I'd been waiting to get my Divvy membership until stations popped up near me. I work in the suburbs, not downtown, so I mainly want a membership in order to more easily get to and from the train on those days when I don't feel like riding 22 miles roundtrip to work.

I finally bought my membership on Monday when I saw new stations opening up closer and closer to me. I was thrilled earlier today to read on Divvy's Twitter feed that a station is going up very close to me, on Addison and Pine Grove.

And then I read this: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-divvy-bike-sharing-lawsuit-2....

I'm furious. What can I (we) do to counter these NIMBY types? I think it's entirely unfair that a couple of cranky people can ruin bikeshare for my neighborhood.

Views: 5197

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Correct. It went through this time.

JeffB (7+ miles) said:

FYI, the mailto: link for the address in the original post transposed the letters.  Resend to sean.wiedel@cityofchicago.org.  don't use the link

JeffB (7+ miles) said:

Weird, I sent to sean.weidel@cityofchicago.org and got no failure message, but I did notice the address in the original post is listed as sean.wiedel@cityofchicago.org (transposed i and e).

I'm sure I copied and pasted from the post, so I'm not sure why my email was sent to the "ei" version.

I'm also not sure why your email to the "ei" version failed and mine didn't (at least not yet).

Try it to sean.wiedel@cityofchicago.org instead


Tom Dworzanski said:

I emailed Mr Weidel and this is what I got back:

---

Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists:

sean.weidel@cityofchicago.org
The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator.


Update: I got a response!

### Start ###

Hello Tom,

Thank for your support of the Divvy station at Pine Grove and Addison.

Divvy is intended to provide Chicagoans with additional transportation options for getting around the city. This station was strategically placed to serve nearby residents and the surrounding community.  Each station becomes an integral part of the Divvy network, making it easier for everyone to get from point A to point B.  This Divvy station plays an important role that will help the system be successful.

I have noted your support of this station with our siting team.

Thank you for your comments.


Tim Garibay
Divvy Bike Share
Station Siting Team

### End ###

Likewise

Tom Dworzanski said:

Update: I got a response!

### Start ###

Hello Tom,

Thank for your support of the Divvy station at Pine Grove and Addison.

Divvy is intended to provide Chicagoans with additional transportation options for getting around the city. This station was strategically placed to serve nearby residents and the surrounding community.  Each station becomes an integral part of the Divvy network, making it easier for everyone to get from point A to point B.  This Divvy station plays an important role that will help the system be successful.

I have noted your support of this station with our siting team.

Thank you for your comments.


Tim Garibay
Divvy Bike Share
Station Siting Team

### End ###

Yes . . . I'm not sure how Sean Wiedel & Tim Garibay handle their email but one received the message and the other responded to it.

h' 1.0 said:

The response was to the message sent to Sean Wiedel?

I got the same response from Tim Garibay

Chalk one up for the NIMBYs.

The station was moved up the street over the weekend.  Its now at Waveland/Pine Grove in front of the FFC.

But as documented by Streetsblog it was actually moved because its popularity necessitated more space for more docks: http://chi.streetsblog.org/2014/05/08/divvy-nimbys-long-nightmare-i...

Perhaps this was the reason.   The problem is that this is a "victory" for the NIMBY's and will now be used as precedent in the future to move stations.  If I were Divvy, I would absolutely refused to move this station until well after the "crises" had passed, and I likely would have given an unwritten message to the folks that if they just shut up, the station might well need to move later.   

Either that, or Divvy backed down and put up a "reason" for their decision to back  down.



Alex Z said:

But as documented by Streetsblog it was actually moved because its popularity necessitated more space for more docks: http://chi.streetsblog.org/2014/05/08/divvy-nimbys-long-nightmare-i...

Divvy moves stations all the time as they refine their system. I don't see this as a NIMBY win but as the system being refined. The new station accepts more bikes and is in the same area. It will serve the same population and will have a few more bikes. The object was not to stick it to the NIMBY Plaintiffs but was to maintain a Divvy station. Perhaps its win/win. If you want to see the couple punished think of the time and expense they have put on a case that is now moot. I don't understand how this move is precedent for anything but expanding the Divvy system. If there wasn't a better spot I would assume the station would still be in front  of the condo where it was when this issue began last year. 

ISTM the plaintiffs might claim it as a "win" (no matter why Divvy actually moved the dock), thus encouraging them to file more nuisance lawsuits.

According to court records, the case was dismissed by agreement on March 25, 2014 pursuant to a settlement agreement. 


Well, based on that I think my comment may not be so accurate. I have to think the two events are related in some way. Of course it is still quite possible that Divvy settled because they had an equally good or perhaps better station available and figured its better to settle than throw money at this. I will also assume that the deal is confidential. We can speculate all we want and they will not comment on our comments. It will remain to be seen what happens the next time a NIMBY objects to a station. 
Lisa Curcio 4.1 mi said:

According to court records, the case was dismissed by agreement on March 25, 2014 pursuant to a settlement agreement. 

RSS

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service