Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

'Free' *cough* City Bike scheme

13

Comments

  • #62
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    I'd be interested to know what the numbers are - could anyone in the industry figure out a value for these incredibly intrusive advertising boards over the 15 years? If we want to stop this - we have to follow the money.

    You are looking at about €9000 a month for one, from what I have been quoted from an industry source. They have 72 approved so far, which makes approx €115m over the 15 year term. What worries me is they now have a precendent for further planning appplications - don't fancy having to watch every planning appplication made over the next 15 years.
    It also angers him that all the received tender documents and the final contract (that the council are making with OUR footpaths and attention!) are kept under lock and key by the city manager.

    Ask him how he feels about new zoning objectives being set outside of the Dublin Development Plan, unapproved by the council and the public - specifically to justify the locations of these signs.


  • #63
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    No further comments Victor...you suprise me...:)


  • #64
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,702 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    MadsL wrote: »
    Now that's a better idea.....wouldn't this make more sense to extend this scheme than sell the footpath to commercial self-interest?
    No. While the ecocabs in theory provide people with free local transport, they are very much underused and merely sit around popular pedestrian areas obstructing the footpath. To my knowledge they are not licenced in any way as public service vehicles (they are insured).


  • #65
    lostexpectation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,082 ✭✭✭lostexpectation


    well edanto did you not tell him, that he can be against the deal in order to renogotiate the terms, and still be favour of getting more people cycling


  • #66
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    All these extra obstructions on the path will undoubtedly cause difficulties for people with poor and no vision. Dublin City Council were on the wrong end of an Equality case earlier this year about their attempt to remove the audible signal from pedestrian rates.

    Those who want to prevent this development might like to get the NCBI involved, and/or make a complaint regarding breach of S.27 of the Disability Act, which states that all goods and services supplied to a public body must be accessible for people with disabilities - see http://ombudsman.gov.ie/en/DisabilityAct2005/ for the complaints process.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Those who want to prevent this development might like to get the NCBI involved

    We did, but they were in the unfortunate position of having been offered full consulation 6 months prior to hearing, then having heard nothing, were all set to appear at ABP to register their point of view - miraculously (or not depending on your viewpoint) they then were 'invited' to a consulatation. They then were in an awkward position.

    My point of view is very much of the horse and stable door. Seems odd that the NCBI were to be consulted after the PP was granted by DCC and not before.


  • #68
    edanto
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,809 ✭✭✭edanto


    Yeah lost, I was saying to him that there is some good in this idea - that a scheme could be conceived that would have less advertising and more bikes and asked him about the details of the other tenders (since he was so gung ho about the fact that this was a competitive tender process and this is the best deal).

    When he told me that all details of the other tenders and current contracts were confidential I started to smell a rat.

    So, if the ad space is worth a potential €115m to JCD, what are we actually getting for that. 500 high tech bikes with GPS and locking stations, a maintenance and storage infrastructure - how can that cost anything like €85m (the value of the scheme according to newspaper articles)??

    Sure for 85m, you could probably give free bikes to everyone in Dublin that wanted one for the next 15 years.


  • #69
    OTK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 556 ✭✭✭OTK


    According to The Economist:
    In the past JCDecaux has repeatedly been accused of unfair play and Jean-Claude has twice been convicted of criminal offences in connection with contracts awarded by local governments. Both offences took place before the firm floated on the Paris stock exchange in 2001.
    Dublin City Council has its own history of corrupt practice by officials like George Redmond and by councillors.

    So we have two corporate bodies with a history of corruption, asking us and our representatives to accept that the secret deal they have formed is to the public's benefit.

    The city doesn't want any more street advertising. If anything, these huge posters are now recognised as a form of pollution and have started to disappear from places like the loopline bridge.

    If Dublin wants to purchase a bike rental system than we can do so by paying for it with cash. It would be a drop in the ocean of the budget for city transport needs.

    500 bikes are supposedly worth 85m. That's 170,000 per bike. Some bikes!


  • #70
    Ecocabbie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86 ✭✭Ecocabbie


    Victor wrote: »
    No. While the ecocabs in theory provide people with free local transport, they are very much underused and merely sit around popular pedestrian areas obstructing the footpath. To my knowledge they are not licenced in any way as public service vehicles (they are insured).

    "Underused" would not be a word that would come to mind when describing Ecocabs activity. An average fleet of just 8 cabs would take up to 300 passengers per day on a weekend and nearly always over 1,500 people a week. I wouldnt call that underused- if that were 1,500 city centre taxi journeys (and Im not saying it necessarily would be) that would be a fairly significant number... The Ecocabs are fully insured for public liability, credited by the RSA and department of transport,the company have been assigned designated pickup points by the director of transport services in Dublin city council and run in conjunction and even in partnership with the city council and local law enforcement. The scheme will be expanded in 2008 but is kept as a completely separate entity to that of the public bicycles which is being debated here.


    Back to the topic at hand, ive recently returened from a trip to Paris where I used the public bicycles on various occasions- thought they were very good indeed. Although its very hard to compare because I do not have the same feelings to permemnat urban billboarding in Paris as I would in my beloved Dublin!

    Alos a final point, I talked with one of the maintenance workers in Paris, a team of which would work each day travelling around the city in vans repairing various faulty parts on the rental bikes all over the city. Seems quite costly in itself... I wonder are DCC going to have to fit the bill here in this regard also and have they factored this?


  • #71
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,702 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Hi, thank you for joining the discussion, can I start a new thread here to ask some questions (give me a moment to fill it out): http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055175437
    Alos a final point, I talked with one of the maintenance workers in Paris, a team of which would work each day travelling around the city in vans repairing various faulty parts on the rental bikes all over the city. Seems quite costly in itself... I wonder are DCC going to have to fit the bill here in this regard also and have they factored this?
    I imagine thats a cost for the operator, not the council. Otherwise the operator would but €30 bikes, not suited to Irish conditions and reap a nice margin in the maintainence.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Now these are going up it looks like they are trying to kill us.

    Now this is just taking the p1ss.... Dorset St/Synott Place

    Planning Montage - note the scale is wrong on the structure (compare height with traffic lights)
    promised.jpg

    As erected;

    SMDC0085.jpg
    Establishing shot - Spot the child in a buggy anyone (how about at 50kph?)

    SMDC0086.jpg
    Stepping out...

    SMDC0087.jpg
    Erected in the wrong place.

    TrafficLight.jpg
    You have to be kidding me......
    5. The developer shall comply fully with the following requirements of the Roads & Traffic Planning Division; a) The proposed structure shall not impede any road signs, traffic lights, pedestrian crossings, vision along kerb edge lines or any other road infrastructure. This may require a slight adjustment in the proposed location as submitted.

    Slight adjustment I would recommend here would be about 3 metres to the left....into a skip!


    From the pedestrian crossing...taken whilst standing on the tactile ped crossing surface.....

    SMDC0091.jpg

    Completely obscures cycle lane...

    Motorists viewpoint

    SMDC0084.jpg

    Spot the ped walking out?


    This goes beyond the argument of advertising on our footpaths. This is criminal negligence on the part of DCC, JCDecaux and the contractor. Someone will die at this crossing unless this is removed NOW!

    These structures have been slammed by the Dublin Transportation Office, described as a road safety hazard by An Bord Pleanala, a report on their safety has been requested by a city counciller to which no response has been given. If I were a lawyer representing a injury or death compensation claim at this point. I would also be citing the Corporate Manslaughter Bill 2007

    Grossly negligent management causing death:
    A high managerial agent may be guilty of grossly negligent management causing death if he knew or ought to have known of a substantial risk of death or personal harm and failed to take reasonable efforts to eliminate that risk. Penalties for grossly negligent management include:

    A fine; and/or
    Up to 12 year's imprisonment; and or
    A Disqualification Order whereby the managerial agent may be disqualified from acting in a management capacity by the court for a period not exceeding 15 years.

    Breach of the order gives rise to a fine of €3,000,000 and/or 2 years imprisonment and/or further disqualification for 10 years.


  • #73
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Finally DCC realise there is no need to sell off the footpaths to fund this scheme. Well done DCC, did we not tell you this in 2007???


    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0730/1224321087209.html
    The expansion will not be funded by the advertising company. Work to start the first phase of the extension to Heuston and the Docklands will be funded using a grant of €500,000 from the National Transport Authority. The council is continuing negotiations with the authority in relation to future funding and is also considering how it might source private-sector money for the scheme.
    An Taisce Press Release wrote:
    An Taisce Welcomes New Dublin Bike Scheme
    An Taisce welcomes the new Dublin Bike scheme, which will see communal bikes available from DCU in the north to UCD in the south, from Docklands in the east to Heuston in the west.

    Notably the new bike scheme is not going to be funded by yielding public space to a private advertising company; this is most welcome. 5 years ago when the first rental bike scheme was proposed, circa 170 billboards were being permitted in exchange for providing 400 rental bikes. Billboards were to be erected all along O'Connell Street, down Grafton Street, as well as other billboards in key historic areas.

    An Taisce, along with others, fought the original scheme as it represented very poor value for the city, while road safety was being potentially jeopardized.

    It later transpired that the revenue potential over the 15 year terms for the advertising company was going to be in the region of €370 million, had each billboard been built, as reported by both Plan Magazine and The Examiner. Separately it also emerged that a similar deal in Paris was providing 12+ bikes per billboard - yet Dublin was only getting 4 bikes per unit.

    Arising from An Taisce's fight for a better deal, ultimately only circa 72 of the intended billboards were built at that time - yet all of the rental bikes were provided.

    Today's media reports herald a victory for everybody: arising from a relatively small grant of €1/2 million from the National Transport Authority, Dublin will soon have a world class communal bike scheme without further defacing its environment.

    An Taisce very much welcomes today's announcement.


  • #74
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Why can people not allocate their tax free bike grant thingy to a communal scheme, ie covenant it, in return for a special rate for bike rent for themselves.


  • #75
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    Why can people not allocate their tax free bike grant thingy to a communal scheme, ie covenant it, in return for a special rate for bike rent for themselves.


    Astonishingly :) I find myself in full agreement with Sponge Bob (is this a first??)

    Genius suggestion.


  • #76
    ArmaniJeanss
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,809 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    Some embarassing posts in the thread predicting that the bikes would all end up in the Liffey on a Saturday night, and a ludicrous article in the ever-reliably rubbish Phoenix magazine in post #41. "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)...."

    In hindsight this scheme probably had to have its genesis this way; an initial bad deal for the city with JCD, then the bikes become a massive success and future expansion can be funded by the NTA. But if the NTA had suggested putting €1M into the original scheme in 2006 there would have been uproar.
    Because regardless of the JCD aspect, there was huge vocal opposition to even the concept of a bike scheme before it started, and only a few voices in support of it.
    Older members here may recall the very heated and sadly deleted 'Free Bikes for Scumbags' 200 post clusterfcuk of a thread in the Dublin City forum.:)

    Anyway, fantastic news about the expansion.


  • #77
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    ArmaniJeanss wrote: »
    Because regardless of the JCD aspect, there was huge vocal opposition to even the concept of a bike scheme before it started, and only a few voices in support of it.
    Older members here may recall the very heated and sadly deleted 'Free Bikes for Scumbags' 200 post clusterfcuk of a thread in the Dublin City forum.:)

    Anyway, fantastic news about the expansion.
    As someone who opposed the JCD scheme vehemently I never heard anyone at the Oral Hearings oppose the concept of a bike scheme - just the funding mechanism.

    Interesting how much can be achieved with €0.5m - it puts the original projected €370m potential profit for JCD in perspective.


  • #78
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,109 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    MadsL wrote: »
    As someone who opposed the JCD scheme vehemently I never heard anyone at the Oral Hearings oppose the concept of a bike scheme - just the funding mechanism.

    There were loads of people against the wider concept, arguments included:

    - There's no point doing bikes as all of the bikes will end up in canals and rivers or otherwise out of action, the stations would also be vandalised, we were told.

    - Regardless of how it is funded, there's better things to spend the money on than on bikes.

    - The new cyclists will kill people etc.

    - Stations outside businesses or taking parking spaces would be bad for business.

    Etc

    MadsL wrote: »
    Interesting how much can be achieved with €0.5m - it puts the original projected €370m potential profit for JCD in perspective.

    Perspective:

    €0.5m is just the NTA funding for building costs of the east-west expansions.

    The ads for bikes deal was done when [1] few people believed that a bike scheme would work, [2] nobody was willing to fund it regardless, [3] deal includes bikes, build costs, system set up costs, and running costs for 15 years, [4] projections are great, but there were risks on both sides -- the ad market has suffered massively since the deal and there has been less vandalism / theft then experienced in other cities.


  • #79
    markpb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,433 ✭✭✭markpb


    monument wrote: »
    There were loads of people against the wider concept, arguments included:

    Don't forget all the cyclists who would end up dead because Dublin is so dangerous to cycle in.


  • #80
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    Why can people not allocate their tax free bike grant thingy to a communal scheme, ie covenant it, in return for a special rate for bike rent for themselves.

    I don't understand this, Dublin bikes costs a tenner a year, you can get 2 orders of magnitude more tax relief. The cost of administering this covenanting scheme, run by the civil service, would be more than the relief on a tenner.



    I also don't understand why there's no cost benefit analysis published into expanding the scheme. I'm all for ( as in it'd suit me to have) a larger range on the Dublin bikes, but has the benefit been quantified for the capital and current expenditure on the scheme expansion? Or is it just a wishy washy "wouldn't it be better if..."


  • #81
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    I also don't understand why there's no cost benefit analysis published into expanding the scheme. I'm all for ( as in it'd suit me to have) a larger range on the Dublin bikes, but has the benefit been quantified for the capital and current expenditure on the scheme expansion? Or is it just a wishy washy "wouldn't it be better if..."


    Well given that there was no cost-benefit analysis done on the initial giveaway to JCD, are you really suprised?


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    hardCopy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,969 ✭✭✭hardCopy


    MadsL wrote: »
    Well given that there was no cost-benefit analysis done on the initial giveaway to JCD, are you really suprised?

    The most obvious benefit was that it was never administered by the council. But how do you quantify that?


  • #83
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    hardCopy wrote: »
    The most obvious benefit was that it was never administered by the council. But how do you quantify that?

    Look it at the other way, how many council workers have been laid off as part of the recession?


  • #84
    SerialComplaint
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,644 ✭✭✭SerialComplaint


    hardCopy wrote: »
    The most obvious benefit was that it was never administered by the council. But how do you quantify that?

    Of course it was administered by the council - as an outsourced service. The whole initiative came from the council, and was implemented by them, despite the begrudgery.


  • #85
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    SerialComplaint wrote: »
    The whole initiative came from the council

    After a doubtless well-expensed "fact-finding" visit to Lyon with the hospitality provided by JCD.

    Just sayin'.


  • #86
    SerialComplaint
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,644 ✭✭✭SerialComplaint


    MadsL wrote: »
    After a doubtless well-expensed "fact-finding" visit to Lyon with the hospitality provided by JCD.

    Just sayin'.

    Just sayin' what you know? Or just saying what you've made up? If you'd like to submit an FOI request for details of any travel involved before the tender was selected, by all means do, and publish the results. But if you just want to make stuff up and call it 'doubtless', I don't think too many people are going to believe it.


  • #87
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    SerialComplaint wrote: »
    Just sayin' what you know? Or just saying what you've made up? If you'd like to submit an FOI request for details of any travel involved before the tender was selected, by all means do, and publish the results. But if you just want to make stuff up and call it 'doubtless', I don't think too many people are going to believe it.

    DCC employees did take a "factfinding" trip to Lyon as guests of JCD prior to the issue of a tender.

    A FOI request would merely confirm this.


  • #88
    SerialComplaint
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,644 ✭✭✭SerialComplaint


    MadsL wrote: »
    DCC employees did take a "factfinding" trip to Lyon as guests of JCD prior to the issue of a tender.

    A FOI request would merely confirm this.

    The FOI request would confirm if it was, as you claimed "well-expensed "fact-finding" visit to Lyon with the hospitality provided".


  • #89
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    The FOI request would confirm if it was, as you claimed "well-expensed "fact-finding" visit to Lyon with the hospitality provided".

    I've trod this route...

    Well-expensed; as were most public sector trips during the boom. DCC paid for the trip as it would naturally be unseemly to allow JCD to do so.

    FOI would not cover what JCD spent while their guests were in Lyon. However, would you expect that they skimped on the bubbly?


  • #90
    SerialComplaint
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,644 ✭✭✭SerialComplaint


    MadsL wrote: »
    I've trod this route...
    ?
    Have you already submitted an FOI in relation to this trip? If so, please do share the results.
    MadsL wrote: »
    Well-expensed; as were most public sector trips during the boom.
    The public sector trips that I went on during the boom years weren't what I'd call 'well expensed'. There was certainly nothing like the luxuries and excesses that I enjoyed during my private sector years. With fixed allowances for overnights and subsistences, some trips you managed to save a few quid, some trips you managed to lose a few quid.

    MadsL wrote: »
    DCC paid for the trip as it would naturally be unseemly to allow JCD to do so.

    FOI would not cover what JCD spent while their guests were in Lyon. However, would you expect that they skimped on the bubbly?
    FOI would probably show the programme for the trip, including who eat where and when. If there was any invite from JCD to DCC, it would show up on FOI.

    But I guess it's easier just to plant seeds of doubt, and watch them prosper.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    SerialComplaint wrote: »
    The public sector trips that I went on during the boom years weren't what I'd call 'well expensed'. There was certainly nothing like the luxuries and excesses that I enjoyed during my private sector years. With fixed allowances for overnights and subsistences, some trips you managed to save a few quid, some trips you managed to lose a few quid.

    Fixed allowances presumably don't require receipts.
    FOI would probably show the programme for the trip, including who eat where and when. If there was any invite from JCD to DCC, it would show up on FOI.

    Good thinking, hadn't thought of requesting the itinerary.
    But I guess it's easier just to plant seeds of doubt, and watch them prosper.

    No doubt about the timeline, trip to Lyon, tender issued, hosts at Lyon win the tender.


Advertisement