Note that the original question – what went wrong with the March 1 vote? – remains.
The six City Council members sitting next to one another at this table on March 1 either could or couldn’t count to six.
Update: Councilwoman Juarez’s staff has sent me a statement (!). Here it is:
“After careful deliberation, today I voted yes on legislation which removed restrictions on $1.4 million of $5 million previously budgeted for the Pronto system by council vote in November of 2015. Today’s action allowed the Executive to purchase the bike share system’s assets from Pronto.
Had this proposal failed, the city would have been obligated to repay $1 million in federal grant money and the three thousand yearly members of our bike share system would be left without a service they paid into.
The introduction of the Pronto bike share system in Seattle has faced serious problems since its launch in October 2014. I share the concerns of Seattleites who look at our major challenges citywide and debate whether money should be spent on a program that has so far not lived up to expectations. This is why I also voted for the successful amendments to the final ordinance that significantly increase council oversight and accountability for this program.
I am looking forward to enhancing the transparency, service area equity, and overall vision of bike share in Seattle. Today’s action gives us the best chance at achieving this goal.”
– Councilmember Debora Juarez, March 14, 2016
Update: She voted “yes” to save Pronto. The full council voted 7-2 in favor, with Maple Leaf’s other councilman, Rob Johnson, also voting yes. Opposed were Lisa Herbold (west Seattle/South Park) and Tim Burgess (at large).
————————————
On the first day of the month a Seattle City Council committee deadlocked 3-3 on bailing out the failing Pronto bike rental service.
Except it didn’t.
The record now reads that newly elected Councilwoman Debora Juarez, who represents north Seattle including virtually all of Maple Leaf, actually voted to save the system.
That was not the vote announced at the meeting and heard by the six council members present, and by support staff.
What happened?
A week ago today, on Monday, March 7, we emailed Juarez’s legislative assistant, BrynDel Swift (bryndel.swift@seattle.gov), to ask.
We’re following the Pronto vote and I’ve been keeping an eye out for Councilwoman Juarez’s statement on her vote last Tuesday. Somehow I’ve missed it, but am quite interested. Can you provide? Thanks.
No answer.
So two days later on Wednesday, March 9th, we forwarded the email to the rest of her staff, Mercedes Elizalde (mercedes.elizalde@seattle.gov), Tyler Emsky (tyler.emsky@seattle.gov) , Sabrina Bolieu (sabrina.bolieu@seattle.gov), and to Juarez herself (debora.juarez@seattle.gov).
No answer. And we haven’t seen it answered elsewhere, either. (Except, kind of, here.)
Our earlier post on Pronto, including updated links to other news organizations’ stories, is here.
In comments there, and elsewhere, Pronto seems to have become a stand-in for how the city prioritizes its spending.
An example: In Danny Westneat’s Seattle Times column last week on a Greenwood food bank closing for lack of city funding, one commentator wrote:
Explain how the city has millions of dollars to spend on a bloated failed bike share program which most citizens don’t want or use while this needed food bank program is shut down. Misguided priorities and lack of common sense.
And another:
OK Debora Juarez: Here’s where you show you’re the adult in the room. Instead of voting yes on that losing proposition Pronto how about using those funds to keep this food bank going? Things like food banks are important. Pronto is just a Murray dream that ends up being a nightmare for everyone else. I had great hopes for you when I cast my ballot for you but now I’m not so sure. So far all I’ve seen from you is more of the same council we had before the election.
The full City Council vote on Pronto is set for this afternoon.
City Govt is now dealing with a more pressing crisis: How to deter copycats from climbing the Macys Tree. One suggestion is to surround it with Pronto Stations
http://www.king5.com/news/local/seattle/city-launches-investigation-into-sdot-director-over-pronto-ties/97249954
An now we find that the user numbers are a third less that reported. Anyone see a conflict of interest by hiring Scott Kubly as SDOT Director??? Not our city leaders I guess. Should have killed it when we had the chance. Like the toilets I’m waiting for someone clever to make Pronto Bike Share the punchline to a joke.
Actually we don’t get screwed on the bus service until March 28th. At least the 66X is going to be reincarnated as the Roosevelt HCT (Rapid Ride) line in about five years.
There are a ton of errands where buses would be the way to go. Instead, they scrapped the ride-free zone downtown and they took away three of our north end to downtown buses away (72, 73, and 66). I will now have to transfer at the UW hub if I want to stop at a business on my way home from work. I called her office about the bus situation, too. They encouraged me to send it in writing, which I did. I asked for a response and it’s been about two weeks and I’ve heard nothing. So starting tomorrow, our bus service will officially suck. Oh, and those Pronto bikes? They are ridiculous. They have them all over downtown, no one uses them, they are too big for a 5’4″ person to use, they are generally soaking wet, they don’t have baskets, and from what I hear, they are not properly geared for the downtown hills. I’d far rather hop a bus in the ride free zone to do a lunchtime errand downtown, but no…….
At least the five million dollars wasted on FIVE toilets downtown had a punchline about flushing good money down the drain. Seattle is burning, and Murray is capable of nothing but fiddling in the meantime. Kubly needs to go. Murray will not survive the primary, let alone make it to and win re-election. All Nickels did was let a little snow paralyze the city for a few days, Murray is incompetent.
Juarez never voted no. Her committee vote was originally misrecorded as no, but she corrected the record the next day. It was a weird situation, I agree, but she didn’t mislead anyone with a ‘no’ vote.
The thing that annoys me the most about District 5 Councilwoman Debora Juarez is that she blindsided her constituents. She initially voted NO so her District 5 constituents who opposed the Pronto bail-out were lead to believe that she would continue to oppose the bail-out in the full City Council vote.
Juarez’s NO vote in committee was a sinister political ploy by her because she wanted to get as many fellow councilmembers in the “life boat” with her when she voted YES in the full City Council. It was always Juarez’s intention to support the $1.4 Pronto bail-out regardless of what her District 5 constituents wanted. After all, what changed between her committee NO vote and her full council YES vote?
Juarez was elected to represent the interest of her District 5 constituents. I don’t think it’s too much to ask that she communicate with her constituents on issues that are important to them; but she made no mention on her City Council website or blog that she intended to support the Pronto bail-out. If she had, Juarez would have been inundated with e-mails and telephone calls from her constituents who oppose the Pronto bail-out.
It’s obvious that Councilwoman Juarez intentionally mislead and deceived her District 5 constituents on her support for Pronto. In one vote, Juarez destroyed any INTEGRITY and TRUST that she had with her constituents. Once integrity and trust are lost, it can’t be recovered. I’m not sure how she can ask her District 5 constituents to support or re-elect her when “trust me” can’t be used as a campaign slogan.
At least District 4 Councilman Rob Johnson had the courage and integrity to voice his support of Pronto from the get-go and on his website. On the other hand, District 5 Councilwoman Juarez blindsided her constituents and she will always leave us wondering “What is Councilwoman Debora Juarez thinking?”
This is a conspicuously stupid waste of money.
I’ll sell any of you a fully functioning multi speed bike for forty bucks. I’ll include a lock and helmet for an even fifty.
I received an e-mail from Debora Juarez & she based one of the deciding factors in her YES vote to support Pronto on feedback that she received:
“My office received 543 letters supporting city ownership of Pronto and 232 letters opposing city ownership.”
Hmmmmm . . . given the backlash that’s been displayed here and on other news media, I wonder if Juarez is being truthful.
MLL: It’s entirely possible, given that the Cascade Bicycle Club sent out a blanket email urging comments to council members.
FYI, an email from her office Monday afternoon said she had received over 700 emails on this.
Strange title for the post. It sounds like you are anti-bike rather than pro-food bank. How many articles have you written about food banks before today, and how many complaining about bikes? Did Councilmember Juarez actually vote to close a food bank? Because I would bet you money that she supports both bikes and food banks.
I work downtown and walk by the Pronto station in front of city hall every day. I can’t remember the last time I actually saw a person renting a bike from that locale. City Hall has a beautiful “waterfall/stream” which of course is now blighted by his ugly albatross of a station. I mean how hard would it have been to put that station across the street, next to the hole in the ground which city govt has been unable to develop these past 10 plus years? I guess the irony of having a Pronto Station next to a huge black hole was not lost even on these buffoons.
Alyssa, just saw your comment. You’re correct that biking isn’t for everyone, and there are some definite structural impediments that the city could address to make it easier and faster for everyone to use. But even doing those things, it’s still not going to be usable by everyone. That isn’t the standard for a city program.
As to whether or not it’s cost effective, I don’t have complete numbers on Pronto’s operational (as opposed to capital) costs, but just as a rough point of comparison: the city just opted to put 1.4MM into the program (which is a net cost of 400K over shutting it down), which would buy about 10000 hours of bus service, or 28 hours of service per day. Most small metro routes are going to consume at least 28 hours of service per day, and have similar productivity (hundreds of riders per day.) So in its first year, with a limited network, Pronto has achieved similar performance to a small metro route with similar costs.
I’m not sure where the advantage of killing this one and starting over is over building on what we have It’s not the case that what we have has no value – it’s just incomplete.
On the other hand, I do see that as a disadvantage in the kill-it-and-start-over approach. Politically speaking, I can’t imagine we’d have any bike share in this city for a decade or two if we first kill what we have now. It is easy to imagine growing the seed of bike share that exists today into a network that covers the urban parts of the city.
Steve you hit the nail on the head. “A good bike share program addresses this.” What we were sold was a good bike share program for a couple million bucks but what we got was an unsustainable start to a program that really needs more like $20 million and dozens of endpoints to deliver any real service. Bait and switch, pure and simple. Kill this failed pilot off, come back with a real design, with a real price tag.
I’ve been to cities with good bike share programs and they appear to work great, I’m not saying it’s a bad idea for Seattle, just saying this one was DOA. Admitting failure is hard for people but what they don’t see is that’s the first step in the process of getting it right.
Steve, I’m glad you see biking as a viable option for you (though I would argue that some of your issues with busses, such as walking to a stop, alos exist with bike sharing, in this case, walking to a bike station)
The issue many have with Seattle funding Pronto is that bikes are not an option for many, if not the majority. And spending this amount of money on such a small service population is wasteful. It also does not address more commonly cited barriers to biking (beyond not having access to a bike), such as weather, safe routes, competing with drivers, terrain, not being able to show up to your destination sweaty, simply not liking or wanting to bike.
I think this misunderstands what bike share is for. It’s not to get people who don’t own bikes to start biking (though that may happen at the margins.) It’s to provide a convenient, clean mode of transportation for intermediate length trips. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve needed to get from point A to point B, where I don’t have my bike, and the points are somewhere between 3/4 and 2 miles apart. That’s far enough that walking tends to take too long and the inefficiencies of transit (walking to/from a station/stop, waiting for the bus/train aren’t worthwhile) dominate the duration of that trip, too. I’ll often take uber in such a situation, but that’s rather expensive, and polluting to boot.
A good bike share program addresses this – as well as the last mile problem with Link.
Steve, to a point I agree with you if the system was significantly expanding it might very well pick up the momentum it needs to be sustainable. The problem is the tax payers at this point have been sold a bill of goods, that a bike share program was going to cost X and deliver Y. Some camps said that we know the coverage is too small to be really successful but consider this a pilot. To that I say the pilot is over and it failed, kill it. For others they knew they couldn’t ask for the real cost of building out a sustainable system so they basically just meant to get a foot in the door and force their way in which appears to be what is happening. I think it’s a good idea but this program needs to be killed off, learn from the mistakes and come back with a real “complete” plan with real “total” price tag and then ask the voters. Riding a bike is not an alternative mode of transportation, it’s really a lifestyle choice. Those that are going to choose that lifestyle already have, already have bikes and the belief that there are droves of virgin riders just waiting for something like a bike share program to push them over the edge is pure fantasy.
I think we need to focus hard on light rail which does have a big problem that need to be solved for, the last mile. How to get from your house to the station and the station to work. This is an area where I think bike resources could play a big roll. Personally I’m going to dig out my longboard but at 50 years old I’ll probably look more like someone who has too many DUIs to drive rather than just a commuter.
I’m glad we didn’t toss in the towel on bike share in seattle after just one year. I hope that if the council chooses to expand the program, that they’d get some coverage further up north. There are a ton of errands where I could see hopping on a pronto being the most convenient way to go!
I am investing in companies that make pitchforks and torches.
I think she needs a lesson in what the sunk cost dilemma is…. All of the city council does. Just because you’ve wasted money on something in the past is not a reason to keep throwing money at it. Walk away!
Next City Council election cycle can’t come soon enough. Don’t step up to the podium and tell me we have a state of emergency and then pull this stunt. Deplorable!
Just keep voting in these socialist democrats. It’s only tax money.
So… A City of 700K inhabitants has allocated $5M to repay the Fed it’s $1M grant and keep a program Paid Into by 3000 people (or roughly a Half of a Percent of its inhabitants and already demonstrated a failure) afloat for another year…
Socialism at its Finest…
Question: if 3000 people paid to use a program, that was originally funded by the federal govt… Where did the consumer’s money go? Where did the Fed’s Original $1M go? Hmmmm?
Oh but, No Sure… Let’s just Throw MORE $$$ on the Fire… it will make all the Homeless in Seattle WARM… :/
…
So, I take it the next time a Levy is added to Vehicle Tags, Sales, and Property Taxes 3 times in 10 years; to pay for Fixing Roads… that Never Get Fixed…
None of the Geniuses now living in what I used to be proud to call My Home Town will need to ask why… :p
I’m disappointed, but not surprised.
I voted for Sandy Brown and would gladly do so again if there was a recall of Ms Juarez. I was very unimpressed with her as a candidate and I’m am dismayed that she has her hand in all of our wallets.
I don’t see that she has the interests of working people in North Seattle at heart. But I figured that out from listening to her in the debate.
No one rides Pronto bike because they are crap. Most serious bike riders in Seattle already own a bike. I had little hope when Debora Juarez was elected to the council and this shows her bad judgement. Scott Kubly, Mayor Murray and Debora Juarez are wasting our money on projects that Seattle residents don’t want.
I’m glad Ms. Juarez provided an explanation, but I’m disappointed that she didn’t do so on her blog immediately after last week’s committee vote and today’s full council vote. Isn’t that the point of a blog?
She states in the introduction on her website that she sees a mandate “to focus my legislative advocacy on the district-specific issues we face in the North End,” yet she obviously sees no need to explain her vote to those who voted for her.
Another shameful example of crony capitalism disguised as a social contribution.
Maybe coin a new term: crony socialism – benefiting your friends while pretending it is for the people.
Argh. I voted for Sandy Brown. Bet he wouldn’t let a food bank close if he had some opportunity to keep it afloat.
The yes votes were Bruce Harrell, Kshama Sawant, Rob Johnson, Debora Juarez, Mike O’Brien, Sally Bagshaw, and Lorena Gonzalez.
The City Council just made anti-tax crusader Tim Eyman the happiest person in the world. They validated everything that he has been saying for years.