JC Decaux signs start appearing - Shocking.

The Saint

Just saw this morning that the sign in Rathmines has been removed. I saw some guys working on it yesterday evening so they must have gotten rid of it. Good work to all involved. Now for the rest of them.

MadsL

Saint was this the one at Richmond Hill - outside the Chinese takeway?

The Saint

MadsL wrote: »

Saint was this the one at Richmond Hill - outside the Chinese takeway?

Thats the one alright. Fair play to you for all the work you've put into this. It's good to see it pay off.

MadsL

Wh00t!! That is all.....:D:D:D:D

Well done to all that mailed, texted etc....

Thanks all.

MadsL

Could anyone passing this location snap a pic - and either PM me or post here, - many thanks

Metrobest

In my opinion Ireland has gone totally bonkers about health and safety and wasting taxpayers money in these grim economic times. A much-needed municipal bike scheme is delayed because of a health and safety fetish. These same type of streetside advertisements are in use in lots of other cities and nobody is dying, there is no carnage of the blind. As for vision at pedestrian crossings, whatever happened to crossing the road when the Green man is illuminated?

I have been assessing pedestrian crossings in Barcelona since I read this discussion and I have noticed big bins, trees, advertisements, poles etc all blocking vision in the Eixample grid with its busy four lane streets where motorbikes can suddenly emerge out of the pavement. The rule is simple. Green - walk. Red - don´t walk.

Another thing. Here pedestrian crossings don´t make that horrible beeping noise like in Ireland because it is considered noise pollution for the people who live close by. Blind people instead are given pocket-sized sensors to carry when walking the streets. When the pedestrian light is green, the sensor discreetly vibrates inside the blind person´s pocket, and the road can be crossed safely. Everyone is happy.

iwudluvit

Metrobest wrote: »

Another thing. Here pedestrian crossings don´t make that horrible beeping noise like in Ireland because it is considered noise pollution for the people who live close by. .

just turn them down a bit. presumable the blind or even the hard of hearing could cope. you don't need to hear the beep half way down the street.

markpb

Metrobest wrote: »

As for vision at pedestrian crossings, whatever happened to crossing the road when the Green man is illuminated?

The difference between Dublin and other European cities is that the car is still given preference over pedestrians. Not two weeks ago, DRTCC admitted they were still changing pedestrian crossing times to allow more cars through at the cost of making pedestrians wait longer. This is official policy in Dublin.

When it can take several minutes for the lights to go green and that light might not even let you completely cross the road, a culture of jaywalking has developed. It might be illegal but it's still there. If you ignore it and obstruct drivers view of pedestrian crossings, people will be injured. You can't bury your head in the sand and say it shouldn't be so.

MadsL

In my opinion Ireland has gone totally bonkers about health and safety and wasting taxpayers money in these grim economic times.

That's why I am trying to prevent the waste of taxpayers money on a multi-million pound compensation settlement. Who exactly do you think will end up footing the bill? I'm also trying to point out that the taxpayers got a shoddy deal from Decaux.

A much-needed municipal bike scheme is delayed because of a health and safety fetish.

I agree it is needed. However DCC got completely ripped off, DCC are only getting 450 bikes. Paris got 13 bikes per ad concession. Dublin gets 4.

This isn't a H&S 'fetish' - it's common sense over the crazy notion of allowing an outdoor advertising company to select where it wants to put its advertising, erecting it and then waiting a few months until DCC 'forget' to enforce a planning condition desined to protect public safety. JC Decaux have an appalling record on planning compliance. In the meantime these signs are placed in dangerous spots.

These same type of streetside advertisements are in use in lots of other cities and nobody is dying, there is no carnage of the blind.

Do those ones have a gap under them so that a cane passes through? Or have sharp edges. I suspect not.

As for vision at pedestrian crossings, whatever happened to crossing the road when the Green man is illuminated?

There is NO green man at Parnell St by the cinema. There is no pedestrian crossing in fact - but everyone treats it as such because it is one of the heaviest crossing areas on Parnell St.

If you can stop jaywalking in Dublin you are better man than I.

I have been assessing pedestrian crossings in Barcelona since I read this discussion and I have noticed big bins, trees, advertisements, poles etc all blocking vision in the Eixample grid with its busy four lane streets where motorbikes can suddenly emerge out of the pavement. The rule is simple. Green - walk. Red - don´t walk.

Photograph me an example of a 2.6m high sign in Barcelona placed at 90 degrees to the kerb and only 300mm from the kerb edge...

Equally post a photo of an ad blocking the view of the traffic light. (I can give you not one but THREE examples)

Another thing. Here pedestrian crossings don´t make that horrible beeping noise like in Ireland because it is considered noise pollution for the people who live close by. Blind people instead are given pocket-sized sensors to carry when walking the streets. When the pedestrian light is green, the sensor discreetly vibrates inside the blind person´s pocket, and the road can be crossed safely. Everyone is happy.

DCC turned the bleepers off some time ago.

Stark

Metrobest wrote: »

In my opinion Ireland has gone totally bonkers about health and safety and wasting taxpayers money in these grim economic times. A much-needed municipal bike scheme is delayed because of a health and safety fetish. These same type of streetside advertisements are in use in lots of other cities and nobody is dying, there is no carnage of the blind.

That's because in other cities the councils do their jobs and make sure the signs are erected in safe places.

Also, we're getting totally shafted when it comes to the bikes scheme: 450 bikes vs tens of thousands for other cities. No point in bending over without kicking up some sort of a fuss.

Metrobest

markpb wrote: »

The difference between Dublin and other European cities is that the car is still given preference over pedestrians. Not two weeks ago, DRTCC admitted they were still changing pedestrian crossing times to allow more cars through at the cost of making pedestrians wait longer. This is official policy in Dublin.

When it can take several minutes for the lights to go green and that light might not even let you completely cross the road, a culture of jaywalking has developed. It might be illegal but it's still there. If you ignore it and obstruct drivers view of pedestrian crossings, people will be injured. You can't bury your head in the sand and say it shouldn't be so.

I wouldn´t say the car is really given much more preference in Dublin, indeed in Barcelona you get green corridors of of traffic lights on busy streets that last a long, long time. In Dublin the problem is sometimes the sequencing is very off or non-existent, or the pedestrian light is red when all traffic is stopped leading to a shocking culture of jaywalking.

Jaywalking doesn´t happen that much in Barcelona because pedestrians know that it´s too risky. But in Dublin it´s normal to see oul wans dashing across in front of a double decker on College Green.

Once improvements to the lights are made, the onus falls onto pedestrians to wait for the man to go green. Cross if you like - but it´s at your own risk. Better still, make use of one of JC´s wonderful new bikes.

Stark

Metrobest wrote: »

Better still, make use of one of JC´s wonderful new bikes.

If you can find one, because they're going to be in short supply under the Dublin Corrupt Council deal. They're not even planning to introduce the bikes until next spring, whereas the advertisements are starting to appear now. And I'd wager money that they're hoping people will have forgotten about the bikes by the time spring rolls round, or else there'll be a further delay.

markpb

Metrobest wrote: »

I wouldn´t say the car is really given much more preference in Dublin

You might not but the people who run the traffic systems in Dublin do. Year on year, they say the waiting time at pedestrian crossing has increased as they try to deal with congestion.

indeed in Barcelona you get green corridors of of traffic lights on busy streets that last a long, long time.

That's a different matter. They do their jobs properly, doesn't happen here

Jaywalking doesn´t happen that much in Barcelona because pedestrians know that it´s too risky. But in Dublin it´s normal to see oul wans dashing across in front of a double decker on College Green.

Why it happens is unimportant, it does happen and it happens regularly which is why the kerb-side of the footpath should as free of obstructions as possible so it's not made more dangerous.

Metrobest

MadsL wrote: »

I agree it is needed. However DCC got completely ripped off, DCC are only getting 450 bikes. Paris got 13 bikes per ad concession. Dublin gets 4.

This isn't a H&S 'fetish' - it's common sense over the crazy notion of allowing an outdoor advertising company to select where it wants to put its advertising, erecting it and then waiting a few months until DCC 'forget' to enforce a planning condition desined to protect public safety. JC Decaux have an appalling record on planning compliance. In the meantime these signs are placed in dangerous spots.

Photograph me an example of a 2.6m high sign in Barcelona placed at 90 degrees to the kerb and only 300mm from the kerb edge...

Equally post a photo of an ad blocking the view of the traffic light. (I can give you not one but THREE examples)
.

Anyone visiting Barcelona (as I am sure many have done) will see these advertisements in the Barceloneta area ´blocking´ the views of pedestrians. It´s a different company to JC but they look the same as the ones in Dublin. Some of them have nifty thermometers over them too!

Dublin probably got the best deal it could. Economies of scale are much better in Paris. I imagine the ad revenue is linked to the amount of traffic that passes by each ad. Compare how much revenue JC would make with these ads on one of Hausman´s 8 lane Paris avenues as opposed to two-lane Rathmines Road. Barcelona, which is a metropolitan population of 1.5m, started off with 1,000 bikes. Demand grew quickly.

The city council could also set up its own bike scheme funded by increased charges on parking meters, which is how the Bicing scheme here is funded. But be aware that each bike costs 3,000 euros annually to maintain, and that Dubliners would probably be unwilling to pay for such a scheme in this way.

Gyalist

MadsL wrote: »

Could anyone passing this location snap a pic - and either PM me or post here, - many thanks

The sign at the junction of Rathmines Road and Richmond Hill must have been removed early this morning as it was definitely there last night.

I took these photos a few minutes ago:

MadsL

Anyone visiting Barcelona (as I am sure many have done) will see these advertisements in the Barceloneta area ´blocking´ the views of pedestrians. It´s a different company to JC but they look the same as the ones in Dublin. Some of them have nifty thermometers over them too!

And judging by the JCD spanish website mounted on poles keeping sightlines for motorist and pedestrians clear...

They dont do this....

Dublin probably got the best deal it could. Economies of scale are much better in Paris. I imagine the ad revenue is linked to the amount of traffic that passes by each ad. Compare how much revenue JC would make with these ads on one of Hausman´s 8 lane Paris avenues as opposed to two-lane Rathmines Road. Barcelona, which is a metropolitan population of 1.5m, started off with 1,000 bikes. Demand grew quickly.

Decuax also got a contract from 15 years, rather than the 10 year one in Paris. €120m+ is about what it is worth to Decaux. Tha's why I gave ratios - 13:1 is much greater than 4:1.

Dublin has 1.1m people - 1.6 if you take Greater Dublin. Roughly the same size as Barcelona who got 700 bus shelters, 1,100 bus stops, 600 platforms at bus stations, 250 new Citylight panels (can't really claim those as a benefit) and 15 new public toilets. Plus the 1,000 bikes you mentioned.

Seems like Dublin got a raw deal to me.

The city council could also set up its own bike scheme funded by increased charges on parking meters, which is how the Bicing scheme here is funded. But be aware that each bike costs 3,000 euros annually to maintain, and that Dubliners would probably be unwilling to pay for such a scheme in this way.

A €25 DCC yearly levy on company car spaces (+civil servants car parking) + advertising sponsorship of the scheme + the ad spaces already being sold on litter bins +the ad spaces on bike stations + a taxi roof sign advertising levy + decent planning enforcement and charges levied for advertising in the city (say €5k per year levy on 48 sheet locations) should take care of it by my reckoning.

The alternative is that DCC fail to enforce planning permission violations on 48 sheet advertising and then after 7 years the outdoor companies have a free gift of revenue in perpetuity. Crazy.

Make no mistake this deal was a monumental ballsup.

450 bikes + a few 'heritage' poles no-one wants.

weehamster

Metrobest, you really amaze me beyond belief sometimes. :eek:

A much-needed municipal bike scheme is delayed because of a health and safety fetish.

Jeasus man, if you have actually seen these ad yokes. Peoples lives have actually been but at risk by these. This is not a fetish.
And you know too well, once the bikes arrive, they are going to vanish in no time. This is Dublin. Anyway, the streets of Dublin are lethal at the mo for bikes and have been for sometime, and its getting worse. Get the cycle lanes sorted first.

These same type of streetside advertisements are in use in lots of other cities and nobody is dying, there is no carnage of the blind.

This is Dublin, designed very differently from other cities. Anyway how do you know nobody has been killed from walking behind a street structure. And why cant these ads be go along the path instead of cutting across.

As for vision at pedestrian crossings, whatever happened to crossing the road when the Green man is illuminated?

Now your just being very stupid. Vehicles don't always obey the lights either. So who do you think is going to win. A vehicle or a child in a pram being pushed by its mother. Think man.

I have been assessing pedestrian crossings in Barcelona since I read this discussion and I have noticed big bins, trees, advertisements, poles etc all blocking vision in the Example grid with its busy four lane streets where motorbikes can suddenly emerge out of the pavement. The rule is simple. Green - walk. Red - don´t walk.

Again I have to remind you that this is Dublin and not anywhere else. Stick to Dublin and what people in Dublin can see. Bus shelters are probably the only this I can think of right now that would be a hazard. But they are subject to planning permission and if they where placed in the same spot as these yokes are, they would have been refused permission.

Another thing. Here pedestrian crossings don´t make that horrible beeping noise like in Ireland because it is considered noise pollution for the people who live close by. Blind people instead are given pocket-sized sensors to carry when walking the streets. When the pedestrian light is green, the sensor discreetly vibrates inside the blind person´s pocket, and the road can be crossed safely. Everyone is happy.

This argument I really don't understand. But its does show how anal some people can really get. A beeping traffic crossing is a TINY sacrifice so that Visually Impaired (which you and others don't seem to celibate the fact that you are not visually impaired) can cross the road without getting hit by a car. The beeping crossing have been around a good while and are cheap. Now I don't mind changing to this system they use in Barca (which sounds like a recent invention) at sometime in the future , but its not urgent and the councils coffers won't make it urgent either.

Metrobest, I'll advise you to give up for a while your globe trekking and come back and live in Dublin again for a while. It is clear you have forgotten what its like to live here.

This whole scheme is the worst I have ever seen and is well beyond a joke now. Nobody is in favour of them. The City Manager has no respect for peoples safety. He has no respect on how Dublin looks either and I don't care if they are in others cities. If somebody jumps off a cliff, should you? This whole scheme stinks and a full independent investigation should be carried out into it.

whosedaddy?

Metrobest wrote: »

Anyone visiting Barcelona (as I am sure many have done) will see these advertisements in the Barceloneta area ´blocking´ the views of pedestrians. It´s a different company to JC but they look the same as the ones in Dublin. Some of them have nifty thermometers over them too!

We don't know how strict Spanish planning law is, but it's fact that a number of signs in Dublin were/are in violation of planning legislation.

I'm sure some local residents where campaigning against the signs in Barcelona. And maybe some got removed (dangerous or not compliant), so the ones you see were considered acceptable.

MadsL

Oh, and Metrobest have you actually looked through my video blog of this fiasco:

http://www.youtube.com/user/DangerinDublin

Tarabuses

markpb wrote: »

When it can take several minutes for the lights to go green and that light might not even let you completely cross the road, a culture of jaywalking has developed. It might be illegal but it's still there. If you ignore it and obstruct drivers view of pedestrian crossings, people will be injured. You can't bury your head in the sand and say it shouldn't be so.

Interesting that you should mention jaywalking as I do remember a lot of hype many years ago when this was made illegal in Dublin. Not that it made any difference since jaywalking is still the rule rather than the exception.

In fact I was wondering if I had imagined the whole thing of the banning of jaywalking as it is still so common. I've even seen Guards standing at crossings with pedestrians jaywalking in front of them and they have done nothing. Has anyone ever been convicted of this offence?

Metrobest

Decuax also got a contract from 15 years, rather than the 10 year one in Paris. €120m+ is about what it is worth to Decaux. Tha's why I gave ratios - 13:1 is much greater than 4:1.

Dublin has 1.1m people - 1.6 if you take Greater Dublin. Roughly the same size as Barcelona who got 700 bus shelters, 1,100 bus stops, 600 platforms at bus stations, 250 new Citylight panels (can't really claim those as a benefit) and 15 new public toilets. Plus the 1,000 bikes you mentioned.

Seems like Dublin got a raw deal to me.

A €25 DCC yearly levy on company car spaces (+civil servants car parking) + advertising sponsorship of the scheme + the ad spaces already being sold on litter bins +the ad spaces on bike stations + a taxi roof sign advertising levy + decent planning enforcement and charges levied for advertising in the city (say €5k per year levy on 48 sheet locations) should take care of it by my reckoning.

I don´t think Dublin got a raw deal. As I pointed out earlier, JC is a commercial business not a charity, so they have to make ad revenue by placing these ads where motorists will see them. Dublin isn´t exactly loaded with high capacity roads however, so that´s why the posters are very spread out. I don´t know which locations were chosen in Paris as part of the Velib scheme but I imagine they could be concentrated more along corridors - imagine placing them on the Champs Elysses - that one avenue alone carries more traffic than the M50.

Just to clarify - the Bicing scheme in Barcelona is not run or funded by JC. It´s funded by revenue from on-street parking meters.

Barcelona has 4m in the greater area versus 1.1m in Dublin, and I think Barcelona started off with 500 bikes at 25 stations. Likewise less bikes will be needed to start off in Dublin and by a process of trial and error the right number will be reached. Here in Barcelona the problem has been unexpectedly high demand - cyclist numbers have increased dramatically thanks to the scheme. Often the problem is that areas on high ground have no bikes while areas on lower ground and popular destinations such as the beach have no available spaces at which to drop off a bike). Still, about 90% of the bikes you see on the streets of Barcelona nowadays are the municipal bikes, so it´s been a great success. And the city is building new cycle lanes to respond to the demand.

The Dublin cycling situation is that at the moment there is no critical mass to encourage planners to push for more cycle lanes. Cyclist numbers have actually declined in some areas. Many people are unwilling to invest in a new bike, but if they have the opportunity to use JC´s free bikes and try it out, they soon realise the benefits of cycling. Cyclist numbers increase dramatically and the city is forced to come up with new solutions to cater for this.

JC are quite clever about how they run Velib in Paris, encouraging a quick turnover of bikes - the first half hour is free but then for every subsequent half hour charges rise dramatically. As I discovered when I received my credit card bill after a recent visit to Paris (yes, any credit card can be used to hire for a day).

I understand the argument against the signs because at the moment nobody is seeing the benefits.

A municipal bike scheme brings huge benefits. 450 bikes might not seem like much but each bike is used about 20 times per day. Supply is not set in stone and can be increased (ie. DCC pays for more). Remember that maintainance vans prowl the streets day and night bringing bikes to where they are needed (eg. rack in College Green is full and people are waiting to drop off while Parnell Square is empty). This all costs money, an ongoing cost to JC.

As for vandalism, I´m don´t know if there are too many vandals in Dublin willing to part with 150 euros for the privilege of ruining one of JC´s bikes.

I urge everyone once again to reconsider their opposition to the advertistements and look at the social and environmental benefits these bikes will bring. Don´t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

BrianD

I see zero benefit to this scheme whatsoever for either locals or tourists. If you want to rent a bike let the private sector do it. Nobody comes back Paris, Lyon or Barcelona raving about their bike hire scheme. The public amenity or advantage of this scheme is very low.

metrobest wrote:

don´t think Dublin got a raw deal. As I pointed out earlier, JC is a commercial business not a charity, so they have to make ad revenue by placing these ads where motorists will see them.

DCC costs alot to run and many people are up in arms about various charges e.g. waste being applied. Ultimately everything that "the City" provides comes from the taxpayer in some shape or form. It would make more sense that DCC drive revenue from advertising sites just like Dublin Bus and the LUAS do. There is no public amenity in advertising billboards but there is a potential revenue stream. Therefore swapping this revenue stream for a bike service is not a good deal. They would be much better off extracting a percentage of advertising revenues from JC (or fixed rents) and using this to fund some of the many great services that DCC provide to their citizens.

There is no real social or environmental value to DCC at all.

monument

BrianD wrote: »

I see zero benefit to this scheme whatsoever for either locals or tourists. If you want to rent a bike let the private sector do it...

I partly agree with you because DCC appear to have gotten a bad deal and the scale of the scheme is low.

EDIT: Just to add: I do have to make clear that when I say I partly agree, I'm not agreeing with "zero benefit to this scheme whatsoever". Using 'partly agree' was a bad choice of words. I'm more so saying there is a there's diminished benefit. A few hundred extra bikes on the road can still only be welcomed.

But....

BrianD wrote: »

Nobody comes back Paris, Lyon or Barcelona raving about their bike hire scheme. The public amenity or advantage of this scheme is very low...

That sounds a lot like don't "don't argue with me" or, at least, "don't use examples of where this scheme has worked before to argue with me".

Metrobest

BrianD wrote: »

I see zero benefit to this scheme whatsoever for either locals or tourists. If you want to rent a bike let the private sector do it. Nobody comes back Paris, Lyon or Barcelona raving about their bike hire scheme. The public amenity or advantage of this scheme is very low.



DCC costs alot to run and many people are up in arms about various charges e.g. waste being applied. Ultimately everything that "the City" provides comes from the taxpayer in some shape or form. It would make more sense that DCC drive revenue from advertising sites just like Dublin Bus and the LUAS do. There is no public amenity in advertising billboards but there is a potential revenue stream. Therefore swapping this revenue stream for a bike service is not a good deal. They would be much better off extracting a percentage of advertising revenues from JC (or fixed rents) and using this to fund some of the many great services that DCC provide to their citizens.

There is no real social or environmental value to DCC at all.

Brian, I assume such a scheme is not in operation in your city, because if it was you wouldn´t be talking like that. On the contrary the public amenity is first class. Anything that improves mobility in the city without causing more pollution has to be welcomed with open arms. And if the tradeoff is having to stare at a few advertisments, it´s one most people are willing to tolerate when they see the benefits these bikes bring.

Final point. In Barcelona the bikes are for residents, not tourists. It´s essentially a new form of transport infrastructure that takes people out of cars and public transport. You have to register on the website and receive the card in your Spanish address. And the machines are only in Spanish and Catalan. So that´s why tourists don´t come home raving about Bicing in Barcelona.

In Paris locals register with Velib for an annual charge. Tourists can purchase a 24 hour voucher for 1 euro. It´s a wonderful scheme for locals and tourists. It was the first time I stayed in Paris and did not have to use a taxi to get home at night. Cycling along the Seine on Sunday (when they close off one of the quays to traffic) and along by Notre Dame was another highlight. Please be aware that Velib has/is changing Paris for the better, and to say it can´t do the same for Dublin is extremely naive.

HydeRoad

Dublin doesn't have the weather for bikes. It's either lashing rain or gale force wind. D'Olier Street, for example, seems to be a wind tunnel at any time of the year, sunshine or otherwise.

For the same reasons, people drive cars everywhere. Waiting on public transport is not attractive when the weather is bad.

One of the selling points of the rejuvenation of O'Connell Street was a dream of Champs Elysees style streetside cafes. That didn't happen either, again, because of the weather.

The bikes are a clever amenity, but I don't see how they couldn't have been provided by DCC on a self-financing arrangement.

Dublin does NOT need giant advertising boards under any argument under the sun. The streets are more than cluttered enough. Paris has streets three and four times the width of Dublin's. They have the space. We don't. This is a racket, and should never have happened.

MadsL

If I could preface my response by saying that this is the healthy debate that should have been conducted by DCC. There was absolutely NO public consultation on this. The only documentation I have ever been able to find on DCC website was the tail end of the tender submission. Councillors were run in circles and the public just told - oh, by the way you are getting bikes.

However back to the issue...

On the contrary the public amenity is first class. Anything that improves mobility in the city without causing more pollution has to be welcomed with open arms.

Indeed, I couldn't agree more - my issues is the process and the mechanism by which this scheme has been achieved.

And if the tradeoff is having to stare at a few advertisments, it´s one most people are willing to tolerate when they see the benefits these bikes bring.

The tradeoff is handing over between €100m and €150m in revenue to a company that has a shameful history of non-compliance to planning controls.
In exchange Dublin is getting probably the worst deal in Europe for this type of scheme and an absolute pittance in return both in physical and monetary terms. Remember Paris gets between €30 and €35m a year in city revenues from this.

DCC appear to have negotiated a position where to expand the scheme by 50% if it is sucessful will require the erection of some 50 further billboards. That just 'buys' 200 more bikes. If the bike element of this scheme is successful then Dublin will literally be plastered with these advertising 'metro-whatsits'

The important difference to note is that in Paris there was no NEW advertising - the city just granted exclusivity to JCD on EXISTING advertising sites.

A scheme like Barcelona (I apologise - JCD do not finance it, I assumed wrongly that it was part of the street funiture contract the won in 2006) with 1,000 bikes would require the erection of 130 additional ads.

Given DCC's lovely attitude of stick them where you like, that means every street in the city centre will have them.

The tradeoff is also that the visually impaired are endangered by them, pedestrians and our new breed of Velib (Dublib?) cyclists are endangered by them and we lose a significant aspect of the character of Dublin historic streets.

(You still haven't posted a pic of a kerbside ad in Barcelona by the way)

Bottom line is it is simply not a good enough deal.

Please be aware that Velib has/is changing Paris for the better, and to say it can´t do the same for Dublin is extremely naive.

Naive would be expecting city management to actual negotiate a decent PPP scheme.

A properly run bike scheme could be a huge benefit, and barcelona is a good example where it is city run and self-funded and didn't sell off the family silver - but not the way this scheme has been brought about...

I would say that the best example of naivity would have been signing the deal with JCD for a one-time deal of services worth at best €5m in exchange for a licence to print money for 15 years.

monument

The amount of anti-cycling nonsense in this thread is unreal.

HydeRoad wrote: »

Dublin doesn't have the weather for bikes. It's either lashing rain or gale force wind. D'Olier Street, for example, seems to be a wind tunnel at any time of the year, sunshine or otherwise.

That's a myth. At best.

Dublin and Copenhagen have reasonably simpler weather. The two are by no means worlds apart.

Where they vary there's a mix of going towards one city or another - Copenhagen has more wet days, but Dublin had more rain fall.

Copenhagen is also exposed to it's fair share of wind. And in summer it can be a bit hotter - with could easily be seen as a minus for cycling. But the "Relative humidity" in Dublin is higher.

In the winter, Copenhagen has less hours of sunlight and what I'm told it's hours of sunlight in the summer start around 4am).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/city_guides/city.shtml?tt=TT003910
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/city_guides/city.shtml?tt=TT003490

MadsL wrote:

DCC appear to have negotiated a position where to expand the scheme by 50% if it is sucessful will require the erection of some 50 further billboards. That just 'buys' 200 more bikes. If the bike element of this scheme is successful then Dublin will literally be plastered with these advertising 'metro-whatsits'

The important difference to note is that in Paris there was no NEW advertising - the city just granted exclusivity to JCD on EXISTING advertising sites.

A scheme like Barcelona (I apologise - JCD do not finance it, I assumed wrongly that it was part of the street funiture contract the won in 2006) with 1,000 bikes would require the erection of 130 additional ads.

If you have a copy of the JCD and DCC deal everybody would love to see it and where it states the terms of expansions or terms of further deals. But otherwise you're making a lot of presumptions here about future deals.

MadsL wrote:

and barcelona is a good example where it is city run and self-funded and didn't sell off the family silver - but not the way this scheme has been brought about...

Paris is a far better example on scale alone. And it's not practical to say Dublin could have followed Barcelona as a model for funding. Dublin already collects and uses parking charges as a source of revenue. So any point of following Barcelona is null and void.

weehamster wrote: »

And you know too well, once the bikes arrive, they are going to vanish in no time.

Please explain how bicycles in a credit card based rental system are going to "vanish in no time"?

weehamster wrote: »

This is Dublin. Anyway, the streets of Dublin are lethal at the mo for bikes and have been for sometime, and its getting worse. Get the cycle lanes sorted first.

"the streets of Dublin are lethal"... could you qualify that in any meaningful way?

And, if anything the streets of Dublin have become safer for cyclists since the HGV ban. And with more cyclists on the road (safety in number is proven to apply to cyclists), a recently appointed full time cycle officer, and plans to remove cars from some of the main streets, things are looking up for cyclists.

MadsL wrote:

If I could preface my response by saying that this is the healthy debate that should have been conducted by DCC.

MadsL, if you view "healthy debate" as including...

• overstatements of how dangerous cycling is in Dublin
• nonsense about Dublin weather being not suited to cycling when we our climate is close to a city which has by our standards an amazing level of cycling
• all of the bikes in a credit card rental system going walkabout in no time at all!
• absolute statements "zero benefit to this scheme whatsoever for either locals or tourists" (from a post which you endorsed)
• and add in a few presumptions as well

...that's fine by me. You're entitled to your view.

I am still inclined to believe your main reasons for objection is on health and safety grounds as well as access issues around the placement of some (but not all) of the signs. And - as I've said before - I agree with you on these.

But as DCC now appear to be listening and acting on these issues, your movement into other areas (such as "character of Dublin historic streets" etc) does not help further movement based on safety/access issues.

On the point of a bad deal, unless there is proof of wrongdoing, it's a mute point at this stage after the contract has been signed.

Your effort in playing a large part in getting the unsafe signs removed has to be commended, but please don't get too side tracked.

MadsL

If you have a copy of the JCD and DCC deal everybody would love to see it and where it states the terms of expansions or terms of further deals. But otherwise you're making a lot of presumptions here about future deals.

I'd love to show you the deal. But no one has seen it. I'm basing my statements on Daithi Doolan's comments about "expansion, expansion" etc on Liveline

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSo89H_EooI

Paris is a far better example on scale alone. And it's not practical to say Dublin could have followed Barcelona as a model for funding. Dublin already collects and uses parking charges as a source of revenue. So any point of following Barcelona is null and void.

I have already suggested many other sources to self fund this. Parking charges could be increased or other revenues obtained. Scroll back a bit....

MadsL, if you view "healthy debate" as including...

overstatements of how dangerous cycling is in Dublin
nonsense about Dublin weather being not suited to cycling when we our climate is close to a city which has by our standards an amazing level of cycling
all of the bikes in a credit card rental system going walkabout in no time at all!
absolute statements "zero benefit to this scheme whatsoever for either locals or tourists" (from a post which you endorsed)
and add in a few presumptions as well
...that's fine by me. You're entitled to your view.

Non of the views above are mine, but I think to impose this scheme on the city without ANY public consultation shows contempt on the part of city management, and views such as the above need to be aired.

Name me one piece of extra cycling provision in the form of cycle lanes or vehicle exclusion that has been announced for this scheme...Paris put in kms of extra cycle lanes...

I am still inclined to believe your main reasons for objection is on health and safety grounds as well as access issues around the placement of some (but not all) of the signs. And - as I've said before - I agree with you on these.

But as DCC now appear to be listening and acting on these issues, your movement into other areas (such as "character of Dublin historic streets" etc) does not help further movement based on safety/access issues.

DCC have removed two signs. I thought the removal on Rathmines Rd was as a result of H&S review. It turns out it was as the result of a planning enforcement complaint. So DCC have 'reviewed' and done nothing beyond what they legally have to. So much for listening.

On the point of a bad deal, unless there is proof of wrongdoing, it's a mute point at this stage after the contract has been signed.

Signing a contract of this type, and then drip feeding and spinning councillors sets off alarm bells to me, especially when it was linked to a zoning map that no-one had seen in the council chamber.

Your effort in playing a large part in getting the unsafe signs removed has to be commended, but please don't get too side tracked.

As I have always said safety is the primary concern, but there is a wider disquiet I have about how DCC management dealt with this.

monument

MadsL wrote: »

I have already suggested many other sources to self fund this. Parking charges could be increased or other revenues obtained. Scroll back a bit....

All pretty academic now, isn't it?

MadsL wrote: »

Non of the views above are mine, but I think to impose this scheme on the city without ANY public consultation shows contempt on the part of city management, and views such as the above need to be aired.

My point is this thread - which includes a high level of ill-informed views about cycling, plus what aprear to be or anti-cycling views, and views from people who appear to lack the basics of the rental systems - is what you call healthy debate.

MadsL wrote: »

Name me one piece of extra cycling provision in the form of cycle lanes or vehicle exclusion that has been announced for this scheme...Paris put in kms of extra cycle lanes...

The lanes were a part of the Paris deal? And I wouldn't be praising Paris too much for their cycle lanes as my first hand impression is they are largely counting allowing cyclists to use bus lanes - what we are already doing.

DCC have removed two signs. I thought the removal on Rathmines Rd was as a result of H&S review. It turns out it was as the result of a planning enforcement complaint. So DCC have 'reviewed' and done nothing beyond what they legally have to. So much for listening.

On passing yesterday I noticed the ad board nearest to the traffic light and Cineworld on Parnell St is also being removed or adjusted.

Signing a contract of this type, and then drip feeding and spinning councillors sets off alarm bells to me, especially when it was linked to a zoning map that no-one had seen in the council chamber.

That's not proof of wrongdoing.

MadsL wrote: »

As I have always said safety is the primary concern, but there is a wider disquiet I have about how DCC management dealt with this.

I really believe you but with this and other comments you're opening your self up to accusations of having other motives. Even if such are as simple as preserving Dublin etc.

Metrobest

Some clarifications. In relation to funding Bicing in Barcelona the city raised existing parking charges for the street parking - that´s where Bicing´s funding comes from. This was imposed on drivers without consultation, as. the Barcelona model is to present solutions to citizens as a fait accompli, rather than the paralysis by analyis that makes it difficult to deliver change in Dublin. Crucially, however, the city council here has a good reputation for its planning schemes and therefore it has the political capital to deliver initiatives like Bicing without too much consultation. What´s happening here is that areas on the fringe of the Bicing network are crying out for racks in their areas.

The City Council in Dublin does not have the trust of its citizens (for good reason when you look at the planning shambles that is Dublin in the last 15 years) nevertheless on this issue I think the City Council have the citizens best interests at heart. Rather than buy into the conspiracy theories that its all about revenue for JC, I really think that these councillors want to make Dublin a better place. As for the deal, as I stated previously 450 bikes go a long way in a low density city as each bike is used multiple times day and night. Montpellier is a city I visited recently and it has a JC scheme as well as luas-style trams in a density similar to Dublin´s. It certainly didn´t look like Montpellier had got the same deal as Paris though - there were hardly any racks about!

In Paris the presence of vastly increased numbers has changed public perceptions of cycling. Now people who live in the suburbs can take the metro into central Paris, then take a bike to reach their destination rather than relying on the metro or buses. Thus mobility has improved. Dublin could follow suit with these things Paris has done: On various one way streets they have put in (narrow) contraflow cycle lanes. They´ve painted bike symbols in bus lanes. Best of all has been closing one side of the quays on Sundays. These are all solutions that could be imposed in Dublin if the political capital and will was there.