nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Dublin Bikes - expansion stalled?

Dick Turnip

Anyone know if the expansion of Dublin Bikes which was announced in the summer has been stalled/delayed/shelved?

Have heard no mention of it since and I haven't seen any sign of new stations being installed on my travels. It was supposed to start by the end of the year (they have a few weeks to begin I suppose!) http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0730/1224321087209.html

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

trellheim

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

Sam Russell

Wouldn't regulars just get a second ticket?

beauf

trellheim wrote: »

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

Its not as bad as it used to be. Used to be a impossible to use some stands.

That said I don't use them as much as I used to. I generally have my own bike for commuting. So its only lunchtime trips around city centre.

trellheim

Wouldn't regulars just get a second ticket?

Yes they would, hadn't thought of that, stick it up to 100€ a year fee so.

but isn't the logical 2nd step if as OP said above that you'll buy a bike anyway for the consistent trip.

ok so what IS sucking up the bikes then ?

ArmaniJeanss

trellheim wrote: »

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

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

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

LeinsterDub

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

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

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

That sort of logic would get someone a job in the NTA. Working on DB pricing

beauf

trellheim wrote: »

...ok so what IS sucking up the bikes then ?

People not walking 10mins to the next stand probably, and all doing it at the same peak time.

What stand are you talking about and at what times?

Sam Russell

Empty stands are bad, but full stands are just as bad - if not worse. Having got to your destination, you cannot park the bike.

trellheim

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

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

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

Beauf: I am not discussing any particular stand.

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

I

beauf

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

trellheim

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

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

Aard

Discourage commuter usage? No way. The whole point is that the transportation network is saturated at peak hours. That's exactly the time that you want people to be using the bikes. Not just a few times a week, but for every commuting trip if possible. It means one less car or one less bum on a bus seat that might be occupied by somebody going further than the canal ring.

The problem with redistribution of bikes after 09:00 is entirely separate and to conflate them is to miss the point.

trellheim

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

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

Aard

You seem to be hung up on who's paying for it. There's a combination of financing, the bulk of which comes from JC Decaux and Coca Cola. The fact that it costs the end user €20 doesn't mean that it doesn't pay for itself.

There really isn't a problem. I'm not sure what problem you're claiming is there.

beauf

I don't get it. Is there a load of tourists at peak commuting times or something? Who like sight seeing at 8am or in the evening gridlock?I would assume the main people the commuters effect are other commuters. I would say people living near a stand get first choice and its the commuters coming in from further out who find the stands are empty until they balance the stands out later in the morning. So when the tourist look for them the bikes are all back. I would also guess its the outer stations that have problems will commuters emptying the stands at peak. The central ones would have a more balanced usage. That would vary if a stand is located on a major commuting route.

http://dublinbikes2go.com/stats

beauf

The only time I had a problem with commuters emptying out the stands was when it interfered with my own usage. As a commuter

trellheim

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

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

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

beauf

So you want less people using the system. And people to use the system less.

trellheim

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

Good for you on the soundbite though.

Sam Russell

What difference does it make who uses the bike?

However, in Paris, Montmartre is a problem as no-one wants to cycle up the hill and everyone is quite happy to coast down. They have some scheme to encourage the user to go up the hill, and deter those coming down.

beauf

trellheim wrote: »

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

Good for you on the soundbite though.

A wider cross section but less bikes out on hire overall. If theres more bikes on stands theres less people using them.

trellheim wrote: »

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

For me trhat document has nothing about discouraging commuting. Rather the opposite. The normalisation of using bikes (and dublin bikes) for "regular" journeys. It embraces commuters and high usage.

It also ackowledges the radial nature of Dublin which means some stations have higher usage than others, (those in the hub) and some have natural bike distribution and other won't, (those on the outside). Making some stations bigger to facilitate this usage.

Carawaystick

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

Aard

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

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

ArmaniJeanss

I don't see the problem with the commuter user anyway Trellheim.
We want to encourage people to consider a train from their suburb/commuter town to Hueston/Connolly and then a Dublin bike to officeland, rather than doing the whole trip by car.

Genuinely can't see any reason to financially penalise such use, or what would be gained.

loyatemu

Carawaystick wrote: »

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

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

RichardoKhan

I know lets tax the bikes usage seems to work every time in Ireland ........I mean what could possibly go wrong.....

trellheim

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

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

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

A simple one to implement and trial.

RichardoKhan

Or alternatively have the company running it do what it should & originally did which was to move Bikes back & re distribute them effectively but hey ho why spoil some jumped up shaker & movers bottom line saving eh?

L1011

RichardoKhan wrote: »

Or alternatively have the company running it do what it should & originally did which was to move Bikes back & re distribute them effectively but hey ho why spoil some jumped up shaker & movers bottom line saving eh?

They still do this.

beauf

I've seen the DB trailers around at 9~10am moving bikes around. Its pretty unavoidable in the city centre where most transport goes through the city centre.

He not really made any case why he wants to discourages commuters and reduce the numbers of cyclists overall.

DB approach seems to be to increase capacity. As they make the point in their document, the oft quote experience that increasing numbers increases safety, and increasing number increases the numbers of cycling, and reduces car use.

Decreasing numbers has the opposite effect.