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).