Divvy costing taxpayers big...

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ryan Lakes on October 7, 2013 at 7:10pm

Again, regional identity.

Without doing research I can pretty safely assume that each of those cities including ours has organizations with engineering, product design, computer programming, marketing and project management programs whose reason for existing is to equip people with the skills necessary to pull off a complex projects like bike share. Each city would likely have no trouble finding locals who'd jump at the chance. For instance, notoriousDUG has a pretty rock solid understanding of the Alta bike design features, I think you'd agree, and he may be just one among many. 

Research on how other cities pulled it off (or messed it up) prior, not 100% replicas, would help to make sure the fewest possible mistakes were made while a unique take on how to solve the problem was designed and implemented. That's plenty of people's idea of fun and the kind of thing that makes traveling to another city worthwhile. It's also the kind of thing that employs the people that live here.

Michael Hulburt said:

Boston, Washington DC, New York, Melbourne, and soon the San Francisco Bay area—have bike share run by Alta, and many more cities use the same Bixi bicycles—Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, Minneapolis, London, Aspen, Chattanooga, Columbus. Why change something that clearly works so well?

Ryan Lakes said:

That would have been my preference to ensure that the risks and profits of local investments stay local to the max and that regional identity is strengthened. I would have also preferred a unique bicycle design rather than the replicas of those in other cities.   

I only mean to share the concept that if Chicago truly is a world class city, then it can take care of itself. Empowering its own community members rather than outsourcing is how I imagine making that more of the reality.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by S on October 7, 2013 at 9:43pm

Regional identity?  So would you suggest that the city hire local companies to do everything the next time it needs to build infrastructure?  Basically find local companies so that it everything needed for the construction project could be built from raw materials that are shipped in?  How about the L or buses, should the city do something similar?  

I think you're vastly underestimating the risks inherent in building something like this especially in regards to the software and customer facing components.  Building the bikes and stations locally would be tough enough but history is full of software development projects that have come in way overbudget and years past deadlines or which have simply not worked.   The divvy system needs a complete billing/accounting system, a tracking system tied into gps sensors in the bikes, monitoring systems at the docks and customer keyfobs.  Getting this to work together and then adding a website for users to use as well as backend systems to monitor and schedule vans to rebalance the bike stations is a pretty big undertaking especially when you need to deal with thousands of people using the system on a continual basis.  It's easy to see why the city went with a company with experience in implementing this and a working system that they can reuse. 

My question to you is how much more would you be willing to pay to get this implemented locally?  E.g. would you think it'd be okay to spend 10x what Divvy costs to do it locally?  

Ryan Lakes said:

Again, regional identity.

Without doing research I can pretty safely assume that each of those cities including ours has organizations with engineering, product design, computer programming, marketing and project management programs whose reason for existing is to equip people with the skills necessary to pull off a complex projects like bike share. Each city would likely have no trouble finding locals who'd jump at the chance. For instance, notoriousDUG has a pretty rock solid understanding of the Alta bike design features, I think you'd agree, and he may be just one among many. 

Research on how other cities pulled it off (or messed it up) prior, not 100% replicas, would help to make sure the fewest possible mistakes were made while a unique take on how to solve the problem was designed and implemented. That's plenty of people's idea of fun and the kind of thing that makes traveling to another city worthwhile. It's also the kind of thing that employs the people that live here.

Michael Hulburt said:

Boston, Washington DC, New York, Melbourne, and soon the San Francisco Bay area—have bike share run by Alta, and many more cities use the same Bixi bicycles—Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, Minneapolis, London, Aspen, Chattanooga, Columbus. Why change something that clearly works so well?

Ryan Lakes said:

That would have been my preference to ensure that the risks and profits of local investments stay local to the max and that regional identity is strengthened. I would have also preferred a unique bicycle design rather than the replicas of those in other cities.   

I only mean to share the concept that if Chicago truly is a world class city, then it can take care of itself. Empowering its own community members rather than outsourcing is how I imagine making that more of the reality.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ryan Lakes on October 7, 2013 at 9:47pm

To me, the idea that taxpayers don't have confidence in our own community's ability to accomplish something as simple as a bikeshare project is a little depressing and I hope it isn't true. It also means that whoever they do have confidence in and hire will get the profits. Chicago is big enough and smart enough. I hope that in the future we can see the logic in investing in ourselves more often.

I suspect that a reason that we may not is that we're still wounded from having so grossly over-invested in automobile infrastructure. Hesitant, in debt and can't keep the stuff in good repair.

I totally support the decision to implement the bike sharing program in Chicago and am sure it will add value to our city. I just wish we'd cranked out our own version as an almost recreational activity for those involved, in good style and in a uniquely Chicago style.

Jeff Schneider said:

Montreal did that to create Bixi.  In Chicago today,  I highly doubt there would be support for risking taxpayer's money to create a competing system, which would probably have to be sold to other cities to recoup the investment.

Ryan Lakes said:

Again, regional identity.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ryan Lakes on October 8, 2013 at 12:33pm

David Moore, your response, kicking my butt up and down the street, was awesome. Somehow it got deleted, here it is edited:

"Dude, quite living in the clouds (david, I live in the clouds, man). Starting from scratch on a bike share system, just to say "Made in Chicago" is such a misplaced priority as to be almost laughable. I don't mean to be a (butthead), but come on. When you are spending millions, you want results, not warm fuzzies. Not "well...it wouldda been cool". Save that loveable loser nonsense for the Cubs (.. I got no love for sports -rl).

Alta is far and away the most qualified vendor for major bikesharing, probably in the world. And it's not like they are just going to give away their years of bikeshare knowledge because some city wants to "shop local". And your assertion that bikeshare at this scale is "simple" (To me, the idea that taxpayers don't have confidence in our own community's ability to accomplish something as simple as a bikeshare project is a little depressing and I hope it isn't true.) really shows that you're wearing some rose colored glasses. Bikeshare at this scale is incredibly complicated.

Bike share has been slowly developing since the 60's. Ths wasn't something that Alta invented last year, it's something that lots of different companies and municipalities have tried to get right over the years (and failed), and Alta has proven themselves as one of, if not the best at it. Bikeshare at this scale is not something that some other outfit is just going to replicate overnight if they just have a "can do attitude" and enough gumption! We could do it ourselves, sure, (as a city I guess), by spending crazy amounts of money and taking 2,3,4 times as long to implement, (with probably many times over the number of glitches and bugs), all while the critics feasted on the faltering program like jackles on a wounded wildebeast. But f that.

We wanted it done as well as possible and for as cheaply as possible, and that would not be possible by starting over with a conglomerate of local but unproven vendors, subcontractors, etc.. Trust me, for all his bitching and moaning, Josh Squire and Bike Chicago have done, they could never have handled a contract or project of this size. All that would have happend is the project would have just been tied up in neverending delays, it would have become a punching bag for every anti bike/ anti city crank out there and probably would have ended in a lawsuit against Bike Chicago and the contract being stripped from them and awarded to someone else anyway, if we'd been lucky. No thanks. They already spoiled the contract and made us wait a year, knowing there was no way they were going to sore loser their way into getting the contract, which shows you the level of professionalism and business accumen they had. All they did was allow New York to get the jump on us and implement their program before ours. Think about that the next time you want to prioritize local pride over results."

Sure, that's the reality of the situation and what would likely have been the outcome if we'd broken the mold and tried our own, but I still hold to the concepts that I've communicated. 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• Next ›
• Page