Chicago bike sharing will be known as Divvy, be Chicago flag blue

Views: 15667

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


I suspect that means that the bikes have a GPS receiver and stores location data but doesn't broadcast this.  According to some remarks at a presentation I was at, the GPS info is apparently downloaded when the bike is docked and may be stored by Divvy.


Duppie 13.5185km said:

According to John Greenfield in some other forum (streetsblog?) the bikes have a passive GPS.

Of course, I have no clue what passive GPS means.

S said:

Apparently there's a gps tracker in the bikes that can be used to locate the bikes.  Divvy may be collecting ride info as well as downloads from the bike when docked but I'm uncertain on this point.  If this is true, it'd give Divvy a lot more options on recovery when the bikes are lost/stolen.

I would think it is more like the old Lojack for cars, the transmitter is in place,  recharged by the dyno hub and can be turned on to broadcast by the police.

I doubt the GPS broadcasts, as that typically requires dedicated cell service for each unit. I assumed stored and downloaded was what is meant by passive GPS.

In related news, New Yorkers believe their system has built-in video surveillance  (again, presumed to record and download, rather than broadcast):

http://johnjpowers.blogspot.com/2013/07/citi-bike-latest-nyc-survei...

(Searching more, that's now assumed to be a hoax)

Well, I probably would have written "this is in fact not true" if I'd done it again (it reads better) but either way, I wasn't clear enough.

"Divvy is operated by a private company, Alta, under a city contract.  But all of the bikes, rebalancing vans and station hardware are owned outright by the City of Chicago.  The city has options beyond just sending in bill collectors when it comes to folks stealing city property."

Yes, Divvy is operated by Alta under the terms of a contract with the city. But the bikes, vans and stations are not owned by the city.


h' 1.0 said:

Notice his wording-- he didn't say "this is in fact not true," which would mean something completely different.  I think David P knows something...

Thunder Snow said:

You might be right.

David P. said:

This is not, in fact, true.

Bikes, stations and vehicles are in fact owned by the city. Read divvybiks.com/about for the details

David P. said:

Well, I probably would have written "this is in fact not true" if I'd done it again (it reads better) but either way, I wasn't clear enough.

"Divvy is operated by a private company, Alta, under a city contract.  But all of the bikes, rebalancing vans and station hardware are owned outright by the City of Chicago.  The city has options beyond just sending in bill collectors when it comes to folks stealing city property."

Yes, Divvy is operated by Alta under the terms of a contract with the city. But the bikes, vans and stations are not owned by the city.


h' 1.0 said:

Notice his wording-- he didn't say "this is in fact not true," which would mean something completely different.  I think David P knows something...

Thunder Snow said:

You might be right.

David P. said:

This is not, in fact, true.

Ha! Or maybe this is just something else to add to the long list of things I'm wrong about.

I do wonder why the vans do not have municipal plates, though.

h' 1.0 said:

Maybe we're just not agreeing on the meaning of "in fact?"

http://evanstonnow.com/story/government/bill-smith/2013-08-12/57898...

The Evanston City Council votes tonight on applying for a grant to extend the Divvy system into that suburb.  Oak Park doing the same:

 

Bike sharing may ride into town

Chicago's Divvy bike sharing program may be coming to Evanston -- if aldermen approve a grant application tonight.

The aldermen are scheduled to approve a request for federal transportation alternatives program funding to the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning.

The proposed project would cost $472,500. The grant, if awarded, would cover 80 percent of the cost, with the city picking up the rest.

It would establish seven bicycle share stations at Evanston locations yet to be determined that would each have 10 three-speed bicycles.

Oak Park and the City of Chicago are also applying for grant funds under the program. Chicago would use its grant funds to extend its network -- which as now planned extends only as far north as the Loyola University campus in Rogers Park and to Chicago's near west side -- to connect to the proposed systems in Oak Park and Evanston.

A staff memo on the project says Northwestern University has indicated an interest in partnering to bring the bike sharing system to town and that staff plans to contact the city's other large employers to ask them to share in the program's capital and operating expenses.

Annual operating costs for the Evanston system are estimated at $168,000.

User fees for bike share systems and advertising revenue from the stations cover from 50 percent to 120 percent of operating systems in other communities that have them, the staff memo says, with systems the size of the one proposed for Evanston generally recovering 70 percent to 80 percent of their costs.

Chicago's system is operated by Alta BikeShare, and the staff memo suggests that Evanston could either negotiate a separate contract with Alta, or piggy-back on Chicago's agreement.

Based on a preliminary map included with the proposal, bike share stations would most likely be located at Metra and CTA stations, on the NU campus and at the lakefront.

The City Council is also scheduled to vote on two other transportation-related grant applications tonight.

One seeks federal funding through the state transportation department for a $1.86 million project to create a new bike path along Sheridan Road -- largely on the parkway fronting the NU campus. The grant could cover up to 80 percent of the cost.

The other application seeks up to $200,000 from a state Department of Natural Resources program to renovate the Church Street boat ramp. That project is expected to cost $550,000 with the rest of the money coming from city capital improvement program funds.

Sorry, h', they change; nothing's definite, even after installation.  We just moved a station from one north side location to another a few blocks away, for no apparent reason (somebody important wanted more curbside parking at the original station location?).  CDOT specifies in fine detail where Divvy stations go; we do our best to install them within an inch of where they are spec'd.

 

And...Evanston city government tonight approved moving forward with a grant proposal to bring Divvy to that city:

http://www.evanstonnow.com/story/government/bill-smith/2013-08-12/5...

Bike share program ... have different map, (City Manager) Bobkiewicz says, made changes to add a location at the south end of town ... either Howard and Chicago or near St. Francis (Hospital) ... and one near Greenleaf and Chicago ... and move one proposed for Dempster beach to the Fleetwood Jourdain Center.

Says increases the number of stations from seven to eight.  (Alderman) Wilson has left, but Bobkiewicz says Wilson was concerned about the cost of the program.

Bike share program grant application approved as amendment."

 

If Evanston & Oak Park are successful in their grants, that should ensure that Chicago will add Divvy stations both north of Loyola University and west into Austin, to connect the three systems.  Chicago had previously only planned to go up to Loyola and west to Central Park Avenue.

It seems that they have made a couple of changes after stations are on the ground.  As to the shift from North and Marshfield to North and Wood, I think that one makes sense.  The Marshfield location was practically invisible.  On Wood, there is a lot of neighborhood foot, car and transit traffic, and it is closer to a lot of shops.  

Lisa, you're probably right.  I grouse about things like this, as there are still hundreds of stations that need to be installed around the city, and I hate to waste time moving stuff that's already in place and useable.  If I ruled the world, nothing would get altered before the last promised station went in.  Then: move stuff around after the system is fully up and running.  But it's definitely not my call.

I feel like an apostle of biking as I recently convinced one of my fellow Metra riders to use the DIVVY bikes between Ogilvie and the Rush medical campus. He used to walk between the two every day. He's 50+ and went out and got his first bike helmet. Anyone else have a good conversion story?

Most stations that are operational are installed in the same spot as they were planned. If they were moved than it is typically somewhere else on the same intersection.

The main concern about the planned stations is their timing. Initially they had a month attached to it, but that schedule seems to be thrown out the window. Not sure which stations you look at, but they may not be operational until April 2014.

So it may be 8 months or more before those stations appear. If you don't see any other regular uses, it may be best to wait until the stations are actually installed.



h' 1.0 said:

Tom (or anyone)-- are the stations listed as "planned" on the map pretty definite, or do they tend to change?

There are three showing as planned within my daily travels, but I don't want to sign up unless I know they're for sure.

RSS

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service