The Bike Scheme thread

Iwannahurl

I've had a quick glance at the article, and it seems to be very interesting (and the b&w pic of the Citroen DS display was cool).

Car-sharing schemes also appear to be on the rise. The Guardian mentioned Autolib' in Paris, and while in the UK recently I noticed that car clubs were available as an alternative to car rental. I don't see why we can't have something similar in Galway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIA-wJuAG4k

Even though 75% of households in Galway City have at least one car, according to Census 2011, that still means there are over 6500 households who don't have any. In County Galway 89% of households have at least one car, nearly 6000 households (around 10%) have three or more cars, and nearly 7000 have no car. Plenty of scope there for a shared car scheme of some sort, I would think.

serfboard

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Car-sharing schemes also appear to be on the rise.

In 30 years time, no-one (or very few) people will own a car, I reckon. Driverless electric taxis will be an individual's mode of transport where a motor vehicle is required. Think of a GoCar, driverless, Nissan Leaf, ordered and paid using Hailo (or even a Leap card).

Which is only right considering the amount of capital tied up in an asset that is only used 5% of the time. Imagine Michael O'Leary's planes only flying 5% of the time, and spending the rest of the time sitting on the tarmac! Crazy you might think, but if you compare the wealth of Ryanair and the cost of a plane, to the wealth of a household and the cost of a car, it mightn't be so far off.

what_traffic

I guess the BikeShare models showed that same could be achieved for Automobiles. Would be great to see gocar.ie expand beyond Dublin and Cork. Would think Galway City would be an ideal place. Perhaps it is to small.

serfboard

what_traffic wrote: »

I guess the BikeShare models showed that same could be achieved for Automobiles. Would be great to see gocar.ie expand beyond Dublin and Cork. Would think Galway City would be an ideal place. Perhaps it is to small.

Agreed. In fact, one might think that they have a tailor-made location for it too - the car park under the coach station.

Imagine someone coming who needs to visit various clients in the city. They arrive in the Train/Bus/Coach station. If their clients are all within a very small radius, they walk; a bigger radius they use bike share, and a bigger radius again they use the car-share. Drop it back when they're finished, and all without bringing an extra car into the city.

kippy

serfboard wrote: »

In 30 years time, no-one (or very few) people will own a car, I reckon. Driverless electric taxis will be an individual's mode of transport where a motor vehicle is required. Think of a GoCar, driverless, Nissan Leaf, ordered and paid using Hailo (or even a Leap card).

Which is only right considering the amount of capital tied up in an asset that is only used 5% of the time. Imagine Michael O'Leary's planes only flying 5% of the time, and spending the rest of the time sitting on the tarmac! Crazy you might think, but if you compare the wealth of Ryanair and the cost of a plane, to the wealth of a household and the cost of a car, it mightn't be so far off.

I don't think that comparison is very apt.

serfboard

kippy wrote: »

I don't think that comparison is very apt.

I was wondering if someone was going to make me do the numbers!

I agree it's not the most elegant comparison but ...

Ryanair's current market capitalisation is 15,030 M EUR. They're after announching the purchase of three new 737-800s for "$280 million at current list prices". That's $93M or €80M per plane (and I'll bet they get it cheaper than that).

80/15030 = half of one percent.

A 10K car represents 4% of the value of a 250K house.

Which is all a long-winded way of saying that every business, and Ryanair especially, will talk about "sweating their assets", and it would be inconceivable for them to let an asset which they had spent 4% of their wealth on, be idle for 95% of the time. In the same way, society in general, should "sweat its assets" (such as cars) more by sharing - thus making sure they're used (at least) over 50% of the time. Otherwise, it's just a lot of sunk capital.

In general, we are moving toward a sharing economy - bikes (Bike share), cars (Go car), music (Spotify), videos (Netflix) - all were things you at one time had to own if you wanted to use them at a time convenient to you. Now you can rent (sometimes for free) for the short amount of time you need, and "give back" when you're finished.

serfboard

serfboard wrote: »

In 30 years time, no-one (or very few) people will own a car, I reckon. Driverless electric taxis will be an individual's mode of transport where a motor vehicle is required.

Not a chance, a car will always be vital for people except those living and working right in the city centre (and personally I still wouldn't be without one for weekend use etc), rural dwellers in particular will never be without a car as its the prefect way for them to get around.

Aside from the necessity and significant convenience I (like many) enjoy cars, like one that's fast, handles well, looks good and enjoy cleaning and maintaining it.

kippy

serfboard wrote: »

I was wondering if someone was going to make me do the numbers!

I agree it's not the most elegant comparison but ...

Ryanair's current market capitalisation is 15,030 M EUR. They're after announching the purchase of three new 737-800s for "$280 million at current list prices". That's $93M or €80M per plane (and I'll bet they get it cheaper than that).

80/15030 = half of one percent.

A 10K car represents 4% of the value of a 250K house.

Which is all a long-winded way of saying that every business, and Ryanair especially, will talk about "sweating their assets", and it would be inconceivable for them to let an asset which they had spent 4% of their wealth on, be idle for 95% of the time. In the same way, society in general, should "sweat its assets" (such as cars) more by sharing - thus making sure they're used (at least) over 50% of the time. Otherwise, it's just a lot of sunk capital.

In general, we are moving toward a sharing economy - bikes (Bike share), cars (Go car), music (Spotify), videos (Netflix) - all were things you at one time had to own if you wanted to use them at a time convenient to you. Now you can rent (sometimes for free) for the short amount of time you need, and "give back" when you're finished.

Ryanair is a business, reporting to shareholders. They are under an obligation to have the plan in the air as long as possible, as that is the only time the plane is making money for them.
A car, never makes money for it's owner when it's on the road (unless a taxi etc) - in fact one could argue it is costing you money when it is on the road with no return.

So I dont agree with the comparison.

The rest of you're logic stacks up somewhat to be fair. Cars cost money to own and run but there are reasons many people chose cars over what would seem to be cheaper forms of transport and I suspect they've already had the pros and cons conversation with themselves on that aspect of life.

serfboard

kippy wrote: »

Ryanair is a business, reporting to shareholders. They are under an obligation to have the plan in the air as long as possible, as that is the only time the plane is making money for them.
A car, never makes money for it's owner when it's on the road (unless a taxi etc) - in fact one could argue it is costing you money when it is on the road with no return.

So I dont agree with the comparison.

The rest of you're logic stacks up somewhat to be fair. Cars cost money to own and run but there are reasons many people chose cars over what would seem to be cheaper forms of transport and I suspect they've already had the pros and cons conversation with themselves on that aspect of life.

Businesses see the need to make the most of assets they've invested quite a bit of money in. My argument is society in general should be doing the same, and the examples I quote, of the sharing economy, show that we are going in that direction.

Natasha Calm Groceries wrote: »

Not a chance, a car will always be vital for people except those living and working right in the city centre (and personally I still wouldn't be without one for weekend use etc), rural dwellers in particular will never be without a car as its the prefect way for them to get around.

Aside from the necessity and significant convenience I (like many) enjoy cars, like one that's fast, handles well, looks good and enjoy cleaning and maintaining it.

The main reason people own a car is for the convenience of getting from A to B when you want.

Imagine a massive fleet of driverless electric taxis, probably owned either by car companies, or rental companies, on-call 24/7, and either driving around the roads or dispatched from your nearest neighbourhood centre/town/village where they sit re-charging while they await a booking. Apart from the peak-time rush, (which I admit, will have to be figured out and which may involve - guess what? Public Transport :eek:), why would you own a car when you could just rent one when you want?

In fact, thinking about the peak-time problem, there will be a premium, which some people will be able and willing to pay. But just as in the airline model, people will alter their behaviour to get lower prices.

I agree about people wanting to own cars, and there will still be people who will. But very few will see the point in it.

WallyGUFC

I'm not sure how likely driverless taxis are, and I think there'd be issues if individuals were still driving themselves (it'd be better if every car was driverless I think.) Is technology like this actively being developed? And I wonder would it more economical than an individual owning a car? I'd imagine at the start it wouldn't be.

Mrs OBumble

Serfboard, I like your thinking. But then I already live in the city centre and choose to use taxis and rent a car when I need it rather than own - purely for reasons of economics. I'd love a car club where I could rent for short periods at short notice without having to pay a fortune for it.

But you're forgetting one aspect of male psychology. Some men use their car to, umm, compensate for perceived ...umm ... lack of size ... in other departments (and I don't mean hands!) I don't know why they bother, when we all know what it means when a lad is driving around in a big fast car that he doesn't need. But they do.

So there will be some resistance to such an approach, no matter how economically rational it is.

zarquon

WallyGUFC wrote: »

I'm not sure how likely driverless taxis are, and I think there'd be issues if individuals were still driving themselves (it'd be better if every car was driverless I think.) Is technology like this actively being developed? And I wonder would it more economical than an individual owning a car? I'd imagine at the start it wouldn't be.

It's a matter of when, not if. The technology already exists albeit not pratical for mass production. A few decades time should see mass production of driverless cars a viable option.

dinneenp

zarquon wrote: »

It's a matter of when, not if. The technology already exists albeit not pratical for mass production. A few decades time should see mass production of driverless cars a viable option.

A lot if cars still don't have electric windows. It's cheaper without. So I guess driverless cars won't be the norm for a long, long time.

Crumbs868

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

But you're forgetting one aspect of male psychology. Some men use their car to, umm, compensate for perceived ...umm ... lack of size ... in other departments (and I don't mean hands!) I don't know why they bother, when we all know what it means when a lad is driving around in a big fast car that he doesn't need. But they do.

What a sexist and narrow minded statement, expect more from a moderator.

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

.

But you're forgetting one aspect of male psychology. Some men use their car to, umm, compensate for perceived ...umm ... lack of size ... in other departments (and I don't mean hands!) I don't know why they bother, when we all know what it means when a lad is driving around in a big fast car that he doesn't need. But they do.

So there will be some resistance to such an approach, no matter how economically rational it is.

You (or people in general) don't really believe this fable surely? I don't think any man ever bought a car with impressing women in mind.

You do realise men and women actually enjoy driving nice cars, take pride in having a good looking car and enjoy the excitement of driving a fast car. I couldnt plot along in a small underpowered box, I'm far too into cars and enjoy sinking my right foot and feeling the power and hearing the engine roar far too much.

Contrary to a lot of backward belief also having a more powerful car is far safer on the roads as things like overtaking is effortless and done much much faster than in a slow, underpowered car.

TinManJim

Natasha Calm Groceries wrote: »

I don't think any man ever bought a car with impressing women in mind.

That's quite a claim...

Mrs OBumble

Crumbs868 wrote: »

What a sexist and narrow minded statement, expect more from a moderator.

I'm not a moderator in this forum.

And trust me, I know some cases where it's 100% correct. You want names? Nah... I'm not going to give them, that's not fair. But I could.

dloob

Could be in 20 or 30 years you'll see cars that aren't driverless being banned from the public roads.

death1234567

dloob wrote: »

Could be in 20 or 30 years you'll see cars that aren't driverless being banned from the public roads.

and we'll all live in cities on the moon.

Iwannahurl

Natasha Calm Groceries wrote: »

I'm far too into cars and enjoy sinking my right foot and feeling the power and hearing the engine roar far too much.

Phwoar.

Back on topic (sort of):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBZ3aqeJlnY

L'Enfer du Nord

dloob wrote: »

Could be in 20 or 30 years you'll see cars that aren't driverless being banned from the public roads.

You'll still be able to drive cars in motor dude ranches.

dloob

dloob wrote: »

Could be in 20 or 30 years you'll see cars that aren't driverless being banned from the public roads.

I'd bet every cent I have on that not being the case.

Its like predictions in the past that we would all be driving flying cars by the year 2000.

zarquon

Natasha Calm Groceries wrote: »

I'd bet every cent I have on that not being the case.

Its like predictions in the past that we would all be driving flying cars by the year 2000.

Or predictions that the sun revolved around the earth or predictions that the fundamental particles of matter were air, earth, fire, wind.

Predications are just educated guesses, no one knows what the future holds, certainly not the distant future

what_traffic

http://connachttribune.ie/expansion-of-bike-scheme-to-salthill-will-depend-on-usage/

Can the number's increase based on the low numbers of current stations?

zarquon

what_traffic wrote: »

http://connachttribune.ie/expansion-of-bike-scheme-to-salthill-will-depend-on-usage/

Can the number's increase based on the low numbers of current stations?

A salthill station seems like a no brainer. Of course usage would be high on such a route.

ceatharloch

zarquon wrote: »

A salthill station seems like a no brainer. Of course usage would be high on such a route.

Absolutely! But I could see this happening: They build a scheme restricted to a small geographical area in Galway City (max. distance you can cycle is about 1km), and then, when the numbers of people using it are not so large (precisely because it is just in a small area), they say "no we won't extend it because there are too few using it"!

I really hope the powers-that-be will have a bit of sense in this case and see that extension of the scheme to Salthill (just 1km away) is _very_ _likely_ to improve usage by a considerable amount. Nothing is ever guaranteed, but this one should be a very good bet!!

irisheddie85

There seems to have been an increase in the amount of bikes being used recently or at least I've been meeting a lot more of them around the streets of Galway. Hopefully the scheme well be expanded in the future

uki

I must say that I would be interested in joining the bike sceme it there was a station in Salthill, Knocknacarra or even out in Barna. I would leave my car at home on a fine day and cycle. I bet there would be a huge demand. At the moment the hire stations are far to close to town. They are not an alternative for commuters like me. I think it is a no brainer. Good for everybody to take cars of the road. So PLEASE INSTALL A STATION IN SALTHILL / BARNA / KNOCKNACARRA!

Fey!

Does anyone know why the bike rack on Mainguard Street has been completely out of service for the last month?

The city manager was asked at a recent meeting whether or not proper racks for normal bikes were going to be replaced, and when asked for a timeframe he said within two months. That was about a month ago. He was also asked about removing bikes that were attached to poles and blocking paths, and said that he would have no qualms about instructing the necessary people to remove any that were causing a hindrance and blocking paths.

uki

I think they want to promote the COCA COLA bikes. That is their objective. They paid money towards the bikes. To hell with Paddy - the ordinary cyclists. No I think it is not fair that ordinary cyclists have to suffer. I think the coca cola bikes are a good idea - but badly designed (so far). Not enough stations outside town and therefor no real alternative for motorists to leave their cars at home. We need more bicycle stands in and around Galway to help fight obesity and keep Galway moving. Wasting time and petrol every morning in traffic jams bringing kids to school.