Vancouver’s new bike-share system won’t likely open fully on June 15, as announced previously by City of Vancouver. There may be some sort of soft launch event at that time.
Mia Kohout, GM of Vancouver Bike Share, Inc., now says that “summer 2016” is a better date. This according to Thandi Fletcher in Metro Vancouver, who kindly refers to the delay as “. . . just a little longer.”
Station location planning is underway, with lots of public input.
The city invited people to visit the city’s website and drop a pin to suggest a station location in the program’s initial service area on the downtown peninsula, which is bounded by Arbutus Street, Main Street and 16th Avenue.
Within two weeks, Kohout said the city has received about 5,000 location suggestions. The majority of proposed station locations have been at transit hubs, and near restaurants and beaches, she said.
I am looking forward to seeing these new high-tech bikes on Vancouver streets. We are yet to see in detail which of several CycleHop bike designs and docks will be in Vancouver’s system. This below is from City of Vancouver’s Bike Share Project Update.
It is unfortunate, but not unexpected, as the timelines seemed unrealistic to me. Hopefully, they can get it running early summer rather than late summer.
And whatever the fees may be they should be extra for those who want a helmet so those of us who don’t want one won’t have to subsidize them.
That would be regressive, Ron.
How would it be regressive Eric?
Those with limited funds, the poorer, would have to take on the added risk of having their heads squashed.
I can see the headline now, “she was too poor to afford a helmet that could have protected her brain”.
Only if you believe that helmets make much difference. Helmet laws certainly haven’t changed the outcome of head injury risk. We only have helmet laws to encourage people to drive.
Cycling is a safe activity. Head injury is not a possibility. We’ve been lied to.
Bike lane construction and depreciation levy, too ? As bike user do not pay gasoline taxes nor bike registration fees ? Plus a $250 fee for every police incident involving stolen bikes ? And we walkers, transit users and car users really do not want to subsidize bike lanes now , do we ?
City roads are not paid for by gas taxes or registration fees. They are paid for by municipal taxes that we all pay, just like the sidewalks you walk on. The private vehicle is the most subsidized form of transportation and cyclist pay more than their fair share.
And every km driven has an additional health cost posed on society, whereas every one biked or walked has a health savings given. If you consider those numbers, we should be rushing to give people not just bike paths, but bikes as well.
You forgot insurance. Surely those scofflaw cyclists should be forced to carry insurance to cover all the damage, death and injury they cause 😉
Thomas, in your rush to tax consumption more, you appear to be advocating for taxing non-consumption as well.
Show me some correlation please between taxes paid by heavy bike users vs. car users .. I bet they pay, on average, far far lower income and thus, consumption taxes .. but I am open to facts showing the opposite.
Thomas, nothing like buying into stereotypes that people cycle because they can’t afford cars. Most cyclists are car owners too, but choose to ride bicycles to work, like most people on this list who cycle to work. Are you also implying that those who walk to work do so because they can’t afford bicycles or cars? According to the NHTSA in the US, the higher the income, the higher the access to bicycles A government survey of nearly 10,000 Americans: just 29% of those with household incomes less than $15,000 had regular access to a bicycle 47% with incomes $30,000-$49,000 had access 65% with incomes $75,000 or more had access. http://www.nhtsa.gov/nti/811841
Thomas has no interest in facts. He is, after all, the one who said no cities have streetcars anymore. He hasn’t responded to my list of 220 cities that do. He isn’t on this list to arrive at truth – just to peddle his old fashioned ideas.
Here is one fact that shows that cyclists actually save money where drivers are a net cost. “One kilometer driven by car costs society about 17 cents, whereas society gains 18 cents for each kilometer cycled.” http://www.fastcoexist.com/3046345/how-copenhagen-became-a-cycling-paradise-by-considering-the-full-cost-of-cars The impact woudl likely be even more proneounced in Canada where whe subisdize cars, roads and oil far more than Europe.
@Yuri: Ever seen the size of this country ? Roads are a necessity to get people AND STUFF around, and once you live a city they are the only real practical option.
We subsidize roads and oil ? Last time I checked we extract, produce, refine and export a lot of oil and make billions of it, in terms of people employed (CPP, EI, personal income taxes) and taxes (GST, PST, corporate taxes). Billions. We should stop that ? We subsidize it ? You have proof ? 10,000 windmills would be better ? Ask immigrants to leave ? Freeze in the winter ?
@Anonymous, the size of the country has nothing to do with it and you contradict yourself when you say that cars become “the only practical option” in cities. Which is it?
We need cars because the place is big! We need cars because the place is small! Sounds like somebody who needs a car for something other than transportation.
I don’t think cyclists need insurance, but the Greater Victoria Cycling Coalition president’s comments are sure to rile up some people.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/life-video/video-should-cyclists-be-insured-victoria-driver-thinks/article29757140/
Lots of misinformation in that story and the GVCC President is just wrong. Cyclists are responsible for their actions and can be sued; just like drivers. If the cyclist fled the scene, it is a criminal offence (hit and run.) Also, it should be noted that most home and rental insurance covers cyclists for liability while cycling.
Not to mention that someone hitting someone when cycling is an extremely rare event.