Hayley Keith

Bublr Bikes Coming to Bradford Beach

One of 30 new locations will adjoin the popular beach.

By - Jun 9th, 2015 03:19 pm
Sign-up for the Urban Milwaukee daily email
A Bublr Bike.

A Bublr Bike.

Bradford Beach will be host to a new Bublr Bikes bicycle sharing station in 2016. One of 30 new stations to be funded by a federal grant, this one requires additional local and federal approvals because of its location. The city has yet to reveal the locations of the other 29 proposed stations.

Yesterday the Historic Preservation Commission unanimously approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for a new Bublr station at the northwest corner of N. Lincoln Memorial Dr. and E. North Ave. This was needed because of the proposed station’s location on the edge of the federally-designated North Point North Historic District. Before installation work can begin, the proposed station also needs to pass a Section 106 review by the National Parks Service, which applies to all federally-designated historic properties and districts.

The station will be one of 30 funded by a federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) originally awarded to the city in 2013. The City of Milwaukee will utilize these funds with its partner, Midwest Bikeshare, Inc., to build 15 proposed Bublr stations in 2015 and an additional 15 stations in 2016.

As we’ve previously reported, an additional station will come in late 2015 as part of the third phase of The North End. This new station is being funded using tax-incremental financing and will be an addition to the city’s planned 15 new stations.

There are currently 11 active Bublr stations centered around Downtown, with the latest added on E. Brady St. earlier this year. Bicycles can be rented for a single ride ($3/half hour) or monthly rate ($15/month, unlimited 60 minute rides). The bicycles can be picked up and dropped off at any of the stations.

Bublr Bikes

Categories: News

33 thoughts on “Bublr Bikes Coming to Bradford Beach”

  1. Paul says:

    What is the total cost for these, federal taxes and city taxes, also what is the other costs involved?

  2. PMD says:

    The cost is $5 billion Paul. For real though, nowhere near as much as we spend on say roads every single year, but I’m sure you never complain about that spending.

  3. Gary says:

    The pricing has definitely improved over last year. But for a visitor wanting to take a trip on area bike paths, or along the lake as they would from the station featured in this article, 1 hour is too short a time limit for a casual ride with stops and starts. A Milwaukee County bus transfer is 90 minutes for a $1.75 (card or ticket) or $2.25 (cash) ride — and you can read or type on the bus 😉
    This station is a really good choice for the natural “loop” trip a rider can take when biking either north or south from that location.

  4. Eric S says:

    It’s a little bit unclear which source of funds is being used for the 15 stations to be added later this year and the 15 proposed for 2016. Ten stations were placed in 2014 and one was added earlier this year.

    The article linked to from 2013 mentions that a CMAQ (federal) grant was going to pay for 80% of the cost of 30 stations, with the city picking up the other 20%.

    So, 11 stations now, 15 more this year, 15 more next year – not sure which 30 of those 46 are covered by the CMAQ grant and city share, nor what specific source of funds is covering the other 16 stations.

  5. Hereiam says:

    I wish the article had touched on why it is taking so long to roll out these stations. It’s nearly mid-June and they’ve only installed 1 new station!

  6. Dave Reid says:

    @Hereiam It is my understand the delay is due to when the grants hit, and working through some of the site placement issues

  7. Jeramey Jannene says:

    @Eric S – 11 existing were not with the CMAQ funds. CMAQ funds pays for the 30 stations. The North End station is being funded out of the Park East TIF district with funds previously allocated for public right-of-way work. Still confirming if The North End station is one of the 30 planned city stations (and therefore CMAQ is only paying for 29), or if it will be the 31st city-owned station.

  8. Paul says:

    PMD,I ask a simple question and you always come back with something off topic instead of answering.

  9. PMD says:

    Paul why are you so concerned with the cost of the bike sharing program?

  10. Eric S says:

    @Jeramey thanks for the clarification

  11. Eric S says:

    I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask where the funding is coming from, what portion is federal/state/local, and from what programs or sources. Now, I say that as a strong supporter of the bike share system, fully hoping that it is successful and expands dramatically in the coming years, rather than out of an ideological opposition to government investment in transportation options. But, regardless, it’s not an unreasonable question in my opinion.

  12. PMD says:

    It isn’t unreasonable. I never said it’s unreasonable. I asked why he’s so concerned, I didn’t say he shouldn’t be concerned. Have bike sharing programs in other cities been expensive failures? Has he heard that the one in Milwaukee is wildly expensive? I have no idea. In my opinion those aren’t unreasonable questions.

  13. Paul says:

    I’m concerned because it’s my tax money paying for this. I’m sure if you found out Koch Industries was building and running these , you would want an analysis of every penny spent. I’ve heard these can cost over $100 a month per bike spot.

  14. PMD says:

    Sorry Paul but that isn’t true. I would not care if a Republican was putting up the money for a bike sharing program. One of the Koch brothers gives a lot of money to PBS. Good for him.

  15. Paul says:

    PMD, it sounds like nobody’s putting up money but the taxpayers. So I’ll ask once again. What is the total costs for these, federal taxes and city taxes and what other costs are involved? You would think the author of this story would have some of those figures.

  16. PMD says:

    I don’t know the answer to that Paul. Are you against bike sharing programs? When I think about what we spend on roads every year, or the costs associated with drunk driving every year, I find it hard to get too worked up about the costs of a bike sharing program.

  17. Paul says:

    PMD, I’m all for changing the drunk driving laws after the first offense, these bikes also use those roads and add to their costs because of the bike lanes. Maybe $50,000 or $100,00 a year doesn’t bother you, but is it a good use of taxpayers money.

  18. PMD says:

    Maybe the Bike Fed people know the actual cost? I do think bike sharing programs are worth the cost. Good ones can enhance tourism, improve public health, and help the environment.

  19. Hereiam says:

    @Dave Reid thanks for the clarification. It is an explanation, but I would’ve hoped they could’ve worked through the site selection issues while the grant payments were pending. These delays are causing them to miss out on some very valuable rental days.

    @Paul if you are that interested in finding out the costs, why are you repeating the same question of @PMD rather than simply looking it up yourself.

    Here are some links you can review:

    http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/blog/2015/03/bublr-bikes-will-launch-intoride-share-season-two.html
    “Bublr Bikes is a not-for-profit business started to create the bike-share system. The launch has been financed through $1.2 million in sponsorships and donations, $3.1 million in federal grants and $300,000 in city dollars generated through a tax-incremental finance district.
    To reach the 5-year goal of 800 rental bikes at 100 stations across the city, Bublr Bikes projects it will need to generate $5.3 million from user fees and $3.7 million in donations, sponsorship and advertising.”

    http://www.jsonline.com/business/city-proposes-quadrupling-bublr-bake-share-program-b99514078z1-306306501.html
    http://urbanmilwaukee.com/2014/08/06/eyes-on-milwaukee-bublr-bike-share-system-is-launched/

  20. Paul says:

    Hereiam, thanks for the listings, but the sites I went to also mentions that the city has to pay a fee per bike dock, there were also questions about insurance and maintenance. None of the sites had any actual total costs, also PMD all the sites said there is no way to measure any of the benefits you speak of.

  21. PMD says:

    Does that mean the program isn’t worth it? Or is it a risk worth taking? Can that only be answered if we know the cost? Again the Bike Fed might be able to provide an actual cost.

    Also, there have been measurable environmental benefits in Denver and Minneapolis. http://www.climatecentral.org/news/bike-sharing-complicated-climate-impact-17910

  22. Casey says:

    Paul- I think hereiam gave us the info.

    Total
    1,200,000.00 Sponsorship
    3,100,000.00 Federal Grants
    300,000.00 City TIF
    5,300,000.00 User Fees
    3,700,000.00 Donations
    13,600,000.00 Total
    800.00 Bikes
    100.00 Stations
    17,000.00 Per Bike Cost
    136,000.00 Per Station Cost

    Public Funding Only
    3,100,000.00 Federal Grants
    300,000.00 City TIF
    3,400,000.00 Total
    800.00 Bikes
    100.00 Stations
    4,250.00 Per Bike Cost
    34,000.00 Per Station Cost

  23. Paul says:

    Casey, the second link he posted says they’re looking for $7 million from the TIFs and state programs in the first five years. Doing the math if the TIFs produce all money expected, that leaves $5.5 million in state money. The nonprofit needs revenue of $9 million in the first five years with $5.3 coming from user fees.

  24. Paul says:

    PMD, your link says there is no way to measure the environmental effects, it’s all estimates.

  25. PMD says:

    That isn’t true Paul. In Minneapolis/St. Paul, “53 percent of the program’s riders use a car less often as a result of using the program.” And in Denver, “41 percent of Denver B-Cycle bike trips replaced car trips.” Those are not estimates.

  26. Paul says:

    PMD, and if you read the whole story it says there is no way to measure the environmental effects. Moreover it states that these should be pushed on health reasons and not environmental effects.

  27. PMD says:

    I agree Paul it is good for the health of a city’s residents. I’ll look for you on a Bublr bike next time I’m downtown or by the lakefront.

  28. Paul says:

    Look all you want, I highly doubt I’ll ever ride one.

  29. Casey says:

    And that right there is why some are against it. “I highly doubt I’ll ever ride one”

    I very very rarely use the interstate highway system and even if it wasn’t there I could still travel on state and US hwys but I understand plenty of other people benefit from them and enjoy using them so I’m not going to fill comment sections with negativity about they’re construction and maintaince (I will comment when I feel they are over built).

  30. GreatLakesGirl says:

    Maybe someone should inquire WITH THE CITY about the actual costs. They are the ones with the grant and developing these stations, right?

  31. Paul says:

    Casey, you use that interstate highway almost every day, most products you use were brought to you over those highways. I never said I was against it, all I’m asking is what it’s going to cost the taxpayers and are the costs worth any benefits it could bring. I’m for building the new Bucks arena even though before I attended a game this year my last game was eight years ago.

  32. Paul says:

    GreatLakesGirl, the city won’t tell us the true costs of the trolley so I doubt that they’ll tell us this.

  33. Casey says:

    Absoletly we all benefit from the interstate because of the flow of goods and services but I think we can all agree that just about all highways in and around metro areas serve suburban commuters.

    Anywho….the quick math I did suprised me at how expensive these stations are.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *