New Advertising in Dublin

[PVC King]

Dublin bicycle scheme launched

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0913/bicycles.html
Sunday, 13 September 2009 09:16
Hundreds of bicycles will be available on the streets of Dublin from today.

The initiative has been organised by Dublin City Council in conjunction with a French advertising giant who will fund the operation in return for advertising space.

The 450 silver unisex bicycles are being made available for use by the public at 40 locations from the Mater Hospital in the north of the city to Grand Canal Street in the south.

The scheme is designed to encourage cycling and to help people move around the city streets quickly.

A short journey lasting a half an hour is free but six hours costs €4.50 and its €2 for every half an hour after that.

Would be cyclists also need to leave €150 deposit using either a credit card or a bank draft, which will be used if the bike is not returned.

The scheme is similar to the one that has been operating in Paris, Copenhagen and 16 other cities.

One must wonder if you had €150 sitting in your bank account why you just wouldn't buy a cheap bicycle; which leads me to a question does anyone want an alluminium framed 15 speed Trek racing bike with sti gear change and about 5 miles on the clock. I'll shift it for cash for €149

[dc3]

Evening Herald is reporting the first Decaux Dublin bike vandalism story - four bikes on "the Northside" have had headlamps removed.


If only the local authorities here were as speedy as the vandals.

[lostexpectation]

i think the herald put a challenge out to which 'scumbag' could wreck em first.

[alonso]

One must wonder if you had €150 sitting in your bank account why you just wouldn't buy a cheap bicycle; which leads me to a question does anyone want an alluminium framed 15 speed Trek racing bike with sti gear change and about 5 miles on the clock. I'll shift it for cash for €149

You don't need 150 in your account. You just need a credit card which can be debited by 150 if you keep the bike or lose it

[Smithfield Resi]

Spoke too soon....

Last Updated: Monday, September 14, 2009, 11:46
No damage to council bicycles
IRISH TIMES REPORTERSDublin City Council has confirmed that there were no thefts or vandalism to bicycles used in the Dublinbikes scheme, which started yesterday.

A spokeswoman for the council said 1,150 bike journeys were made on the first day of the scheme and said there were no reports of damage to the bikes.

The council has 450 bicycles available from 40 stations <snip>blah blah PR spin etc</snip>

[PVC King]

You don't need 150 in your account. You just need a credit card which can be debited by 150 if you keep the bike or lose it

I stand corrected you simply need an account but nothing comes out; so where did the €150 come from in the press release? It has been standard practice for years for mobile phone operators to debit €1 from your account to ensure the card wasn't cancelled or in breach of an overdraft limit. Is the deposit €0, €1 or €150; data protection precludes the €150 question unless you request that quantum of funds.

Also who is right on the thefts INM or IT?

[alonso]

there is no deposit, just a 10e annual charge. You just need a valid credit card that they can take E150 off if the bike goes missing

[PVC King]

But under data protection they don't know if there is €150 in there unless they debit the account for that amount!!! And you need to pay for an annual subscription for a project that was sold as free bicycles. I'm lost they have cut the number of bicycles not taken down the agreed number of billboards.... I'm not saying you are wrong on the total charge €10 and JCD not being able to pursue the other €150 but the rte article is clearly misinformed if you are right

[alonso]

I think the article is badly written. Dunno how the bank draft works but i signed up and have had the tenner taken off my CC but not the 150. I'll let you know if it does. If you don't have the 150 then I guess you're in trouble if they come calling...

by the way the bikes were not sold as "free". They were misreported as "free" as far as I know. Did DCC actually use the term "free" in any of their official press releases. I'd be more than interested if they had.

[PVC King]

I think the article is badly written. Dunno how the bank draft works but i signed up and have had the tenner taken off my CC but not the 150. I'll let you know if it does. If you don't have the 150 then I guess you're in trouble if they come calling...

by the way the bikes were not sold as "free". They were misreported as "free" as far as I know. Did DCC actually use the term "free" in any of their official press releases. I'd be more than interested if they had.

You'd want to give away 450 free bikes a day to equal the value of the advertising given away free gratis.

[Smithfield Resi]

CIE are getting in on the act now, seems they like these metropole yokes...

http://www.dublincity.ie/AnitePublicDocs/00269881.pdf
3009/09
3010/09
3011/09

[newgrange]

ABP have again done the right thing and upheld the appeals regarding the two of these montrosities JC Decaux wanted to put at Newcomen bridge.
Build away with the apartments, but no Metropoles.

'it is considered that the proposed Metropole structures would be visually obtrusive at this location and materially contravene the development objective indicated in the development plan for the area. The proposal would seriously injure the visual amentities of the area, would create an undesirable precedent for future similar development in areas so zoned (my emphasis) and would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.'

DCC take note and stop granting permission to your mates JC Decaux to spread their ugly signage around the city.

[StephenC]

In fairness its not that ugly compared to some. Its the right decision for this location though.

Still on the case newgrange...:-)

[newgrange]

Still on the case newgrange...:-)

Like a dog with a bone.
Here's hoping they won't try a third time at Newcomen Bridge.

[notjim]

I love the bikes, I use them once or twice most days to commute and it has made the city center more accessible, I can go places at lunch that would of been too far away before. it would be great to have lots more bikes and more stations, both in the center and in the villages. However, when you read the below look out for this "The council intends to exempt JC Decaux from applying for planning permission for the new advertising structures, a process which had resulted in a refusal by An Bord Pleanála of one-fifth of the company’s applications when the scheme was established." and weep.


Irish Times http://bit.ly/aY3i7v

DUBLIN CITY Council plans to increase the capacity of its dublinbikes scheme to more than 1,000 stands and 550 bicycles.

Advertising firm JC Decaux will be allowed 10 per cent more advertising space in the city to pay for the increase.

The council intends to exempt JC Decaux from applying for planning permission for the new advertising structures, a process which had resulted in a refusal by An Bord Pleanála of one-fifth of the company’s applications when the scheme was established.

Executive manager of the council’s planning department Jim Keogan said there was an “urgent need” to increase the capacity of the scheme because of the rapidly growing demand.

“This has been a huge success. Based on European experience it was anticipated that the scheme would have 1,500 members after it has been in operation for one year.

“There are already more than 30,000 subscribers.”

The council planned to increase the number of stands, where bikes can be picked up and dropped off, from 795 to 1,087, increase the number of bikes from 450 to 550, and introduce four new stations at Smithfield, Eccles Street, Harcourt Terrace and Charlemont Mall.

The expansion of the scheme would cost €6.6 million which the council said it could not fund from its own resources. “We will reinvest some of the revenue from subscriptions and income from rentals, but we need to increase capacity as soon as possible.”

The rental scheme, in place since last September, was provided, maintained and operated by JC Decaux with all revenues from subscriptions – at €10 for a year or €2 for a three-day ticket – and rental fees going to the council.

In return JC Decaux has the right to advertising space in the city for 15 years.

[publicrealm]

"The council intends to exempt JC Decaux from applying for planning permission for the new advertising structures, a process which had resulted in a refusal by An Bord Pleanála of one-fifth of the company’s applications when the scheme was established."

.

I can't see how they could get away with this - it's not within their power to 'exempt' development.

Maybe they intend to describe it as 'Local Authority Development' to avail of the exempted dev regs that apply to such - but I very much doubt that that would survive a legal challenge.

Maybe Minister Gormley will be persuaded amend the Regulations for this particular type of advertising?

Will await with interest.

[notjim]

Part VIII: http://short.ie/dublinbks

The proposed new advertising locations are subject to Part VIII planning applications. The provision of the new bike stations will be constructed by means of exempted development, similar to the scheme’s existing 40 stations.

[publicrealm]

The proposed new advertising locations are subject to Part VIII planning applications. The provision of the new bike stations will be constructed by means of exempted development, similar to the scheme’s existing 40 stations.

Using Part 8 ("Local Authority Own Development") procedures for the erection of controversial commercial advertising - in order to avoid scrutiny by ABP - is tantamount to an abuse of process in my view, and is open to legal challenge. This is really stretching the concept of Local Authority Own Development.

The Part 8 provisions are intended to facilitate public works. Although there is sufficient wiggle room to allow abuse, any project, other than the limited ones set out in the Regulations, must exceed €126,000 (2001 figure - not sure if its index linked) to qualify.

Dodgy.

[notjim]

I am sure they will claim all the advertizing is a single development in order to pass that threshold.

[hutton]

Okay a couple of quick points regarding the use or abuse or even misuse of Part 8 and this proposal:

1) Dublin City Council are attempting to let advert Co. JC Decaux use Part 8 to build private billboards on public land, with all revenue generated going directly to the private company and not to the council. As far as I understand it, Part 8 is to allow local authority developments, not developments by private companies.

2) The planning precedent is that the council previously permitted the developer to make their own separate applications, which was not handled as one scheme (and hence did not have an EIA), and as such, these developments must again be treated as separate development applications.

In my opinion the story re bikes-for-billboards so far is this:

- The bikes are the fringe benefit of a much bigger grubbier scheme, with advertising being the primary game.

- Over €350 million worth of advertising potential revenue was being foregone by DCC for 450 bikes - until a ruckus saw 1/2 the billboards scrapped. (The 20% figure of refusal below fails to mention DCC was going to give at least 150 + sites, until uproar by merchants and others led to applications being withdrawn

- It was done on by way of a secret rezoning map

- Most of the billboards were dumped on lower-income areas, while the majority of the bikes went into leafy Dublin 2

Of course when the scheme is bedeviled by under-capacity at the outset, it looks like a "victim of its own success". Paris got almost 13 bikes in exchange for each billboard - we got less than half that.


Naturally one of the most obvious questions thrown up by the new proposal is this:

The new deal would deliver 10 rental bikes for each new billboard; why then did Dublin only get half that amount with the main primary deal?

There's a question I'd be interested in hearing the answer to. *Not holding breath*

Notably an advertisement poster costs €1250 per fortnight for one of four sheets on one side of the current "metropanel" units – with the fee including the printing costs; the majority are dual-aspect – having two billboards on the one unit.

Each dual-aspect metropole may carry 4 adverts on either side, resulting in a turnover of €10,000 per fortnight – which over 15 years may generate €3.9 million per unit.

So once again, it appears Dublin City Council may be prepared to give away the revenue potential of €39 million over 15 years in exchange for 10 bicycles.

Oh well, at least Dublin is getting taken for quite the ride it was as last time

[missarchi]

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/elAiDEmbUtw&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/elAiDEmbUtw&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

[Smithfield Resi]

Dont give them ideas!!

[ctesiphon]

Using Part 8 ("Local Authority Own Development") procedures for the erection of controversial commercial advertising - in order to avoid scrutiny by ABP - is tantamount to an abuse of process in my view, and is open to legal challenge. This is really stretching the concept of Local Authority Own Development.

The Part 8 provisions are intended to facilitate public works. Although there is sufficient wiggle room to allow abuse, any project, other than the limited ones set out in the Regulations, must exceed €126,000 (2001 figure - not sure if its index linked) to qualify.

Dodgy.

Agreed.

Are we looking at multiple Part VIIIs?
If not, will EIA be required?
Will the cumulative nature of the 70something existing signs be taken into account?

This whole thing stinks, and not for the first time.

To those unfamiliar, the Part VIII process allows for involvement by the public, but there's no onus on the LA to address your comments/concerns and you have no right of appeal to ABP.

[StephenC]

thought you had left us ctesiphon

[ctesiphon]

Nope- I just had my posting threshold set to High (Bordering On Explosive) Dudgeon.

Trust DCC/JCD to tip me over the edge...



(And Hi! Nice to be missed. [I was missed, wasn't I? ] )