Melbourne city bike share

open topic, for anything cycling related.

Re: Melbourne city bike share

Postby lethoso » Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:13 pm

meanwhile, in London:

London's bike hire scheme is on course to become the only Transport for London (TfL) system to make an operating profit, just 10 weeks after its launch.

Setting up the bike hire scheme is set to cost £140m over six years. TfL expect it will cover its operating costs within two to three years and will then be able to contribute to its implementation costs.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/g ... ire-profit
Image
lethoso
 
Posts: 1565
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 7:56 pm
Location: brisbane, 4101

by BNA » Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:37 pm

BNA
 

Re: Melbourne city bike share

Postby JV911 » Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:37 pm

lethoso wrote:meanwhile, in London:
Setting up the bike hire scheme is set to cost £140m over six years.



:shock:
<---LACC--->
<---BMC SLR01--->

User avatar
JV911
 
Posts: 5451
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 1:22 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Melbourne city bike share

Postby Aushiker » Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:56 pm

lethoso wrote:meanwhile, in London:

London's bike hire scheme is on course to become the only Transport for London (TfL) system to make an operating profit, just 10 weeks after its launch.

Setting up the bike hire scheme is set to cost £140m over six years. TfL expect it will cover its operating costs within two to three years and will then be able to contribute to its implementation costs.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/g ... ire-profit


Hi

Interesting that they used the term operating profit ....

Andrew
"Pedal-pounding pounce" - D. Fluellen - West Australian 13/1/14
Image
User avatar
Aushiker
 
Posts: 20049
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:55 pm
Location: Fremantle, WA

Re: Melbourne city bike share

Postby human909 » Fri Oct 15, 2010 3:22 pm

Aushiker wrote:Hi

Interesting that they used the term operating profit ....

Andrew


Yes I found that interesting too. Not as impressive as one would hope if you are in favour of a free market. Still an operating profit is better than a loss. Furthermore most transport is heavily subsidised anyway so that needs to be kept in perspective.

Furthermore most start up businesses take much longer to make an operating profit than 10 weeks. Give it a few years and there is a good chance that it will start making a financial profit.
human909
 
Posts: 4765
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Melbourne city bike share

Postby jules21 » Fri Oct 15, 2010 3:45 pm

human909 wrote:Furthermore most start up businesses take much longer to make an operating profit than 10 weeks. Give it a few years and there is a good chance that it will start making a financial profit.

what's the difference between operating and financial profit? by the latter, do you mean - operate in the black?
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8627
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

Re: Melbourne city bike share

Postby human909 » Fri Oct 15, 2010 4:42 pm

jules21 wrote:
human909 wrote:Furthermore most start up businesses take much longer to make an operating profit than 10 weeks. Give it a few years and there is a good chance that it will start making a financial profit.

what's the difference between operating and financial profit? by the latter, do you mean - operate in the black?


By financial profit I mean pay for your cost of capital as well.
human909
 
Posts: 4765
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Melbourne city bike share

Postby Westgarth » Sun Oct 17, 2010 12:16 pm

It's like a lot of major infrastructure projects, rail is a good example, they may (do) run at a small loss, or a big loss, but you have to factor in the huge investment to build them in the first place. I was discussing the merits of building a railway extension somewhere and while the fact that 'it will run at a loss' will come up, you can point out that all passenger rail services run at a loss but it is more a matter of where you choose to put the ones that you will build.
Westgarth
 
Posts: 895
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 1:07 pm

Re: Melbourne city bike share

Postby human909 » Sun Oct 17, 2010 1:02 pm

Westgarth wrote:It's like a lot of major infrastructure projects, rail is a good example, they may (do) run at a small loss, or a big loss, but you have to factor in the huge investment to build them in the first place. I was discussing the merits of building a railway extension somewhere and while the fact that 'it will run at a loss' will come up, you can point out that all passenger rail services run at a loss but it is more a matter of where you choose to put the ones that you will build.


This is a self referential argument. You can't justify running at a loss simply because other projects run at a loss!!!!! The only reason why railways can't make a profit is that they compete against road transport which is already HEAVILY subsidised! (think the cost of roads) Railroads were normally quite profitable before the advent of the motor car.

An investment should ONLY be undertake if the benefits outweigh the costs. This should be common sense. In the case of a private profit making enterprise the benefits and costs considered are normally only the direct (normally monetary) cost/benefits received by the enterprise. In the case of a Government then often the benefits can be non monetary as the government has the luxury of including social benefits in their cost-benefit calculations.

Strong arguments could be made in favour of subsidising Bikeshare to the extend that it only makes an operating profit not a financial one. However the argument becomes VERY thin when the marginal profit of a user buying a helmet and going for a ride becomes NEGATIVE! This is precisely what the helmet subsidy does! The government is essentially PAYING people to use the system!
human909
 
Posts: 4765
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Melbourne city bike share

Postby Westgarth » Sun Oct 17, 2010 3:04 pm

Yes, horse and carriage passenger services were also quite profitable before the motor car. Back in the day sedan chairs were all the rage too. But humanity has moved on.

The benefits of mass transit are fairly self-evident, like the benefit of public hospitals and schools. Yet they cannot be conjured out of thin air. The point I was making is that we need these things, and saying that a railway line (or a freeway, or a desalination plant) will run at a loss isn't a terribly strong arguement against building it. The argument should be about where and when the thing is built rather than whether it will start generating a profit.
Westgarth
 
Posts: 895
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 1:07 pm

Re: Melbourne city bike share

Postby il padrone » Sun Oct 17, 2010 3:45 pm

Westgarth wrote: The argument should be about where and when the thing is built rather than whether it will start generating a profit.

Speaking from an economic viewpoint, the argument is about the net benefits, and they are measured in dollar terms. But this is more than just operating costs, establishment costs and revenue. We need to apportion a value to the social benefits provided by such ventures, and also measure the social and environmental costs of establishing and running them. Taking account of all costs and all benefits will give us a net benefit measure.

There's little point in running a bikeshare scheme, or rail system, if there is going to be an overall negative net impact for the community. It's going to cause more harms than the benefits it brings. Dumb decision - think Melbourne Grand Prix, of dubious value.

In the case of Melbourne's Bikeshare, it will have relatively few social/environmental costs, but if successfully adopted, significant social benfits (lower congestion, health and exercise, development of a greater bicycle/pedestrian transport culture) and environmental benefits(lower vehicle emissions, lower CO2 emitted). This may well be sufficient to outweigh any financial losses, maybe even make it worthwhile to virtually "pay people to use it" through a subsidy of helmet prices.

But much better to generate even greater use of the scheme by doing away with the helmet compulsion altogether.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18256
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Melbourne city bike share

Postby human909 » Sun Oct 17, 2010 5:34 pm

As il padrone said, you still need to make sure that the BENEFITS outweigh the costs. And by far the starting point for any analysis is to work out the direct costs and benefits.

Westgarth wrote:Yes, horse and carriage passenger services were also quite profitable before the motor car. Back in the day sedan chairs were all the rage too. But humanity has moved on.

You missed the point. I wasn't suggesting trains are obsolete (like the horse and carriage). I was suggesting that trains are now competing against other heavily subsidised forms of transport.

Westgarth wrote:The point I was making is that we need these things, and saying that a railway line (or a freeway, or a desalination plant) will run at a loss isn't a terribly strong arguement against building it.

Actually it is a damn good start. You can't justify project just by saying we 'need' them The desalination plant for example is a gross waste of public money, there are FAR FAR cheaper ways to supply water to Melbourne. Victoria's desalination plant is a white elephant. And don't get me started on the NBN, there the government's failure to do a cost benefits study is abysmal.

Westgarth wrote:The argument should be about where and when the thing is built rather than whether it will start generating a profit.

You sound like a politician. Skipping the need to justify projects and just looking at the political consequences. Now don't get me wrong. I am not arguing that every government project needs to make a profit. But the social benefits need to be clear. For example in a rich country like Australia subsidising water supply only results excessive usage.
human909
 
Posts: 4765
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Melbourne city bike share

Postby martinjs » Sun Oct 17, 2010 10:40 pm

Comparing Apples with oranges again, reffering to the London Reference only:

Population
- London
- Density 12,450/sq mi (4,807/km2)
- Metro 12,300,000 to 13,945,000 Million
-Area 607 sq mi (1,572.1 km2)


Population:
- Melbourne 4.00 million (Metropolitan area)
- Density 1566/km² (4,055.9/sq mi)
- Area: 8806 km² (3,400.0 sq mi) (LGAs total)

Make of it what you want, seems London is physically smaller and has a higher population.

Martin
Image
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity!
User avatar
martinjs
 
Posts: 3387
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Fivebough, Leeton

Re: Melbourne city bike share

Postby martinjs » Sun Oct 17, 2010 10:44 pm

Population
- Dublin 1,661,185 Million
- Density 4,398/km2 (11,390.8/sq mi)
- Urban 921 km2 (355.6 sq mi)

Ok Dublin has a smaller population but by golly it's tiny and appears to have a higher density.

Martin
Image
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity!
User avatar
martinjs
 
Posts: 3387
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Fivebough, Leeton

Re: Melbourne city bike share

Postby lethoso » Sun Oct 17, 2010 10:57 pm

martinjs wrote:Population
- London
-Area 607 sq mi (1,572.1 km2)

Population:
- Melbourne
- Area: 8806 km² (3,400.0 sq mi) (LGAs total)

Make of it what you want, seems London is physically smaller and has a higher population.


That's a bit misleading though - Melbourne is ridiculously large compared to London, but that's mostly irrelevant to a scheme which only services the CBD. It'd be better to compare numbers living/working in the city centres - but finding the data for that would be harder.
Image
lethoso
 
Posts: 1565
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 7:56 pm
Location: brisbane, 4101

Re: Melbourne city bike share

Postby martinjs » Sun Oct 17, 2010 11:08 pm

I don't think it would take a mathematical genius to figure out based on those figures that London would win hands down in the figure as well.(higher numbers in people I mean)
Lets get real here, we keep comparing smaller( in size only) cities with spread out cities. The only true comparison would be same or close to same as possible.

Martin
Image
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity!
User avatar
martinjs
 
Posts: 3387
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Fivebough, Leeton

Re: Melbourne city bike share

Postby Mulger bill » Sun Oct 17, 2010 11:35 pm

martinjs wrote:Lets get real here, we keep comparing smaller( in size only) cities with spread out cities. The only true comparison would be same or close to same as possible.

Martin


Maybe, but reading Lesotho's post and checking out the map shows an effective catchment of what? a roughly three km radius from the GPO. How does that compare to overseas schemes? I'm basing my estimated catchment on a reasonable half hour travel distance.
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 25653
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: Melbourne city bike share

Postby human909 » Sun Oct 17, 2010 11:40 pm

But thats all besides the point. Melbourne could still successfully run a bike share if it was expanded and it didn't have helmet laws castrating it.

Would it make a financial profit? Probably not, but it certainly could make a sensible operating profit. At the moment it is a mere curiosity.

Mulger bill wrote:Maybe, but reading Lesotho's post and checking out the map shows an effective catchment of what? a roughly three km radius from the GPO. How does that compare to overseas schemes? I'm basing my estimated catchment on a reasonable half hour travel distance.

That map actually surprises me. They are almost sensibly spaced. Part of the problem of expanding the catchment area is that it is only a City of Melbourne thing. This thing could easily be expanded into Yarra (highest proportion of cyclist commuters in Australia).
human909
 
Posts: 4765
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Melbourne city bike share

Postby martinjs » Mon Oct 18, 2010 10:33 am

Hey I didn't start comparing Melbourne with other countries. Others did that but only included the imformation they wanted to. All I'm doing is trying to show some more information so people can make proper comparisions.

The trouble with this debate is people are speculating, pure and simple.
To compare one scheme exactly with another is not possible, but in earlier post that's exacly what they were doing.

London City only
Population (mid-2008 est)
- Total 7,900 Million
- Density 7,055.5/sq mi (2,724.1/km2)

Gee wiz fellas that's just the city of London not the Metro, take out of it what you will. :roll:
Martin
Image
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity!
User avatar
martinjs
 
Posts: 3387
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Fivebough, Leeton

Re: Melbourne city bike share

Postby human909 » Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:58 am

martinjs wrote:Hey I didn't start comparing Melbourne with other countries. Others did that but only included the imformation they wanted to. All I'm doing is trying to show some more information so people can make proper comparisions.

Um, yeah you did.

martinjs wrote:The trouble with this debate is people are speculating, pure and simple.
To compare one scheme exactly with another is not possible, but in earlier post that's exacly what they were doing.

London City only
Population (mid-2008 est)
- Total 7,900 Million
- Density 7,055.5/sq mi (2,724.1/km2)

Gee wiz fellas that's just the city of London not the Metro, take out of it what you will. :roll:
Martin

So whats your point. Nobody is doubting that Melbourne is smaller than London!? I'm all a bit lost on what your argument is?
human909
 
Posts: 4765
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Melbourne city bike share

Postby martinjs » Mon Oct 18, 2010 12:18 pm

Not trying to make a point, just showing all the facts. Earlier in this tread people were comparing London Bike schemes with Melbourne's.
I'm just presenting all the facts instead of just the one's people choose to show.

Whys it ok to present facts and figures to support a point of view even if those figures are been taken out of context?

I hope Melbourne's bike share works, but comparing apples with oranges can give people the wrong impression. I don't believe the helmet issue alone is the problem.

So to even things up I am presenting some more facts to help the undecided to decide.

Simple

Martin
Image
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity!
User avatar
martinjs
 
Posts: 3387
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Fivebough, Leeton

Re: Melbourne city bike share

Postby il padrone » Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:29 pm

Well, keep your eyes out for any info on Denver's B-cycle bikeshare scheme.

Denver Metro pop'n - ~3.9 million
Denver pop' density - ~1700 people per square km.

Pretty much like Melbourne, a dispersed suburban city. The one key difference is they don't have a helmet compulsion law. Bit of a different response, huh?

The program, which has expanded to include 43 stations and 420 bicycles, is averaging 700-1,000 rides per day.

As compared to Melbourne's 150 hires per day :|
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18256
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Melbourne city bike share

Postby human909 » Tue Oct 19, 2010 11:06 pm

il padrone wrote:Well, keep your eyes out for any info on Denver's B-cycle bikeshare scheme.

Denver Metro pop'n - ~3.9 million
Denver pop' density - ~1700 people per square km.

Pretty much like Melbourne, a dispersed suburban city. The one key difference is they don't have a helmet compulsion law. Bit of a different response, huh?

The program, which has expanded to include 43 stations and 420 bicycles, is averaging 700-1,000 rides per day.

As compared to Melbourne's 150 hires per day :|


I can scarcely believe that! Denver is a total car orientated city! Still 700 rides isn't much but it is still alot better than Melbourne! Wow! :)
human909
 
Posts: 4765
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Melbourne city bike share

Postby martinjs » Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:19 am

Not sure what Denver s public transport system's like but I do remember the tram system in Melbourne's CBD is pretty good. If you buy a all day or weekly pass it's really handy to travel around the CBD by tram or the city loop. Used to do it all the time when shopping or going to the city for work.
As for tourist doesn't Melbourne have that free city loop tram that runs all day? They'd all be competition for the Bike share program.

Martin
Image
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity!
User avatar
martinjs
 
Posts: 3387
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Fivebough, Leeton

Re: Melbourne city bike share

Postby high_tea » Wed Oct 20, 2010 10:37 am

il padrone wrote:Well, keep your eyes out for any info on Denver's B-cycle bikeshare scheme.

Denver Metro pop'n - ~3.9 million
Denver pop' density - ~1700 people per square km.

Pretty much like Melbourne, a dispersed suburban city. The one key difference is they don't have a helmet compulsion law. Bit of a different response, huh?

The program, which has expanded to include 43 stations and 420 bicycles, is averaging 700-1,000 rides per day.

As compared to Melbourne's 150 hires per day :|


Correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. Where else has bikeshare + MHLs been tried? There's Brisbane, but it only started this month...
high_tea
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

Re: Melbourne city bike share

Postby jules21 » Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:01 am

also the lack of functional public transport in the US may boost bike hire numbers. the problem with the Melbourne scheme is that it is located in the exact zone within which our PT is very convenient. what they should have done is target PT 'dead zones'.
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8627
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

PreviousNext

Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Popular Bike Shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ebay Ebay AU

“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter

> FREE BNA Stickers
> BNA Cycling Kit