Bournemouth baulks at Boris bike scheme (From Bournemouth Echo)

When my daughter went to uni she was given a free bike - but she never bothered to use it much because the roads are so busy and/or hilly and because it was too dangerous when she'd had a few drinks after dark. I'm not convinced that a bike hire scheme will make an appreciable difference to student parking and travel plans. Students who use bikes will already have them.

hmmm , but they are quite happy to chuck millions at a surf-reef that is now non working !

If the university provided somewhere for the students to park at uni (and not only allowing students living +7 miles away to park in their car park) then there wouldn't be the parking problem in winton/talbot woods.

I don't think that it'll take off with the students though- and given how many asda trolleys etc get nicked and dumped around town, i expect that a similar thing would happen with the bikes!

As a university student (admittedly not at bournemouth though) i wouldnt want to pay to use a bike everyday, when i could go an buy my own for £20 from a local or ebay and use that all year when i wanted and park where i wanted!

bgf2 wrote:
When my daughter went to uni she was given a free bike - but she never bothered to use it much because the roads are so busy and/or hilly and because it was too dangerous when she'd had a few drinks after dark. I'm not convinced that a bike hire scheme will make an appreciable difference to student parking and travel plans. Students who use bikes will already have them.

Cycling home in the dark after a few drinks? Yes, very dangerous.

Keep me informed, then I can set up my 'cash for bikes' shop in Boscombe. Then sell them on by the van load in somewhere wealthy like central London.
Nice little earner.

It would be all very well letting the students hire bike but that wouldn't stop the parking problems in the area where they are staying 3 bed house 6 student perhaps 6 cars. Uni needs to ban students bring cars to the town like many other uni towns now do.

Bournemouth baulks at bikes in general!
Cycling the sea front throughout the summer is a capital crime! Likewise with the chines and over cliff.
Cycling between the piers is particularly dangerous now that the under cliff is a car park, especially the Boscombe end. Cycling should be a central feature in the town with permanent access to the full length of the prom, over cliff and chines.

"Cycling should be a central feature in the town "

yes, it's not as if Bournemouth has any hills - bar Richmond Hill, Bath Hill, Poole Hill and virtually anyway that involves moving inlnad from the coast.

An absurd idea from the start that has merely wasted more money on 'studies', consultancies etc

It has failed dramatically in London and is no more than mostly of novelty value to visitors and tourists.

rarnold you put a quid in a trolley. The bike scheme has your credit/debit card details as deposit.
.
Are you also completely missing the whole green issue? If students lived closer why would they need to drive? I'm sure most students would rather spend their money on beer than extortionate fuel prices too.
.
The pic must have been taken on the day it started. That's outside UBS on the Broadgate Circle. Never seen more than a couple on those racks.

Bob49 wrote:
"Cycling should be a central feature in the town "

yes, it's not as if Bournemouth has any hills - bar Richmond Hill, Bath Hill, Poole Hill and virtually anyway that involves moving inlnad from the coast.

An absurd idea from the start that has merely wasted more money on 'studies', consultancies etc

It has failed dramatically in London and is no more than mostly of novelty value to visitors and tourists.

It's certainly 'absurd' to have bike hire at the travel interchange or anywhere else in Bournemouth if you can't get to the beach on a bike. People cycle for pleasure and exercise and should be able to access the prom, chines and over cliff to the same extent as that enjoyed by walkers. As for the hills, do you think all the bikes parked daily in the town centre are there on a one-way trip?

bikes can go uphill as well

aerolover wrote:
It would be all very well letting the students hire bike but that wouldn't stop the parking problems in the area where they are staying 3 bed house 6 student perhaps 6 cars. Uni needs to ban students bring cars to the town like many other uni towns now do.

Yes, let's ban people from doing something totally legitimate!

ranger_bob wrote:

aerolover wrote:
It would be all very well letting the students hire bike but that wouldn't stop the parking problems in the area where they are staying 3 bed house 6 student perhaps 6 cars. Uni needs to ban students bring cars to the town like many other uni towns now do.

Yes, let's ban people from doing something totally legitimate!

Just close the University, parking, HMOs and cycling problems solved at a stroke!

Put this in perspective:

The London scheme has been the only public transport option that has been in profit since it was launched.

Within 1 month over 1 million trips had been made via the Boris Bikes. 6 million in the 12 months after the scheme has been launched.

Each bike displays a registration number, so if there are mechanical issues it can be reported. (An interesting point in note is that despite the complaints about bikes in London no one has actually reported any of these registrations to the cops)

Only 12 bikes were stolen in the first year. This is due to the way you have to tie in your credit/debit card with the transaction.

There were only 100 minor crashes involving them, none serious, in the first year. Their weight and upright position means people tend to ride cautiously and carefully.

I don't think there is anything practical in such a scheme being levied at students. Bournemouth might get away with buying a few sub £250 bikes in bulk, saving some money in the process and offering students a deal to buy over a period of time like the Cycle to Work scheme.

AUCB already encourage cycling with its students, last term more bike racks were provided as existing were getting filled up. It's also possible to buy a £50 bike at uni when the 'bike man' visits, regularly. He also carries out repairs.
Don't think Bmth council needs to put any money into something that's already working at uni.
Can't see students hiring bikes when they can buy one so cheaply.

downfader wrote:
Put this in perspective:

The London scheme has been the only public transport option that has been in profit since it was launched.

Within 1 month over 1 million trips had been made via the Boris Bikes. 6 million in the 12 months after the scheme has been launched.

Each bike displays a registration number, so if there are mechanical issues it can be reported. (An interesting point in note is that despite the complaints about bikes in London no one has actually reported any of these registrations to the cops)

Only 12 bikes were stolen in the first year. This is due to the way you have to tie in your credit/debit card with the transaction.

There were only 100 minor crashes involving them, none serious, in the first year. Their weight and upright position means people tend to ride cautiously and carefully.

I don't think there is anything practical in such a scheme being levied at students. Bournemouth might get away with buying a few sub £250 bikes in bulk, saving some money in the process and offering students a deal to buy over a period of time like the Cycle to Work scheme.

A perspective that might be helped with a bit more accuracy.

Where on earth have you got this ludicrous notion that the bike scheme in London is making a profit ?

It is currently COSTING Transport for London £8m per year, without including the £75m set up costs.

There were not 6m journeys made either. The average usage is around 20,000 weekdays/13,000 weekends - which gives around 2.2m per annun.

That should be qualified by the type of usage. More than half the use is by males aged 35-54. More than 71% usage is by non Londoners and a staggering 93% usage is for less than half an hour ie free.

The view is that an enormous amount of the usage is simply that of replacing walking from tube/train/bus drop off to ultimate destination by usage of these bikes.

A most hideous waste of money that has done really little but allow the sponsors (Barclays) to have a very high profile advertising and marketing profile at very little cost, with a huge cost to those who are having to pick up the tab for very, very little gain to them.

ps as to the point about there already being cycles parked in the town centre it merely vindicates my thoughts - that it is not due to lack of 'free bikes' that has stopped people from cycling.

No surprise that Bournemouth's councillors don't want Boris bikes, look at the state of them! Remember the fuss when they got cycle lanes removed. I think you must be confusing Bournemouth with somewhere that fit healthy green initiatives are welcomed rather than its well known nickname nationally of "God's waiting room".No hope for Bournemouth just somewhere you come to die early from heroine or a bit later from too much cake and chips.

Bob49 wrote:

downfader wrote:
Put this in perspective:

The London scheme has been the only public transport option that has been in profit since it was launched.

Within 1 month over 1 million trips had been made via the Boris Bikes. 6 million in the 12 months after the scheme has been launched.

Each bike displays a registration number, so if there are mechanical issues it can be reported. (An interesting point in note is that despite the complaints about bikes in London no one has actually reported any of these registrations to the cops)

Only 12 bikes were stolen in the first year. This is due to the way you have to tie in your credit/debit card with the transaction.

There were only 100 minor crashes involving them, none serious, in the first year. Their weight and upright position means people tend to ride cautiously and carefully.

I don't think there is anything practical in such a scheme being levied at students. Bournemouth might get away with buying a few sub £250 bikes in bulk, saving some money in the process and offering students a deal to buy over a period of time like the Cycle to Work scheme.

A perspective that might be helped with a bit more accuracy.

Where on earth have you got this ludicrous notion that the bike scheme in London is making a profit ?

It is currently COSTING Transport for London £8m per year, without including the £75m set up costs.

There were not 6m journeys made either. The average usage is around 20,000 weekdays/13,000 weekends - which gives around 2.2m per annun.

That should be qualified by the type of usage. More than half the use is by males aged 35-54. More than 71% usage is by non Londoners and a staggering 93% usage is for less than half an hour ie free.

The view is that an enormous amount of the usage is simply that of replacing walking from tube/train/bus drop off to ultimate destination by usage of these bikes.

A most hideous waste of money that has done really little but allow the sponsors (Barclays) to have a very high profile advertising and marketing profile at very little cost, with a huge cost to those who are having to pick up the tab for very, very little gain to them.

ps as to the point about there already being cycles parked in the town centre it merely vindicates my thoughts - that it is not due to lack of 'free bikes' that has stopped people from cycling.

The figures I got were from London Assembly member Ranger and were printed in national papers like The Guardian.

I agree with your last point. Free bikes wont get people riding.

(20,000 * 5 + 13,000 * 2) *52 = 6.6m

Money should be spent on better cycle infrastructure. That's the issue, not bikes.

For example: I want to go to Xchurch ski centre on my bike. How do I get there on a bike without having someone speed past me at 80 mph, whooping as they get some air off the jumps on the road?

Bob49 wrote:

downfader wrote:
Put this in perspective:

The London scheme has been the only public transport option that has been in profit since it was launched.

Within 1 month over 1 million trips had been made via the Boris Bikes. 6 million in the 12 months after the scheme has been launched.

Each bike displays a registration number, so if there are mechanical issues it can be reported. (An interesting point in note is that despite the complaints about bikes in London no one has actually reported any of these registrations to the cops)

Only 12 bikes were stolen in the first year. This is due to the way you have to tie in your credit/debit card with the transaction.

There were only 100 minor crashes involving them, none serious, in the first year. Their weight and upright position means people tend to ride cautiously and carefully.

I don't think there is anything practical in such a scheme being levied at students. Bournemouth might get away with buying a few sub £250 bikes in bulk, saving some money in the process and offering students a deal to buy over a period of time like the Cycle to Work scheme.

A perspective that might be helped with a bit more accuracy.

Where on earth have you got this ludicrous notion that the bike scheme in London is making a profit ?

It is currently COSTING Transport for London £8m per year, without including the £75m set up costs.

There were not 6m journeys made either. The average usage is around 20,000 weekdays/13,000 weekends - which gives around 2.2m per annun.

That should be qualified by the type of usage. More than half the use is by males aged 35-54. More than 71% usage is by non Londoners and a staggering 93% usage is for less than half an hour ie free.

The view is that an enormous amount of the usage is simply that of replacing walking from tube/train/bus drop off to ultimate destination by usage of these bikes.

A most hideous waste of money that has done really little but allow the sponsors (Barclays) to have a very high profile advertising and marketing profile at very little cost, with a huge cost to those who are having to pick up the tab for very, very little gain to them.

ps as to the point about there already being cycles parked in the town centre it merely vindicates my thoughts - that it is not due to lack of 'free bikes' that has stopped people from cycling.

Bob49 I work with the people you talk about. You have no idea what you're talking about on any level. Some of my colleagues cycle in from Essex, One of them 30+ miles each way. Mainline commuters use those Brompton fold up bikes.
.
Boris bikes ARE used by all sorts. Barclays initial sponsorship was a lot of the capital to start the scheme. You're right it's a lot of advert exposure but Barclays only has about 5yrs left before the sponsorship is re-marketed. There are of course the running costs but the next sponsor will make he scheme very profitable.

HRH of Boscombe wrote:

Bob49 wrote:

downfader wrote:
Put this in perspective:

The London scheme has been the only public transport option that has been in profit since it was launched.

Within 1 month over 1 million trips had been made via the Boris Bikes. 6 million in the 12 months after the scheme has been launched.

Each bike displays a registration number, so if there are mechanical issues it can be reported. (An interesting point in note is that despite the complaints about bikes in London no one has actually reported any of these registrations to the cops)

Only 12 bikes were stolen in the first year. This is due to the way you have to tie in your credit/debit card with the transaction.

There were only 100 minor crashes involving them, none serious, in the first year. Their weight and upright position means people tend to ride cautiously and carefully.

I don't think there is anything practical in such a scheme being levied at students. Bournemouth might get away with buying a few sub £250 bikes in bulk, saving some money in the process and offering students a deal to buy over a period of time like the Cycle to Work scheme.

A perspective that might be helped with a bit more accuracy.

Where on earth have you got this ludicrous notion that the bike scheme in London is making a profit ?

It is currently COSTING Transport for London £8m per year, without including the £75m set up costs.

There were not 6m journeys made either. The average usage is around 20,000 weekdays/13,000 weekends - which gives around 2.2m per annun.

That should be qualified by the type of usage. More than half the use is by males aged 35-54. More than 71% usage is by non Londoners and a staggering 93% usage is for less than half an hour ie free.

The view is that an enormous amount of the usage is simply that of replacing walking from tube/train/bus drop off to ultimate destination by usage of these bikes.

A most hideous waste of money that has done really little but allow the sponsors (Barclays) to have a very high profile advertising and marketing profile at very little cost, with a huge cost to those who are having to pick up the tab for very, very little gain to them.

ps as to the point about there already being cycles parked in the town centre it merely vindicates my thoughts - that it is not due to lack of 'free bikes' that has stopped people from cycling.

Bob49 I work with the people you talk about. You have no idea what you're talking about on any level. Some of my colleagues cycle in from Essex, One of them 30+ miles each way. Mainline commuters use those Brompton fold up bikes.
.
Boris bikes ARE used by all sorts. Barclays initial sponsorship was a lot of the capital to start the scheme. You're right it's a lot of advert exposure but Barclays only has about 5yrs left before the sponsorship is re-marketed. There are of course the running costs but the next sponsor will make he scheme very profitable.

With the London Assembly and the Olympic committee working with Lloyds banking, it makes me wonder if they will be ear-marked for the next sponsor.

One thing is for sure - I hope it isnt a fast food chain.