Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Velib like bicycle rental kiosks are being constructed in Dublin

1…910121415…31

Comments

  • #332
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    spurious wrote: »
    Dublin City Councillors have asked and were told the details would not be given out due to 'commercial sensitivity' which is odd, since it's a done deal - unless something is funny about the whole thing

    Actually, there's nothing odd at all about that. The value of a lot of public contracts aren't disclosed for this reason.


  • #333
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Jawgap wrote: »
    I wonder how many advertising signs they have to put up with.

    Paris - 1,600 billboards
    Dublin - 72 (with the promise to take down another 100).


  • #334
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    el tonto wrote: »
    Paris - 1,600 billboards
    Dublin - 72 (with the promise to take down another 100).

    So they got more bikes and more billboards removed?


  • #335
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Jawgap wrote: »
    So they got more bikes and more billboards removed?

    No, they got 1,600 billboards put up (not taken down). We're getting 72 put up and JC Decaux have promised to take 100 down.


  • #336
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    el tonto wrote: »
    No, they got 1,600 billboards put up (not taken down). We're getting 72 put up and JC Decaux have promised to take 100 down.

    So for each billboard they put up the Parisians got 12.5 bikes.

    For each billboard they put up in Dublin we're getting 6.25 bikes.


  • Advertisement
  • #337
    eightyfish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,100 ✭✭✭eightyfish


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Parisians got 12.5 bikes ... Dublin we're getting 6.25 bikes.

    Considering Paris is hugely populated and the tourist capital of Europe, you'd get many, many more people seeing your billboard. Easily more than twice as many. Thus this seems fair to me.


  • #338
    unionman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,087 ✭✭✭unionman


    el tonto wrote: »
    No, they got 1,600 billboards put up (not taken down). We're getting 72 put up and JC Decaux have promised to take 100 down.

    El tonto, just to clarify: that's 72 of the new free standing poster sites, and removing 100 of the older sites, which I think are specifically city centre?

    Was speaking to a colleague about this today, and we were wondering how JC Decaux have been affected by the massive dip in advertising revenue that is affecting the entire industry, and if it might affect the bike scheme in the near future. Sorry, I just can't help myself...:o


  • #339
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    unionman wrote: »
    El tonto, just to clarify: that's 72 of the new free standing poster sites, and removing 100 of the older sites, which I think are specifically city centre?

    Yep, that's what I was told
    unionman wrote: »
    Was speaking to a colleague about this today, and we were wondering how JC Decaux have been affected by the massive dip in advertising revenue that is affecting the entire industry, and if it might affect the bike scheme in the near future. Sorry, I just can't help myself...:o

    I'm sure they are affected by the dip. Advertising accross the boards is taking a hammering. But if they were going to pull out, I'd say they would have tried by now since the thing is half built at this stage.


  • #340
    markpb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭markpb


    el tonto wrote: »
    Actually, there's nothing odd at all about that. The value of a lot of public contracts aren't disclosed for this reason.

    I understand that the contracts weren't made public but I think it's odd that the councillors couldn't see them either. That's the whole point of an elected councillor - someone who is trusted by the public to act on their behalf.


  • #341
    spurious
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Education Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 27,444 CMod ✭✭✭✭spurious


    el tonto wrote: »

    I'm sure they are affected by the dip. Advertising accross the boards is taking a hammering. But if they were going to pull out, I'd say they would have tried by now since the thing is half built at this stage.

    Unless of course it's such a lucrative deal that even taking a big drop it's still worth their while.

    I love that they have promised to take down billboards. I'm sure they will.


  • Advertisement
  • #342
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    eightyfish wrote: »
    Therefore

    Paris : 12.5 bikes per billboard
    Dublin : 6.25 biker per billboard

    Considering Paris is hugely populated and the tourist capital of Europe, you'd get many, many more people seeing your billboard. Easily more than twice as many. Thus this seems fair to me.

    [edit]snap! sorry.

    You need to be quicker with the calculator!!!

    :)

    I can see the logic of your argument but I'm sure as we have less sites in a more concentrated area and proportionately probably get as many tourists as Paris, then surely we should be getting bikes at the same rate.


    Of course the fact that JCD are French has nothing to do with it;)


  • #343
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    markpb wrote: »
    I understand that the contracts weren't made public but I think it's odd that the councillors couldn't see them either. That's the whole point of an elected councillor - someone who is trusted by the public to act on their behalf.

    I've no idea what the power of councillors is in this regard.


  • #344
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Jawgap wrote: »
    I can see the logic of your argument but I'm sure as we have less sites in a more concentrated area and proportionately probably get as many tourists as Paris, then surely we should be getting bikes at the same rate.

    I'm guessing it depends on whether city centre advertising is more valuable in Paris than it is here and I don't know the answer to that. Of course, JC Decaux have complained that the Parisian scheme was costing them too much to maintain, so they may have negotiated a more favourable deal for themselves here after that experience.


  • #345
    eightyfish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,100 ✭✭✭eightyfish


    Jawgap wrote: »
    and proportionately probably get as many tourists as Paris

    Paris : 27 million tourists per year

    Dublin 1.7 million tourists per year

    So for this to be true, Paris would have to be at least 15 times bigger than Dublin. It ain't.

    (Just a quick search. Forgive me if there are alternate more accurate figures. Now, time to get out of work and into that sun.)


  • #346
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    eightyfish wrote: »
    Paris : 27 million tourists per year

    Dublin 1.7 million tourists per year

    So for this to be true, Paris would have to be at least 15 times bigger than Dublin. It ain't.

    (Just a quick search. Forgive me if there are alternate more accurate figures. Now, time to get out of work and into that sun.)

    Fair enough, but it still doesn't feel like we're getting a good deal.


  • #347
    SerialComplaint
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,644 ✭✭✭SerialComplaint


    DePurpereWolf wrote: »
    Wasn't there supposed to be a tender sent out anyway?

    We can't avail of the bicycle scheme here in the public sector because a purchase of a bike needs to be tendered, so they are trying to figure that out for 6 months now. But apparently a purchase of several million needs not to be tendered?
    spurious wrote: »
    Dublin City Councillors have asked and were told the details would not be given out due to 'commercial sensitivity' which is odd, since it's a done deal - unless something is funny about the whole thing.

    Nobody seems able to get their hands on the whole deal.
    el tonto wrote: »
    Actually, there's nothing odd at all about that. The value of a lot of public contracts aren't disclosed for this reason.

    There's big difference, El Tonto. Most public contracts are awarded after a competitive tendering process, whereby requirements were publicly advertised and suppliers were invited to tender. Free market competition is supposed to ensure that the public sector gets value for money.

    There was no such tendering process here. There was no up-front specification of requirements, and no evaluation of competitors. The fact that DCC are refusing to reveal the value of the contract to councillors and/or the public means that the citizens can have no confidence that this was good deal for Dublin.


  • #348
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    SerialComplaint wrote: »
    There's big difference, El Tonto. Most public contracts are awarded after a competitive tendering process, whereby requirements were publicly advertised and suppliers were invited to tender. Free market competition is supposed to ensure that the public sector gets value for money.

    There was no such tendering process here. There was no up-front specification of requirements, and no evaluation of competitors. The fact that DCC are refusing to reveal the value of the contract to councillors and/or the public means that the citizens can have no confidence that this was good deal for Dublin.

    I know it wasn't a public tender, but I'm assuming the same principles apply here, i.e. that it was decided that revealing the value of the contract was commercially sensitive in this case. What I'm saying is that it isn't unusual and not by itself suspicious.

    To be honest, I've no interest in defending JC Decaux or DCC, but I do think people are seeing conspiracies here when there's precious little evidence of one.

    What does rankle with me is that people from DCC have come on here and tried to build up a bit of a relationship with the cycling community. What they've gotten is accusations of brown paper envelopes and backhanders etc. Now I don't know about anyone else, but when I accuse people of criminality, I'd make damn sure to have some evidence of it.


  • #349
    unionman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,087 ✭✭✭unionman


    el tonto wrote: »
    To be honest, I've no interest in defending JC Decaux or DCC, but I do think people are seeing conspiracies here when there's precious little evidence of one.

    What does rankle with me is that people from DCC have come on here and tried to build up a bit of a relationship with the cycling community. What they've gotten is accusations of brown paper envelopes and backhanders etc. Now I don't know about anyone else, but when I accuse people of criminality, I'd make damn sure to have some evidence of it.

    I agree, and I did think you were unfairly being pushed into a defensive role. I think the conspiracy theory mindset, at least as far as this particular discussion goes is fed by two things; when the ads went up last year and the bike scheme was delayed / deferred until this year, it left a bad taste in the mouth. There was/is a sense that we were all shafted and that DCC were complicit in the shafting or so incompetent they didn't realise they had been shafted.

    The second thing is the toxic legacy of the politics of the brown envelope. It will be a long time (more than a generation I expect), before this is consigned to history. The fall-out of the banking crisis and the degree to which Anglo et al are in bed with elected representatives, the general sense that all politics is corrupt, feeds this too.

    I'm as pi55ed off about that as anybody else. I'm just trying to tease out the origins of the bad feeling toward the free bike scheme. I think it is hugely misplaced antipathy.

    When the luas was under construction it came in for a lot of criticism which was silenced once it was up and running. Much of it resembled the kind of criticism that has been levelled in this forum. I hope (and sincerely believe, despite all the cycnicism) that this scheme will work.

    Now, why can't we all just get along?


  • #350
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    el tonto wrote: »
    I know it wasn't a public tender, but I'm assuming the same principles apply here, i.e. that it was decided that revealing the value of the contract was commercially sensitive in this case. What I'm saying is that it isn't unusual and not by itself suspicious.

    To be honest, I've no interest in defending JC Decaux or DCC, but I do think people are seeing conspiracies here when there's precious little evidence of one.

    What does rankle with me is that people from DCC have come on here and tried to build up a bit of a relationship with the cycling community. What they've gotten is accusations of brown paper envelopes and backhanders etc. Now I don't know about anyone else, but when I accuse people of criminality, I'd make damn sure to have some evidence of it.

    I hope the system is a huge success and that we're posting here in a few months bitching about how it's impossible to get a bike because they're always hired out.

    I'm unclear though as to how the details of the contract could be commercially sensitive if there is no competing interest seeking to provide a similar scheme. My understanding is that JCD approached Dublin City Council with the idea, presumably DCC liked the idea and the deal was done.

    If JCD had no competition then there is no issue of commercial sensitivity.

    However, I suspect the details of the deal are politically and perhaps professionally embarassing - we probably sold our street space far too cheaply - DCC (officers and councillors) mightn't want that coming out - or they certainly wouldn't have wanted it coming out in the run-up to the local elections.

    I'd be very confident there are no issues of corruption / backhanders / brown envelopes, I'd be less confident that there are no issues of competence on the part of DCC to negotiate a good deal.


  • #351
    Esroh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,508 ✭✭✭Esroh


    Jawgap wrote: »

    I'd be less confident that there are no issues of competence on the part of DCC to negotiate a good deal.
    +1
    I remember when it was first mentioned that alot of questions were asked along these lines. At a time when most things were sold way above their value DCC probably said Agh sure its only a few bikes we cannot ask to much for that:D


  • Advertisement
  • #352
    eightyfish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,100 ✭✭✭eightyfish


    Jawgap wrote: »
    However, I suspect the details of the deal are politically and perhaps professionally embarassing - we probably sold our street space far too cheaply -

    You suspect but based on what? As previously stated, we're getting 1/2 the value of the Paris billboards in bikes with a city that has 1/4 the population and 1/10 the tourists.

    How can you still think we're getting bad value?


  • #353
    unionman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,087 ✭✭✭unionman


    eightyfish wrote: »
    You suspect but based on what? As previously stated, we're getting 1/2 the value of the Paris billboards in bikes with a city that has 1/4 the population and 1/10 the tourists.

    How can you still think we're getting bad value?

    Plus an overall reduction in the number of city centre advertising sites, as older sites are removed in favour of the new free-standing units.

    I think the default mindset of the naysayers here is that somehow if it was DCC that negotiated the deal it must be bad, given the supposed incompetence of DCC negotiators. The burden of proof is upon anyone who takes up that position, and the Freedom of Information act is there if you want to pursue it (though giving out about stuff on the internet is an awful lot easier, and has little requirement for evidence to back up generalised positions on anything).

    As default positions go, it betrays an anti-public sector mindset I am all too familiar with:rolleyes:

    Think on, if this was an entirely private enterprise, the bikes would not be free.


  • #354
    maninasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,636 ✭✭✭maninasia


    Eh, where are the bikes free? They are paid for by valuable ad space that could contribute to the City Council revenue, there is also a charge per use over a certain time AND an annual charge/deposit.

    The lack of transparency leads to suspicions of impropriety, which in the last few years in relation to government linked contracts has been proven to be correct in many cases. Whether true or not in this case how do we know what is going on? Good governance should include transparency as a key aspect of all decision making.

    All said and done however I am delighted that this scheme is going ahead.


  • #355
    markpb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭markpb


    unionman wrote: »
    The burden of proof is upon anyone who takes up that position, and the Freedom of Information act is there if you want to pursue it

    Except of course that the contract is "commercially sensitive" so FoI doesn't apply. More worryingly, the information isn't even available to our elected representatives. Whether or not this deal was a good one, I have a major problem with a long-term commercial contract being signed by a group of people who aren't elected and have made themselves un-answerable to their bosses (the councillors) by declaring it commercially sensitive. That's no way to run a city.


  • #356
    unionman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,087 ✭✭✭unionman


    maninasia wrote: »
    Eh, where are the bikes free? They are paid for by valuable ad space that could contribute to the City Council revenue, there is also a charge per use over a certain time AND an annual charge/deposit.

    To consumers (that means us), use of the bikes will be free for the first 30 minutes. Station to station few, if any, journeys will take more than that. AFAIK, this means it is the first form of public transport in the city which means that the average journey is free of charge. Not "€1 plus taxes and charges" :rolleyes:. Free, actually gratis.
    maninasia wrote: »
    The lack of transparency leads to suspicions of impropriety, which in the last few years in relation to government linked contracts has been proven to be correct in many cases. Whether true or not in this case how do we know what is going on? Good governance should include transparency as a key aspect of all decision making.

    Kinda proving my point there.


  • #357
    unionman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,087 ✭✭✭unionman


    markpb wrote: »
    Except of course that the contract is "commercially sensitive" so FoI doesn't apply.

    Please continue, this is interesting, how come it doesn't apply?
    markpb wrote: »
    More worryingly, the information isn't even available to our elected representatives.

    How come?
    markpb wrote: »
    Whether or not this deal was a good one, I have a major problem with a long-term commercial contract being signed by a group of people who aren't elected

    Are you saying that being elected to public office renders you better qualified to sign a long-term commercial contract? I'm struggling to follow your logic here.
    markpb wrote: »
    That's no way to run a city

    The generalisation merely prompts the question, What is the best way to run a city?


  • #358
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    eightyfish wrote: »
    You suspect but based on what? As previously stated, we're getting 1/2 the value of the Paris billboards in bikes with a city that has 1/4 the population and 1/10 the tourists.

    How can you still think we're getting bad value?

    One of the first duties of a citizen is to distrust their government!!!

    Do you really think we are well served by our politicians at any level in this country, especially at local level?

    Also, if it is such great value why won't they publish the terms of the agreement, if not the actual agreement?

    Why hide behind assertions of commercial confidentiality?

    Many if not most local politicians are venial and self-serving - if this was such a good deal (or even a half decent good deal), the number of dead caused by the stampede to claim credit would be numbered in the 1000s!!

    The fact they're not, leads me to conclude there must be something smelly about it. No doubt all will be revealed in due course as the scheme progresses.


  • #359
    unionman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,087 ✭✭✭unionman


    Jawgap wrote: »
    One of the first duties of a citizen is to distrust their government!!!

    Do you really think we are well served by our politicians at any level in this country, especially at local level?

    Also, if it is such great value why won't they publish the terms of the agreement, if not the actual agreement?

    Why hide behind assertions of commercial confidentiality?

    Many if not most local politicians are venial and self-serving - if this was such a good deal (or even a half decent good deal), the number of dead caused by the stampede to claim credit would be numbered in the 1000s!!

    The fact they're not, leads me to conclude there must be something smelly about it. No doubt all will be revealed in due course as the scheme progresses.

    Your logic is flawless and I must concede defeat
    facepalm.jpg


  • #360
    markpb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭markpb


    unionman wrote: »
    Please continue, this is interesting, how come it doesn't apply?

    Information of a commercially sensitive nature is one of a list of things not covered by the FoI acts. It prevents competing companies from gaining an advantage during re-negotiation times by knowing what the council/government are already paying.
    How come?

    I don't know why but I've seen webcasts of several council meetings where the councillors were asking the city manager for information about the scheme but he refused to release it because it was commercially sensitive. In particular, JCD did not want it known because they were negotiating with at least one other GDA local authority about a similar scheme and didn't want their deal with DCC to affect that.

    [quoteAre you saying that being elected to public office renders you better qualified to sign a long-term commercial contract? I'm struggling to follow your logic here.[/quote]

    What I'm saying is that we elect politicians to oversee the permanent staff and be responsible for their actions. We can't demand the resignation of the permanent staff but we can refuse to re-elect a councillor who oversees bad decisions. In this case, the permanent staff signed the contract but refused to disclose it's details to the elected officials who should be responsible for it.

    I'm not for or against this scheme by the way - I'm just against the secretive way it was conducted.


  • Advertisement
  • #361
    eightyfish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,100 ✭✭✭eightyfish


    Jawgap wrote: »
    One of the first duties of a citizen is to distrust their government!!! ... Many if not most local politicians are venial and self-serving - if this was such a good deal (or even a half decent good deal), the number of dead caused by the stampede to claim credit would be numbered in the 1000s!!

    Ah, so... you don't think the scheme is a good deal because you, by default, don't trust the politicians? Fantastic. That's a solid argument against the bike scheme if I ever heard one.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement