Shared Mobility Amendment (Klassen)

Thanks very much. So the motion, as mentioned, it continues to emphasize our strongest hand, which is our advocacy. So the motion reads, therefore be resolved. The council affirm. Its support for bike sharing is an essential component of comprehensive and well-integrated regional transportation and mobility system, and requests that the Mayor write to TransLink with copies to the Mayor's Council on Regional Transportation and the BC Minister of Transportation and Transit, advocating that TransLink explore opportunities to develop and deliver an integrated, regional bike share system to improve first and last mile connections to transit and expand affordable mobility options across much of Vancouver. And further, that council's advocacy highlight potential opportunities for regional coordination, including integration with regional transportation system, fare or pass integration, coordinated planning, of shared mobility networks and equitable access across municipalities in the region. So I think that this strike and replace really strengthens our hand. It focuses on the real opportunity in front of us and ultimately will hopefully get us to continue the work that is already happening at the staff level to improve our... bike share system in addition to the scooter program that's underway and of course a very strong rapid transit system here in the city. Thanks very much.

Thanks Councillor Maloney.

I'll wait till after Councillor Meiszner has spoken since this is my last opportunity. Councillor Meiszner?

I just want to say I appreciate this amendment. I'm a regular user of both Moby and Lime, and they're both great services, you know, different formats, but they're fantastic for that last mile connection or just getting places around town. I appreciate the amendment because I strongly agree that we need to grow these systems. We need to expand their geographic coverage across the city. I know that's been a challenge for Moby, and we're seeing Lime expand quite quickly. My concern about putting additional city funding towards Moby, for example, is that we've seen in other jurisdictions, particularly Montreal, which was referenced by a few of my colleagues as an example of a great system, and it is a great system, but Montreal in 2011 bailed out Bixie for $108 million. And in 2017, Montreal was once again on the hook for $16 million for unpaid Bixie suppliers. Those are both reported in the Montreal Gazette. So my concern around that is the city of Vancouver potentially being on the hook for over $100 million if we were to take on more ownership or... financial contributions towards bike share in the city. I think a much better model is what we're seeing with Lime, where we had a competitive RFP process, where we now have a service up and running that is a revenue generator for the city. that the operator is taking on the costs of running that service and it's actually making money for the city. And while I'm grateful that we have Moby and I think the $5 million investment many, many years ago of previous councils was worthwhile to get it established, I think moving forward we need to look at an option that is cost neutral or revenue generating for the city. And I can't support... dumping $100 million into a bike share system here in Vancouver as what happened in Montreal with Bixie. So all that to say, I really appreciate this amendment to help move things forward and help develop an integrated system across the region and advocate to TransLink to look at different options in terms of Compass Card, et cetera, to access those systems. So appreciate Councillor Klassen and Kirby Young for bringing this forward. Thanks.

Thanks, Councillor Meisler. Councillor Bligh?

Thanks very much, Chair, and appreciate the motion being brought forward. I mean, I want to speak in support of the original motion. I recognize with the strike and replace, which I think we had before us, the risk of voting against this strike and replace and the impression that one does not support bike share or the original intent of the motion, which is always the unfortunate thing about these strike and replace motions that sort of water down um actual uh sort of um just the actual sort of meeting um the the crux of the motion itself so anyway all that they have to say i do support the motion um put forward by counselor maloney um Because I really feel that a shared mobility service, any shared mobility service like bike share is a practical way to reduce construction, of course, and improve public health and expand affordable transportation options for residents. You know, this is a necessary step, of course, to further invest if we're serious about our goal. of having two thirds of trips made by active transportation and transit by 2030. And so, of course, the systems we talk about last mile, these are incredibly important systems that are accessible across more neighborhoods and are better connected to transit, the more likely we are to reach that goal. And as has been mentioned, other cities have recognized that the public value of a bike share in investing accordingly, like Montreal, in the Bixby network has grown significantly. And I will just point out, not to Councillor Meiszner's point, which I appreciate, you know, and he's done some research there, but they also benefited from investments from the federal government because it's recognition that it has to be part of a broader transportation system. But all that to say, I think the really underlying importance and point that I'd like to make is that there's real value in maintaining and growing a Vancouver run bike share system. Having a locally governed system means that the public interest comes first. from where stations are located to how pricing and accessibility are designed. And that's the important contrast to proposals that rely on large private operators like Lime owned by Uber, whose business model is primarily driven by profit rather than long-term mobility goals. That's just a known fact. So expanding the bike share and working with regional partners on a coordinated system, I really feel is a really strong and smart next step and will benefit residents across Metro Vancouver. And it really comes down to the political will that... A revenue generating service for the city ultimately makes things less affordable for in the long run for the end user. And I think the priority should be Vancouver local economy, Vancouver locally run and making sure that the affordability can be maintained through other models like a co-op. leveraging other forms of funding through TransLink through the province in time, hopefully, and through the federal government as that precedent has already been set with other big cities. So I'll leave it there. Thank you.

Thank you. Councillor Maloney.

Thanks. And I'd like to particularly thank speakers for taking time out of their day to come here and for phoning in with some incredible ideas and just articulating the benefits of expanding bike share across the region so well. I'd also like to particularly acknowledge the recent video from about here by Yutai Lee for really explaining and broadening out awareness of the benefits of bike share and expanding it regionally. The timeframes in this motion in Part A were chosen acknowledging the constraints on staff time and capacity and acknowledging that this is a long-term complex advocacy piece. I think that there's a fundamental difference in approach when we look at this by expanding bike share as part, an essential and useful and beneficial part of the public transit system, rather than some optional accessory that has to pay for itself or make a profit to even exist at all. Like Councillor Bligh said, the public interest needs to come first. The return on investment is the numerous public policy goals that are progressed by making bike share a truly convenient and cost-competitive public transport option for residents and visitors to the city and residents of the whole Lower Mainland region. I'm not going to repeat what I said in my introduction and that the speakers have articulated so well. But part B of our original motion is really the essence of what's in this strike and replace motion. And I really hope that staff is going to work on this on a strategy. We worked through very carefully the feedback of staff and removed the parts that we considered to be repetitive. And so because I feel as though this strike and replace motion does replicate what's in Part B, I'm going to support it. I'm going to keep the rest of my time to perhaps respond to any other issues that come up.

Hey, thanks. All right, Counselor Fry.

Yeah, you know, I'm just going to reflect that I think I'm a Mobi super user. I've ridden thousands of kilometers on Mobi. No, no joke. And when they changed the app, I had a really great, like, over 1,500 kilometers. And now they changed the app, and I'm just down to 800 kilometers. But cumulatively, I've done a lot of Moby riding. It's very convenient for me. I would say the one thing that, you know, and I appreciate this motion coming forward, and I appreciate, I guess, the intent of the amendment to move forward on an expanded system. I do worry about the privatization kind of potential of public bike share. You know, I think where it is sort of a mixed public-private kind of operation right now, what I can say is that when they moved Moby's, when they brought Moby's into my neighborhood in Strathcona before I was elected, I worked with the team then to ensure that... Moby's were – that's where they introduced the accessible program for low-income folk and a scaled tier for folks who had limited access to funds to pay for something like Moby and that it wasn't just seen as something for other people coming into a neighborhood with a lot of low-income folk. And that was successful. And I see folks in my community, you know, there's a station right outside of Raycam. There's one right by Strathcona Community Center. And I see folks who have – need these kind of bike share options because they can't afford other options, frankly. And I see that as a huge benefit. I know that Lime does not do something like that. And I know that many of these sort of private companies like Lime actually have surge pricing and the like, and it's more of a for-profit model. And I worry that should that be the outcome of this new direction, that we will lose something in the effective public bike share and what that means to have something that is truly public and accessible and not driven by profit, but driven by a greater good for increased micromobility and reduced use of fossil fuel kind of travel. But so it will be as the motion, I will support the amendment. But yeah, just making the case for public bike share.

Thanks, Councillor. All right, Councillor Maloney.

Well, I do need to wait till after Councillor Kirby Young so I can finish off.

No, I'd like to save my time in case there's anything to respond to.

Chair, it's not really a back and forth. Usually, councillors make comments, so I'll just reserve my time in the order in which we're in the queue. Thank you.

Okay, thanks. Councillor Maloney. It seems to be a quite common practice that people who move a motion reserve their time to finish up, so I will wait until after.

It's the amendment, not motion. It's the amendment.

Councillor Kerby, yeah? Yeah, thanks. Well, actually, I think I will speak to the... Can I get confirmation procedurally first? We're voting on a strike and replace, so there will be only one vote, correct?

Yes. Yes, that's right.

OK. All right. Great. Then I'm going to speak to the... We're not speaking to the amendment. We're speaking to the... OK. Great. All right. OK. I'm going to confirm that. So I just want to provide a couple of comments, and I'm appreciating the conversation around the room, but I do think it's important... that our conversations are sort of fact-based, and I know that people have different opinions and perspectives around that, but just a couple of observations in listening to some of the comments around the table. I think there was a comment made that from an equity program perspective, LIBE didn't have that, or perhaps an inference that it was limited. It has exactly the same... equity program and access that moby does folks who have access to the leisure access program through the vancouver park board have the same access for both lime and moby and that was a very intentional component of the launch and i think it's important to state that the city of vancouver controls what we want the public benefits to be with respects to things like placement or equity programs, et cetera, through the contract. Those were required provisions and sort of components that were evaluated when the RFP was awarded. So I just want to level set so that people can vote how they want to vote here. But I want to make sure that the public discourse is sort of based on the facts. I think that's an important component. Also, with respect to commentary around geography, that was also something that was contractually included. And in fact, I think it was very noteworthy at the time, a lot of media commented on it, that the system launched in East Vancouver very intentionally. in terms of citing that both from an equity perspective and in terms of just a utility of where access to transit was, et cetera, and trying to fulfill its mandate around connecting to first and last mile. So I do think that there is tremendous benefit. I actually think, as I mentioned earlier, and I am respecting and appreciating the good work of both companies, but the fact that Vancouver has two is probably... constraining us from having a more integrated system and potentially a better capitalized system. And that is again distinct from having something that's for profit. Again, I mentioned earlier that this does now generate in the early stages revenue, but it was also very clearly articulated that it just should not be a cost center, but it could be revenue neutral, recognizing that there is value in having the micromobility services in the shared system. I also find some incoherence in the arguments with respects to the fact that this should be something that TransLink does in its regional system and yet wanting Vancouver to invest in developing its own system. And that sort of others should follow suit. That seems to me to be not a great way and a great model to bring something forward and engender cooperation and get other folks on board. It reminds me very much of the discussion that we had at council around rideshare when Vancouver wanted to do its own intermunicipal ride hailing license at the time and put its own fees in place. And I voted against that because It hadn't been considered, and we hadn't done the engagement with other mayors in the region, and I thought it was going to preclude a regional system where people had to get a license if you were a ride-hailing person and driver in every single municipality. Just thought about the mechanics and the cost of that, and was that really going to engender a great regional system, or would you have people that said, I'm just going to drive in Surrey or Burnaby or Vancouver because I don't want to have to buy a license here and there and everywhere, and I'm going to cross jurisdictions and boundaries. And literally, within the 24-hour news cycle after that vote, that's exactly what we heard from the mayors of the region who rose up and said, you didn't come to us, you didn't consult us, et cetera, and Vancouver pulled back. And when they pulled back on it, that's when we got to a regional solution because we approached it, I think, properly from the beginning. So I think that there's, you know, a lot more perspective to kind of thoughtfully reflect on here around this. And I think it's important those characterizations are... are sort of based, in fact, in sort of a little bit more of a broader perspective around what the best pathway is, actually, towards getting towards a regional service. Thank you.

Thanks, Councillor. Councillor Maloney, you want to go last, or do you want Councillor Masner to go first?

I'll go last.

Okay. Councillor Masner, go ahead.

Yeah, thanks. I wasn't going to jump on, but the discussion around the affordability piece had me... use artificial intelligence. And I input a 10-minute ride on a Lime scooter in Vancouver versus a 10-minute ride on Mobi. And actually, Lime is cheaper. And this is because Lime travels faster. Lime goes up to 25 kilometers per hour. And if you've ever used a Lime scooter, you can probably confirm that. They are quite fast. Mobi is obviously a little bit slower, but more comfortable for some users. But the 10-minute trip on a Lime scooter, including the unlock fee, would come to $515. And the 10-minute trip on a Mobi e-bike would come to $565. So Mobi is actually... a little bit more expensive than Lime currently. And these are updated numbers. But to Councillor Kirby-Young's point around Lime, there is an equity program in place as well. And that offers discounted rides and passes to people who are eligible. So all that said, I think Councillor Kirby-Young's points, and I know how well versed she is on this file, having championed micromobility in Vancouver for many, many years. And I think now we're seeing the benefits of that with the fantastic system that we have. Thank you.

Thanks, Councillor. Councillor Maloney. Without involving myself in the Lime versus Moby debate, which I don't think we tried to raise in our motion, I just want to reflect that advocacy is not a one and done. As a former advocate myself, or continuing to advocate, it's a process of using every possible way to influence getting something done and then making it better. I do want to acknowledge Councillor Fry as a Moby Bike super user. I have often referred to myself as the unofficial president of the Moby Bike fan club, but I do acknowledge that Councillor Fry may be more worthy of that title given how often I see him riding around town on a Moby Bike. And I think that the fact that Councillor Fry often calls out to me or comes up behind me on his Moby Bike and that we can stop and have a chat really demonstrates one of the unique benefits of cycling and bike share in particular compared to other forms of transport. It really fosters social connection. People can immediately stop and dock their bike or lock up their bike and patronise businesses. And bike share really does need to be supported as an important fundamental pillar. of our public transit system rather than an optional extra. Thanks.

Thank you. Councillor Clausen.

Just to underline once again that this amendment that I brought forward supports bike sharing, recognizes the work that's currently underway, focuses our advocacy where it matters most, and will ultimately help improve regional connections to transit. So I hope council will support it. Thanks very much.

Okay, thank you. All right, seeing no one else on the queue, so let's go to the vote for this amendment. And just to be clear, we are voting on Councillor Clausen's amendment. Councillor, please register your vote.