$6081 per bike? D-d-d-d-d-amn...

Even if the stations cost $25K each, it's still over $3500 per bike. Wonder who's getting a kickback on this one, and what kind of budget will be carved out for maintaining/replacing these high-end clunkers when they get vandalized/thrown in the river/stolen for scrap.

Is this the best those jokers at PBOT can come up with to earn their salaries?
Really guys, really...????

If the city has $4.5 million to spend on this project, shouldn't that money go toward projects to make cycling safer in the crowded downtown area? The infrastructure for these cyclists does not exist, and it until it does, this project seems doomed to failure.

Where are the studies that show that bike sharing programs truly increase bring people to cycling, especially when the population's percentage of cyclists is what it is in Portland?

Because after trying this dozens of other time - THIS TIME it will work, the brain dead say.

And forget about debate or opposition, like plastic bags, water bureau, trash collection and everything else the city does PUBLIC OPINION DOES NOT MATTER to tyrants.

I just got back from Paris, and saw the Velib system. Granted, it's much more comprehensive than this proposal (with stations every two blocks, pretty much everywhere), but to see the mass numbers of people taking advantage of it is very heartening. OK, so none of them wear helmets, and they're not so good at rules of the road. But if Portland could have something even half as used as those Velib bikes, it would be awesome.

I'm extremely pro-bike, but this still doesn't quite make sense to me yet. Why shouldn't the hypothetical commuter from Hillsboro who needs to get to the dentist on a lunch break just take Tri-Met? (And how often does this kind of situation arise?)
Increasing access to bikes? There are good ones on Craigslist for $100 or less. Shouldn't people just buy a bike that's the correct size for their body and then see to the maintenance themselves?
The points from the person from Upstream Public Health really make sense to me, but I'd like to look into this issue further. So far, I just don't see much of a need for it.

I don't like this. Too much money for too little return.

If the market is viable, then it should be done by a private business and not subsidized by taxpayer dollars.

Thing is, the market is not viable or somebody would be trying to do it. If the city wants to sponsor it though, they could ask for bids and offer free licensing and whatnot.

A better approach would be to spend just a little money and try to arrange something with the local bike shops where they offer cheap "townies" to ride around.

This would not only encourage more ridershsip, but also directly add to the local economy not only through rentals, but also when the person decides to buy, they will buy from a local shop, not from Mall Wart or whatever.

Two thumbs down =(

I say no. Way too much money. Will be abandoned after a few years (months?) due to theft and vandalism. Reminds me of that "free Wi-Fi" debacle not long ago.

Also, what AlsacePinot said. But that's not as much fun for politicians as cutting ribbons on high-tech bike racks.

What AlsacePinot said in comment #5, that is.

Everyone who's suggesting that this program would befall serious theft and vandalism needs only look at other cities around the country that have excellent programs already. Washington DC isn't exactly a crime free city and yet they're doing just fine.

Yes, the price is a bit high, but the article itself reminds us of the hard work done by many last year to reserve some of the city's transportation cash for bike projects. More to the point, of the four other projects mentioned, the only one that I can clearly see as more important than this is the safety improvements on Foster. All the rest are just as much "frivolities" as this is. Also, suggesting that this isn't economically viable and thus businesses aren't doing it is incorrect. Do you know how many places downtown you can rent a bike?

With free public transportation downtown already, why spend money on this?
And if there is a lack in places to rent a bike downtown that only means there is a lack of need, otherwise the private sector would have jumped all over it already.

Once again public money is used to displace local businesses. You can already rent bikes in Portland.

Clever Cycles 908 Hawthorne Boulevard (@ 9th) 503-334-1560 : Dutch-style bikes including bakfiets

Fat Tire Farm 2714 NW Thurman 503-222-3276 : road and mountain bikes
Hollywood Cycling 5258 NE Sandy Blvd. 97213 503-281-1671
Kerr Bikes / Wheel Fun Rentals 1020 SW Naito Parkway 503-808-9955 : Cruisers, tandems, 4-wheel pedal-powered surreys
Pedal Bike Tours Rentals 133 SW 2nd Ave 503-243-2453 : bikes to rent, guided tours also available
Portland Bicycle Tours Rentals 345 NW Everett St 503-360-6815 : bikes to rent, guided tours also available
Portland Bike Station 516 SW 3rd Ave 503-895-6990 : bikes to rent, staffed bike parking facility
Sellwood Cycle Repair 7639 SE Milwaukie 503-233-9392 : high-end road bikes
email shop@sellwoodcycle.com
Waterfront Bicycle Rentals 10 SW Ash Street, #100 503-227-1719 : cruisers, road bikes, and tandems


Use the money to crack down on those basturds that are stealing peoples bikes.

I just reread this and did Gerik Kransky really promote drugged biking ?

This seems alot like the Yellow Bike fiasco from the mid-90's. All those bikes dissapeared within months

amazing how few of these comments have any actual information. the proposal is based on existing, successful programs elsewhere. (and this is NOTHING like Yellow Bike. get some facts, pls) i don't know if this is the best idea, but jesus if you're going to oppose it, do so based on facts.

@Tabarnhart - How about Steve R's fact that these bikes cost us all $6,081 each? Why isn't someone being arrested for that?

@Reymont, he meant "facts" that he could refute, not actual facts. Like the fact that PBOT studied this before at the lower cost of $4,000 per bike, and also "based on existing, successful programs elsewhere," but couldn't figure out how to fund it.

Barnhart also doesn't offer any facts of his own, like how much these other "successful" programs are subsidized, or whether private entities are profiting. Or how much this project would drain funding from basic transportation projects east of the river.

But even without facts, you know if the BO boys are for it, there's a good chance the Goldschmidt network has their greasy fingers in the till.

Oh, and there's this: http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/07/20/trouble…

Equity-- I don't think many poor people have credit cards.

@Rosy - There's no one on this thread named Equity, and no one mentions credit cards. Are you drunk again?

"basic transportation needs in undeserved parts of the city..."

The city treats them as if they're are not deserving. The word you intended to use is spelled "undeRserved"

LordoftheCrabPeople says:
Ye who ride these bikes shall be ridiculed pervasively by all. If ye cannot afford a bicycle, ye cannot live amongst the velo-people. Walk or take the MAX, don't be a douche on a rented shit bike.