wrote:
I wonder how long before some adolescent and his mates come along and
start destroying them.

Can I put it on record now that I do not expect vandalism to be a
serious issue for the scheme - it's too well built and generally in
areas with decent CCTV coverage, plenty of passing traffic on foot and
no particular gang or vandalism problem. I can't see it being much fun
to smash up, basically.

Tom

On Jul 19, 11:12*am, Tom Barry wrote:

wrote:
I wonder how long before some adolescent and his mates come along
and start destroying them.

Can I put it on record now that I do not expect vandalism to be a
serious issue for the scheme - it's too well built and generally in
areas with decent CCTV coverage, plenty of passing traffic on foot and
no particular gang or vandalism problem. *I can't see it being much fun
to smash up, basically.

I'm sure there will be some instances of it though - mindless tyre
slashing and the like - plus other issues like stolen bikes (despite
the deposit - card fraud and the like), and perhaps some 'cycle-
jackings' (hire bikes stolen from users who are on them - i.e. mugging
of sorts). But despite all this I broadly agree with your proposition,
I think it'll basically be respected. I suppose such potential issues
might be more likely to arise if there were to be a future expansion
of the scheme further out from the centre, but I can't imagine that
happening until the existing scheme has bedded down properly. (I can
imagine expansion being something that could come up in the next
Mayoral election, should the scheme be successful which I think it
will be.)

On Jul 19, 11:51*am, Mizter T wrote:
On Jul 19, 11:12*am, Tom Barry wrote:

wrote:
I wonder how long before some adolescent and his mates come along
and start destroying them.

Can I put it on record now that I do not expect vandalism to be a
serious issue for the scheme - it's too well built and generally in
areas with decent CCTV coverage, plenty of passing traffic on foot and
no particular gang or vandalism problem. *I can't see it being much fun
to smash up, basically.

I'm sure there will be some instances of it though - mindless tyre
slashing and the like - plus other issues like stolen bikes (despite
the deposit - card fraud and the like), and perhaps some 'cycle-
jackings' (hire bikes stolen from users who are on them - i.e. mugging
of sorts). But despite all this I broadly agree with your proposition,
I think it'll basically be respected. I suppose such potential issues
might be more likely to arise if there were to be a future expansion
of the scheme further out from the centre, but I can't imagine that
happening until the existing scheme has bedded down properly. (I can
imagine expansion being something that could come up in the next
Mayoral election, should the scheme be successful which I think it
will be.)

Is there any information about how the scheme is paid for? Is there a
certain utilisation rate at which it pays for itself or will it always
be tax payer subsidised? If the later I can't see any expansion
happening for a long time, with the possible exception of Canary Wharf
around the Barclays HQ.

On Jul 19, 12:50*pm, David Walters wrote:

On Jul 19, 11:51*am, Mizter T wrote:

On Jul 19, 11:12*am, Tom Barry wrote:

wrote:
I wonder how long before some adolescent and his mates come along
and start destroying them.

Can I put it on record now that I do not expect vandalism to be a
serious issue for the scheme - it's too well built and generally in
areas with decent CCTV coverage, plenty of passing traffic on foot and
no particular gang or vandalism problem. *I can't see it being much fun
to smash up, basically.

I'm sure there will be some instances of it though - mindless tyre
slashing and the like - plus other issues like stolen bikes (despite
the deposit - card fraud and the like), and perhaps some 'cycle-
jackings' (hire bikes stolen from users who are on them - i.e. mugging
of sorts). But despite all this I broadly agree with your proposition,
I think it'll basically be respected. I suppose such potential issues
might be more likely to arise if there were to be a future expansion
of the scheme further out from the centre, but I can't imagine that
happening until the existing scheme has bedded down properly. (I can
imagine expansion being something that could come up in the next
Mayoral election, should the scheme be successful which I think it
will be.)

Is there any information about how the scheme is paid for? Is there a
certain utilisation rate at which it pays for itself or will it always
be tax payer subsidised? If the later I can't see any expansion
happening for a long time, with the possible exception of Canary Wharf
around the Barclays HQ.

There'll be various bits of info buried around the TfL site I'd think
(e.g. in the Board papers), but I haven't really delved into that side
of things much. In the grand scheme of things, I don't think it's a
very expensive project overall in terms of the total transport budget.
I doubt it'll never be self-sufficient, even taking into account the
Barclays sponsorship - but I'll stop spouting vagaries now and leave
it open to others to supply rather more concrete specifics!

One way of justifying the scheme (and potential expansion thereof) is
to look at how those using it might otherwise have travelled - e.g.
would they have gone by Tube, bus, taxi or car. If it was by Tube or
bus, then one could look at the cost of providing capacity for such a
journey (i.e. the subsidy), and ponder on whether providing the cycle
hire scheme (or extra capacity or expansion thereof) was perhaps a
cheaper way of taking pressure off the public transport network
(especially at peak times, with the extra capacity that's required to
move the masses). If they would otherwise have travelled by taxi or
car, then doing the journey by bicycle would reduce road congestion.

In other words, one could look at it holistically - indeed one can
include provision for cycling in general in that broad equation -
rather than just considering whether or not the scheme will pay for
itself from the usage fees (and sponsorship).

Mizter T wrote:


There'll be various bits of info buried around the TfL site I'd think
(e.g. in the Board papers), but I haven't really delved into that side
of things much. In the grand scheme of things, I don't think it's a
very expensive project overall in terms of the total transport budget.
I doubt it'll never be self-sufficient, even taking into account the
Barclays sponsorship - but I'll stop spouting vagaries now and leave
it open to others to supply rather more concrete specifics!


Boris originally said it was to be provided at no cost to London, but
later backtracked on this, and at about £40-45m a year for the last two
years it's not hard to see this as a pretty expensive project overall.
Barclay's £25m over five years (IIRC) is for both Cycle Hire and Cycle
Superhighways so has to be seen as about 1/10th of the total £250m odd
cost of both schemes, if the 12 CS routes are ever completed. That's
pretty hefty, about half a Victoria Station rebuilding or a quarter of
an East London Line.

Basically, whatever the running costs, TfL's put in a lot up front,
mostly IIRC nicked from existing cycle scheme budgets (e.g. LCN+).

On the holistics point, I suspect the main abstraction will be from
buses, then taxis. In that sense it possibly increases the bus subsidy
per passenger, although a lot depends on the kind of user who'll take
it. I'm still not sure who it's aimed at, given that they're
specifically avoiding trying to provide for commuter flows from terminal
stations (they'd need a hell of a lot more bikes and vans to move them
about, since catering for commuter flows is highly capital intensive in
vehicles). It's more likely they're aiming it at short trip casual
users who may have business in a couple of areas of town on the same
day, and can take a bike between them instead of a cab or working out
which bus goes there or dropping down into the Tube for a short,
expensive Zone 1 trip.

I'm still in favour of a licensed pedicab scheme, personally. Could
even combine the two, and it has the benefit of being usable by post-pub
crowds - I'm so looking forward to the first drunk freewheeling through
London on a Boris bike (yes, it's banned, no, Boris doesn't think it's a
problem, at least for himself).

Even better, how about hire-pedicabs? Two up front pedalling, two in
the back? That would be *ace*.

Tom

In message
,
David Walters writes

Is there any information about how the scheme is paid for?

Figures quoted by the BBC earlier this year showed an outlay of £140m
for the first six years (for set-up and running). Barclays have stumped
up £25m of this, so presumably TfL are having to fund the scheme at the
rate of just over £19m per annum. However, offset against this is the
income from hire charges, so it's not impossible that the scheme could
be self-financing. Certainly, and as Mizter T indicated, it is unlikely
to be a major drain on resources.

Is there a certain utilisation rate at which it pays for itself or will
it always be tax payer subsidised?

I don't know if calculations have been made - there are a lot of
imponderables, such as the rate of uptake (which has generally been
higher than expected in other cities with such schemes) and the rate of
theft (which has also been much higher than expected in the Paris Vélib
scheme).

If the later I can't see any expansion happening for a long time, with
the possible exception of Canary Wharf around the Barclays HQ.

To become as popular as the Paris scheme, I think the London scheme
would need to extend into Zone 2 at some stage, but that could indeed be
a long way off in the current financial climate.

--
Paul Terry

"Paul Terry" wrote in message
...
In message

To become as popular as the Paris scheme, I think the London scheme would
need to extend into Zone 2 at some stage, but that could indeed be a long
way off in the current financial climate.

By June next year, there'll probably be posts here asking firstly that they
can be used on the London to Brighton bike ride, and secondly that they
should be allowed on the SN trains that day...

Paul S