The 9 million euro bikes thanks to Andrew Montague

lostexpectation

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6727865.ece

It was christened the “free bike scheme” but JCDecaux, the French advertiser chosen to run a “bikes-for-billboards” project in Dublin, actually stands to earn €9m more than the city council from the project.

The contract signed by the council and the advertising company, which has been released to The Sunday Times after a ruling by the Information Commissioner, reveals that JCDecaux is due to make €63.38m in advertising revenue over 15 years from the 72 advertising billboards it has been allowed to erect.

By contrast, the council will receive benefits estimated to be worth €54.36m over 15 years, including 450 bicycles, 40 bicycle “stations”, €23.4m worth of advertising on the billboards, and a “wayfinding” system of 100 “fingerpost” signs directing tourists to attractions in the city.

The council has said JCDecaux was chosen to operate the scheme because its proposal was “costneutral”. Originally due to start two years ago, the scheme will now begin in mid-September. Bikes will be free to hire for the first 30 minutes, and are then paid for.

The city council had refused to release details of the contract, citing a confidentiality agreement with JCDecaux. Emily O’Reilly, the Information Commissioner, ruled, however, that “the public had not been given sufficient information on which to assess the council’s handling of the matter and to understand what the city might stand to gain or lose”....

if he wants to argue with the thread title he can go ahead and tell us what the actual costs are...

Metrobest

Why would he want to engage in a debate with someone who's so scathingly rude and doesn't even know that Ireland uses the euro?

One thing is clear. JC is not going to make a hell of a lot of money out of this deal and maybe even will make a loss while Ireland is in recession.

Victor

Title changed from "the 9 million pound bikes thanks to andrew montague" to "The 9 million euro bikes thanks to Andrew Montague".

lostexpectation, what does this have to do with Andrew Montague?

lostexpectation

he personally said he was the one who campaigned to intiate the whole deal

monument

lostexpectation wrote: »

if he wants to argue with the thread title he can go ahead and tell us what the actual costs are...

Where are you getting that figure from?

Please do answer even if you are plucking it out of thin air. If you are asking for transparency from others, making stuff up is likely not the best way to start, is it?

lostexpectation wrote: »

he personally said he was the one who campaigned to intiate the whole deal

Did he campaign for the deal its self or for the bike rental system in general?

AMontague

I campaigned to have a Free Bike Scheme for Dublin since I first got elected to Dublin City Council five years ago, although I was open-minded about which particular scheme to use. I've also always supported calls to have the details of the agreement made public, so I'm delighted that Colm Coyle managed to get this information for the Sunday Times. In my opinion, Dublin City Council got value for money. Obviously, not everyone will agree with me.

According to the information released to the Sunday Times, JC Decaux expected to earn €63 million through advertising over 15 years and supply Dublin City Council with €54 million of benefits. This being the case JC Decaux would stand to make a profit of €9 million over 15 years, or €600,000/year. I would have thought that was a reasonable return. Did anyone expect that JCD would not make a profit?

However, two things have changed since then:
Firstly, as part of the contract agreed with Dublin City Council, JC Decaux agreed to remove 50 large billboards from the gable ends of buildings in Dublin (48 sheet billboards). An Bord Pleanála insisted that JC Decaux remove 100 billboards from around the city. This did not incur any reduction in services provided to Dublin City Council but has obviously reduced the profits for JCD. I believe four billboards have been put back up and this is likely to end up in the courts. But as things stand 96 billboards have been removed.

Secondly, the economic downturn has now reduced the income that JCD can expect to make from their advertisements.

Despite making less money as a result of these two factors, the services supplied to Dublin City Council remain the same.

On September 13th 450 bikes will be available for use in Dublin. Something that I've been advocating, for over five years. I'm delighted the bikes are coming, and I'm delighted that the costs are now firmly out in the open, so we can debate the true figures and not speculated figures.

Andrew Montague

Terrontress

AMontague wrote: »

I campaigned to have a Free Bike Scheme for Dublin since I first got elected to Dublin City Council five years ago, although I was open-minded about which particular scheme to use. I've also always supported calls to have the details of the agreement made public, so I'm delighted that Colm Coyle managed to get this information for the Sunday Times. In my opinion, Dublin City Council got value for money. Obviously, not everyone will agree with me.

According to the information released to the Sunday Times, JC Decaux expected to earn 63 million through advertising over 15 years and supply Dublin City Council with 54 million of benefits. This being the case JC Decaux would stand to make a profit of 9 million over 15 years, or 600,000/year. I would have thought that was a reasonable return. Did anyone expect that JCD would not make a profit?

However, two things have changed since then:
Firstly, as part of the contract agreed with Dublin City Council, JC Decaux agreed to remove 50 large billboards from the gable ends of buildings in Dublin (48 sheet billboards). An Bord Pleanála insisted that JC Decaux remove 100 billboards from around the city. This did not incur any reduction in services provided to Dublin City Council but has obviously reduced the profits for JCD. I believe four billboards have been put back up and this is likely to end up in the courts. But as things stand 96 billboards have been removed.

Secondly, the economic downturn has now reduced the income that JCD can expect to make from their advertisements.

Despite making less money as a result of these two factors, the services supplied to Dublin City Council remain the same.

On September 13th 450 bikes will be available for use in Dublin. Something that I've been advocating, for over five years. I'm delighted the bikes are coming, and I'm delighted that the costs are now firmly out in the open, so we can debate the true figures and not speculated figures.

Andrew Montague

Given that you are portraying the jc to be getting the rough end of the deal, who is going to fix the bicycles when they are wantonly damaged on a repeated basis?

I think a lot of people are worried that there will be hundreds of unusable ****e taking up valuable space throughout the city.

You have to remember Mr. Montague that you do not own the roads, you simply represent the interests of THOSE WHO DO!

monument

Terrontress wrote: »

Given that you are portraying the jc to be getting the rough end of the deal, who is going to fix the bicycles when they are wantonly damaged on a repeated basis?...

JC Decaux are to fix the bicycles if or when they are damaged.

It's part of the deal which has never been kept hidden, and has been answered more than a number of times in articles and threads posted here.

Carawaystick

54e6/450 is a lot per bike - even if you divide it over the 15 years that's still about 8 grand per bike per year. If each bike is replaced each month they are costing over 600 each time.....
I just can't see how the 54 million scheme is costed.*

The above figures don't take into account the revenue from charging users for the free bikes.....

Also Andrew specifically - The 54million of benefit provided to the corpo by jcd does that include VAT? and is it at 21.5% like is normally applied to bikes. Because if it does the corpo is only getting about 44 billion of benefit.

* unless there's a load of waste and jam for those running the scheme. Of course that'd never happen.

monument

Carawaystick wrote: »

If each bike is replaced each month...

Would there not have to be a very extrema level of vandalism and/or theft for each bike to be replaced each month?

Carawaystick wrote: »

The above figures don't take into account the revenue from charging users for the free bikes.....

Err... you know that revenue goes to the city and not JC Decaux? Unless something has been changed recently?

RonnieQuibbles

I for one one am in favour of any kind of initiative to get some free-to-use (limited but still...) Bikes on the roads of our Capital, this kind of thing has been going on for quite a long time in many EU countries (Danish & Dutch have FREE-to-use bikes in city centers for a while now) & on a par with the pay-per-use system, many German cities have bikes with time locks that you can text/call to unlock & use with a credit card.

The fact still stands that as a whole, WE as a nation do probably not have the same regard to not smashing up s**t that is not ours, as these countries (Don't worry i ain't talking about YE fellow posters...i am talking about the wannabee skangers...) ,i believe that still if we made sure the bikes were made as durable as they make their "Public-Bikes" abroad, they might last longer than 2 months a pop.

This being said i once stumbled quite a good blog about a Danish Photo-Journalist/Hobo-adventurer type that cycled from Copenhagen to the Eastern Europe on a SOLID-RUBBER (so they don't get punctured,) wheeled 30kg hunk-of-metal of a bike, so ya never know where they might end up (btw if anyone else comes across that same guys blog PM me the link because i can't find it and that guy also went from North coast Europe to Mediterranean on something like €14, so naturally i want to follow his ramblings ^^)

kona

Can The actual cost of the bike be made public? I dont for a second believe Those bikes are costing Jc DEcaux e450. If they retailed at that in a shop, they wouldnt sell. Considering they are being bought by the hundreds Id imagine they are getting them considerably cheaper, perhaps around the e300 mark.

Could it be that the same company who is re-erecting advert boards after they signed a deal to take them down, the same company who tried to worm out of the paris velib scheme because "its costing too much", may be infalting the purchase cost of the bikes to squeeze every last € from a already, financially raped Irish Tax Payer?

For Mr. Montague, there is a thread over 20 pages(admittedly only maybe 15 are useful) over in the cycling forum, maybe the points raised by cyclists should be taken aboard.

Mr. MOntague, maybe you should re-think you strategy and, ask why should Jc Decaux make a profit at all off our money?

You could easily have just sold ad space then, re-invested it into cycling in Dublin, Done correctley, It would IMO have been better for the city.

spurious

AMontague wrote: »

But as things stand 96 billboards have been removed.

While realising it's slightly OT, can you give locations for those?
JC Decaux haven't removed billboards in the past that they were required to - I'm amazed they're suddenly being compliant.

Even four or five locations would be great. Thanks.

penexpers

AMontague wrote: »

Secondly, the economic downturn has now reduced the income that JCD can expect to make from their advertisements.

Surely, by inverse, the value of the "free" advertising that DCC are getting out of this has gone down too?

Quint

Is this just crazy or could the council not got someone to built the bike thingies, sold JCDecaux the advertising and been €9m up?
Not to mention the fact that their ads have been up for ages but there's no sign of a bike yet

Ste.phen

Quint wrote: »

Is this just crazy or could the council not got someone to built the bike thingies, sold JCDecaux the advertising and been €9m up?
Not to mention the fact that their ads have been up for ages but there's no sign of a bike yet

Yes, probably.
But with the generally glacial pace of many public sector projects, how long do you think it would take to set up, get union approval, etc?

monument

Ste.phen wrote: »

Yes, probably.
But with the generally glacial pace of many public sector projects, how long do you think it would take to set up, get union approval, etc?

And you have to also take into account that JC Decaux are brining in their experience in advertising and in running on-street bike rental elsewhere.

markpb

Quint wrote: »

Is this just crazy or could the council not got someone to built the bike thingies, sold JCDecaux the advertising and been €9m up?

kona wrote: »

You could easily have just sold ad space then, re-invested it into cycling in Dublin, Done correctley, It would IMO have been better for the city.

This has been answered before. My understanding is that some councillors (I assume Mr. Montague was one of them but I'm not sure) were afraid that the money ring-fenced for bikes would be used for something else and the bike scheme would not go ahead. The current scheme means that councillors cannot take the money from the advertising and cancel the bike rental programme.

The other advantages are that it removes some of the risk from the council. If advertising prices fall below the running cost of the scheme, JCD not DCC have to make up the difference. If the cost of running the scheme rises (through vandalism), JCD not DCC have to make up the difference.

kona

markpb wrote: »

This has been answered before. My understanding is that some councillors (I assume Mr. Montague was one of them but I'm not sure) were afraid that the money ring-fenced for bikes would be used for something else and the bike scheme would not go ahead. The current scheme means that councillors cannot take the money from the advertising and cancel the bike rental programme.

Fair enough but , That just brings us back to ****e management. Everything about it is ****e, If DCC and the "councillers" decided to actually do their jobs and benefit Dublin people, we would be in a different position.

Using a excuse that they were afraid the money would be syphoned off is bollix, your elected to a post, do the ****ing job, if you cant dont do it.

markpb

kona wrote: »

Fair enough but , That just brings us back to ****e management. Everything about it is ****e, If DCC and the "councillers" decided to actually do their jobs and benefit Dublin people, we would be in a different position.

Using a excuse that they were afraid the money would be syphoned off is bollix, your elected to a post, do the ****ing job, if you cant dont do it.

Out of curiosity, why do you think they weren't doing their job? What specific solution would you have used instead of the current arrangement?

Carawaystick

monument wrote: »

Would there not have to be a very extrema level of vandalism and/or theft for each bike to be replaced each month?

Exactly. I can't see how the bikes cost 120grand each over 15 years. I only threw in the total replacement each month to show the cost involved.

monument wrote: »

Err... you know that revenue goes to the city and not JC Decaux? Unless something has been changed recently?

Yeah the revenue from hiring out the "free" bikes goes to the corpo. But the 54million euros is over and above this.
I call shennanigans.

Also a 16.6% return is rent seeking. 9/54

kona

markpb wrote: »

Out of curiosity, why do you think they weren't doing their job? What specific solution would you have used instead of the current arrangement?

Why were they not doing their job?
I see there job as representing the people who elected them, and carrying out work in their best intrests, being ripped off by a Multi national isnt in our best interests. So they are not doing there jobs. Like wise, If this scheme way the best way that DCC could see, they I think they should be re-trained, god knows they have ****ed over cyclists enough.

I laid out exactley how I would have set up the system over on the thread in cycling.

Chips Lovell

You wanted DCC to sell the advertising and then use the profits for bikes, no?

1. DCC isn't an ad agency.
2. As Markpb has already helpfully pointed out, the current model obliges JCD to assume most of the risk. If advertising revenues fall or the cost of maintenance goes up, its their problem.
3. The money is ring fenced.

monument

Just as with this story, if the money was not ring fenced there could be councillors (or officials) looking to divert the funds.

But in both cases the money is ring fenced so it goes to what it was meant for.

lostexpectation

kona wrote: »

Fair enough but , That just brings us back to ****e management. Everything about it is ****e, If DCC and the "councillers" decided to actually do their jobs and benefit Dublin people, we would be in a different position.

Using a excuse that they were afraid the money would be syphoned off is bollix, your elected to a post, do the ****ing job, if you cant dont do it.

and the councillors will blame the powerful management this for yet now we still don't get to see what the management see either way.

markpb

kona wrote: »

I see there job as representing the people who elected them, and carrying out work in their best intrests, being ripped off by a Multi national isnt in our best interests. So they are not doing there jobs. Like wise, If this scheme way the best way that DCC could see, they I think they should be re-trained, god knows they have ****ed over cyclists enough.

That's not answering my question at all. What are your specific concerns?

Cllr Montague estimated that JCD will make €600,000 profit each year. Even if that figure is out by 100%, it's still not a huge sum of money for DCC or JCD.

Do you think there is no risk that the money would be subverted in future years and the scheme abandoned or do you think we should do nothing if we can't guarantee it will remain the same for 15 years?

I don't think that this scheme is perfect but I think it's a suitable compromise - it gives us a good way to increase cycling numbers (which will benefit existing cyclists in both safety and lobbying) and keeps the risk away from a government body. If DCC were running this scheme now with their reduced rates and probably reduced central funding, do you think it would not have been canned already?

kona

markpb wrote: »

That's not answering my question at all. What are your specific concerns?

Cllr Montague estimated that JCD will make €600,000 profit each year. Even if that figure is out by 100%, it's still not a huge sum of money for DCC or JCD.

Do you think there is no risk that the money would be subverted in future years and the scheme abandoned or do you think we should do nothing if we can't guarantee it will remain the same for 15 years?

I don't think that this scheme is perfect but I think it's a suitable compromise - it gives us a good way to increase cycling numbers (which will benefit existing cyclists in both safety and lobbying) and keeps the risk away from a government body. If DCC were running this scheme now with their reduced rates and probably reduced central funding, do you think it would not have been canned already?

€600,000 is alot of money to anybody, to say that it isnt alot is quite stunning. Do you work For DCC? If thats their attitude towards money then no wonder the city is ****ed and they are cutting business.
How about they put that €600,000 thats feck all into the wage bill and give 20 people a good wage?

The bikes are rubbish, they are not a good indication of cycling, they are heavy slow and cumbersome, all it will take is one gob****e going up the inside of a bus turning left and getting killed and the scheme is dead. Id rather see the money being invested properly, how about subsidised bikes? how about MTB trails in Howth and Bray heads? How about cyclist and driver education? how about properly maintained cycle track.

Ill tell you what give me 600,000 seen as its nothing and see what Id do with it. I can guarantee you What I would do will have a better impact on cycling than the velib.

markpb

kona wrote: »

€600,000 is alot of money to anybody, to say that it isnt alot is quite stunning. Do you work For DCC?

I should have been quite clear - I don't work for DCC, JCD or anyone else. I'm just a commuter-cyclist (POB?).

The bikes are rubbish, they are not a good indication of cycling, they are heavy slow and cumbersome

I presume that they're designed to be durable rather than high quality bikes. They're only for cycling very short distances - not commuting, not racing, just 10 - 15 minutes through the city centre.

Id rather see the money being invested properly, how about subsidised bikes? how about MTB trails in Howth and Bray heads?

I think that would be a waste of time, limited to a small number of people who are already interested in cycling. The current scheme is open to anyone, should encourage new people to cycle, should increase the numbers cycling through the city centre which will improve safety and will give us more pressure when we lobby for better cycling facilities.

Cool Mo D

kona wrote: »

€600,000 is alot of money to anybody, to say that it isnt alot is quite stunning. Do you work For DCC? If thats their attitude towards money then no wonder the city is ****ed and they are cutting business.
How about they put that €600,000 thats feck all into the wage bill and give 20 people a good wage?

The bikes are rubbish, they are not a good indication of cycling, they are heavy slow and cumbersome, all it will take is one gob****e going up the inside of a bus turning left and getting killed and the scheme is dead. Id rather see the money being invested properly, how about subsidised bikes? how about MTB trails in Howth and Bray heads? How about cyclist and driver education? how about properly maintained cycle track.

Ill tell you what give me 600,000 seen as its nothing and see what Id do with it. I can guarantee you What I would do will have a better impact on cycling than the velib.

Do you even know what you're talking about? If the scheme was cancelled, DCC would not be €600,000 richer. The money to fund the scheme comes from DCC allowing the company to put up ads around the city. Now, the ads are ugly, and have a negative impact on the city, but they don't cost any money. €600,000 is a purely notional figure, it never existed in the bank accounts of DCC. DCC spend €1,000,000,000. Saying €600,000 is a lot of money for them is like saying that €18 is a fortune for someone earning €30,000 a year.

And if the free bikes will do nothing for cycling, can you explain why they are so popular elsewhere?

Carawaystick

kona wrote: »

€600,000 is alot of money to anybody

Yeah it'd fund Five bikes for 15 years.....

kona

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Do you even know what you're talking about? If the scheme was cancelled, DCC would not be €600,000 richer. The money to fund the scheme comes from DCC allowing the company to put up ads around the city. Now, the ads are ugly, and have a negative impact on the city, but they don't cost any money. €600,000 is a purely notional figure, it never existed in the bank accounts of DCC. DCC spend €1,000,000,000. Saying €600,000 is a lot of money for them is like saying that €18 is a fortune for someone earning €30,000 a year.

And if the free bikes will do nothing for cycling, can you explain why they are so popular elsewhere?

Do you have any background in cycling? Do you cycle? Do you deal with people who are starting to cycle again for the first time in a decade?

I do.

I can tell you Irish peoples attitude towards cycling sucks,its seen as transport for hippies and the poor. The scheme run on continental Europe, where cycling is held in high regard is not a good comparison.
Give a Irish person a heavy, horrible to ride sack of ****, that is publically known to cost e450, They will laugh and feck off back to their car.
Give them a Real bike worth e300 thats designed for commuting and they will enjoy it.

You want to promote cycling as easy and cheap. Not tiresome and expensive.

600k isnt alot? maybe DCC would have spend less if such sums of money are looked upon as nothing. Such a waste, I cannot believe people accept this. While I usually couldnt care less what politicians do, I think its scandalous that such figueres are looked upon with such disregard.

I can tell you a well planned scheme run by somebody who cycles everyday, would actually earn money for DCC, not cost them.

Personally Id rather a scheme with better bikes, No scaldy ads and no bitterness. This deal is bitter IMO.

Oh yes I do know what I am on about, I do hope the scheme succeeds, however its poorley executed.

kona

markpb wrote: »

I presume that they're designed to be durable rather than high quality bikes. They're only for cycling very short distances - not commuting, not racing, just 10 - 15 minutes through the city centre.
.

No such thing as durable low quality bikes. I dont care what they are designed for, they are fine for use in dublin, I am under no Illusions as to what they are for, But for that money you should be either getting a better bike, or getting the existing bike much cheaper.
This pissed me off, we arent getting value for money. What pissed me off more was the lack of transparancy of the whole deal, as it was "commercially sensitive". Wouldnt have been "sensitive" if it was a better deal for us.

markpb wrote: »

I think that would be a waste of time, limited to a small number of people who are already interested in cycling. The current scheme is open to anyone, should encourage new people to cycle, should increase the numbers cycling through the city centre which will improve safety and will give us more pressure when we lobby for better cycling facilities.

Rubbish, 2 MTB trails within a Hour of the city , accessible by Dart. MTB trails are major attractions for tourists believe it or not, maybe it may not suit you, but from working in a bike shop I can assure you the interest is there.

Lobby for better facilities...Bollix, the government is so ****ed financially we wont get anything for another decade. THis whole scheme is a cheap way to keep the greens onside.

monument

Is there any chance you can stop flip flopping between being against this scheme's details and being against the general idea of it? Even just pick one and stick with it?

kona wrote: »

The bikes are rubbish, they are not a good indication of cycling, they are heavy slow and cumbersome,

Please explain how the bikes work fine for Paris and other cities but are not ok for Dublin?

I've used them for longer distances in Paris than the space between any stations in Dublin.

kona wrote: »

all it will take is one gob****e going up the inside of a bus turning left and getting killed and the scheme is dead.

Would apply to any scheme of this nature. The extrema of the same argument could be that the State should not promote cycling because of such dangers. But you know that would be rubbish.

kona wrote: »

Id rather see the money being invested properly, how about subsidised bikes? how about MTB trails in Howth and Bray heads? How about cyclist and driver education? how about properly maintained cycle track

Subsidised bikes -- like the bike to work scheme already in place? MTB trails -- noting to do with city transport, so it's a different issue and out side DCC's area and remit. And more cyclists on bikes -- even the rental bikes -- will put pressure on for better cycle tracks.

In any case, the deal is in a too advanced stage now to be diverting funding.

kona wrote: »

Do you have any background in cycling? Do you cycle? Do you deal with people who are starting to cycle again for the first time in a decade?

I do.

You sell people bikes?

kona wrote: »

I can tell you Irish peoples attitude towards cycling sucks,its seen as transport for hippies and the poor. The scheme run on continental Europe, where cycling is held in high regard is not a good comparison.

How much does the Irish attitude really differ from the French attitude pre their rental system starting?

kona wrote: »

I can tell you a well planned scheme run by somebody who cycles everyday, would actually earn money for DCC, not cost them.

The scheme is not costing DCC any money!

kona wrote: »

Personally Id rather a scheme with better bikes, No scaldy ads and no bitterness. This deal is bitter IMO.

Oh yes I do know what I am on about, I do hope the scheme succeeds, however its poorley executed.

"Personally" -- that's where you're going wrong. The scheme is not aimed at you.

kona wrote: »

What pissed me off more was the lack of transparancy of the whole deal, as it was "commercially sensitive". Wouldnt have been "sensitive" if it was a better deal for us.

You seem to have many other reasons what piss you off.

kona wrote: »

Rubbish, 2 MTB trails within a Hour of the city , accessible by Dart. MTB trails are major attractions for tourists believe it or not, maybe it may not suit you, but from working in a bike shop I can assure you the interest is there.

Again, nothing to do with promoting city cycling.

kona wrote: »

Lobby for better facilities...Bollix, the government is so ****ed financially we wont get anything for another decade. THis whole scheme is a cheap way to keep the greens onside.

Funny that given that it has noting to do with national government.... so, what greens in Dublin?

old boy

kona wrote: »

€600,000 is alot of money to anybody, to say that it isnt alot is quite stunning. Do you work For DCC? If thats their attitude towards money then no wonder the city is ****ed and they are cutting business.
How about they put that €600,000 thats feck all into the wage bill and give 20 people a good wage?

The bikes are rubbish, they are not a good indication of cycling, they are heavy slow and cumbersome, all it will take is one gob****e going up the inside of a bus turning left and getting killed and the scheme is dead. Id rather see the money being invested properly, how about subsidised bikes? how about MTB trails in Howth and Bray heads? How about cyclist and driver education? how about properly maintained cycle track.

Ill tell you what give me 600,000 seen as its nothing and see what Id do with it. I can guarantee you What I would do will have a better impact on cycling than the velib.

+1 also why not an umberella over the city so as to keep the cyclists dry, and what about all them sweathy peops arriving at work, will they be required to shower first, will companys be required to provide facilitys to do so. the clips on tv of bryn dobson cycling to work in his nice suit, no wonder he has to stand up far away from his co news readers. (all tounge in cheek)

kona

monument wrote: »

Is there any chance you can stop flip flopping between being against this scheme's details and being against the general idea of it? Even just pick one and stick with it?



Please explain how the bikes work fine for Paris and other cities but are not ok for Dublin?

I've used them for longer distances in Paris than the space between any stations in Dublin.



Would apply to any scheme of this nature. The extrema of the same argument could be that the State should not promote cycling because of such dangers. But you know that would be rubbish.



Subsidised bikes -- like the bike to work scheme already in place? MTB trails -- noting to do with city transport, so it's a different issue and out side DCC's area and remit. And more cyclists on bikes -- even the rental bikes -- will put pressure on for better cycle tracks.

In any case, the deal is in a too advanced stage now to be diverting funding.



You sell people bikes?



How much does the Irish attitude really differ from the French attitude pre their rental system starting?



The scheme is not costing DCC any money!



"Personally" -- that's where you're going wrong. The scheme is not aimed at you.



You seem to have many other reasons what piss you off.



Again, nothing to do with promoting city cycling.



Funny that given that it has noting to do with national government.... so, what greens in Dublin?

Been there done it, and have the T-shirt.

Ive made my points, you can question them as you will. Im getting out of this before it develops into a circle.

But before I do:

How does it cost DCC?

Ok, DCC sells ad space to a company, DCC makes money.(simple yes?)

Currently we have DCC giving away said space, in return for bikes.

Now, If for arguments sake The company(JCD) spend €1m on the bikes etc and a contract for 5 years.
They get said ad space for €1m , correct?

Now,

The ad space is potentially worth more over 5 years lets say €3m.

So, If DCC sold the ad space they would stand to make more money(potentially) than the JCD contract is worth.

DCC takes said profit and invests it in cycling. Currently said profit is gone, so thats what I consider a loss, DCC sold assets for less than their value.

This means better Facilities. They could even "loan" money to SDCC or FCC for the trails in Howth and Bray.

Yes I know its not aimed at people who actually have the sense and ability to cycle in the city, Its aimed at the inexperienced to ride in the city with no cycling education.
If you want to convert people to using bikes as a viable means on transport, You need to have the infrastructure there. Dublin doesnt have it, continental Europe does. Its putting the cart before the horse.

Why cant they build high quality cycle lanes, educate drivers and cyclist to dangers of city riding? Then introduce the scheme?

Its a great Idea, but I just dont think it will succeed here, and I hope I am wrong.

kona

old boy wrote: »

+1 also why not an umberella over the city so as to keep the cyclists dry, and what about all them sweathy peops arriving at work, will they be required to shower first, will companys be required to provide facilitys to do so. the clips on tv of bryn dobson cycling to work in his nice suit, no wonder he has to stand up far away from his co news readers. (all tounge in cheek)

Buy some proper gear smart arse, If you are wearing the correct clothing you will be fine. Some places do have showers also.

Umbrella? The chances of getting soaked while commuting are slim, even in Ireland.

L1011

kona wrote: »

Buy some proper gear smart arse, If you are wearing the correct clothing you will be fine. Some places do have showers also.

Umbrella? The chances of getting soaked while commuting are slim, even in Ireland.

Far less places have functional, private showers than cycling proponents or even landlords claim to. My last three offices:

1: Converted 1980s factory, one shower in upstairs gents toilets (clearly no idea about the ladies!), due to a design error it opened directly to the main area of the toilets and had a glass door! Some people would use it very, very early in the morning by blocking the toilet block door from the inside, thats all
2: 2000s office development, two single shower rooms accessible off toilet lobby. Leaked and were eventually removed
3: 1990s office development, showers on overall plan but replaced by disabled toilets...

monument

kona wrote: »

Been there done it, and have the T-shirt.

Ive made my points, you can question them as you will. Im getting out of this before it develops into a circle.

Can I presume this is your way of saying you are refusing to answer questions on why the bikes are ok for a larger area in Paris but not for a small area in Dublin?

kona wrote: »

How does it cost DCC?...... DCC takes said profit and invests it in cycling. Currently said profit is gone, so thats what I consider a loss, DCC sold assets for less than their value.

When you said: "I can tell you a well planned scheme run by somebody who cycles everyday, would actually earn money for DCC, not cost them"... it looked like you were talking about costing actual money, not potential earnings.

It has already explained that DCC are not an ad company, and this idea of yours would put DCC at risk, while the current deal lays the risk on JCD. They also offer a system which is already designed.

kona wrote: »

This means better Facilities. They could even "loan" money to SDCC or FCC for the trails in Howth and Bray.

Again, this would also be outside their remit and, more to the point, would have nothing to do with promoting city cycling.

kona wrote: »

Yes I know its not aimed at people who actually have the sense and ability to cycle in the city, Its aimed at the inexperienced to ride in the city with no cycling education.
If you want to convert people to using bikes as a viable means on transport, You need to have the infrastructure there. Dublin doesnt have it, continental Europe does. Its putting the cart before the horse.

The infrastructure gap between, say, Paris and Dublin is relativity low. And, as already said, building up the numbers of people cycling can in its self be a way to increase pressure for more and better infrastructure.

When it comes to which comes first, the chicken and egg is more appropriate than cart and horse.

kona wrote: »

Why cant they build high quality cycle lanes, educate drivers and cyclist to dangers of city riding? Then introduce the scheme?

These are all separate projects you can do at the same time.

kona wrote: »

Its a great Idea, but I just dont think it will succeed here, and I hope I am wrong.

If you really think it's a great idea, you're sending mixed messages.

AMontague

The full breakdown on the cost of the scheme is now up on Dublin City Council's website. As you can see the bike part of the deal accounts for €27 million - not the full €54 million. So the scheme costs about €1.5 million per year to run.

I supported this deal because I believe it will encourage cycling in Dublin. It is estimated that cycling is up 90% in Paris since they introduced the scheme. The scheme in Dublin will be much smaller, but I believe it will result in more people cycling in Dublin - which is a good thing. If things go well, we hope to expand the scheme.

I don't know the actual cost of each bike, but I know that they are "non-standard bikes" - in other words the parts can't be stripped and used on a regular bike and even the tools needed to work on the bike aren't standard tools. This removes some of the incentive to steal the bikes - but obviously adds to their cost.

This is not the only initiative that I have taken to support cycling in Dublin. When I was first elected to the City Council in 2004 the numbers cycling in Dublin had been declining for decades but I believed that there was still a future for cycling. I argued that we should set up a Cycle Committee on the Council and I have chaired that committee since it was founded. Initiatives that we have taken over the last number of years have included reducing the speed limit in the City Centre to 30 kph. This was done in a small part of town in 2006 but is about to be extended to include a much larger part of the City Centre.

I argued for the introduction of Cycle Training in Schools, including on-road cycle training for pupils (a first in Ireland). The first school that we worked with was St. Fiachra's primary school in Beaumont. Before the training in May 2008 there were about 10 children cycling to school. Six weeks after the training the numbers cycling were over 110. A year on and there are still 60-70 children cycling every day. I want to roll this training out across the city.

I wrote to successive Minister's for the Enviornment looking for funding for a full-time Cycling Officer for Dublin City Council. John Gormley eventually backed the idea and Dublin City Council appointed Ciaran Fallon in January of this year. In his first seven months he's had quite an impact.

Along with all other councillors, I supported the ban on 5-axle HGVs in the city. That has improved safety for cycling.

I have also looked for a budget for cycle promotion - hence the recent ads for bikes on the JCD hoarding.

I have plenty more that I want to do for cycling. I want to improve the parking facilities. We will be setting up a website where people can "vote" for where they want to see bike stands in the city. This will help us identify the most important sites. We also intend to commandeer the ground floor of Drury Street Car Park to make space for about 180 bikes. If that's successful we'll repeat that across the city. I also want to set up a network of off-road cycle-ways in the city, including cycle-ways along the canals and the rivers, and the Sutton-to-Sandycove route - all joined together.

All these measures have worked together to increase the numbers cycling in Dublin by 56% since 2004.

Carawaystick

AMontague wrote: »

The full breakdown on the cost of the scheme is now up on Dublin City Council's website. As you can see the bike part of the deal accounts for €27 million - not the full €54 million. So the scheme costs about €1.5 million per year to run.


I don't know the actual cost of each bike, but I know that they are "non-standard bikes" - in other words the parts can't be stripped and used on a regular bike and even the tools needed to work on the bike aren't standard tools. This removes some of the incentive to steal the bikes - but obviously adds to their cost.


I argued for the introduction of Cycle Training in Schools, including on-road cycle training for pupils (a first in Ireland). The first school that we worked with was St. Fiachra's primary school in Beaumont. Before the training in May 2008 there were about 10 children cycling to school. Six weeks after the training the numbers cycling were over 110. A year on and there are still 60-70 children cycling every day. I want to roll this training out across the city.



Along with all other councillors, I supported the ban on 5-axle HGVs in the city. That has improved safety for cycling.

So the bikes now cost only 59grand each over 15 years a saving truly worthy of the work of an bord snip nua.

You opened your post with "The full breakdown on the cost of the scheme" and then you say you don't know the full cost of each bike. Either you are innumerate or the corpo have not posted a full breakdown of the cost. I'd tend to believe the latter.
I don't see why council money should be spent on schools. That should be from the Dept of Ed or the patron bodies. Parents should take responsibility for educating their children in road safety and cycling and driving, not the govt. What part of the school curriculum covers out of school cycle training?

Two mornings after the so called 5 axle ban in DUblin I was satopped by a member of An Garda Síochána from walking on the path on the north side of Duke St to Allow a 5 axled lorry reverse on the path into Marks and Spencer. Did you support this mockery of the law? do these trucks get a special permit to drive on the footpath

Metrobest

AMontague wrote: »

The full breakdown on the cost of the scheme is now up on Dublin City Council's website. As you can see the bike part of the deal accounts for €27 million - not the full €54 million. So the scheme costs about €1.5 million per year to run.

I supported this deal because I believe it will encourage cycling in Dublin. It is estimated that cycling is up 90% in Paris since they introduced the scheme. The scheme in Dublin will be much smaller, but I believe it will result in more people cycling in Dublin - which is a good thing. If things go well, we hope to expand the scheme.

I don't know the actual cost of each bike, but I know that they are "non-standard bikes" - in other words the parts can't be stripped and used on a regular bike and even the tools needed to work on the bike aren't standard tools. This removes some of the incentive to steal the bikes - but obviously adds to their cost.

I have plenty more that I want to do for cycling. I want to improve the parking facilities. We will be setting up a website where people can "vote" for where they want to see bike stands in the city. This will help us identify the most important sites. We also intend to commandeer the ground floor of Drury Street Car Park to make space for about 180 bikes. If that's successful we'll repeat that across the city. I also want to set up a network of off-road cycle-ways in the city, including cycle-ways along the canals and the rivers, and the Sutton-to-Sandycove route - all joined together.

All these measures have worked together to increase the numbers cycling in Dublin by 56% since 2004.

Andrew, thanks for posting on this forum. I admire you patience in responding to some of the more ignorant contributions to this thread.

Personally as someone who has lived and cycled in Dublin, Amsterdam and Barcelona, I can say Dublin has the potential to be a great city for cyclists with its small streets, multi-functional city center and and relatively cycle-friendly topography. I'm glad you are working to make this happen.

Contrary to what some of the anti-advertising Marxists on this forum are saying, privately-operated schemes like Velib ultimatlely do make the city a more cycle-friendly place. In Paris, they now close down on of the quays on the Seine at weekends and they close off an entire district in Le Marais. Contra flow cycle lanes are in place on many one way streets. Wide bus lanes allow room for cyclists. Paris is still a city with far higher traffic volumes than Dublin, but Velib has successfully transformed cycling in Paris into something that everyone who lives in or visits the city can and does do. Thereby making the city greener and healthier.

In Barcelona, we have seen cycling levels literally go through the roof thanks to the Bicing scheme. Here is how the scheme has progressed in the 2 years it's been in operation:
22 March 2007: 200 bicycles and 14 stations.
1 May 2007: 750 bicicletes in 50 estacions.
1 July 2007: 1,500 bicycles and 100 stations.
1 May 2009: 6,000 bicycles and 400 stations

http://www.bicing.com/modulos/modulos.php?TU5fSU5GT1JNQUNJT04%3D&NA%3D%3D&Nw%3D%3D

It's a victim of its own success in the sense that every street, every neighbourhood, complains that there are not enough stations/bikes in the vicinity. On many streets cycle numbers have multiplied for or five fold and 90% of these cyclists are on Bicing. Also, Bicing has encouraged many to go out and buy their own bike.

To raise cycling levels in Dublin, I would say it's a combination of critical mass (getting more cyclists on the road), and then really addressing the genuine concerns that people have about safety ("Will I get hit by a bus?"). Cycle friendly measures Dublin needs include:
* Continuous cycle lanes, not stop-start
* Traffic light sequences that prioritize/simplify cycle movements
* Contra flow cycle lanes on one way streets where space permits
* Vastly increased bike racks at key destinations (eg. outside St Stephen's Green SC, GPO, TCD)
* An advertising campaign that emphasizes the health, safety and time benefits of cycling, and educates the public on how to deal with various road situations (Eg. passing a bus at a bus stop)

Velib won't change cycling in Dublin overnight, but I believe that if Dublin City Council follows the same policies as have been put in place in Paris and Barcelona, adapted to Dublin's situation, we will see a huge and positive shift.

Velib is the new smoking ban. Initially scoffed at, people will soon see its benefits and wonder how we ever managed without it!

monument

Carawaystick wrote: »

So the bikes now cost only 59grand each over 15 years a saving truly worthy of the work of an bord snip nua.

If the doom and glum merchants are correct about massive levels of vandalism and theft than maintenance and replacement of damaged or stolen bikes should end up costing JCD a more than €59,000 over 15 years or €4,000 per year.

But that's not the full picture, it does not include costs of the docking stations etc. The full costs is likely to include the following, if not more:

• building of the docking stations (at 40 locations)
• maintenance of the same
• buying the original bikes (450 of them)
• maintenance of the bikes
• replacement of stolen bikes
• daily movement of bikes to different stations
• daily collections of bikes for maintenance
• keeping payment systems going

When you look at the other costs don't you get a better picture?

Carawaystick wrote: »

I don't see why council money should be spent on schools. That should be from the Dept of Ed or the patron bodies. Parents should take responsibility for educating their children in road safety and cycling and driving, not the govt. What part of the school curriculum covers out of school cycle training?

School cycling training and promotion can help lead to:

• safer roads for pedestrians and cyclists
• less congestion
• less air pollution
• less noise pollution
• a better living environment

And these matters are not central to council aims, are they not?

Carawaystick wrote: »

Two mornings after the so called 5 axle ban in DUblin I was satopped by a member of An Garda Síochána from walking on the path on the north side of Duke St to Allow a 5 axled lorry reverse on the path into Marks and Spencer. Did you support this mockery of the law? do these trucks get a special permit to drive on the footpath

Did you complain to anybody at the time? If not, why are you complaining now?

kona

monument wrote: »

Can I presume this is your way of saying you are refusing to answer questions on why the bikes are ok for a larger area in Paris but not for a small area in Dublin?

No , Read the thread on the cycling forum, thats what I mean, Ive put all my points across there.

Im just pointing out that It could have been done better, why we should have to compare ourselves and adopt a scheme designed for larger cities?. Different places have different dynamics and challenges.

We should have our own.

Mr.Montague, I accept that these bikes are all unique and are designed not to be taken apart , but surely the production run of these bikes is larger than the production run of many well established high quality bike brands, and so a company with a guaranteed run of thousands of the same bike should be able to offer a significant discount, a CP of e200 is quite generous for these bikes IMO.

Who was responsible for these bikes? Can I contact him? Also as a bike mechanic I notice the lack of ads looking for mechanics? Is the maintenace a case of just sending a bunch of basic trained DCC workers out.
What does the Insurance say to this?

monument

kona wrote: »

No , Read the thread on the cycling forum, thats what I mean, Ive put all my points across there.

Im just pointing out that It could have been done better, why we should have to compare ourselves and adopt a scheme designed for larger cities?. Different places have different dynamics and challenges.

We should have our own.

Exactly what dynamic is different to the point we need a different design?

On the bikes them self, it has already been said they easily cover larger areas in Paris, so there should be no problems with the smaller area of the Dublin system. Or is there one you know of?

kona wrote: »

Who was responsible for these bikes? Can I contact him? Also as a bike mechanic I notice the lack of ads looking for mechanics? Is the maintenace a case of just sending a bunch of basic trained DCC workers out.
What does the Insurance say to this?

JCDecaux will be running the system, not DCC.

In Paris they use a barge for fixing the bikes, with collection cages along the river there: http://velovogue.blogspot.com/2009/04/velib-mechanics-by-boat.html And here's a bike mechanic for smaller work, a collection pickup is also pictured in one photo: http://velovogue.blogspot.com/2009/04/velib-mechanics-by-bike.html

EDIT: Another related set of pics for you kona: http://velovogue.blogspot.com/2009/04/velib-mechanics-by-truck.html

Run_to_da_hills

monument wrote: »

In Paris they use a barge for fixing the bikes, with collection cages along the river there:

In Dublin they might also need a barge for fishing them out of the Liffey

SerialComplaint

AMontague wrote: »

I campaigned to have a Free Bike Scheme for Dublin since I first got elected to Dublin City Council five years ago, although I was open-minded about which particular scheme to use. I've also always supported calls to have the details of the agreement made public, so I'm delighted that Colm Coyle managed to get this information for the Sunday Times. In my opinion, Dublin City Council got value for money. Obviously, not everyone will agree with me.

According to the information released to the Sunday Times, JC Decaux expected to earn €63 million through advertising over 15 years and supply Dublin City Council with €54 million of benefits. This being the case JC Decaux would stand to make a profit of €9 million over 15 years, or €600,000/year. I would have thought that was a reasonable return. Did anyone expect that JCD would not make a profit?

However, two things have changed since then:
Firstly, as part of the contract agreed with Dublin City Council, JC Decaux agreed to remove 50 large billboards from the gable ends of buildings in Dublin (48 sheet billboards). An Bord Pleanála insisted that JC Decaux remove 100 billboards from around the city. This did not incur any reduction in services provided to Dublin City Council but has obviously reduced the profits for JCD. I believe four billboards have been put back up and this is likely to end up in the courts. But as things stand 96 billboards have been removed.

Secondly, the economic downturn has now reduced the income that JCD can expect to make from their advertisements.

Despite making less money as a result of these two factors, the services supplied to Dublin City Council remain the same.

On September 13th 450 bikes will be available for use in Dublin. Something that I've been advocating, for over five years. I'm delighted the bikes are coming, and I'm delighted that the costs are now firmly out in the open, so we can debate the true figures and not speculated figures.

Andrew Montague

Andrew, let me say first that I accept your bona fides, and I'm not a subscriber to the 'sure all them politicians are wasters/corrupt' school of thought. I also welcome the fact that bikes will be available in Dublin, and I welcome your participation in these discussions.

However, there is one substantial gap in your commentary above. How can you be confident that DCC got good value for money in this exercise, in the absence of any competitive approach. With any public procurement process, free market competition is used to ensure that value for money is achieved. While this is not a perfect process, it is generally successful.

In the case of the free bikes, there does not seem to have been any open competition. [Correct me if I am wrong here]. This was a 'sweetheart deal' between DCC and JCD. How can you be sure that JCD provide a better deal than (for example) Clear Channel, who are doing a deal for advertising with Dun Laoghaire Rathdown? How can you be sure that it made sense to link the advertising sites with the free bikes, and not simply operate two seperate schemes, one to sell/rent advertising spots, and one to operate free bikes?

The lack of transparency in this deal (combined with the reluctance of DCC to provide details of the contract until forced to do so) is very worrying.

lostexpectation

how do we know all the old ad hoardings were removed

wackerooooohh

Andrew Montague, if you are the man who organised these bikes for Dublin then I salute you sir, it is exactly what the city needs.

having read some of the comments here why so much begrudgery from you all???

70 odd advertising sites for a free bicycle scheme, love it!

lostexpectation

AMontague wrote: »

The full breakdown on the cost of the scheme is now up on Dublin City Council's website. As you can see the bike part of the deal accounts for €27 million - not the full €54 million. So the scheme costs about €1.5 million per year to run.

I supported this deal because I believe it will encourage cycling in Dublin. It is estimated that cycling is up 90% in Paris since they introduced the scheme. The scheme in Dublin will be much smaller, but I believe it will result in more people cycling in Dublin - which is a good thing. If things go well, we hope to expand the scheme.

I don't know the actual cost of each bike, but I know that they are "non-standard bikes" - in other words the parts can't be stripped and used on a regular bike and even the tools needed to work on the bike aren't standard tools. This removes some of the incentive to steal the bikes - but obviously adds to their cost.

This is not the only initiative that I have taken to support cycling in Dublin. When I was first elected to the City Council in 2004 the numbers cycling in Dublin had been declining for decades but I believed that there was still a future for cycling. I argued that we should set up a Cycle Committee on the Council and I have chaired that committee since it was founded. Initiatives that we have taken over the last number of years have included reducing the speed limit in the City Centre to 30 kph. This was done in a small part of town in 2006 but is about to be extended to include a much larger part of the City Centre.

I argued for the introduction of Cycle Training in Schools, including on-road cycle training for pupils (a first in Ireland). The first school that we worked with was St. Fiachra's primary school in Beaumont. Before the training in May 2008 there were about 10 children cycling to school. Six weeks after the training the numbers cycling were over 110. A year on and there are still 60-70 children cycling every day. I want to roll this training out across the city.

I wrote to successive Minister's for the Enviornment looking for funding for a full-time Cycling Officer for Dublin City Council. John Gormley eventually backed the idea and Dublin City Council appointed Ciaran Fallon in January of this year. In his first seven months he's had quite an impact.

Along with all other councillors, I supported the ban on 5-axle HGVs in the city. That has improved safety for cycling.

I have also looked for a budget for cycle promotion - hence the recent ads for bikes on the JCD hoarding.

I have plenty more that I want to do for cycling. I want to improve the parking facilities. We will be setting up a website where people can "vote" for where they want to see bike stands in the city. This will help us identify the most important sites. We also intend to commandeer the ground floor of Drury Street Car Park to make space for about 180 bikes. If that's successful we'll repeat that across the city. I also want to set up a network of off-road cycle-ways in the city, including cycle-ways along the canals and the rivers, and the Sutton-to-Sandycove route - all joined together.

All these measures have worked together to increase the numbers cycling in Dublin by 56% since 2004.

one day they'll be putting up an ad hoarding for all the work you've done

Ste.phen

lostexpectation wrote: »

how do we know all the old ad hoardings were removed

As i posted before (possibly in this thread) I know of at least two locations listed where the hoardings were removed long before this scheme's inception.
(and in one case it's because the wall it was on no longer exists due to construction work)

wackerooooohh

More typical begrudgery, get a life. Give the bloody scheme a chance to work, the city is trying to do something proactive and all you guys seem to do all the time is whinge....i guess if you had your way we would still be going to hedgeschools. Whether or not YOU like advertising, it is a part of city life and in this instance the city is making the advertising work for them, good on them i say, nothing ventured, nothing gained.