Bikes, bikes, bikes

[coalminecanary]

So, if it fails, it's "told you so". If it succeeds, you'll be upset that someone made money from operating it. So really, you just hate the idea? I mean it's fair for you to have that opinion, but just say it and spare us the concern song and dance.

The metrolinx money is our money - but if Hamilton doesn't claim any of it, it's all going to go to other regions. Is that a better outcome?

This money is, indeed going to go into more bike racks. Part of the beauty of this system is that it uses regular racks and regular bikes can use those racks as well. You are right that it won't buy new lanes however.

All of your questions about demographics, costs, paybacks and successes can be found by studying the proposed system and other bike share implementations - which the city did before choosing this path.

And I believe that the operations side will be non-profit and that the private company's profit comes from the bike purchase. To me this is little different from a city economics perspective than a construction company benefiting from getting a bridge contract.

[drpgq]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

Metrolinx's money is our money.

I'm just wondering what demographic this type of service is designed to attract, and if that group is large enough and has the disposable income necessary to make the service 'revenue neutral' after the initial capital investment. I suspect subsequent 'capital investments' will be forthcoming.

I would have been happier if $1.6 mil went towards expanding the cycling lane network and more bike racks rather than buying 650 bikes so somebody can make money managing the program.

Metrolinx gets a big pot of money from the province and then figures out how to spend it. I suppose in theory you could say it is our money, but that doesn't seem to be how it works.

Personally I like the idea of considering it to be our money because then Hamilton should demand that Metrolinx funding is given out to each city on a per capita basis. If that were the case, then take all the money Metrolinx has spent so far on Toronto, divide roughly by five and then hand that out to Hamilton for whatever we want to do with it.

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by coalminecanary

So, if it fails, it's "told you so". If it succeeds, you'll be upset that someone made money from operating it. So really, you just hate the idea? I mean it's fair for you to have that opinion, but just say it and spare us the concern song and dance.

What song and dance? I said quite clearly that as far as this $1.6 million investment goes, I think it would have been better spent improving the cycling network for everyone rather than paying for 650 bikes and 65 bike racks so that someone else can make money renting out the bikes to a very limited number of people who will benefit from this investment.

I am not saying we should take a pass on Metrolinx money. I am saying the money could be better spent. There are a lot more cyclists out there with their own bikes that would benefit more from putting $1.6 mil towards accelerating the cycling master plan than those who will benefit from a bike share plan - not to mention the cycling shop owners whose potential income from bicycle sales and maintenance will be cannibalized by a subsidized bike share program.

[coalminecanary]

The thing is, bike shares have been shown in other cities to improve the situation for everyone - drivers, transit riders, occasional cyclists, bike owners and non owners - and even bike shops and bike rental places.

People who own bikes will often partake in the bikeshare because it allows them to do things such as ride to work on a sunny morning and take a bus or taxi home if it starts raining. Or take a sobi to the go centre, take the go to toronto, and then use bixi there - without having to worry if the bus bike rack is full.

Bike share also allows non-cycling friends of cyclists to try city cycling out and get hooked on it.

People who start on bike share may then go buy a bike - and they might be people who never otherwise would have.

In the end, the result is usually an increase in cyclists, which means less congestion for drivers, more respect for cycling as transportation rather than simply recreation, better infrastructure built to serve the growing ridership.

I think this will prove to be a very good return on our investment, and in the end we will own the equipment and will not have spent money on proprietary station infrastructure.

This model seems like a great fit for a city our size.

[Jon Dalton]

I used to think bike share was putting the cart before the horse and that Hamilton was not ready for it and we needed more bike lanes and traffic calming first. After seeing the evidence put forward by staff, I changed my mind. We can't keep waiting for one thing to do the other. We are improving cycling infrastructure here one small bit at a time. Having a bike share won't fail because of lack of bike racks or bike lanes. It will increase the demand and support for such things and work in tandem with them to improve the cycling environment.

[thistleclub]

CBC Hamilton:

On Friday, Ward 5 Councillor Chad Collins presented a laundry list of 19 line items from the city’s capital budget that could be scratched in favour of reducing the expected tax increase for 2014.....

But the changes weren’t without their critics.

Justin Jones, co-organizer of Yes We Cannon — the group that successfully lobbied the city to look into the installation of two-way bike lanes on Cannon Street — said he’s worried that a $100,000 cut to the city’s bike infrastructure budget will thwart future cycling initiatives in Hamilton.

Collins had said that the cut was justified because much of the $300,000 from the capital budget that’s devoted to bike lanes on a yearly basis isn’t getting spent, and because some of the funding for cycling projects comes from other places.

However, Jones complained that councillors sometimes veto bike lane projects that have already been designed by staff, creating surplus funding from projects that were planned in full, but never implemented.

Hamilton Spectator:

Next year's proposed $285-million capital budget includes $20 million in funds "reallocated" from completed, delayed or abandoned capital projects approved by council in the past.

Too often, councillors don't know where that "recycled" cash comes from — or what previously approved projects died to make it available, said Councillor Chad Collins at Friday's budget meeting…

At that same meeting, Collins introduced a series of motions to cut or put off more than $3 million of proposed 2014 capital spending, including allocations for public art, cycling lanes and video traffic detection.

He noted money for bike lanes is going unspent each year because staff can't complete enough projects to keep up with its annual $300,000 capital budget request. "If we can't spend it (in a given year) I'm not sure we should be taxing people for it," he said.

[coalminecanary]

Half the budget is roads. If we removed one lane from service on Main, we'd save that money in one move. But the roads budget is sacred, and clark wants to nickel and dime these little projects. As if the overspending on public art and bike lanes is causing our tax problems. Gimme a break.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by coalminecanary

Half the budget is roads. If we removed one lane from service on Main, we'd save that money in one move. But the roads budget is sacred, and clark wants to nickel and dime these little projects. As if the overspending on public art and bike lanes is causing our tax problems. Gimme a break.

That’s true: the roads budget makes everything Clark brings up pale in comparison. Does that mean, though, that it’s not appropriate to try to save small amounts of money where possible?

As the saying goes, you have to watch the pennies because they add up to dollars. That’s how people entrusted with other people’s tax dollars should behave. So, yes, if $300,000 is allocated to bike lanes, that’s not a large amount of money relative to the whole budget, but if the City is unable to spend it, they shouldn’t have taken it from taxpayers in the first place. That makes sense, as a principle, doesn't it?

[coalminecanary]

What Clark should be asking is: "Why are we not spending our cycling infrastructure budget when we know that improved bike infrastructure will lower future roads costs - our single biggest expenditure?"

In other words, what roadblocks are preventing the build-out of the cycling master plan?

And when a project such as the bridge replacement at king/kenilworth ($2.3 million) comes up, or the reconstruction of the claremont collapse (making it wder than the 403 again, for $???million), or the construction of an overpass at clappisons ($$hundreds of millions) where are the cries? This selective myopia is BAD fiscal governance dressed up as good.

[thistleclub]

Clark or Collins?

FWIW, at this point, the City's roads capital budget seems to be down for 2014: $98.8M, or about $4M lower than 2013.

[durandy]

It's Collins by the way not Clark, even though it sounds like Clark.

[coalminecanary]

Sorry, Collins. But most of council suffers from the same tunnel vision.

[Pearlstreet]

I think Social Bike's are a win purely due to this experiment (please watch link)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po85l...QTgXQ&index=11


Also because having your bike stolen sucks...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90KSu...fVthA0qrFQTgXQ

[thistleclub]

Via @SamCraggsCBC:


Whitehead moving not have a proposed bike lane on Rymal Rd from West 5 to Glancaster Rd. He wants to find another solution

Surveyed residents don't want the bike lane on Rymal. Presents "another point of conflict. & Rymal is essentially a highway: Whitehead

McHattie doesn't want to rule out the bike lane on Rymal. He wants to look at making it a safe, separated bike lane

Looks like they're going to examine making a separated bike lane on Rymal. Whitehead wants to consult with residents again too

[rousseau]

What's the best way to ride up the mountain from downtown?

[mattgrande]

Depends on where you're trying to get to on the mountain.

[rousseau]

From the Durand area to various places west of Upper James.

[matt602]

There are bike lanes on the Jolley Cut I believe but I wouldn't take them, myself. Way too dangerous with all the traffic. If you're going to the East Mountain (Upper Kenilworth), take the escarpment rail trail to the Kenilworth stairs and carry your bike up. Thats how I usually do it.

[rousseau]

Thanks for the info. This summer I plan to do some road riding in clipless pedals in the area, so walking up stairs isn't an option. I'd thought there was a path somewhere that went up the mountain near Chedoke. Isn't there?

Do cyclists ever go up the James-West 5th hill or the Queen Street hill?

[SteelTown]

There's the Chedoke Radial Trail, at the base of Chedoke golf clubhouse. The stairs takes you to Upper Paradise or the trail takes you to Scenic Dr, which the Hamilton/Ancaster border.

Never seen a cyclist take the Queen St hill, they'll always take the stairs.