On Jul 19, 10:25*am, David Walters wrote:

On Jul 18, 9:19*am, wrote:

And membership?

It seems the biggest difference for now is the scheme will only be
available to members on the 30th with casual use four weeks later.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...tre/16314.aspx

"Anyone will be able to sign up for a daily, weekly or annual
membership from 23 July at tfl.gov.uk/barclayscyclehire

In order to use the scheme on 30 July, members will need to have
received and activated their Cycle Hire key, so pioneers are urged to
sign up as soon as possible."

Thanks for that nugget of info David - that's an interesting
development. I guess it's fair enough, as it's a way of kinda soft-
launching the scheme in a more controlled way with a soft-of
controlled 'usership'. Still, it'll disappoint those who were keen on
trying it out early on, but who wouldn't want to fork out for a
membership until they'd given it a test-run, or because they've
already got their own bike which they use for cycling most places, or
whatever other reason.

On Jul 17, 9:42*pm, wrote:

(Mizter T) wrote:

On Jul 17, 1:01*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
I still can't my head round the charging model although I've not
devoted a lot of brain power to understanding it. [...]

It's not really all that complicated - see the fees and charges on this
page: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/cycling/12444.aspx

First off you need to pay an "access fee" to be able to use the system
- this is £1 for 24-hours or £5 for seven days, or else £45 for a
year's membership. Then you pay for how long you use the bike - no
charge for up to half an hour, £1 for up to an hour, then it starts to
jump up somewhat at £4 for an hour and a half etc etc (see the table
for details).

The thinking that users will only borrow the bikes for a short period
of *of time (to make a journey across central London), and will return
them to a dock once they get 'there' - the charging model is thus
intended to ensure that bikes stay in circulation and remain available
for other users. All the other bike hire schemes in major cities (of
which there are now several in Europe and around the world) seem to
broadly follow this principle.

I'm confused too. Maybe Paul has the same problem. It's how the "access
fee" of up the £45 a year and membership and the "Key fee" of £3 relate.

Yes I'd seen that and pondered on it myself - perhaps the key fee is
quoted separately so that:
(a) the fee for a replacement key is clear, and users realise the key
itself is valuable;
(b) it might allow for a user's annual membership to lapse, but for
them to then pick it up again say three months later using the same
key (and underlying account information) - and perhaps in the future
there could be shorter membership periods available as well.


There appears to be nothing about becoming a member on the link given.

Patience Colin - or do you really want to be part of the 'right-now',
instant-gratification-is-demanded generation?

Anyhow see David Walter's post downthread - sign-up for membership
opens this coming Friday the 23rd July, though TfL don't specify the
exact hour when this happens.

Regardless, everyone will be able to enjoy working themselves into a
tissy when the website falls over - indeed, I suggest people start
stoking their righteous anger in readiness right now ;-)

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).

In article ,
(Clive) wrote:

In message ,
writes
Pedestrians shouldn't be on the road in the first place, just like
cyclists shouldn't be on the pavement. Cyclists should know when
they are in the blind spot of a large vehicle, if the don't then
the road is not the place to be, hence they need to be trained.
Anyway, what counts is safety and if a question exists about your
safety on a bike then your obvious place is behind where you can't
be crushed between rear wheels and a guard rail.
Tell that to the pedestrian on the pavement when a Tesco lorry turning
a corner in Cambridge killed him, then!
And the connection with cycling is?

Shared danger. Cyclists are not the only victims of the Government
allowing such dangerous vehicles on the roads. All it needs is
Constriction and Use regulations that require a driver to be able to see
everywhere that his vehicle is going.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message ,
writes
In article ,
(Clive) wrote:
In message ,
writes
Pedestrians shouldn't be on the road in the first place, just like
cyclists shouldn't be on the pavement. Cyclists should know when
they are in the blind spot of a large vehicle, if the don't then
the road is not the place to be, hence they need to be trained.
Anyway, what counts is safety and if a question exists about your
safety on a bike then your obvious place is behind where you can't
be crushed between rear wheels and a guard rail.
Tell that to the pedestrian on the pavement when a Tesco lorry turning
a corner in Cambridge killed him, then!
And the connection with cycling is?
Shared danger. Cyclists are not the only victims of the Government
allowing such dangerous vehicles on the roads. All it needs is
Constriction and Use regulations that require a driver to be able to see
everywhere that his vehicle is going.
Essentially, you've never driven a vehicle with a blind spot and are now
allowing yours to get in the way.
--
Clive

In article ,
(Clive) wrote:

In message ,
writes
In article ,
(Clive) wrote:
In message ,
writes
Pedestrians shouldn't be on the road in the first place, just like
cyclists shouldn't be on the pavement. Cyclists should know when
they are in the blind spot of a large vehicle, if the don't then
the road is not the place to be, hence they need to be trained.
Anyway, what counts is safety and if a question exists about your
safety on a bike then your obvious place is behind where you can't
be crushed between rear wheels and a guard rail.
Tell that to the pedestrian on the pavement when a Tesco lorry
turning a corner in Cambridge killed him, then!
And the connection with cycling is?
Shared danger. Cyclists are not the only victims of the Government
allowing such dangerous vehicles on the roads. All it needs is
Constriction and Use regulations that require a driver to be able to
see everywhere that his vehicle is going.
Essentially, you've never driven a vehicle with a blind spot and
are now allowing yours to get in the way.

Wrong assumption there! I'm saying that vehicles with blind spots that
large should no longer be allowed to mix with vulnerable road users.

A lot has been done to reduce road deaths in the last decade and more.
Cars are much safer than they were that recently. It's time lorries were
brought up to scratch too.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message ,
writes
In article ,
(Clive) wrote:
Essentially, you've never driven a vehicle with a blind spot and
are now allowing yours to get in the way.
Wrong assumption there! I'm saying that vehicles with blind spots that
large should no longer be allowed to mix with vulnerable road users.
A lot has been done to reduce road deaths in the last decade and more.
Cars are much safer than they were that recently. It's time lorries were
brought up to scratch too.
I know where you're coming from, I get annoyed on motorways when two
lorries are battling it out for first place for mile after mile causing
huge traffic chaos, but I'm sure that an HGV driver that puts his rear
wheels on the pavement is negligent, not incompetent, as he's most
probably putting time saved over safety.
--
Clive

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

In message
,
Mizter T writes

What's not clear is whether or not a potential user will need £300 (or
£150 or whatever) in available funds in their account (via their
credit/debit card) to be able to rent a bike

I suspect they will. According to a rather old BBC article on the scheme
....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/london/h...00/8293273.stm

.... "You'll use credit cards to place an automatic refundable deposit on
the bike".

In other words, pax won't be able to hire the bike (even for the free 30
minutes) unless they have enough credit to pay the deposit. Once the
bike is returned, the deposit is then refunded to the card by means of a
charge back.

Those with limited funds might therefore be disappointed if hiring a
bike to go on a shopping trip
--
Paul Terry