Jordan Bateman: Vision Vancouver bike share program puts millions in taxes at risk
Vancouver’s Bixi publicbike share program may sound like good public policy but, in the end, it will be taxpayers who will get taken for a ride.
It seems like a no-brainer in a city with three thriving car share companies and a massive taxpayer investment in new bike lanes that a bicycle share program would be a huge success. But still city hall has offered to subsidize this Bixi system because no entrepreneur, knowing Vancouver’s helmet laws, Bixi’s dodgy software issues and Montreal’s multi-million dollar bike share bailout, would take a risk on funding the project themselves.
Vision Vancouver has offered up taxpayers to give Bixi an advantage none of the three Vancouver car share programs got—millions in corporate welfare. Vancouver City Hall has pledged $1.9 million per year for the next ten years for the bike share program, plus untold expenses for advertising, free rental space and other incidentals.
Why are taxpayers paying for bikes when the car shares have proven transportation co-ops and businesses can be started and sustained without taxpayer dollars?
Much ink has been spilled over the Vision Vancouver obsession with bikes. City Hall has been criticized for the Hornby bike lanes, the lack of enforcement against Critical Mass protestors, the suggestion of removing parking along Stanley Park’s Pipeline Road for more cycle paths and for looking at radical changes to the Granville and Cambie bridges, to name just a few.
While some say Vision is waging war on the driver, a more apt description may be a war on taxpayers.
The subsidized bike share will likely put private bicycle rental companies out of business. If they do survive, their taxes will be used to prop up their competitor.
Bixi is a business—and not a profitable one. It was bailed out by Montreal taxpayers in 2011, when that city hall pumped $108 million into it, despite a scathing report from the Montreal auditor general. That money is to be paid back to the city by Bixi pulling other cities into the system, meaning Vancouver dollars will go to remedying Montreal’s bad decision.
Other systems have been delayed by Bixi’s ongoing legal fight with its former software developer and lack of a better tech solution. New York City and Chicago have delayed their Bixi start dates after Chattanooga’s launch was riddled with glitches. As NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg said, “The software doesn’t work.”
Vancouver is likely to delay as well—the new software just isn’t ready.
B.C.’s helmet laws will further hurt the potential for the bike share to operate without taxpayer subsidy. In warmer and sunnier Australia, where riders must also wear helmets, bike shares haven’t worked in Melbourne or Brisbane. The average Brisbane share bike is only used once every four days. In Melbourne, it’s once every three days.
Vancouver has said a helmet solution must be in place—but helmet vending machines, subsidized $5 helmets and even free helmets left on the bikes have not worked elsewhere. It won’t work here either.
Finally, the zone set out for Bixi misses key areas like south, central and east Vancouver, Commercial Drive, UBC and elsewhere. It is limited to the downtown peninsula and north of Broadway between Main and Arbutus.
Vancouver taxpayers are dangerously close to being forced to pay a big bill for furthering Vision’s bike agenda. Until the bike share can be run without a taxpayer subsidy—as the car shares are—it should be put on hold.
Jordan Bateman is the British Columbia director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.





Our government needs to take it's head out of its rear about this issue and focus on educational rather than legislative tools.
Bike sharing promises to get more Vancouverites and tourists on bikes. More cyclists, means less pressure on our transit system and less automobiles on the road. It also means less air pollution and more exercise for users. A study of Barcelona's system found 12.28 deaths were prevented annually in Barcelona because of bike sharing - 11% of the city's 1.6 million residents are bike share members, and using the bike sharing system increased fitness levels and lowered air pollution levels.
There's no doubt that bike sharing will cost the city, although some of that costs can be recouped through advertising. The worth will be determined by how successful the program is. The helmet law will definitely a huge obstacle, but it's possible to fix that through legislative change (as was done in Mexico City and Tel Aviv, and being considered in Australia right now).
Vancouver has lots of cyclists and lots of bicycles. We now have some pretty decent bike routes too. Unless we address the huge issue of theft we will always be wondfering where all the riders are who are supposed to be populating those bike lanes.
You are creating a culture of self righteousness in Vancouver, pitting bikes against cars against pedestrians, we all have to co-exist treat each other with respect, patience and common courtesy. These things cost next to nothing and will make a city great to live, work, and commute in.
Do it right, for the right reasons, don't just do it right away, because you think it is right.
aka Look before you leap.
Secondly, comparing car share programs with the bike share program completely misses the mark. With infrastructure that is needed with the bike system, and the number of bikes that are needed. Plus, the City does provide some subsidies through parking relaxations with car share programs. Lastly, there are over 300, yes 300! cities around the world that have installed bike share programs around the world. We're just catching up with them, and if they didn't work, there just wouldn't be that many. Bike share programs are revolutionizing public transport around the world.
[URL="http://bc.transport2000.ca/learning/background/transport_2021/cost_repor..."]http://bc.transport2000.ca/learning/background/transport_2021/cost_repor...
Automobile transport was subsidised by $2.7 billion
Private, motorised vehicles (including motorcycles) were subsidised by about $2.7 billion in the Lower Mainland in 1991. As the full costs of auto transport are about $11.7 billion, the subsidy for cars is about 23%. ...
You said:"I'm a cyclist, and I completely agree that our helmet laws curtail cycling use. It's just not convenient to pack one with you and many people don't want to wear one".
I say.. your comment seems to fly in the face of the howls of outrage uttered by so many cycling advocates when confronted with the facts about bike lane USEAGE in Vancouver. Seems ok for you to imply that a little thing like a helmet would have a big negative effect on bike useage while the winter long watering of our surrounding rainforest does not. I mean, which has the bigger effect on your decision to bike? Helmet legislation or lots of raingear?
All considered, I think we have the minimal bike use we expect and should STOP spending on these things downtown. I mean if you want more people on bikes, then shorten the ride in the rain. Spend your money on secure bike storage at skytrain or bus loops so cyclists 'Park and ride' and maybe ban bikes from major thoroughfares and downtown. But no... that wouldnt choke traffic as effectively and we know that is one of the major goals of Vision Vancouver. Yes, there is a war on cars.
http://taxpayer.com/campaigns-and-issues
Things Jordan Bateman likes:
Mitt Romney
The Walking Dead (insert Republican joke)
The New Girl
Indie schools
Subtly photobombing random tourist pics
Green Bay Packers
Speaking invites from political parties
(source: Twitter)
How can you say with a straight face that the millions spent on bike infrastructure is a "war on taxpayers" when we collectively spend BILLIONS on extremely expensive roads and freeways for cars? Just a *tad* hypocritical there, Jordan.
Or... we could just build separated bike lanes. Problem solved.
We get it, Jordan...your small business lobby just doesn't like to pay taxes and hates all manner of public institutions. The least you could do is ask your members to display CTF affiliation in the window so customers can decide if your anti-tax/anti-public service crusade is worth patronizing.
Just as MVA Drivers have to wear seatbelts so should Cyclists have to wear protective Helmets.
Saving just one person a year from more serious injury is reason enough.
As for Bixi I'm against Corporate Welfare, if the City wants to pay out than it should run it's own 100% owned Bikes or not at all.
It is on it's last legs of subsidisation and without a law change a lot more funding won't help that. That in my view is not such a problem. I would rather see that funding going towards other transport infrastructure to continue to make cycling safe for anyone. Bike share programs should be a late add-on.
Lots of people see real keen to get PSBC over here - yet I think this enthusiasm for bike share is at times mixed with enthusiasm for bikes. Luckily you can have more bikes and better riding without an expensive system.
So let's see.