Exactly as I predicted when it was introduced, we now know how mistaken its introduction was. Predicted by Boris Johnson to be self financing, it is in fact losing ever increasing millions year after year with the hefty bill footed by the taxpayer.
Today it was announce that the recent usage has fallen by 20%, meaning Barclay's contribution drops since it's usage related. TfL have stupidly blamed the weather, ignoring how much drier this year's weather has been than last year, but of course the real reason for the fall is the price increase introduced to try to offset the losses.
So there we have it, a self defeating scheme where attempts to make it pay result in loss of custom reducing the income. I see no reason why the taxpayer should additionally subsidise inner London cycling when there are already subsidised bus and tube services.
Brompton have introduced their own successful rental scheme, simply by providing it only where there is a genuine self financing demand which is the intelligent way to do it. Trying to force a self-financing demand for a widespread scheme like the Paris Velib bikes and the Barclays bikes is dumb. The huge losses in Paris which prompted the sponsor to refuse to continue running the scheme unless bribed with large amounts of taxpayer money to do so showed the flaw before the London scheme even started. With that knowledge the London scheme should never have been started. Sadly we're now stuck with its costs since there is no charge point which will finance it with the public continuing to use the bikes. On the other hand, the demand that does exist will make it very difficult to shut it down.
.
Today it was announce that the recent usage has fallen by 20%, meaning Barclay's contribution drops since it's usage related. TfL have stupidly blamed the weather, ignoring how much drier this year's weather has been than last year, but of course the real reason for the fall is the price increase introduced to try to offset the losses.
So there we have it, a self defeating scheme where attempts to make it pay result in loss of custom reducing the income. I see no reason why the taxpayer should additionally subsidise inner London cycling when there are already subsidised bus and tube services.
Brompton have introduced their own successful rental scheme, simply by providing it only where there is a genuine self financing demand which is the intelligent way to do it. Trying to force a self-financing demand for a widespread scheme like the Paris Velib bikes and the Barclays bikes is dumb. The huge losses in Paris which prompted the sponsor to refuse to continue running the scheme unless bribed with large amounts of taxpayer money to do so showed the flaw before the London scheme even started. With that knowledge the London scheme should never have been started. Sadly we're now stuck with its costs since there is no charge point which will finance it with the public continuing to use the bikes. On the other hand, the demand that does exist will make it very difficult to shut it down.
.
Last edited:
