Jordan Bateman: Vision Vancouver bike share program puts millions in taxes at risk

Comments

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.

Comments (20) Add New Comment
Nicholas
No accountability = No change. Just when you think The brain trust at silly hall has outdone themselves, BAZINGA!
3
0
Rating: +3
Bone
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.

Our government needs to take it's head out of its rear about this issue and focus on educational rather than legislative tools.
4
1
Rating: +3
Alex T
I'm an ardent fan of cycling and I dearly want Vancouver's ambitious transportation plans to succeed yet I reluctantly agree with Bateman. I don't think we can afford (financially or politically) to have an expensive, public failure like this. With some ideas like bike lanes there were a lot of criticisms and outcry but the evidence supported the change. With the bike share and helmet laws, it looks like Bateman is right and the evidence is against us. I'm all for calculated risks, but risking money when the odds are against us? That's foolish.
3
0
Rating: +3
canadianveggie
Mr. Bateman's hyperbole aside, the question of the value a bike share system provides Vancouver is a good one. Around the world, city's like Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Paris, London, Barcelona, Dublin, New York, Chicago, Washington DC, Minneapolis, Mexico City, Rio de Janeiro, Boston, Miami, Denver, Chattanooga, Hangzhou, Shanghai, Tel Aviv, and hundreds of more big and small have all committed to subsidizing bike share systems because they see value.

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).
2
1
Rating: +1
Peter Dimitrov
On helmets: I think every person who rides a bike should be required to get a licence, for a modest annual fee of say $5.00, from city hall, (exemption for children under x age), and that helmets and lights when operating at night be mandatory and a tickeable traffic offence if violated. Why? As a driver I often come across people riding their bikes on dark raining nights, dressed in black, no helmets and no lights, a hellva danger to themselves and drivers who may not see them at all or insufficiently to avoid potential accidents, some of which may be fatal to the cyclist and certainly very traumatic for a driver. Licencing cyclists will raise monies which can then be applied to improved pathways and services to cyclists on a pay as you go basis. I think property owners are maxed out on taxes, increased hydro fees, and some of which may be shifted by landlords to renters. I do not agree that the City should be subsidizing the establishment of Bixi bike sharing system in the City by offloading costs onto property taxes - owners of which, if they are landlords, will likely shift costs to renters. The City's tax base is very weak to be supporting such a venture, and further, I would rather see the estimated $1.9 million (x ten years= 19 million) go into other budget line items, rec centres, libraries. Where the did Robertson and Vision get the mandate for this looney bike subsidy idea - not from the electorate!
1
2
Rating: -1
daveC
When the overtaxed Vancouver citizens come to their senses and vote these idiots out, will we still be on the hook for all these wasted tax dollars, I sure hope not!
3
1
Rating: +2
out at night
Why a bike share at all? People have bikes. They have bikes in garages, lockers, attics, balconies, etc. One of the big reasons folks don't ride those bikes for everyday stuff is the very real threat of bike theft. Instead of racks full of Bixi bikes, how about really good, secure bike parking? Not a bike rack that requires you bring your own lock(s), and carry with you all the accessories you don't want to have stripped off your bike in your absence; but rather a cheap and convenient bike locker that can fit the whole works: bike, panniers, helmet, lights - heck, you should be able to confidently leave your wallet and keys in there too if you want. These things should be liberally peppered across the city and region.

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.
2
1
Rating: +1
BNICE
Vision Vancouver, long term vision GREAT, execution of vision FAIL!!

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.
2
0
Rating: +2
cdnexplorer
Unfortunately there are so many problems with the author argument. Firstly, it's completely thrown out the window because Bixi will not be operating the system. If the author had done his research he would find out that Alta Bike Share, a Portland based company will be the operator. So this whole Montreal false problem will not be in Vancouver.
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.
2
3
Rating: -1
tim
What is John Bateman complaining about there are bigger subsidies to tackle:

[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%. ...
0
2
Rating: -2
Lee L.
@Bone
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.

1
0
Rating: +1
R U Kiddingme
Jordan Bateman represents the Canadian Taxpayer's Federation, which opposes wasteful government spending, such as the terrible fact that public servants have pensions, whereas if they were privatized, they would get half the wage and no pension.

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)


0
3
Rating: -3
scathie
"While some say Vision is waging war on the driver, a more apt description may be a war on taxpayers."

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.
0
1
Rating: -1
Mark MacFadyen
Vancouver topography does not support bicycle commuting unless you live inside or very close to downtown. Does anyone really expect a person to commute from south Van, West/North Van, up and down hills, in the rain, and without even a locker room to greet you at the end. Forget it. I wouldn't do it and I've been biking in traffic in Vancouver for forty years.
2
0
Rating: +2
scathie
"as a driver I often come across people riding their bikes on dark raining nights, dressed in black, no helmets and no lights, a hellva danger to themselves and drivers who may not see them at all or insufficiently to avoid potential accidents, some of which may be fatal to the cyclist and certainly very traumatic for a driver. Licencing cyclists will raise monies which can then be apple"

Or... we could just build separated bike lanes. Problem solved.
1
1
Rating: 0
James Blatchford
Self-proclaimed public policy expert Jordan Bateman should just come clean on the Canadian Taxpayer Federation. Borrowing from the same anti-government vein as the America right, and reliant on lazy and uncritical media, Bateman fancies himself as the champion of the over-stressed tax payer. In reality, he represents a Canadian version of the free market / anti-tax extremism as espoused by Newt Gingrich and the Tea Party.

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.
0
3
Rating: -3
Cycling
I would love to cycle more around Vancouver, unfortunately I have issues with trusting the traffic around me. People passing me with a few inches to spare in some places just isn't that fun....
1
1
Rating: 0
iSheep
Bike lanes help prevent accidents & save millions in Emergency Health Care.

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.
1
1
Rating: 0
Zoobzoob La Zoob
The investment so far in cycling infrastructure is not massive. It's crumbs.
2
1
Rating: +1
Robbie
Bike share, except in some cities where it has been successful, is still an expensive niche. Isn't working in Melbourne for a few reasons - helmet law, small pool of locations and odd locations.

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.
2
1
Rating: +1
Add new comment
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.