Dublin Bikes - expansion stalled?

I'm wondering should charges rise for regular commuters on these things. Shouldn't the point of these be for adhoc trips, not your regular a-b ? perhaps free up to 4 times a week, 2€ each over say 4 times per week, then 4€ a hire over 8 times a week. If it is becoming demand saturated the price needs to rise until the problem goes away.

trellheim wrote: »

I'm wondering should charges rise for regular commuters on these things. Shouldn't the point of these be for adhoc trips, not your regular a-b ? perhaps free up to 4 times a week, 2€ each over say 4 times per week, then 4€ a hire over 8 times a week. If it is becoming demand saturated the price needs to rise until the problem goes away.

Quite strange that anyone would think of 'raise the price' as a solution to the demand issue.
Suggesting raising the price from €20 a year to €768* a year is even more fantastic.

* For someone who uses the system 10 times a week for 48 weeks a year

Quite strange that anyone would think of 'raise the price' as a solution to the demand issue.
Suggesting raising the price from €20 a year to €768* a year is even more fantastic.

Why. Seems simple. Increase price, less people use it. Demand dies down. Suggesting raising the price to such a level as to deter usage is obvious here but perhaps you don't want to see it that way.

This is how markets work, if we need to get that simplistic. There is limited resource here. "Fantastic" is a wonderful word but perhaps not applicable.

Beauf: I am not discussing any particular stand.

PS : the above refers to particular pricing to deter commuter models of use. non-commuter, ad-hoc usage should remain low charge as they perform a particularly useful function in that regard.

I

Kinda missing the point. Which is to get more people out of cars and more people cycling.

I'm well aware of that. Without bicycles on the stands then this will not be possible, therefore we must be able to have on the stands at all times - i.e. discourage commuter usage, we want to see ad-hoc usage.

Apologies for the poor sentence. I meant "Discourage commuter use as primary use" . The bikes are there to offer a choice. Unless you can get on one, you won't select it as a means of transport. This is why the costs need to rise for commuter usage patterns . Have a think about that. If it gets a bloke off his bum for 3 trips a week then that should be prettty cheap, but 10 times a week ? put your hand in your pocket.

Have aread of the dublin bikes planning framework. They are there to encourage and to add choice.

who pays is a component but not the main point here. The idea is for demand-led pricing to ensure there is always a bike on a rack for the ad-hoc user NOT the commuter, thus enabling the choice for the user who would not have otherwise used it.

Assume there is a rack in front of Heuston with 10 bikes who all get taken by the first 10 people every day who sprint to get the bike and cycle to Stephens Green . The 11th person will always get the 145 or Luas+walk.

If there is a bike left for the 11th or 12th they might be tempted to get it and pedal down to the Green instead, thus enabling their choice and convincing them back onto a bike. But if there isn't one they never will and so a primary focus for dublinbikes is missed . This is the only way I can see of reliably ensuring there is a bike left ( on a consistent basis ) by demand pricing out the regulars .

Really ? That what you think ? A second's thought would tell you that this is designed to get a wider cross section of the population using it, which is what dublinbikes is designed for, enabling choice.

Good for you on the soundbite though.

"always a bike on a rack for the ad-hoc user NOT the commuter"

So nobody is allowed to take the last bike, unless they're not a commuter? That "problem" only presents itself after rush hour and can easily be remedied by having bikes moved around by the redistribution trucks.

Carawaystick wrote: »

When the db scheme started there was a lot of redistribution with vans moving bikes from full places to the empty ones.
This died away over the years, so when I used it last, you would regularily have full or empty stations first thing in the morning around 7am, so I don't think they were redistributed at the end of the night.

they still have the vans, and the problem of full or empty stations was there from the beginning. Having more stations was supposed to help with this, but I'm not sure if it has.

So nobody is allowed to take the last bike, unless they're not a commuter?

If you actually read what I've written, that's not what I said; the regular ( more than 3/4 per week ) have to pay a higher amount for it, which discourages commuter usage style. If they want to pay the cash let them have it.

As for the point above about embracing commuting, its not taking the whole point onboard. without a dublin bike to use in the morning you will never select it as a transport mode. SInce there is a limited amount of bikes and a time delay on refreshing the stations ( and like it or not you cannot remove that part of the system from consideration ), it is necessary we still have dublinbikes for the ad-hoc user so we can give them a choice ( dublinbike instead of 145 or Luas to follow the example ) . Otherwise Joe or Jane new user will never have a bike to use and they will never make the choice and will stay on the Luas.

A simple one to implement and trial.