Andy Burnham: don’t throw Manchester hire bikes in the canal

[mjr]

I guess its been a success in the number of users but its been hugely subsidised by the taxpayer and really it should be self-financing.

Why should it be self-financing? Getting some cars off the roads and relieving overcrowded mass transport lines is a public benefit.

Of course, costs should not run out of control, but it will probably always be cheaper than alternatives.

 

[bonzobanana]

Why should it be self-financing? Getting some cars off the roads and relieving overcrowded mass transport lines is a public benefit.

Of course, costs should not run out of control, but it will probably always be cheaper than alternatives.

It should be self-financing because otherwise it has to be subsidised by taxpayers or creates more borrowing which has to be paid by taxpayers in the future plus the interest on top. I totally accept it may be beneficial if it aids tourism but then you have to make a calculation if the subsidy is more expensive that the net tourism benefit. We should always live within our means and not expect future children, grand children and great grand children to pay for our lifestyle of today. I personally see no reason why such a scheme couldn't be self-financing, I'm not saying it has to be profitable but really it should pay its own way.

Our public sector debt is now over £2.2 trillion that is about £75k for every single working person in the UK. As you can imagine when we start paying off this debt it will be painful and could last about 50 years or more. When you add other debts in like public sector pension liabilities etc every person probably has over £100k of debt that will need to be paid. This is a ball and chain on our economy and due to economic madness and stupidity of both main parties.

 

[fossyant]

I'll be honest, I don't see the scheme lasting long. Even with all the Mo-bikes there were times when I couldn't find one near the Uni Campus. I suspect most will be damaged, have the locks cut off and sit outside some digs in Fallowfield.

 

[mjr]

It should be self-financing because otherwise it has to be subsidised by taxpayers or creates more borrowing which has to be paid by taxpayers in the future plus the interest on top. I totally accept it may be beneficial if it aids tourism but then you have to make a calculation if the subsidy is more expensive that the net tourism benefit. We should always live within our means and not expect future children, grand children and great grand children to pay for our lifestyle of today. I personally see no reason why such a scheme couldn't be self-financing, I'm not saying it has to be profitable but really it should pay its own way.

OK, so you're a hard-line anti-borrowing balanced-budgets type?

But no other UK transport infrastructure is currently self-financing, so I think it's an unreasonable penalty to make a public bike share the first. The cost should be compared to that of expanding motorways or mass transport lines to absorb the increased traffic.

 

[bonzobanana]

OK, so you're a hard-line anti-borrowing balanced-budgets type?

But no other UK transport infrastructure is currently self-financing, so I think it's an unreasonable penalty to make a public bike share the first. The cost should be compared to that of expanding motorways or mass transport lines to absorb the increased traffic.

Well yes I'm anti-borrowing because just servicing the interest is probably £4k of the average persons taxation per year its not sustainable and this isn't right or left wing politics its just reality politics. Many bike schemes haven't been subsidised and of course they are uneconomic to continue so have stopped. Is it infrastructure I thought that was more cycle lanes?

Those Boris bikes are not well costed designs, they are super expensive and why on Earth were some of them bought from Canada. Surely a facility in London that both assembles the bikes and maintains them from kits from Asia would have been the logically approach to keep costs down. A heavy duty mountain bike frame, steel with steel forks, 26" wheels, 36 spokes at the front, 48 at the rear and a basic 3 speed hub gear mechanism with fairly low gearing would have been sufficient plus the necessary electronic parts plus a front dynamo hub. This would have provided jobs and capital within the UK. This could have been done in partnership with Brompton who could have helped setup the facility and could have provided many jobs for London including those with disabilities who struggle to find work. I just don't get the approach that was taken at all. I honestly believe that could have been completely self-financing at current charge rates. I honestly can't accept this couldn't have been self-financing if approached more realistically. There may even have been the opportunity to export some of those bikes and expand the facilities to provide bikes for other similar schemes around the country and then economies of scale kick in like perhaps making the frames within the UK.

 

[mjr]

Well yes I'm anti-borrowing because just servicing the interest is probably £4k of the average persons taxation per year its not sustainable and this isn't right or left wing politics its just reality politics. Many bike schemes haven't been subsidised and of course they are uneconomic to continue so have stopped. Is it infrastructure I thought that was more cycle lanes?

The bikes, the places to ride them and leave them and the system to maintain them... seems like infrastructure to me.

Those Boris bikes are not well costed designs, they are super expensive and why on Earth were some of them bought from Canada. Surely a facility in London [...]

Manchester is not London and Burnham is not Boris, so I'll not reply in full because it'll just get removed as off-topic here, but later London bikes were not from Canada, a MTB would be so much worse than the city bikes, and Brompton seem to be maxed out so I'm not sure they would have wanted to diversify into government work which can vanish as quickly as it appears. I suspect there's already a London bike hire thread on here if you want to discuss them further: just let me know where.

 

[straas]

Well yes I'm anti-borrowing because just servicing the interest is probably £4k of the average persons taxation per year its not sustainable and this isn't right or left wing politics its just reality politics. Many bike schemes haven't been subsidised and of course they are uneconomic to continue so have stopped. Is it infrastructure I thought that was more cycle lanes?

Those Boris bikes are not well costed designs, they are super expensive and why on Earth were some of them bought from Canada. Surely a facility in London that both assembles the bikes and maintains them from kits from Asia would have been the logically approach to keep costs down. A heavy duty mountain bike frame, steel with steel forks, 26" wheels, 36 spokes at the front, 48 at the rear and a basic 3 speed hub gear mechanism with fairly low gearing would have been sufficient plus the necessary electronic parts plus a front dynamo hub. This would have provided jobs and capital within the UK. This could have been done in partnership with Brompton who could have helped setup the facility and could have provided many jobs for London including those with disabilities who struggle to find work. I just don't get the approach that was taken at all. I honestly believe that could have been completely self-financing at current charge rates. I honestly can't accept this couldn't have been self-financing if approached more realistically. There may even have been the opportunity to export some of those bikes and expand the facilities to provide bikes for other similar schemes around the country and then economies of scale kick in like perhaps making the frames within the UK.

lol, no.

 

[bonzobanana]

The bikes, the places to ride them and leave them and the system to maintain them... seems like infrastructure to me.


Manchester is not London and Burnham is not Boris, so I'll not reply in full because it'll just get removed as off-topic here, but later London bikes were not from Canada, a MTB would be so much worse than the city bikes, and Brompton seem to be maxed out so I'm not sure they would have wanted to diversify into government work which can vanish as quickly as it appears. I suspect there's already a London bike hire thread on here if you want to discuss them further: just let me know where.

I don't consider the bikes themselves infrastructure in the same way I don't think of cars as infrastructure. I already said some bikes, if I remember rightly some were from Pashley I think although not sure. Brompton would just be consulted with regarding such a facility rather than expected to run such a facility. I honestly think a mountain bike frame with a semi-step thru design i.e. lowered top tube would be fine for a heavy duty bike for use in cities with a rigid steel fork. The whole point of a mountain bike is a strong reinforced frame and would be as light if not lighter than the current model. The full step through design needs massive reinforcing and therefore ends up much heavier and costlier and is more proprietary with all the additional costs that involves. At the end of the day we have to be more self-sufficient it is criminal to keep borrowing expecting future generations to pay for our stupidity, naivety and consumer greed. Idealistic viewpoints are hugely damaging at the end of the day everything has to be paid for and we have no right to expect future generations to have a reduced quality of life because we are so incredibly selfish.

As our debts become more crippling many public services will have to be sacrificed and it makes far more sense to tackle such issues as soon as possible rather than put them on the back burner.

From what I can see googling, each Boris bike costs between £4-5,000 and is the most expensive bike hire scheme in the world regarding government subsidies.

Many schemes cost nothing to the tax payer, the sponsorship seems to cover all costs thanks to advertising on each bike, it may be other schemes have made more effort to control costs as well.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...r-pound11m-a-year-to-keep-on-road-r566v9fw2pg

 

[Rusty Nails]

Am I correct in thinking that one of the reasons for the high cost of these bikes is that they are made of mostly non standard components so that they cannot be stolen and used as donors for parts for standard commercially available bikes?

 

[DCLane]

I'm in Manchester for track racing this evening. Should my bike go into the canal later as per local custom?

 

[bonzobanana]

Am I correct in thinking that one of the reasons for the high cost of these bikes is that they are made of mostly non standard components so that they cannot be stolen and used as donors for parts for standard commercially available bikes?

I'm sure many parts are fairly standard, yes the frame and forks and a few other parts will be proprietary but its not going to help stop it sink in a river somewhere. Wheels look pretty standard and a Nexus 3 speed hub etc. It's a mixture of parts. There are parts there that are fairly low cost despite the bike costing over £4k. I think the 3 speed hub was well chosen I would definitely see that as the best option for any such bike, super low maintenance and all weather but they are super cheap and simple to manufacture.