemed investigative journalists could do some work ...
A fair per-bike comparison would be to the New York, Washington DC, Montreal, London or Paris bike-share systems. Is Chicago really that much more expensive than these other systems? (I truly don't know.) If push came to shove, I'd be willing to sacrifice the "Halsted Flyover" at the Circle Interchange, plus the "Illiana Expressway" planned for Peoria, to make up any Divvy shortfall.
Each Divvy bike clearly states on the handlebars that there is a $1,200 charge for a bike that is not returned. Based on the costs of steel bikes most of us know well, I'd say that sounds about right.
Are you involved in bicycle manufacturing or something close? If so, please share your insights into the costs of these bicycles and explain why they seem to be so high.
Jeff Schneider said:
As for how much the bikes should cost, being in manufacturing I might know better than you.
There are A LOT of this same style of bike-share bicycle going into use around the country and adding them all up would probably equal upwards of 10,000 units. That seems like a pretty significant run.
Jeff Schneider said:
I don't agree that police bikes are a good comparison. They are just slightly modified very high production run hybrids.
Yeah, I was thinking along these lines... and wondering how much of that cost-per-bike actually gets canceled out in the long run. I'm certainly not playing fiscal-conservative here, I'm just questioning if the number was inflated worst-case-scenario stuff and by how much.
Michael Hulburt said:
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.
True... between military spending to "defend" our oil supply and all that free on-street parking, we don't see the true cost of automobiles.
Jeff Schneider said:
I would also like automobile users to pay the total costs for their transportation choice. For example, property taxes are used for a large portion of street maintenance expenses (including the cost of providing "free" on-street car parking). Everyone who pays for a place to live pays property tax directly or indirectly. "Free" on-street parking alone is a government subsidy for car drivers worth about $1k per car annually in my estimation.
It seems strange to me that bike-share should be the *only* transportation system that is expected to be profitable for taxpayers.
Yep, if the Illinois Policy Institute is really watching out for the taxpayers, they'd get more bang for the buck by coming out against the Illiana Expressway, planned for the south suburbs/exurbs. Instead of worrying about spending millions on Divvy, which creates a fairly green transportation alternative here in Chicago, the Institute should come out swinging against paving over some of the world's most fertile farmland here in Illinois, extending suburban sprawl into yet more Illinois counties, costing taxpayers at least $1.3 billion. Don't get me started on the knuckleheaded "Halsted Flyover" being built in Greektown for who knows how much money, intended to save out-of-state truck drivers a few seconds traversing the Circle Interchange. But highways are IMPORTANT INFRASTRUCTURE (even if those of us without cars may never use them in our lifetimes) and bikes are...toys. I think the Illinois Policy Institute members see Divvy bike sharing as government funded skateboards or Lego sets.
*Just looked at a map of the proposed roadway. Obviously, my downstate geography is lacking. It looks more like Channahon or Manteno east through Beecher, and on to Indiana, rather than further down in Peoria, as I had thought. My bad. But my point at relative spending: billions for roads, millions for bikes, with no complaints about road spending...is still valid.
Jennifer on the lake said:
Peoria?
It's "crooked" because an article linked earlier in this discussion quotes the guy who didn't win the bid as saying so. Why can't you just accept that?
Jeff Schneider said:
How about a business explanation...
Alta has a contract to provide goods and services. The price they charge for an individual good or service is not necessarily proportional to their cost to provide that good/service. In other words, their margins are not necessarily the same or even close on all the different goods and services provided. It makes no sense to pick out one item and say it's unreasonable. You can only look at the contract as a whole, and say whether or not you think the value provided is worth the cost.
At first blush, it looks to me like total costs are in line with other systems around the world. But others may know more about that than I do.
What really bugged me, and what motivated me to write so much on this thread, was Reboot's accusation that the deal was "crooked". It's a very serious thing to accuse people of criminality. When you do it, you had better have some real evidence, or be prepared to write a nice apology.
So far, neither evidence nor apology has been forthcoming from Reboot.
Tom Dworzanski said:Are you involved in bicycle manufacturing or something close? If so, please share your insights into the costs of these bicycles and explain why they seem to be so high.
Jeff Schneider said:
As for how much the bikes should cost, being in manufacturing I might know better than you.
There are A LOT of this same style of bike-share bicycle going into use around the country and adding them all up would probably equal upwards of 10,000 units. That seems like a pretty significant run.
Jeff Schneider said:I don't agree that police bikes are a good comparison. They are just slightly modified very high production run hybrids.
Well there definitely doesn't seem to be anything criminal in any of this.
Jeff Schneider said:
What really bugged me, and what motivated me to write so much on this thread, was Reboot's accusation that the deal was "crooked". It's a very serious thing to accuse people of criminality.
I asked you for an explanation, based on the experience you say you have in manufacturing of some of the particular details about why you think this contract is most likely fair and reasonable. Fairness then requires me to share the same based upon my experience. As someone who has been directly involved as a vendor in thousands of contracts with federal, state and local (including Chicago) public purchasing agencies, I can tell you two things with certainty that this contract process should give everyone pause. It has many of the hallmarks of a crooked deal, including:
All-in-all there is no smoking gun proof that this deal was crooked but lots of circumstantial evidence points that direction. Responsible stewardship of public funds demands that the possibility be considered, not dismissed just because we like what it being done with the money. This is Chicago, after all; we’d like to think it never happens here but we know otherwise. As to the use of the word, "crooked", just as because a rim is bent doesn’t necessarily mean a spoke is broken, a crooked deal doesn’t mean any laws were broken. Indeed, the essence of public crooked behavior is that the people that are bent are also the ones writing the rules and controlling the process – unless they’re daft toadstools they’re going to make sure they don’t need to break any of them. This isn’t a Democrat/Republican or Progressive/Conservative thing, this is a hairball thing and hairballs are a full-spectrum disorder. In sum, then, as someone who has lived in Illinois for decades and watched the bid process both from the outside and in, I stand by my assertion: this was a crooked deal.
TL:DR, I suspect but fairness required more than a sound-bite kind of answer. I hope this helps. Let me close by restating: I’m a supporter of shared bike programs and although I think this deal was crooked I have the fondest hope that Divvy becomes a success. It matters to you and to me. The chances of that success happening are hurt if we stick our collective heads in the sand and refuse to directly confront any shenanigans that might hurt its chances. Allowing the costs to be driven to ridiculous heights by profiteering corporations and politicians is certainly not going to improve the chances of success and that is a rot that I assume you would like to prevent. I know I do.
Jeff Schneider said:
What really bugged me, and what motivated me to write so much on this thread, was Reboot's accusation that the deal was "crooked". It's a very serious thing to accuse people of criminality. When you do it, you had better have some real evidence, or be prepared to write a nice apology.
So far, neither evidence nor apology has been forthcoming from Reboot.
Well, my tax dollars go towards building of highways…
261 members
203 members
118 members
269 members
63 members