Toronto Bike Share

[ehlow]

The main use in Toronto I'd imagine is people taking the subway down, then switching to the bike instead of 20 min walk or streetcar. For example, subway to Osgoode, then bike-share to an office at Queen-Bathurst.

If you're commuting by bike, you'd probably own a bike already and commute from outside the bike-share zone anyways.

 

[wopchop]

With some of the new cycling infrastructure, Seems like now would be the perfect time to add a few stations.

I would suggest;
- Queens Quay @ HTO Park
- Sherbourne subway station
- Sherbourne @ Moss Park
- Sherbourne @ David Crombie Park

 

[dowlingm]

With some of the new cycling infrastructure, Seems like now would be the perfect time to add a few stations.

I would suggest;
- Queens Quay @ HTO Park
- Sherbourne subway station
- Sherbourne @ Moss Park
- Sherbourne @ David Crombie Park

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/06/03/bike-share-wont-expand-in-time-for-pan-am-games.html

In a setback for Toronto’s Bike Share program, an expansion intended to coincide with the Pan Am Games has been delayed.

Pan Am plans postponed

Bike Share has been forced to abandon plans to add 22 new stations in time for the Pan Am Games next month, as a result of a technical issue that could mean the whole system will have to be either refurbished or replaced before it’s expanded. The problem: Bike Share’s stations are outdated hybrids, with software made by 8D and hardware made by PBSC. Both companies now make their own full stations. Bike Share has three options: go with 8D and replace station hardware; go with PBSC and replace the software; or find another supplier, which could mean replacing all the existing stations.

 

[salsa]

Even if the expansion plan went ahead, it's still only 22 new stations. But now we can't even have that.

 

[wopchop]

Yeah, I heard that they postponed the expansion. Do we know the locations of the 22 planned stations?

 

[Filip]

I was so excited when Bixi launched, got an annual membership and all...

I was expecting a similar rollout to Montreal given the similarities in demand, but no, we're at the same level as 4-5 years ago.

Honestly, I was expecting stations all the way down the MGT (to at least the Mimico linear parks) within a year. Still nothing and probably nothing planned for a while.

Needless to say I did not renew after that first year. It was a good decision. The coverage as is, is quite useless.

 

[LNahid2000]

The main use in Toronto I'd imagine is people taking the subway down, then switching to the bike instead of 20 min walk or streetcar. For example, subway to Osgoode, then bike-share to an office at Queen-Bathurst.

If you're commuting by bike, you'd probably own a bike already and commute from outside the bike-share zone anyways.

I live and work in the bike share zone, and also have my own bike, but still use bike share as a supplement to my own bike. With bike share, I can take my bike one-way to meet a friend and then not having to worry about going back to my bike depending on where we end up. Tomorrow I'm taking a GO Train out of Union Station but will likely get dropped off home, so I can take the bike share from Bloor-Yonge to Union and then not have to worry about picking up my bike later. I also use bike share to get to work since grabbing a bike share is faster than going into my underground parking lot, getting my own bike, then going into my work's parking lot to park it. I also don't have to worry about my bike getting stolen. It's so cheap ($90/year) that the convenience makes it worth it.

With some of the new cycling infrastructure, Seems like now would be the perfect time to add a few stations.

I would suggest;
- Queens Quay @ HTO Park
- Sherbourne subway station
- Sherbourne @ Moss Park
- Sherbourne @ David Crombie Park

The perfect time to add a few stations was 1 year ago, and 2 years ago, and 3 years ago, and 4 years ago. I can't believe they haven't had a single expansion since they started 4 years ago.

 

[Tuscani01]

Yeah, I heard that they postponed the expansion. Do we know the locations of the 22 planned stations?

Liberty Village was one of the locations.

I really hope that this delay gives them time to find a new supplier for their docking stations. The originals have become rusted eye-sores.

 

[PL1]

I'm in Stockholm right now. Their bike share is everywhere with many bikes at each location. You can buy a passcard from any tourist centre. I'm sure it's existed longer so they've had time to get things right.

But this is what bothers me about the Toronto story for bikeshare and many other things related to transit: officials act as though the Toronto situation is unique and that what works elsewhere can't work here. BS. Look at how things are done elsewhere. Do it in Toronto. Get things done!

 

[wopchop]

But this is what bothers me about the Toronto story for bikeshare and many other things related to transit: officials act as though the Toronto situation is unique and that what works elsewhere can't work here. BS. Look at how things are done elsewhere. Do it in Toronto. Get things done!

This isn't what happened in Toronto at all. I don't know where this talk about the unique Toronto situation and "what works elsewhere can't work here" comes from. Bixi, financially speaking, was a company in trouble. The Toronto Parking Authority had to buy them out. Bixi lost $3.5 million on Toronto. The company even went bankrupt shortly after the TPA took over Toronto operations.

These financial difficulties clearly affected their operations and plans worldwide, which I'm sure included Toronto.

Now that we have control over the company, I'd like to see a responsible expansion. I think a good idea would be to implement a trial where one Toronto GO Train station is given a Bixi station, and a few more are added throughout the catchment area of that station. Long Branch, Danforth, Weston or Mimico would be good candidates for this, IMO.

 

[Tuscani01]

This isn't what happened in Toronto at all. I don't know where this talk about the unique Toronto situation and "what works elsewhere can't work here" comes from. Bixi, financially speaking, was a company in trouble. The Toronto Parking Authority had to buy them out. Bixi lost $3.5 million on Toronto. The company even went bankrupt shortly after the TPA took over Toronto operations.

These financial difficulties clearly affected their operations and plans worldwide, which I'm sure included Toronto.

Bixi didn't lose anything with Toronto operations. The $3.9 million loan was paid by the city of Toronto, via a deal with Astral Media. The remaining money was put into a reserve fund to continue operating Toronto's Bixi.

The TPA only took over Bixi because Bixi Montreal went under and the original loan was in their name. Bixi Montreal's going under had nothing to do with Toronto.

 

[wopchop]

Bixi didn't lose anything with Toronto operations. The $3.9 million loan was paid by the city of Toronto, via a deal with Astral Media. The remaining money was put into a reserve fund to continue operating Toronto's Bixi.

The TPA only took over Bixi because Bixi Montreal went under and the original loan was in their name. Bixi Montreal's going under had nothing to do with Toronto.

Thanks for the clarification, but the fact remains that Bixi was unable to make payments on that loan, which is why that deal came into being in the first place.

I'm not saying that Bixi going under was because of Toronto. What I'm trying to say (and obviously failing to make clear) is that a company that can't make payments on a loan, and that goes bankrupt, points to a company that would have cash flow problems and probably had structural issues that made it financially non-viable. Clearly they weren't exactly a well running company. A company like that is usually not in a position to expand it's operations dramatically. So even if they had wanted to, these issues probably prevented Bixi from realistically implementing expansion plans.

 

[Tuscani01]

Bixi had no problem making payments on that loan. The problem was that the loan would have defaulted, forcing Bixi Toronto to cease operations, due to what was happening in Montreal. It had nothing to do with payment issues, as Bixi Toronto was paying the loan without any issues right up to the point where control was handed to the City of Toronto.

Bixi Toronto, as its own subsidiary of Bixi Montreal wasn't having cash flow problems, and didn't have structural issues making it financially non-viable. This is why the city agreed to save it by paying off the loan and operating it, as opposed to scrapping it by allowing the loan to default as Montreal's went under.

The only reason the expansion isn't happening right now is because of supplier issues. There have also been issues with parts for the existing bikes which has lead to many other issues with Toronto's system. None of the issues have to do with funding at the moment.

 

[wopchop]

Bixi had no problem making payments on that loan. The problem was that the loan would have defaulted, forcing Bixi Toronto to cease operations, due to what was happening in Montreal. It had nothing to do with payment issues, as Bixi Toronto was paying the loan without any issues right up to the point where control was handed to the City of Toronto.

Bixi Toronto, as its own subsidiary of Bixi Montreal wasn't having cash flow problems, and didn't have structural issues making it financially non-viable. This is why the city agreed to save it by paying off the loan and operating it, as opposed to scrapping it by allowing the loan to default as Montreal's went under.

The only reason the expansion isn't happening right now is because of supplier issues. There have also been issues with parts for the existing bikes which has lead to many other issues with Toronto's system. None of the issues have to do with funding at the moment.

Well, obviously I've misunderstood the issue. Thanks for the clarification. I remembered it being reported that Bixi was failing to make payments, because doing so would mean that they would not be able to cover their operating costs. Looking at some old articles (such as this and this and this), it seems that all the major news outlets were indeed reporting that they were failing to make loan payments.

From National Post, Nov 14/13

Bixi opened in Toronto in 2011 with a $3.9-million loan guarantee from the City of Toronto. But it has been unable to make payments on that debt and has asked Toronto to buy its 1,000 bikes for $1,200 each and take over the service locally.

From Toronto Star, April 29/13

According to the report, Bixi Toronto informed city staff in November that it was not able to make its loan payments “over the next few months.”

If the company defaults, Toronto is on the hook for an outstanding loan of $3.9 million.

From The Globe & Mail, Dec 4/13

Earlier this year, councillors were told the company was no longer able to make payments on the $3.9-million loan it had been guaranteed by the city.

From The Toronto Star, Apr 19/13

According to a city hall official, not including debt costs, Bixi is about $100,000 short of breaking even on its $1.5 million operating expenses. Staff feel it’s a manageable gap that could be filled through additional sponsorships and subscriptions. But something needs to be done about the loan.

From what you've written, this is false, yes? I'm trying to understand if I've misunderstood something here.

From here, it looks to me like the company was clearly setup in Toronto with a structure that was doomed to fail.

 

[Tuscani01]

Now I am confused as well. I was under the assumption that the loan was paid off, and that extra money was put aside to pay for any extra costs. I could've sworn the tipping point was Bixi Montreal's bankruptcy, but it does appear that Bixi's inability to pay the $100,000 was the actual tipping point.