'Free' *cough* City Bike scheme

MadsL

Check out:
http://www.dublincity.ie/Images/Appe...cm35-48977.pdf
It's a slick proposal, but think trojan horse....

The scheme is free to Dublin - except JC Decaux will get 120 Massive roadside Ads, plus 70 Footpath ads - and they will charge for use of the bikes!!

All of these are individual planning applications, it will cost €80 for me to object to 4 in my neighbourhood! (Smithfield) - zoned Z5 - special consideration, protect dignity etc.

see threads;
http://www.archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=5715

And Dublin City
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=52827196

MadsL

BendiBus

tbh, it looks OK to me in that photo. In fact it's everything else in that photo that should be knocked down.

AlekSmart

Ah but dats not Smithfield......!! And the ad will probably direct potential customers to the nearby Apothecary`s shop......:rolleyes:

Victor

MadsL wrote:

Check out:
http://www.dublincity.ie/Images/Appe...cm35-48977.pdf
It's a slick proposal, but think trojan horse....

Is this the document? http://www.dublincity.ie/Images/Appendices%201-5%20reduced_tcm35-48977.pdf

DublinWriter

We all know that something flickering or moving in our extreme left and right fields of vision automatically attracts our attention (ancient evoluntionary left over from when we were hunted by preditors).

The hypocrasy of the scheme is beyond belief. These things will be constantly distracting drivers in built up areas were pedestrians are constantly playing Russian Roulette on the streets with cars.

Also, think of the kw/hours these things will gobble up in electricity at a time when the corporation is forcing us to have our own houses energy-rated.

...and of course how ugly these things will make the streets.

The whole bike thing is a rouse designed to basically take the curse off the corporation literally selling the ground from under us. Will they be providing helmets and insurance as well? Can you imagine the numbers of these things ending up in the Liffey of a Saturday night?

cyclopath2001

Victor wrote:

Is this the document? http://www.dublincity.ie/Images/Appendices%201-5%20reduced_tcm35-48977.pdf

I spotted this little porky:

"Schemes such as dedicated cycle lanes have helped to stimulate an increase in the use of bicycles in Dublin"

Dedicated cycle lanes? Increase in use?

HelterSkelter

cyclopath2001 wrote:

I spotted this little porky:Dedicated cycle lanes? Increase in use?

What are you saying? That there are no dedicated cycle lanes? I have seen a few.

Victor

HelterSkelter wrote:

What are you saying? That there are no dedicated cycle lanes? I have seen a few.

Most cycle lanes are part-time and cyclist numbers are dropping.

penexpers

I guess Dublin City Council have a different definition of "dedicated cycle lanes".

Sleepy

Victor wrote:

Most cycle lanes are part-time and cyclist numbers are dropping.

And with good reason. Cycling in Dublin is more dangerous than russian roulette.

dowlingm

sounds like Dublin will need something like this soon:

www.illegalsigns.ca

cyclopath2001

HelterSkelter wrote:

What are you saying? That there are no dedicated cycle lanes? I have seen a few.

A 'dedicated' cycle lane is one with a continuous white line to the right and which operates 24x7.

Since the PDs changed the law back in 1998, cars, buses and trucks can drive in cycle lanes which have broken white lines to the right.

Dublin City Council mostly provide the latter kind or, in some cases, 'invisible cycle lanes' which can only be seen clearly in their statistics.

MadsL

Don't derail this into a thread on cycle lanes...

This is sheme clearly a PPP - that has had no public consultation. AFAIK a the same scheme in Lyon did not need 190 additional advertising sites to pay for it. JCDecaux would make €1m a year from these sites. Toll-bridge anyone?

I'm not opposed to the Bike scheme it's a good idea, but DCC has seen fit to sell off the footpath and the roads to pay for it. CIE could have offer the contact for advertising to JCDecaux once the existing Titan contract runs out...or the Laus extention advertising...or the ads on the integrated ticketing if it ever comes to light..any number of ways to cover the cost of the 'free bikes' (€1 an hour, 1st half hour is free)

MadsL

Barcelona have done this using parking fees:
http://w3.bcn.es/fitxers/premsa/bul244.242.pdf

Copenhagen have a JCDecaux system
The Copenhagen City Bicycle Program (CBP)was founded in 1995 to help ease inner city traffic and pollution. Currently there are 1,200 bikes that can be released from one of the 115 racks with a coin deposit. The system is funded through the sale of small billboards near the rack locations throughout the city and by sponsors of individual bikes for advertising space on the bike’s wheels. With new administration and a new contract selling the use of the billboards near the bike racks, the coin-deposit bike program is currently expanding rapidly.

The Copenhagen system currently generates mixed publicity.Although it is an innovative idea, the system is plagued with problems. These problems result in negative publicity.
http://www.cities-for-cyclists.org/dokumenter/iqp.pdf (also some comments on other bike schemes)

Norway
The City Bike Foundation of Sandnes has two agreements with the municipality. Both twenty year contracts, these agreements create a financial foundation for the program. The first agreement states that there will be twenty boards for advertising located throughout the city, and that these boards will be used to help bring advertising income into the program. The second agreement is with a private company that operates the advertising and dictates the financial income earned through the ads.


As yet I have not found a scheme with anything like 190 billboards needed to fund it.

penexpers

MadsL wrote:

This is sheme clearly a PPP - that has had no public consultation. AFAIK a the same scheme in Lyon did not need 190 additional advertising sites to pay for it. JCDecaux would make €1m a year from these sites. Toll-bridge anyone?

AFAIK, the system in Lyon was funded by them selling the avertising space on the trams, metro and bus systems. Mind you, Lyon already has alot more onstreet advertising than Dublin does, but it's done in a much more tasteful way.

Tails142

If I could get a bike at the luas stop on st. stephens green, cycle across town to where I go to college, and then do the reverse in the evening, leaving the bike where I got it on stephens green and hop back on the luas, I would definetly leave my car at home

cyclopath2001

MadsL wrote:

Don't derail this into a thread on cycle lanes...

I'll try not to, but it is relevant that the City Council uses false arguments to put the case and also that the success of the scheme will surely depend on a cycle-friendly environment, something about which the City Council is quite ignorant.

Evidence, perhaps, that scheme is motivated by financial rather than social objectives?

MadsL

I'll try not to, but it is relevant that the City Council uses false arguments to put the case and also that the success of the scheme will surely depend on a cycle-friendly environment, something about which the City Council is quite ignorant.

The proposal appendix is from JCDecaux not from DCC (damned if I can find the rest of the proposal - hidden behind DCC Extranet no doubt) so it can be expected that a French company would be fairly ignorant of the crap state of Dublin's cycle facilities.

Evidence, perhaps, that scheme is motivated by financial rather than social objectives?

I couldn't possibly comment

Suffice to say it is interesting that DCC have done as much as possible (as little as possible?) to introduce this by the back door.
1. No press release
2. No supporting documents for the planning applications on the website
3. No minutes of the discussions available on the website (still waiting for Feb meeting to be posted which should be there anytime after the planning deadline goes by)

Victor

MadsL wrote:

3. No minutes of the discussions available on the website (still waiting for Feb meeting to be posted which should be there anytime after the planning deadline goes by)

Minutes aren't available until their approval at the next meeting (other than to members at that meeting).

OTK

MadsL wrote:

Check out:
http://www.dublincity.ie/Images/Appe...cm35-48977.pdf
It's a slick proposal, but think trojan horse....

The scheme is free to Dublin - except JC Decaux will get 120 Massive roadside Ads, plus 70 Footpath ads - and they will charge for use of the bikes!!

All of these are individual planning applications, it will cost €80 for me to object to 4 in my neighbourhood! (Smithfield) - zoned Z5 - special consideration, protect dignity etc.

see threads;
http://www.archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=5715

And Dublin City
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=52827196

What are the terms of the proposed deal? Is it a straight swap of 190 advertising hoardings in exchange for a number of bike rental machines?

The value for the money depends on the market value of advertising hoardings vs the market price of bike rental stands. This should be independently assessed to avoid corruption and political idiocy.

3 things:
Should this not be put to a European tender? Are contra deals exempt?
I thought the council was moving away from advertising hoardings. (Loopline Bridge etc)
The 'cow sculpture' episode showed us that public furniture in Dublin is more susceptible to vandalism than in other cities.

all very dodgy

MadsL

Minutes aren't available until their approval at the next meeting (other than to members at that meeting).

Care to share An extranet login would be nice

I cannot find any reference to City Bike on dublincity.ie except for locked internal minutes and the Appendix i posted.

Interestingly, I was talking to An Taisce today and 'someone' mentioned that much of the reduction (the so callled 1800 sites) - the big 48 sheet format billboard advertising could be done through actually enforcing the fact that many of these site don't have PP and are there illegal anyway. It is simply that DCC haven't enforced where PP hasn't been granted.

MadsL

What are the terms of the proposed deal? Is it a straight swap of 190 advertising hoardings in exchange for a number of bike rental machines?

After much webtrawling it seems that JCDecaux are trying to roll this scheme out in as many cities as possible. They operate in 1500 cities.

As for the terms of the proposed deal, I'd love to know. From the proposal appendix it seems that Dublin gets 500 bikes. There are no ads on the bikes themselves, unlike other schemes around europe. Presumably DCC wanted the kudos. Plus a 'heritage trail', some very large pedestrian signposts, tourist info sigs and maps and a few toilets with ads on them.

DCC seem to have requested a reduction in billboards - JCDecaux probably countered with 'hey, seen our cool Metropole' and Footpath 'street furniture' we'll put your crest on those too.

Timetable of events on this is...
Pssst Mr Journalist Hey we are getting free bikes shhh, no press releases, just for you to know well, mostly free-ish
Psst - Hey we are getting free toiletswell, with ads on them
<wait for sceptical comments to die down>
Quietly process 70 planning applications for big ads facing traffic
Quietly process 70 planning applications for big ads on the footpah

Say nothing

aliveandkicking

DublinWriter wrote:

We all know that something flickering or moving in our extreme left and right fields of vision automatically attracts our attention (ancient evoluntionary left over from when we were hunted by preditors).

The hypocrasy of the scheme is beyond belief. These things will be constantly distracting drivers in built up areas were pedestrians are constantly playing Russian Roulette on the streets with cars.

Also, think of the kw/hours these things will gobble up in electricity at a time when the corporation is forcing us to have our own houses energy-rated.

...and of course how ugly these things will make the streets.

The whole bike thing is a rouse designed to basically take the curse off the corporation literally selling the ground from under us. Will they be providing helmets and insurance as well? Can you imagine the numbers of these things ending up in the Liffey of a Saturday night?

Who is this "Corporation" you are talking about? They changed their name 7 years ago to Dublin City Council. Do you still call Eircom - Telecom Eireann?

I would have a few concerns about this scheme.
I would like to see the Road Safety Authority to evaluate the effects these ads will have on driver behaviour and therefore object to the planning permissions on the basis of them posing a danger.

I don't think these will make the streets that ugly but that depends exactly where they put them. Some of them do look aesthetically pleasing.

The electricity issue is negligable since they use very little power.

And could you please post a link where it says the council are forcing us to have our houses energy rated as I havent heard anythng about this before.

DublinWriter

aliveandkicking wrote:

Who is this "Corporation" you are talking about? They changed their name 7 years ago to Dublin City Council. Do you still call Eircom - Telecom Eireann?

No, I call them P&T. I'm as old as I'm unpedantic.

aliveandkicking wrote:

I would like to see the Road Safety Authority to evaluate the effects these ads will have on driver behaviour and therefore object to the planning permissions on the basis of them posing a danger.

Do we really to spend millions of taxpayer Euro on another committee/commission/quango to tell us the bleeding obvious? Dynamically changing advertising by the side of the road = driver distraction.

aliveandkicking wrote:

I don't think these will make the streets that ugly but that depends exactly where they put them. Some of them do look aesthetically pleasing.

Where? Pictures, links and proof please.

aliveandkicking wrote:

The electricity issue is negligable since they use very little power.

Whats their kWh rating then? It's rich considering the government are always banging on at us (current "Power of One" campaign) to switch off applicances left on standby. A single electronic sign operating 24X7 and bright enough to be read in daylight uses a shed more electricity than a DVD player left on standby overnight.

aliveandkicking wrote:

And could you please post a link where it says the council are forcing us to have our houses energy rated as I havent heard anythng about this before.

EU directive (2002/91/EC) that will be enforced by planning offices at local council level. You'll be happy to know that we're one of the first EU states implementing it.

http://www.environ.ie/DOEI/DOEIPub.nsf/6fb57b90102ce64c80256d12003a7a0d/47188c66bc0fbd9b802571bd003f73cd?OpenDocument

HelterSkelter

aliveandkicking wrote:

I don't think these will make the streets that ugly but that depends exactly where they put them. Some of them do look aesthetically pleasing.

aesthetically pleasing - maybe it's just me but that just sounds downright perverted!!!

DublinWriter

HelterSkelter wrote:

aesthetically pleasing - maybe it's just me but that just sounds downright perverted!!!

Nope, you're thinking of "aesthetically challenged".

It's a shame Dublin doesn't follow Prague's example of having anti-light pollution measures.

HelterSkelter

DublinWriter wrote:

Nope, you're thinking of "aesthetically challenged".

It's a shame Dublin doesn't follow Prague's example of having anti-light pollution measures.

Does that include red lights?!!

aliveandkicking

DublinWriter wrote:

No, I call them P&T. I'm as old as I'm unpedantic.


Do we really to spend millions of taxpayer Euro on another committee/commission/quango to tell us the bleeding obvious? Dynamically changing advertising by the side of the road = driver distraction.

Well if you actually want to get these things stopped then yes we do because an average Joe Soap objecting on the grounds of making the streets ugly will not cut any ice with the Planners however if the RSA were to object on the grounds of road safety it would and imagine Gay Byrne in the media going on about DCC endangering lives by putting these things up. Oh and it doesn't cost millions of taxpayers money to lodge a few planning objections.

DublinWriter wrote:

Where? Pictures, links and proof please.

Probably should have put "in my opinion" at the end but here's a few links that I think look quite nice.

http://www.jcdecaux.lt/cmsimg/Mango80b.jpg

http://www.jcdecaux.ie/panelsapc.htm

http://www.jcdecaux-artvertising.fr/uk/img_dyn/big/file_1159199568.jpg

http://clabedan.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/jcd.jpg

http://www.creativematch.co.uk/newsfiles/JCDecaux_Torch.jpg

DublinWriter wrote:

Whats their kWh rating then? It's rich considering the government are always banging on at us (current "Power of One" campaign) to switch off applicances left on standby. A single electronic sign operating 24X7 and bright enough to be read in daylight uses a shed more electricity than a DVD player left on standby overnight.

I don't know their exact Kwh rating and I don't have the time now to go and research it as I'm meant to be working But they use fluorescent lighting which is low wattage and the energy required to turn the sign once every 10-20 seconds would not be much. OK it's more than leaving your DVD on standby but I would estimate they use less electricity than how many times your average household boils a kettle over 24 hours.

DublinWriter wrote:

EU directive (2002/91/EC) that will be enforced by planning offices at local council level. You'll be happy to know that we're one of the first EU states implementing it.

http://www.environ.ie/DOEI/DOEIPub.nsf/6fb57b90102ce64c80256d12003a7a0d/47188c66bc0fbd9b802571bd003f73cd?OpenDocument

Thanks for the link, I think thats a good directive particularly the regulations for new build dwellings. However in the link it states from "1 January 2009: Building Energy Rating of existing dwellings and other existing buildings, when offered for sale or letting/re-letting." which means it's only if you go to sell your house will it need to be energy rated. Also this is an EU directive so we have no choice but to enforce it so I believe your original statement that "the corporation is forcing us to have our own houses energy-rated." was misleading.

DublinWriter

aliveandkicking wrote:

Oh and it doesn't cost millions of taxpayers money to lodge a few planning objections.

Ehhhh...no.

aliveandkicking wrote:

Probably should have put "in my opinion" at the end but here's a few links that I think look quite nice.

...none of which are of the type that JCD are planning, and all seem to be in France. But since you mentioned it...

http://www.jcdecaux.lt/cmsimg/Mango80b.jpg : That's a regular sign/display, not an electronic one

http://www.jcdecaux-artvertising.fr/uk/img_dyn/big/file_1159199568.jpg: JCD aren't proposing anything that big in Dublin

http://clabedan.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/jcd.jpg: Hideous shil-screen that totally ruins the neo-classical feel, n'est pas?

http://www.creativematch.co.uk/newsfiles/JCDecaux_Torch.jpg: Proves my point re road-safety, are the drivers supposed to be watching the road or that massive tv screen pointing at them?

aliveandkicking wrote:

I don't know their exact Kwh rating

So we'll keep it general then and say roughly in a sign vs. no-sign argument, the signs will require x amount of fossil-fuel to kept lit as opposed to not having a sign and not wasting any fossil-fuel.

aliveandkicking wrote:

Also this is an EU directive so we have no choice but to enforce it so I believe your original statement that "the corporation is forcing us to have our own houses energy-rated." was misleading.

Not really as Ireland is the first country to ratify the directive in total, many member states are only ratifying parts, if any, of the original directive. Read the link again.

MadsL

Replies to questions asked of Mr. Ciaran McNamara, Executive Manager Planning Department Dublin City Council

1. What was the tender process for the provision of the scheme?
EU Procurement

2. What are the precise financial arrangements of the scheme between DCC and JCDecaux?
500 rental bikes and 25 docking stations
4 automatic public conveniences
A city wayfinding/signposting system
A heritage trail and
A civic information network
all provided and maintained by JC Decaux – all to a minimum value of €84m

3. Why has there been no publication of documents relating to this scheme on the dublincity.ie website?
The matter was brought before the City Council/2 Strategic Policy Committees and 5 Area Committees and has been aired publicly for the past 12 months.

4. Why does this scheme not fall under the terms of the STATE AUTHORITIES (PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP ARRANGEMENTS) ACT, 2002?
Not appropriate

5. Why have the details of the locations of the City Bike racks not been made public?
This will be the subject of more detailed discussion with the City Councils Traffic SPC at their request.

6. Who made the decisions on the proposed locations of the advertising signs, DCC or JCDecaux?
JCDecaux

7. Why were the planning applications made as applications by JCDecaux and not DCC (€20 to make a comment on the planning application as opposed to free)?
This is the most open and Transparent process which allows the public to make submissions in relation to any or all of the applications.
????

8. Why was there no press release prior to the planning applications being lodged, and why has no press release giving full details of the scheme been released to date?
All of the applications were advertised in the press. There was extensive coverage in the press following the City Council Meetings and Area Committee Meetings.
9. What percentage of the 1800 billboards that are due to be removed under the scheme are operated by JCDecaux, and how many do not currently have planning permission?
The 1800m2 of present advertising to be removed is all operated by JC Decaux. I am not aware of any outstanding planning enforcement cases in relation to JC Decaux.

10. What alternatives to this scheme were considered and rejected; Are the details to be published?
Through the EU Procurement process there were six initial tenders/expressions of interest and JC Decaux was deemed the preferred bidder/best offer.

lostexpectation

9. What percentage of the 1800 billboards that are due to be removed under the scheme are operated by JCDecaux, and how many do not currently have planning permission?
The 1800m2 of present advertising to be removed is all operated by JC Decaux. I am not aware of any outstanding planning enforcement cases in relation to JC Decaux.


nicely evaded ask this question again how many have planning permission

10. What alternatives to this scheme were considered and rejected; Are the details to be published?
Through the EU Procurement process there were six initial tenders/expressions of interest and JC Decaux was deemed the preferred bidder/best offer.[/QUOTE]

and where are those offers...

what the time frame on the bikes whats the time frame on the poster removal and reinstation

Victor

MadsL wrote:

Care to share An extranet login would be nice

Go find a willing councillor.

... and don't suggest that I am one.

cyclopath2001

Will ordinary cyclists be able to park their personal bikes at the new bike facilities or are they reserved for pay-cyclists?

penexpers

If it's the same as Lyon then cyclists will not be able to park their personal bikes at the new bike facilities.

DubTony

DublinWriter wrote:

Can you imagine the numbers of these things ending up in the Liffey of a Saturday night?

Nice idea, but surely they'd be really difficult to pull out of the ground.

penexpers

.

Ad space exchanged for 500 bikes

Olivia Kelly

Dublin City Council has granted one of the world's largest advertising companies permission to erect some 130 advertising panels across the city for 15 years, in exchange for 500 bicycles and four public toilets.

The bicycles are to be available for the public to rent, at a fee yet to be decided, by the end of the year, subject to approval of the planning permission for the advertising by An Bord Pleanála.

The contract with advertisers JC Decaux will see free-standing panels ranging from 2sq m (6.5sq ft) - approximately the size of a bus shelter advertisement - to 7sq m (23sq ft) placed on prominent sites, including Henry Street, Liffey Street and Smithfield Plaza.

JC Decaux had originally applied for approximately 150 panels, including several on O'Connell Street, but withdrew a number of applications including all those on O'Connell Street, following a large volume of objections.

However, it is likely that a number of permissions approved by the council will be appealed to An Bord Pleanála, particularly those in the high-footfall shopping areas of the city.

The details of the contract have not been disclosed, but it is estimated that the advertising space sold on the panels would be worth at least €1 million every year to JC Decaux.

The council will receive no money from the advertising, but in addition to the bicycles and toilets, will get a number of signposts, freestanding maps and "heritage trail" posts. The council also has a commitment from JC Decaux that it will remove its large advertising hoardings from the city.

While it was a "small victory" that the company had withdrawn its application for the O'Connell Street panels, Labour councillor Emer Costello said she was very disappointed that permission was granted for most of the panels.

"It is particularly disappointing for Smithfield, where the whole point was to have an open plaza. It will deface the civic space to have the beautiful vista littered with these polls."

The deal struck with JC Decaux was not properly presented to the councillors before it was agreed, she said.

"This scheme wasn't properly debated with the city councillors and I will be a lot more mistrustful of proposals like this in the future. We have sold ourselves short for 500 bikes and a couple of toilets and I don't think it was worth it."

However, fellow Labour councillor and long-time proponent of a city bike scheme, Andrew Montague, said the bicycles could make a substantial impact on city traffic.

"I'm delighted that the council granted planning permission, it's the first step to getting this up and running."

JC Decaux was operating a similar scheme in Lyon in France and it had proved extremely popular, he said.

"In Lyon, the traffic in the city reduced by 10 per cent after the bike scheme was introduced. If we got half of that or and significant reduction in traffic, from my point of view, it will have been worth it."
© 2007 The Irish Times

Cheese Princess

MadsL wrote:

The proposal appendix is from JCDecaux not from DCC (damned if I can find the rest of the proposal - hidden behind DCC Extranet no doubt) so it can be expected that a French company would be fairly ignorant of the crap state of Dublin's cycle facilities.

The board of directors and all the managers at JCDecaux Ireland are Irish not French so they are far from ignorant of our cycle facilites or our dangerous road/traffic/driving problems.

I think everyone has been misled by the 1800 billboards figure as well. The company don't own that many billboards in the whole country. I'm not familiar with the proposal but from the DCC responses it seems that they're giving up 1800m2 of advertising space. With the average board being 18m2, does this mean they are actually only losing 100 boards?

gjim

I think everyone has been misled by the 1800 billboards figure as well. The company don't own that many billboards in the whole country. I'm not familiar with the proposal but from the DCC responses it seems that they're giving up 1800m2 of advertising space. With the average board being 18m2, does this mean they are actually only losing 100 boards?

Good call. If you read the conditions attached to the grant of planning permission, one of them is that JCDecaux have to remove 100 such boards (within a year or something). It's sneakily worded actually to suggest that it would be 100 billboards PER METROPOLE but if you do the sums, that would be impossible and when you re-read the wording of the "condition", it's obvious that as long as any 100 billboards are removed, it will be satisfied. So 100 boards have to be removed in return for over 100 on street ad installations. Well done tidying up Dublin, DCC!

Capt'n Midnight

what happens if lots of bikes are stolen ?

will they be replaced or will the company still be able to advertise when all the bikes are gone ?

Bee

Originally posted in PHOENIX MAGAZINE

COUNCILLORS BEING TAKEN FOR A RIDE

A REMARKABLE row has emerged in Dublin City Council over a contract already agreed by officials with advertising firm, JCDecaux, in what has been described as a “free bike” scheme for Dublin: that is “free” in exchange for 120 billboard sites. So controversial is the scheme that denizens like Bertie Ahern – as a Drumcondra resident – has objected to it.

While media reports have concentrated on the bicycles, the real story is that councillors are outraged at the deal being already agreed by officials, with councillor Tom Stafford’s criticisms of the plan as a “terrible, terrible application” typifying representatives’ views.

Councillors were simply not aware of the scheme’s details – that is until 70 simultaneous applications to erect billboards was made by JCDecaux during December, with another 50 in January. These roadside units are to display adverts on one side, with “civic information” on the other – and all to be located on public footpaths.

Strangely there has been no Environmental Impact Assessment, nor a council motion selling public land – while councillors are also puzzled as to why, if the council is to be a beneficiary, that the applications were not addressed to Bórd Pleanála.

More interesting is that by virtue of the project being applied for as more than 120 individual applications, it would cost over €25 grand for total adjudication by the Bórd.

However, Executive Planning Manager Ciaran MacNamara has been busy at council meetings defending the “public realm enhancements”. Describing the proposed billboards as a “new departure for the industry”, MacNamara claims that along with the 500 rental bikes, the city will get 4 public toilets, “a family of way-finding signage”, and JCDecaux would reduce their current billboards by 25%.

Yet despite the contract having been already signed, MacNamara is refusing to release it to councillors on the basis it as “commercially sensitive” – with councillors now resorting to FOI requests.

Mr MacNamara also claims that “very few” objections had been received; maybe he didn’t see the one from Bertie Ahern, or from Tony Gregory, or the one from Councillor Larry O’ Toole. Councillor Tom Brabazon has been very busy getting in a dozen objections – while dozens of other interests have also objected, such as Dublin City Business Association whose members – Arnotts, Clerys, and Eason’s – have all filed objections.

Then there’s the Dublin Transportation Office’s submission regarding the 70 15-feet high “metropole” applications, which states “the DTO is totally opposed” as illuminated signage “is considered to be a safety hazard”.

Now councillors have begun to do their own sums regarding the advertising revenue potential; Tom Stafford estimated €13 million per annum – which over the 15 year terms is over €200 Million; i.e. enough to buy 2 million bikes...

Anybody feel as if they have been taken for a ride?


There are a number of disturbing aspects about this project. The most important is obviously the horrible aesthetic consequences. The second is the sneaky way that the proposal is being put through planning; 70 individual applications - thus potentially costing 1400 euro for an individual to object - lodged the week before last Christmas, hoping that people wont have enough time to object. Even if only half of the signs fail in planning they will still have a terrible visual impact on the city . Another disturbing aspect is that the council are complicit in this vandalism; in exchange for allowing these signs the company will install some sort of bicycle rental stations. This is the worst kind of shallow environmental tokenism; I wonder how many Dubliners are dying to cycle around the place but simply can't afford the likes of the 100 euro Lidl bike I use?

However the idea of this failed european experiment in bicycles for the masses is probably marxist enough to have the support of the environmental lobby. If the experiment fails (which it will) Dubliners will be stuck with these huge ads cluttering up the streets.

The only thing going for such schemes is a weird sort of Green/commie/hippy appeal as there are simply no other tangible benefits. You can buy a new bike and lock for less that the cost of maintaining one of these rental bikes for a single year. I know of nobody who would like to cycle around the city but cannot afford a bike so these schemes are a solution to a non-existing problem.

If DCC were serious about encouraging cycling in the city then they could start to do something to improve the cycling environment.Painting lines to narrow roads for traffic do make life safe for road users. Unfortunately this would be a mildly challenging task for the over paid DCC "traffic engineers".

It's much easier to engage in shallow tokenism: prostitute the aesthetics of the city, have a few special bike racks installed around the place with 50 yellow bikes and then line up for the photo ops, the special features with a credulous media (I can imagine the introduction to the feature on the RTE news) and pat each other in the back while the bikes are chucked in the Liffey.

It also highlights DCC’s the cynical and useless noises that DCC make about “road safety” when the DTO correctly see these Adverts as highly dangerous to all road users

The deal stinks far more than its stupidity

edanto

A massive difference between this scheme and the one in Lyon is the size of the billboards - the billboards in Dublin will be monstrous, a few metres high, compared with much smaller ones in Lyon.

They seem to have chosen the locations away from the rich suburbs (to avoid objections), a list of locations and much more information/discussion is at
http://www.archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=5715

AlekSmart

There is a substantial aroma of JC Decay about this wheeze.

The need for a "Senior "Executive" of Dublin City Council to adopt such a strong defensive posture towards a private company`s proposals is enough to make even Dublins Village Idiot`s go Hmmmmmmmm :rolleyes: !

Bee is dead on the money when saying.......

"You can buy a new bike and lock for less that the cost of maintaining one of these rental bikes for a single year. I know of nobody who would like to cycle around the city but cannot afford a bike so these schemes are a solution to a non-existing problem."

There is little doubt that certain top-floor elements in Civic Offices have been stirring a boiling cauldron and endeavouring to produce amazing things from its depths and this crap may well be only the beginning.

It defies logic that a City in such a state as Dublin can afford to have a senior "Executive" something as Mr MacNamara putting his time and energies into this seedy little venture.

No doubt when JCD get their hundreds of "Sites" up and running Mr "Senior Executive" MacNamara will have plenty of time to head for Stephens Green/Dawson St junction and finally fix DCC`s OWN Civic Information display which has been "Under Test" since the bloody thing went up . :eek:

penexpers

edanto wrote:

A massive difference between this scheme and the one in Lyon is the size of the billboards - the billboards in Dublin will be monstrous, a few metres high, compared with much smaller ones in Lyon.

It's not even that - the ones in Lyon were existing bus stops and tram stations.

Seth Brundle

How much will the bike scheme cost to set up and operate for 5 years?
How much revenue will be generated from the billboards over 5 years.
Methinks one will be much much much more than the other!

Should this not have been put out to tender anyhow?
The linked pdf (http://www.dublincity.ie/Images/Appendices%201-5%20reduced_tcm35-48977.pdf) mentions the words 'proposer', 'bidder' yet only once is small lettering mentions 'JCDecaux'. Is this a DCC or JCD document?
It also states: "Display panels, which will be used for advertising, will also be permanently available to the city as a Civic Communication Network." If it is showing adverts then it isn't permanently available to the city!

How much will it cost to rent a bike?

Seth Brundle

There was a senior planner from DCC on Newstalk this morning (her name escapes me).
She was telling Claire Byrne about how the scheme was worth €80m over 15 years. JCD is reported to be getting about €45 over the 15 years also through adverts.
How on earth is this worth €80m to DCC?
One of the reasons DCC are apparently doing this is to take control of advertising in the city away from the advertisers. Surely it would have been better just to enforce the existing planning laws?

penexpers

Just listened to that interview. No way is it worth €80 million to DCC even over 15 years. Her claims that they never had control of advertising space in the City Centre are laughable at best - if they enforced current planning laws that would suffice.

Seth Brundle

There was someone else from the advertising industry on Newstalk this morning and he claimed that he is not in favour of these and claimed that he wouldn't want this form of medium and he gave an estimate earnings of €5million per annum from the hoardings.

ODS

Just a quick reminder to any 3rd parties that have made objections - the deadline for many appeals to An Bord Pleanalla shuts Tuesday.

ODS

There are hearings into this next week in An Bord Pleanalla - over 2 dozen are under appeal. Since last posting, we received an auctioneer's opinion as to what effect this would have on our property. The auctioneer has said that in the metropole development would devalue the property as it would obscure the business to such extent that it would be "catastrophic to the company's passing trade".

This is an absolute disgrace - that a local authority would be involved in developments that will damage the value of other properties. What's worse is that we know other owners who only found out after the appeals deadline - they are horrified + outraged. Does anybody else know anybody in this position?

A further article appeared on the poor value for the city. Pity the journalist didn't talk to me as to what this'll do for my business. Still the piece shows what a shite deal this is...

The Sunday Times wrote:

Originally Published in The Sunday Times - July 1, 2007

Dublin 'shortchanged' on free bikes

Ruadhan Mac Eoin

OILING the wheels of commerce to drive a green agenda sounds like a
win-win situation, but critics of Dublin's "bicycles for billboards"
deal say the council has ended up a loser.

J C Decaux, one of the world's leading outdoor advertising agencies,
has given the capital significantly fewer bikes proportionally than it
gave to Paris, Lyons and other European cities where it has billboard
agreements.

Dublin has agreed to let J C Decaux erect 120 billboards on public
footpaths around the city. In return the agency will provide 500
bicycles for low rent at 25 locations. It will also supply four kiosks
with public lavatories, maps and signposts. The value to Dublin is
calculated at €85m. The agency has also agreed to withdraw 100 of its
existing hoardings from the city. New ones will be located on public
property and some will carry civic information.

In Paris the company is providing 20,600 bikes this year in return for
1,628 billboards – more than 12.6 bikes for each billboard, three
times the Dublin figure of little more four per hoarding. The Paris
contract also involves paying an annual rental of €2,085 for each site
for 10 years.

Several other European cities have similar deals with J C Decaux.
Vienna was the first, in 2002. It was initially a disaster, with 2,000
bicycles stolen in the first 48 hours, but then 900 secure
GPS-traceable bikes being provided. Each bike in Dublin will have a
mini-chip to allow it to be tracked.

In Lyons, a city with a population similar to Dublin, 3,000 bicycles
have been made available – six times more than here – while Barcelona
also has 3,000. In Brussels, only 250 bicycles are available, but the
J C Decaux advertising element is restricted to bike sheds. The city
has paid €178,000 towards the scheme.

Dublin officials are refusing to release the contract on grounds of
"commercial sensitivity", so the value of any cash transaction is
included in the 15-year deal is not clear.

Andrew Montague, a Labour councillor who supports the project, said
more transparency would be preferable. He believes J C Decaux got the
contract after "a fair tender process", in which there had been six
bids. "As the Paris scheme is a much bigger scale, it was logical that
they would get better value", Montague said.

The Paris terms were agreed after a court challenge by a competitor,
Clear Channel, which claimed there were irregularities in the original
tendering process.

Emer Costelloe, another Labour councillor, said the revelations about
the Paris project confirmed her "worst fears" that Dublin was getting
"an incredibly poor deal".

She would be urging the incoming Lord Mayor to address this "as a priority".

Dublin is permitting 70 "metropole" billboards, which are 3.5 metres
high, automated and illuminated. A further 50 electronic billboards,
similar in size to that of bus-shelter adverts, are to be installed in
the city centre, primarily in the north inner city and along the
Aungier Street axis.

The Dublin deal has attracted criticism over the lack of an
environmental impact assessment and road safety issues. Forty appeals
against planning permission have been lodged with An Bord Pleanala.
They include objections filed by businesses such as Arnotts and An
Taisce, the national trust, which say they were not consulted.

One complaint is that J C Decaux has engaged in project splitting by
sending in 130 separate applications to the council. Critics say
officials were already predisposed to granting planning permission.

Most of the billboards are to be erected on the north side and in the
inner city, which critics say will lead "to further stigmatising
already disadvantaged neighbourhoods".

Stuart Fogarty, former President of The Institute of Advertising
Practitioners in Ireland, has lodged an appeal on the basis that "the
agreed advertising sites will be both obtrusive and create negative
aesthetics for the city…and are not helpful to either motorists or
pedestrians".

The Sunday Times understands that J C Decaux is already at an advanced
stage of negotiation with Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown Council to introduce
a similar scheme.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.