AMY: Shall we look at some examples now? And say what we think is good or bad about them.
JAKE: I suppose we should start with Amsterdam as this was one of the first cities to have a bike-sharing scheme.
AMY: Yes. There was already a strong culture of cycling here. In a way it’s strange that there was such a demand for bike-sharing because you’d have thought most people would have used their own bikes.
JAKE: And yet it’s one of the best-used schemes … Dublin’s an interesting example of a success story.
AMY: It must be because the public transport system’s quite limited.
JAKE: Not really – there’s no underground, but there are trams and a good bus network. I’d say price has a lot to do with it. It’s one of the cheapest schemes in Europe to join.
AMY: But the buses are really slow – anyway the weather certainly can’t be a factor!
JAKE: No – definitely not. The London scheme’s been quite successful
AMY: Yes – it’s been a really good thing for the city. The bikes are popular and the whole system is well maintained but it isn’t expanding quickly enough.
JAKE: Basically, not enough’s been spent on increasing the number of cycle lanes. Hopefully that’ll change.
AMY: Yes. Now what about outside Europe?
JAKE: Well bike-sharing schemes have taken off in places like Buenos Aires.
AMY: Mmm. They built a huge network of cycle lanes to support the introduction of the scheme there, didn’t they? It attracted huge numbers of cyclists where previously there were hardly any.
JAKE: An example of good planning.
AMY: Absolutely. New York is a good example of how not to introduce a scheme. When they launched it, it was more than ten times the price of most other schemes.
JAKE: More than it costs to take a taxi, Crazy. I think the organisers lacked vision and ambition there.
AMY: I think so too. Sydney would be a good example to use. I would have expected it to have grown pretty quickly here.
JAKE: Yes. I can’t quite work out why it hasn’t been an instant success like some of the others. It’s a shame really.
AMY: I know. OK so now we’ve thought about …
Incorrect num 3