Or sell to the MTA or some other government entity. I still don’t understand why it needs to be a public-private partnership.

This spate of negative PR seems like a leadup to Alta declaring bankruptcy and the city voiding the contract. Are there other vendors capable of stepping up and doing the job right?

It hasn’t even been a year yet…. Sure there have been problems, but it has been an enormous rollout with some serious unforseen problems (Sandy, Bixi’s software, 99,000 annual members in under a year, no public funding, Polar Vortex). Has any other Bike Share company (B-Cycle, Deco Bike, etc). had to grapple with the same number and size of these hits while under sustained attack by anti-bike foes with powerful allies?

Alta’s bikeshare systems in DC and Boston are running really well. Let’s give them a chance to make it better. And who knows? Maybe Bloomberg Philanthropies can spare some pocket change to be the “new investor” in Alta.

I think whoever runs Citibike, whether it’s Alta or some other company, should be required to do so in a manner TRANSPARENT to the public. Without transparency, we have no way to judge how good a job they’re doing, what the problems are and how to solve them.

Here are a few questions I’d like to know the answers to:

– How much is Alta spending on fixing faulty docks? What are the problems the docks have that need fixing, and how much is each problem costing?

– How much rebalancing is being done? From where to where, and when? How much does this cost to do?

– What else is Alta spending money on and how much?

– We all know how problematic the new software has been. Why not open source it? I’m sure there are hundreds of skilled programmers who’d be interested in improving it for free.

…and many more. Anyone who’s been following the program knows we get no real information, just leaks and rumors.

I have no problem with Alta making a profit (I wish they were, in fact). But is there any reason for them, and the DOT, to run this enterprise so secretively?

(By “reason” I mean “reason in the public interest”, not “corporate and bureaucratic imperative.”)

Keeping things hidden away just allows problems to fester and grow in the dark. Bikeshare in NYC is too important to let that happen here!

Wrong. Our transit system would be the envy of the world the moment the federal government decided it believed in transit again. MTA is doing its best after being dealt a terrible hand. With the % of federal subsidy declining each year, it’s a miracle we get to preserve existing service, let alone capital projects.

As noted in piece, Bixi needs to be replaced. Do that before any more money is spent. Logical one is German Nextbike, recently selected for NJ’s 800 bike program. Nextbike has more bikes in operation across globe than B-cycle, Deco, Bike Nation, Cyclehop, and Sobi combined. At its core, Nextbike is a software company. http://bit.ly/O7pHNn

Is transparency really the problem? The issue with Alta is that they’re bike share cum transit idealogues; not experienced operations managers.

Offers for Bixi’s international arm not satisfactory:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/Offers+Bixi+international+satisfactory+city+says/9656162/story.html

Larry, I actually think it makes a ton of sense for a major auto manufacturer to purchase Bixi/Alta. They know that young city dwellers are increasingly less interested in driving, and I know from people in the car industry that they’re quite concerned about this, and are taking a serious look at the growing interest in biking. Obviously they can’t repeat what happened with the trolleys, because someone else would come along and fill the void. But a smart auto company will understand that urban cycling is the future and that bike share could complement its existing product offerings. These are big companies with lots of manufacturing and logistics expertise, and lots of R&D capability.

I, for one, would not at all be surprised to see Toyota or Nissan or Volkswagen or Ford making a push into bike share.

The city controls the franchise, so that can be prevented. And a green electric microcar is still a car; young urbanites could drive Priuses or Leafs if they wanted to drive cars, but they want to ride bikes. You can argue that the big auto companies are evil, but not that they’re stupid.

But none of them run any system as large as the NYC one.

Alta’s bikeshare system in DC (Capital Bikeshare) and Boston (Hubway) were created with 8D software- prior to the split between Bixi and 8D. Bixi made the bikes. 8D created the software to run the system, and they worked really well together. That played a major part in the systems in DC and Boston taking off in the manner they have. Essentially Bixi tried to cut 8D out of the loop and steal their software/technology, resulting in 8D suing Bixi, and subsequently, Bixi counter-suing 8D. The entire thing has been a mess.

Bixi’s demise was no surprise to anyone who happens to work in the bikesharing industry and is privy to fairly hard to find information. A year before they filed for bankruptcy, people were already waiting to hear that the company had imploded. Alta of course knew all of this information and was caught in the middle. While it certainly wasn’t their fault, the lack of transparency prior to Bixi filing bankruptcy has now caused minor to major issues for bikesharing across the country. Cities with plans to implement bikeshare programs have essentially put everything on an indefinite hold until Alta can find a way to remedy this mess; and cities like New York are now caught in an unnecessary situation.

Transparency is absolutely key to a successful bikesharing program. If you look at Capital Bikeshare in DC, you’ll see an unprecedented amount of information being shared. That transparency has allowed for a lot of great advancements and ideas from people not associated with the program at all.

It always cracks me up when people volunteer Bloomberg’s personal fortune to solve every and any problem. Why don’t you make a billion dollars and donate it to bike share?

From a software perspective, much of Nextbike’s 17,000 global portfolio runs on a single software program in cloud.

Joe, based on what you’ve posted on Streetsblog in the past, 4 to 6 times faster than a regular bike would have you riding around at 100 to 150 miles per hour.

😉

While I’m not arguing against ditching Alta, it strikes me that switching vendors will be very costly. At best, the transition will cause confusion and uncertainly. Would there be an interruption of service? Would the transition be smooth for the end user? Other vendors come with their own hardware. Will the hardware have to be replaced? If so, how long will that take, how much will it cost, and is there any certainty once City Bike is gone that something else will actually come in its place? Which is more likely to ensure the continuation of the system, trying to fix Alta somehow, or ditching them for someone else?

As an aside, Alison Cohen, then president of Alta and it’s public face, left the company last April, just weeks before the New York launch, Alta’s biggest project to date. There was no reason given, except the generic “to pursue other opportunities.” What was going on there?

BTW, what’s going on in Chicago, another Alta system launched after New York?

Care to explain that, or was it only intended to be left there like a turd on the floor?

Citibike is less than a year old and is in a sense still in its beta testing phase. Are there problems? Sure. But most of the problems can be solved with time and expansion of the program. More bikes and bike docks in heavily used areas could solve some dock block problems that requires expensive constant rebalancing. The 1st 9 months of Citibike has proven the program to be extremely popular with New Yorkers. The 100,000 annual members prove there is a real need for it. With time and experience the minor problems within the program will work itself out. Lets remember Alta is a private company running a mass transit program that doesnt receive even a penny of taxpayer money. In fact because of the sales tax on Citibike purchases the City actually makes money off of Citibike. To me the complains are a form of looking a gift horse in the mouth about a mass transit program that doesnt cost the taxpayers, makes travelling around the City easier and relieves congestion off of buses and subway. I think most of the griping about Alta is really sour grapes from people who really opposed the bike share program from the start.

If they were that forward looking they’d be pushing dynamic carpooling.

It’s one way poorer younger generations of Americans — and people in developing countries — would be able to afford to buy and fuel new cars. Buy full sized sedans, and fill the seats with people sharing the cost while using their electronic devices.

Cohen left to handle bike share at another consultancy, and I doubt they would have hired her if she was doing something bad or wrong at Alta. And did she leave after the planned launch date which was postponed for so long?

My suspicion is that her departure had something to do with Alta’s alleged labor-exploitation problems at Capital Bikeshare, though I am not sure what happened with that. The aggrieved employees targeted Mia Birk — I think Capital 2.0 (with Alta) got going before Cohen joined Alta.

PBSC is not the same company as Alta. Alta obtained bikes and stations from Bixi, until Bixi filed for bankruptcy. Earlier this year, Alta and 8D announced a new partnership, which seems to be designed to cut Bixi out of the loop. Bixi did not produce the software or the bikes for existing bikeshare systems. Alta and 8D can handle the software and the stations. They can contract with the Bixi partner to obtain bikes or set up a deal with a different bike manufacturer.

Bixi’s bankruptcy does present some challenges, but Alta and 8D can move on from Bixi.

I beleive Deco uses Sandvault kiosks and generic bikes from China (as apposed to the Trek bikes made by Giant in China of B-cycle)

Here is an article about the two Miami area bikeshares:
http://wlrn.org/post/tale-two-bike-shares-miami-beach-broward