Dublin Bikes Expansion Stalled

Moflojo

Dublin City Council are playing the poor mouth on the planned expansion of the Dublin Bikes Scheme into parts of the north and north east city (Grangegorman, Phibsboro, Mountjoy Square, Connolly Station).

My understanding is that the National Transport Authority would cover the capital costs of installing the stations but the council don't want to take on the costs of maintaining the service.

My opinion on this is that the scheme has already disproportionately expanded in the south of the city compared to the north (Dolphin's Barn notwithstanding...) so it's a real kick in the teeth to northside users that the council are only now trying to reel it in.

Increasing the annual subscription fee to €30 has been mooted...

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/expanded-dublin-bikes-scheme-to-grangegorman-dit-on-hold-1.2752057

ted1

Moflojo wrote: »

Dublin City Council are playing the poor mouth on the planned expansion of the Dublin Bikes Scheme into parts of the north and north east city (Grangegorman, Phibsboro, Mountjoy Square, Connolly Station).

My understanding is that the National Transport Authority would cover the capital costs of installing the stations but the council don't want to take on the costs of maintaining the service.

My opinion on this is that the scheme has already disproportionately expanded in the south of the city compared to the north (Dolphin's Barn notwithstanding...) so it's a real kick in the teeth to northside users that the council are only now trying to reel it in.

Increasing the annual subscription fee to €30 has been mooted...

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/expanded-dublin-bikes-scheme-to-grangegorman-dit-on-hold-1.2752057

I can't imagine that a price increase would bring in extra revenue , in fact I'd go as far as saying that they'll lose revenue with a drop off in subscribers

Moflojo

ted1 wrote: »

I can't imagine that a price increase would bring in extra revenue , in fact I'd go as far as saying that they'll lose revenue with a drop off in subscribers

There should rightly be a backlash if they try to up the subscription fee again anytime soon. Dublin Bus users have been taking the annual increase lying down, something that astounds me.

ED E

Do we have any figures on their staff count? It appears to me after the last upgrade that the number of stations went up but staffing was stagnant as their repositioning work is a lot worse than it was when the scheme started.

Chips Lovell

Get on to your local councillors. They voted to slash property taxes by 15 percent last year, depriving the council of €11 million in revenue.

ted1

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Get on to your local councillors. They voted to slash property taxes by 15 percent last year, depriving the council of €11 million in revenue.

Rightly so, they were taking in so much they have money taking off them to give to poorer counties.

buffalo

ted1 wrote: »

Rightly so, they were taking in so much they have money taking off them to give to poorer counties.

The more money that a county council takes in, the more it gets to keep. Are you suggesting Dublin should refuse to give Leitrim an extra €1, even if it means not giving themselves €4?

lennymc

I have absolutely no idea how things work or what is going on, but it is terrible.

Chuchote

There's a big gap in the northside, and also a big empty gap from Christ Church south to Emmet Bridge and from St James's east to Portobello – no stations between those points. Clanbrassil Street seems to issue forth an anti-bike antimagnetism.

What are the expenses? How many people pay the annual charge (I do, to support the scheme though I've only ridden a Dublin Bike perhaps twice; I'm sure most people here are the same); what is the subvention from Coke?

buffalo

Chuchote wrote: »

What are the expenses? How many people pay the annual charge (I do, to support the scheme though I've only ridden a Dublin Bike perhaps twice; I'm sure most people here are the same); what is the subvention from Coke?

It's in the article...

The scheme currently costs €1.9 million a year to run, subscriptions and usage charges come to €1.2 million and Coca Cola pays €312,000 in sponsorship, with the council covering the shortfall.

€1.2m divided by €20 gives 60,000 subscribers. Though those fees include the 3day tourists as well.

ted1

buffalo wrote: »

The more money that a county council takes in, the more it gets to keep. Are you suggesting Dublin should refuse to give Leitrim an extra €1, even if it means not giving themselves €4?

Absolutely. Houses prices in Dublin are dear enough that the property tax is unjust. Somone living in a 2 up 2 down 70 sq m house in Dublin is paying the same as someone living on 5 acres , 6 bedroom , 220sq m house in Leitrim.

Lumen

Maybe they need an additional sponsor.

If they picked the IRFU the slogan could be "Dublin Bikes...powered by coke and hookers".

buffalo

ted1 wrote: »

Absolutely. Houses prices in Dublin are dear enough that the property tax is unjust. Somone living in a 2 up 2 down 70 sq m house in Dublin is paying the same as someone living on 5 acres , 6 bedroom , 220sq m house in Leitrim.

Would you like to compare the access to facilities such as libraries, water mains, transport infrastructure (including subsidised bike share schemes), etc. ?

Lumen

ted1 wrote: »

Absolutely. Houses prices in Dublin are dear enough that the property tax is unjust. Somone living in a 2 up 2 down 70 sq m house in Dublin is paying the same as someone living on 5 acres , 6 bedroom , 220sq m house in Leitrim.

How is taxing the wealthy unjust?

odyssey06

Lumen wrote: »

How is taxing the wealthy unjust?

It's not a tax on wealth, it's a tax on property ownership. It does not take into account mortgage or equity. Person A who owns outright a property worth €200k is clearly wealthier than Person B whose property is worth €400k but €300k of that is owed on a mortgage. But Person A pays less in property tax than Person B. To then take 20% of the tax paid by Person B to their council, and hand it to the council of Person A is a further injustice.

ted1

Lumen wrote: »

How is taxing the wealthy unjust?

But it is a tax on debt.
Take the house value , deduct the existing debt and then tax what's left , that's what a wealth tax is .

ted1

buffalo wrote: »

Would you like to compare the access to facilities such as libraries, water mains, transport infrastructure (including subsidised bike share schemes), etc. ?

Look at population density. The cost of providing mains water and electricity alone is many time greater to the dwelling down the country lane than it is to 1 house is an estate , yet that one house is paying the same as the estate. So the Dublin property owner is already subsidising the country house.
In fact as the cost of providing services eye is many tines dearer in rural settings the property tax there should be higher

NiallBoo

I half expected this thread to go south but I didn't expect it to descend into parochial mud-slinging about property tax...

Chuchote

€312,000 for how many bikes? How many mobile ads whizzing around the city, reminding everyone of how thirsty they feel and how they'd like a cool fizz of Coca-Cola on their tongue?

(By the way, relating property tax to the Dublin Bikes scheme is insane.)

Edit: also by the way, I thought the fee had already gone up to €30. News to me that it hasn't.

C3PO

I for one would be happy to pay a significantly increased subscription for an enhanced service! Frankly I think €20 for the year is ludicrously cheap! I don't know about the Northside but I know for sure that a station in Ballsbridge (where I work) would be a fantastic amenity!

buffalo

odyssey06 wrote: »

It's not a tax on wealth, it's a tax on property ownership. It does not take into account mortgage or equity. Person A who owns outright a property worth €200k is clearly wealthier than Person B whose property is worth €400k but €300k of that is owed on a mortgage. But Person A pays less in property tax than Person B. To then take 20% of the tax paid by Person B to their council, and hand it to the council of Person A is a further injustice.

Your statement reinforces the view that it's a tax on wealth. If it were a tax on property ownership, person B with the mortgage would have the bank paying the tax, as they own the property until it is paid off, no?

Leroy42

Wasn't the idea that advertising was going to effectively pay for all of this? Why didn't Dublin CC take into account the increased costs of the extra stations when negotiating the deal with Coke?

Where has all the money that was originally given in return for all the advertising sites across the city gone.

This doesn't make sense. It appears now that the scheme must pay for itself (of funded by taxation) but thats not how it was supposed to work at all.

buffalo

ted1 wrote: »

Look at population density. The cost of providing mains water and electricity alone is many time greater to the dwelling down the country lane than it is to 1 house is an estate , yet that one house is paying the same as the estate. So the Dublin property owner is already subsidising the country house.
In fact as the cost of providing services eye is many tines dearer in rural settings the property tax there should be higher

What water mains?

Anyway, back on topic. I'd love to see the scheme expanded. If the subs went up, but the scheme expanded, those put off by the cost increase would be replaced by those with greater access to the scheme. To what extent is the risk.

Johnny Jukebox

I think its fantastic value for the 20 yoyo... I'd happily pay double or more for the use I make of it.

Haven't had a Coke for years either....

Chuchote

But really, surely Coca-Cola is getting awfully good value, not to mention goodwill, from all these bikes with their logo on them everywhere in the city? (By the way, did JCDecaux have to give back all those billboards granted to them in exchange for sponsorship, when they withdrew from that sponsorship?)

Surely Coca-Cola's sales in Ireland would warrant a little more generosity from them in terms of investment in the scheme/a cheap advertising gimmick?

Chuchote

Johnny Jukebox wrote: »

I think its fantastic value for the 20 yoyo... I'd happily pay double or more for the use I make of it.

Haven't had a Coke for years either....

They make other stuff

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Coca-Cola_brands

…which our unconscious minds are probably aware of if we've ever read about them, and are equally nudged to consume.

Leroy42

DCC just need to go to Coke and say they are expanding the scheme and if they want to continue they need to pony up due to the larger reach area. If Coke refuse, simply let the current scheme lapse and re-advertise ASAP for new title sponsors.

DCC are making it look like the users are not paying enough, but it was never meant to be the users who paid, it was meant to be paid for by advertising.

Lumen

Lumen wrote: »

How is taxing the wealthy unjust?

ted1 wrote: »

But it is a tax on debt. Take the house value , deduct the existing debt and then tax what's left, that's what a wealth tax is.

Unfortunately your well-articulated proposal falls foul of the "don't upset the pensioners" rule.

Leroy42

Lumen wrote: »

Unfortunately your well-articulated proposal falls foul of the "don't upset the pensioners" rule.

Jebus, when did the IVCA get involved in this?

Moflojo

Completing the network and filling in the gaps within the canal boundaries will improve the efficiency of the overall network and should make it easier to maintain and redistribute bikes between stations.

Filling in the blanks in the network will reduce the pressure on the 'dead end' stations and users won't have to double back on themselves or wait around if their station is full.

Stalling the expansion is short-sighted on every level.

Heartbreak Hank

Article in the Guardian about schemes around the world and a focus on Dublin

Link

Chuchote

Heartbreak Hank wrote: »

Article in the Guardian about schemes around the world and a focus on Dublin

Link

Interesting piece, but the comments are bizarre - not the comments themselves, which span the usual distance between crazy and well-informed, but the fact that several of the same series repeat after other comments, so one comment is published perhaps a dozen times, dotted down the list of comments.

LeinsterDub

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/minister-to-introduce-successful-dublin-bikesstyle-system-to-boost-electric-cars-35765141.html

A car-sharing scheme modelled on Dublin Bikes is to be rolled out by the Government before the end of the year to increase uptake of electric vehicles (EVs).
More than 100 EVs will be available for hire in Dublin and Cork as part of an initiative to increase uptake and address fears of range anxiety [where motorists fear the car will run out of power before reaching their destination].

Or we could you know just f**kin fund the expansion of Dublin Bikes

mr spuckler

"range anxiety" is now a thing? ffs :mad:

magicbastarder

has it not been 'a thing' with electric cars for years?

Moflojo

mr spuckler wrote: »

"range anxiety" is now a thing? ffs :mad:

Range anxiety was a thing when motor vehicles were first developed >100 years ago - years before a fuel station network fully evolved.

It was also a thing (a very real anxiety) when air travel was born too.

It probably wasn't so bad with steam engines, because the network had to be built before the trains could go anywhere.

mr spuckler

don't know, i've never heard of it before. great though that i now have a label for that last hour of a long cycle where i've under-fueled and don't know if i've the energy left to get myself home!

Chuchote

The DublinBikes scheme, though regarded internationally as a very successful example because the bikes are so intensively used, is surprisingly mingy in its mean numbers of bikes and stations and limit on stations to between the canals (except down the south central strip). To give a contrasting example from January 2016:

http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/divvy-expansion-to-bring-75-new-stations-and-nearly-1000-bikes-to-10-more-locations/

In the next major expansion of Divvy, Chicago’s popular bike sharing program will extend to the south and west sides, as well as two suburbs, with the addition of 75 new bike stations and nearly 1,000 bikes in summer 2016, Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced recently.

You'd almost get the impression that the people who run Dublin don't want to cut the city's embarrassing carbon production.

loyatemu

LeinsterDub wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/minister-to-introduce-successful-dublin-bikesstyle-system-to-boost-electric-cars-35765141.html




Or we could you know just f**kin fund the expansion of Dublin Bikes

what's the justification for this - there are already 2 commercial car-sharing schemes in Dublin (GoCar and Yuko). Why does the govt need to get involved.

seamus

loyatemu wrote: »

what's the justification for this - there are already 2 commercial car-sharing schemes in Dublin (GoCar and Yuko). Why does the govt need to get involved.

The aim here appears to be getting people more familiar with electric vehicles, that they're not some kind of scary new technology that doesn't work properly.

The stupidest part of this idea is the decision to concentrate it in Dublin and Cork. Let's make people comfortable about longer journeys by putting them in places where people make short journeys!

It would make far more sense to set up a nationwide network where you take the car in rural town A, drive it to rural town B and back again.

Or leave it in rural town B and take a train the rest of the way.

Similar to how people use Dublin Bikes to get around Dublin, but instead using electric cars to get around Ireland. Imagine a tourist being able to plan an entire holiday just using the short-term rental fleet to get around the country.

HivemindXX

Chuchote wrote: »

The DublinBikes scheme, though regarded internationally as a very successful example because the bikes are so intensively used, is surprisingly mingy in its mean numbers of bikes and stations and limit on stations to between the canals (except down the south central strip).

Dublin Bikes IS very successful. I would far prefer an overly cautious approach to rolling out new infrastructure than a careless one that would see costs go out of control and perhaps the entire system binned. If we had started with stations from Ballymun to Tallaght and 10,000 bikes who knows if the whole thing wouldn't have collapsed by this stage.

Chicago's bike rental scheme costs $99 a year which is a lot when you consider the shrieks of anguish when the Dublin Bikes annual fee when up from €10 to €20. The metro area of Chicago has five times the population of Dublin and has around five times the number of stations and less than five times the number of bikes. I don't know the geography of Chicago very well but the stations seems to be clustered downtown in the same way they are in Dublin. Maybe they have high population density and those bikes cover the majority of the metro region, but I doubt it.

I do think Dublin Bikes should expand and they have had one major expansion already which is great. I do think it's a bit pathetic to characterise the scheme as "losing €300,000" when it is a service like the council is supposed to provide and would be better stated as "costing only €300,000". I don't see the council talking about how much money playgrounds and footpaths "lose" each year.

I take issue with the insinuation that Dublin Bikes isn't actually successful.

mr spuckler

i suspect that the cost of the dublin bus livery update for the entire fleet that was announced this morning would cover both expansion and operation of the DB scheme for quite a while...

Chuchote

HivemindXX wrote: »

I take issue with the insinuation that Dublin Bikes isn't actually successful.

Take issue with any imaginary insinuation that you like, but a scheme that is so successful and still fails to provide service, for instance even to Clanbrassil Street, much less expanding further outside the canals, is not building on its success.

Anyone who rides a bike into town can see that cycling is expanding exponentially - look at the existing cycle racks in Rathmines and around Grafton Street, for instance, where it's rare to see a place (and where motorbikes are now often locked, by the way) and you can see that the council is failing to keep up with demand, either for bike infrastructure or for expansion of the existing small Dublin Bikes scheme.

LeinsterDub

HivemindXX wrote: »

Dublin Bikes IS very successful. I would far prefer an overly cautious approach to rolling out new infrastructure than a careless one that would see costs go out of control and perhaps the entire system binned. If we had started with stations from Ballymun to Tallaght and 10,000 bikes who knows if the whole thing wouldn't have collapsed by this stage.

Caution isn't what is delaying expansion its lack of money/political will. The has been a master plan in place for expansion for circa 10 years now.

ED E

The Canal rule makes sense (for now) as does a car sharing scheme focusing on Dublin/Cork (not that I think we need one, Ecars are pushing EVs fine and we need less cars not more). These systems only work with density, if you disperse them then the replenishment load for the operator is impossible to satisfy. Keeping the pool "fluid" is crucial.

Personally I've seen a big step backwards after the last expansion, my suspicion is they added stands and bikes but no extra replenishment crews so the chance of finding a 0 bikes or 0 spaces stand rose hugely. I've used the system since the start and outside the 8.30AM rush they used to manage to keep the balance, now its common to have to redirect to find a free stand.


If you watch the DCC webcasts the cohort as a whole arent very pro cycling bar a few a noteable exceptions like Cuffe. When you have the moronic lord mayor claiming cyclists dont shop, see evidence to the contrary here, its not really surprising pro cycling projects arent getting proper support.


Like many issues faced at the minute, changing political mindsets is at the core of things. Giving Ross the boot would be a good start.

Weepsie

I think Ross has qualified for his Ministerial pension now so he really won't give a sh!t if/when given the boot.

AndrewJRenko

Weepsie wrote: »

I think Ross has qualified for his Ministerial pension now so he really won't give a sh!t if/when given the boot.

Does all his years of 'service' as a Senator now count as Minister in the final salary scheme?

But the banksters....

buffalo

Takeaway firm Just Eat pays €2.25m to sponsor Dublin Bikes
Assistant council chief says money will help to fund expansion of service around city

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/consumer/takeaway-firm-just-eat-pays-2-25m-to-sponsor-dublin-bikes-1.3161399

New Lord Mayor really enjoying himself there...

TheShow

If fee charges on credit/debtit card transactions get the ban, as reported in the news yesterday, Just Eat might need to reconsider their position on this noting c13% of their revenue is generated from fee income.

Chips Lovell

I thought that was in the UK?

TallGlass

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I thought that was in the UK?

EU wide. But UK are going better than the EU on it.