"I think people are getting a little carried away."
I tend to think like-wise as what the Dutch rail company may do in the Netherlands is what is expected what is contracted but also what is culturally expected.
In the Netherlands the restriction on bikes because there would be too many, of course we don’t want that here, and we don’t want charges either. But that is not likely to happen. In the same way as United States can offer bike racks on buses because hardly anyone takes bikes on buses in the Netherlands or even London this could be impractical.
As much as we could not expect the Dutch company to charge for bikes as this would not be the UK approach, would we expect them to provide the same services as in the Netherlands? We of course would not assume the negatives of the Netherlands charging, why would we assume the positives?
The charging is because of the bike culture, the benefits are also because of the bike culture.
Although some minor tinkering in the right direction it would not pay ROI or may not pay political dividends to introduce more Dutch style storage or rental system.
The company spends the money in the Netherlands because its makes sense, it may make less sense here.
I am not quite sure that the typical rail commuter has 2 bikes they use to complete journey although some may think they would not be the norm not quite sure where these figures from come from.
The Uk train operators can allow bikes on trains free because there is not many it is expected. They will not charge of would be bad press outrage etc.
Their objective is to make to money, because the rail company is largely a natural monopoly they could squeeze the contract, not expecting a renewal, or they could deliver a good service to get a renewal.
The sensible option the (game theory -) may be to squeeze it for profit with providing token differentiation as no matter how good the service they deliver they could lose for political reasons nationalization etc (not likely) , corruption of process by officials (we are meant to pretend this does not happen in the uk but a business would be foolish to ignore this risk entirely) or incompetent of officials.
Although this could be a good opportunity to push for some new services unless these are in the contract, or political pressure it may be harder than getting councils etc to spend the money as the council would spend it on something else anyway with government its taking money from weaker political interests etc.
When cycling was more popular than it is today the 50s or 60s, but middle class were getting out of cycling so cycling had no political clout as more middle class cycle its moved up the agenda.
In the 1980s I was give a bike for Christmas when 7 I walk down to the park with it got "told off" by the park warden for cycling in the park, then tried to cycle on the pavement and got "told off" by adults so barely used it did not learn to cycle properly until 3 months ago. Now as an adult I never get told of by wardens etc there is cycle marking now. This is a cultural shift I would guess in part by middle class getting in to cycling in recent years.
Although this can be seen rightfully as an opportunity would imagine more likely to tinkering around the margins so I am kind of with morningsider. The rail company will follow culture and expectations so could be some improvements but would not expect all the benefits of there operations in the Netherlands any more that would expect the all the negatives (charges and restrictions).
What part of profit do the companies make from cyclists what opportunity is to increase this, is the opportunity cost more than increasing profit from other uses.
Tend to this would be cultural and politically driven change rather than profit. Is a bit chicken and egg if was lots of cyclist then services would become more profitable if there is services more will cycle.
posts
