Dublin is car-dependent

enas

Just to balance a bit last study showing Dublin as one of the most cycle-friendly cities in the world, here's a new one that shows Dublin to be one of the most car-dependent cities in Europe:

http://road.cc/content/news/45061-british-and-irish-cities-come-bottom-europes-car-dependency-scorecard

Hogzy

Maybe the reason Dublin, Cardiff, London and Edinburgh are the most car dependent cities is because of the amount of rain they have. Im sure if we had the same predictable weather as Italy, Spain, France or Germany then we wouldnt be so car dependent. In most of these cities (Bar London) Public transport is only useful if your going to the CBD. If your going to some industrial park out beyond the suburbs then you have to get a bus/train into town and then get a bus/train back out. It would probably take double the time as driving and end up costing the same.

So that rules out Public transport for some and Cycling for the majority. I for one dont want to turn up for work soaked, sweaty and pissed off because of having to cycle in the rain with buses splattering crap all over you.

Tenzor07

Unsurprising really, sharing the roads with fast moving/large vehicles/blinkered pedestrian's in Dublin is an exercise in focused insanity when on a bike...

Cookie_Monster

Amsterdam gets more rain than Dublin, and yet is vastly less car reliant.

(I know there's plenty of other reasons but the weather in Dublin is rarely as bad as everyone imagines it to be)

enas

Hogzy wrote: »

Im sure if we had the same predictable weather as Italy [...] then we wouldnt be so car dependent.

Such as Rome you mean then. And, also, unlike any city in the Netherlands (Amsterdam gets, believe it or not, significantly more rain than Dublin does). This excuse doesn't work (the others you give are more valid, but don't imply they are unavoidable; bad car-centered planning makes for high car-dependency).

Hogzy

enas wrote: »

Such as Rome you mean then. And, also, unlike any city in the Netherlands (Amsterdam gets, believe it or not, significantly more rain than Dublin does). This excuse doesn't work (the others you give are more valid, but don't imply they are unavoidable; bad car-centered planning makes for high car-dependency).

Im not saying the weather is the sole cause. I believe weather is the reason people justify not cycling to work. I dont think weather really has a bearing on people using public transport but traffic is ALOT worse on rainy mornings, probably because Mrs SUV doesnt wanted her little darlings getting wet, God forbid they got a cold and were actually sick.

Ok, maybe Amsterdam have their situation sorted out. That doesnt change our situation in Ireland/UK.

DePurpereWolf

Mrs SUV-mom is indeed the problem. You can have the kids bike as in the Netherlands, or have a bus pick them up as in the US.
20 years ago, almost none of the Irish kids were dropped off by car, now, it's exactly the opposite. And we're creating people who can't do without a car. Do you every see kids cycling?
But the biggest problem with Dublin and other Irish cities is bad city planning.

Amsterdam is notoriously hard on car drivers, you can't do anything with a car in the city centre, it's murder, you're forced to walk, bike, bus, tram, train or metro.

GSF

Hogzy wrote: »

Maybe the reason Dublin, Cardiff, London and Edinburgh are the most car dependent cities is because of the amount of rain they have.

99% chance of not getting drenched! Pretty good odds I'd say.

http://cyclingindublin.com/myths/

“Rainfall of 0.5mm per hour would typically be viewed as drizzle/very light rain. Using this low rainfall threshold (i.e. cumulative rainfall of 0.2mm on the 22 minute journey) the cyclist would have got wet on only 5% of trips in the morning and on 4% of trips in the evening. When higher rainfall thresholds are applied the proportion of trips where the cyclist gets wet declines very dramatically. With a threshold of 1mm over the 22 minute journey, which would be classified as moderate rainfall, the cyclist gets wet on average on only 0.6% of trips in the morning and on 0.4% in the evening”

tomasrojo

It's definitely little to do with rain, and, with the exception of when I worked in Citywest, being sprayed by passing buses has never been a problem.

You could argue it's a post-colonial fear of being perceived as poor, but then the British cities fare poorly as well.

The British made a clear decision in the fifties to accommodate the motor car at all costs, even down to running motorways through the hearts of Manchester, Birmingham and Glasgow, among others. Edinburgh resisted a similar plan. I think we largely copied the British style of planning, as we generally -- unfortunately -- look to the USA and the UK for models to copy. We even import UK signage without bothering to create our own regulations to define their meaning: viz., Shared Space pedestrians-and-bicycle signs.

Tenzor07

Dublin had a good network of trams until the 60's, now we have a light-rail system that does not join and only goes in two separate directions!

We also had a government policy to plough straight roads into the city centre to facilitate car transport, e.g. Clanbrassil st. Dorset st... Where a segregated cycle lane(s) is badly needed for safety reasons alone!

Getting around Junctions and forks in the road are an exercise in taking your life into your hands, examples: Christchurch junction with Nicholas st and high street, Front of Trinity where left takes you to Nassau st, and right to Dame st. The Quays are a nitemare, vehicles passing you with inches to spare and dozy pedestrians walking out onto the road without looking...

So I can't see Dublin becoming less car dependent in the near future...

tomasrojo

Actually, the city centre has the highest cycling rates in the country -- about 10% of trips made by bicycle. And the largest mode of transport there is walking.

It's the outskirts that are the worst, particularly anything built since early nineties. Circuitous routes to everything, with potential shortcuts for pedestrians fenced off -- and where I used to live in Lucan, the fence then painted with something like permanently wet creosote to make sure that nobody could take a shortcut on foot.

Tenzor07

tomasrojo wrote: »

Actually, the city centre has the highest cycling rates in the country -- about 10% of trips made by bicycle.

Down to the Dublin bike scheme I would say...

But yes, at least a cyclist has some hope in the city centre, but outside of that...

I work out near the airport and would have to cope with multiple junctions/motorway fly-over, fractured bike lanes covered in gravel/glass fragments, trucks/vans travelling at speed and various school routes with parents late for the school run using bus lanes as speedways...

Civilian_Target

Dublin city centre is still really poor to both cycle and walk in. Despite the huge number of pedestrians (and apparantly cyclists), all junctions are sync'ed for cars, and many of the pavements are too narrow for the number of people on them.

I've been abroad for the last 5 years, and the almost universal feedback I've had from euopeans and americans visiting Dublin, is that it's a nasty city to walk in, and more than one has given the example of the crossings at Trinity College and O'Connell Bridge as being a good reason not to come back

Cookie_Monster

maybe not entirely relevant here but I've been very impressed with the amount of young kids here (New Plymouth) cycling along the roads home from school. Plenty 5-6 yr olds even trailing their parents.

That said every road has a huge shoulder which doubles as parking spaces and a bike lane so much more safety margin from the flow of traffic

subway

I love cycling in the city since I started using dublinbikes. The only problem is they are not great to rely on. Where I want to get a bike the stands are empty and where I want to park, the stands are full.

A big, secure bike park so I could have a city bike, perhaps near busaras or connoly would be ideal

Beasty

I blame the Nazis - but for Hitler starting the 2nd World War a lot of those European Cities would never have been rebuilt with the opportunity to incorporate cycling-friendly facilities and integrated public transport systems - there would be no decent cycling cities to contrast with the likes of Dublin and the British cities mentioned...

Cookie_Monster

ah Beasty, only 16 posts in, too early.

plus the Nazis bombed a lot of England flat too and it didn't help their cycling facilities all that much

Beasty

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

ah Beasty, only 16 posts in, too early.

plus the Nazis bombed a lot of England flat too and it didn't help their cycling facilities all that much

It was only really Coventry that was so badly damaged that whole areas had to be re-built, and that returned as a bit of a concrete jungle. Most cities retained their road structure pretty intact after the war.

Interestingly, Milton Keynes, the biggest of the post-war UK "new towns" is a pretty cyclist-friendly city

GSF

GSF wrote: »

99% chance of not getting drenched! Pretty good odds I'd say.

http://cyclingindublin.com/myths/

That's pretty true, cycling to the train station 2 years now and only caught in rain once, even then it wasn't bad.

lastlaugh

I was in Amsterdam a few weeks ago and there was terrential rain.

People were cycling around with umbrellas, not a bother on them.

It is a misconception that it rains a lot here, all you need is waterproofs if it does rain though, it's not a valid reason not to cycle.

studiorat

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

ah Beasty, only 16 posts in, too early.

plus the Nazis bombed a lot of England flat too and it didn't help their cycling facilities all that much

yep, north strand's a bugger too.

tomasrojo

Beasty wrote: »

I blame the Nazis - but for Hitler starting the 2nd World War a lot of those European Cities would never have been rebuilt with the opportunity to incorporate cycling-friendly facilities and integrated public transport systems - there would be no decent cycling cities to contrast with the likes of Dublin and the British cities mentioned...

I don't think Amsterdam was bombed much at all. Certainly not at the start of the war, where their rapid capitulation ensured that they got off lightly. Unlike the Hague, where they held out until the place was practically levelled.

Or so a Dutch person told me.

tomasrojo

Beasty wrote: »

It was only really Coventry that was so badly damaged that whole areas had to be re-built, and that returned as a bit of a concrete jungle. Most cities retained their road structure pretty intact after the war.

Interestingly, Milton Keynes, the biggest of the post-war UK "new towns" is a pretty cyclist-friendly city

Cambridge and York are top cycling towns too, aren't they? Never been to Cambridge, but York doesn't look as if it was bombed at all. No military or industrial targets, I suppose.

tomasrojo

Civilian_Target wrote: »

Dublin city centre is still really poor to both cycle and walk in. Despite the huge number of pedestrians (and apparantly cyclists), all junctions are sync'ed for cars, and many of the pavements are too narrow for the number of people on them.

I've been abroad for the last 5 years, and the almost universal feedback I've had from euopeans and americans visiting Dublin, is that it's a nasty city to walk in, and more than one has given the example of the crossings at Trinity College and O'Connell Bridge as being a good reason not to come back

I enjoy cycling in Dublin a lot, but I don't enjoy walking that much. As you say, the pedestrians get no green time. On a bike, you can take advantage of the car-biased traffic lights.

John_Rambo

lastlaugh wrote: »

It is a misconception that it rains a lot here, all you need is waterproofs if it does rain though, it's not a valid reason not to cycle.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I know there's plenty of other reasons but the weather in Dublin is rarely as bad as everyone imagines it to be

Hogzy wrote: »

I believe weather is the reason people justify not cycling to work

Nail on the head. So so so so true, particularly in the mornings. I've been saying this for years. Dublin is a very dry city, and, it always looks worse viewing from a window!

Civilian_Target wrote: »

I've been abroad for the last 5 years, and the almost universal feedback I've had from euopeans and americans visiting Dublin, is that it's a nasty city to walk in, and more than one has given the example of the crossings at Trinity College and O'Connell Bridge as being a good reason not to come back

Dublin is a medieval city, narrow streets and roads are part of its charm, I wouldn't have it any other way. The removal of five axle trucks has made things much better. Personally, I like cycling and walking the city.

Part of the problem is, it's car friendly and the massive suburbs (West Dublin) and the large commutes people need to make to get from A to B. Some of us are either A - lucky enough to live near the city or where they work or B - fit and ambitious enough to handle a long commute to and from work on a bike.

I'm going to go against the grain here and say I find most drivers pretty ok when it comes to cyclists. You get the odd bit of ignorance, the odd bit of selfishness and the odd pure c0cksnot, but in the main, if you read the road, see what's happening ahead of you, things are ok. I did get rear ended (bruised kidney from my own saddle) and I cycle on the very wide footpath on that road now, nobody will tell me I can't!

RacoonQueen

Only because I cycled to work the last 4 years have I realised how little it rains here. There was one wet summer where I used my rain gear a lot, ever since, I never use it. I don't even have rain gear anymore.

Dublin being so car dependent is also largely down to how unreliable and poor our public transport is, though the efficiency of buses isn't helped by the amount of traffic on the roads which holds buses up. Poor traffic planning, poor juntions and poor lighting sequencing in some areas.

It's only when you visit other major cities that you realise how bad it is here, for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists.

Beasty

tomasrojo wrote: »

Cambridge and York are top cycling towns too, aren't they? Never been to Cambridge, but York doesn't look as if it was bombed at all. No military or industrial targets, I suppose.

Very much University cities, with relatively little "through traffic". I could show you certain parts of Manchester with poor cycling facilities but lots of (student) cyclists.

The interesting thing is Milton Keynes has very good cycling facilities, but a low commuting take-up probably because there is virtually no road congestion and plenty of parking making it very easy to drive to work

ashleey

Dublin streets are not medieval. Bruges or Prague are medieval. Dublin is like Halifax. Dublin and London were hardly planned, they just grew. The key to cycling is to eliminate hgvs. Then enforce a low street speed limit but allow a faster one on the 'escape' routes. Then cyclists will stay on the smaller winding roads and the city will improve no end. I go to London every other week and cycling is exploding. There are no hgvs in the centre and 'congestion' charging has reduced traffic so cyclists feel safer. I wouldn't cycle on roads like Euston road though where big trucks do go.

tomasrojo

Beasty wrote: »

Very much University cities, with relatively little "through traffic". I could show you certain parts of Manchester with poor cycling facilities but lots of (student) cyclists.

The interesting thing is Milton Keynes has very good cycling facilities, but a low commuting take-up probably because there is virtually no road congestion and plenty of parking making it very easy to drive to work

Ah yeah, true about York and Cambridge.

I read something about Milton Keynes, where, exactly as you say, driving to work is nice and quick, low hassle, no perceived need to cycle.

John_Rambo

ashleey wrote: »

Dublin streets are not medievaer

Dublin City is a medieval city. The centre evolved from medieval times onwards and you are dead right, ti evolved, the Georgians and Victorians didn't have cyclists in mind during planning either! That's why we have narrow streets and tiny footpaths. But, I see where you are coming from, a lot of more modern roads didn't have cyclists in mind during the design. Five axle HGV's are banned from 7 to 7 since 2007.

ashleey

That's the key. Cycling will grow. It's already nicer to walk around. London isn't perfect either but get the car speed limit down and not just through traffic jams and it will grow

lastlaugh

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Only because I cycled to work the last 4 years have I realised how little it rains here. There was one wet summer where I used my rain gear a lot, ever since, I never use it. I don't even have rain gear anymore.

Dublin being so car dependent is also largely down to how unreliable and poor our public transport is, though the efficiency of buses isn't helped by the amount of traffic on the roads which holds buses up. Poor traffic planning, poor juntions and poor lighting sequencing in some areas.

It's only when you visit other major cities that you realise how bad it is here, for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists.

This is very true. As well as being unreliable it's also quite expensive.
I commute from Finglas to Sandyford. If I was use Public transport, it would mean getting the bus to town, 3.60 return, and the the Luas, 4.50 return (I think), so the say the best part of 50 a week! And there is also the time, element, probably 1.5hrs getting there and longer getting back.
No way. If I was to drive, it would be the M50 Toll and then petrol costs.
Cycling is free and I always get there and back in around 50mins.

Bunnyhopper

A lot of the cyclists in Cambridge are students, but by no means all of them. The place has a culture of cycling so it's perfectly normal for all sorts of people to cycle. You'll see the typical student heading for lectures, but also the seventy-something grandmother popping to the shops, the young family with the kids on trailer bikes, etc. etc. The prevalence of cycling also means that the effect of safety in numbers works.

Another thing about Cambridge is that they have the infrastructure. There are lots of sensible cycle lanes, contra-flow lanes, bike-specific traffic lights, route signs for bicycles to help you get around while avoiding the busier main roads, and so on. They've also made parking your car in the city centre expensive but have some decent park and ride facilities.

It's not perfect, but you do get the sense that someone has actually thought about how you move around the place by bicycle.

ashleey

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0930/1224304998939.html

Sort of makes our point. They are going to get strict on the 30km/h speed limit and jaywalking(this bit is over the top maybe)

Hogzy

ashleey wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0930/1224304998939.html
and jaywalking(this bit is over the top maybe)

Not really. If Fu*king wrecks my head when one person crosses the road and then all 80 follow him thinking there is power in numbers (which there is). I usually the press the horn and they all scurry like cows to the other side.

ashleey

You have a horn on your bike? Only joking. I get your point but do we really need cities where walking is a controlled activity?

Hogzy

ashleey wrote: »

You have a horn on your bike? Only joking. I get your point but do we really need cities where walking is a controlled activity?

Walking is already a controlled activity. And yes it should be enforced. Bikes must obey traffic laws, Cars/trucks/buses/motorbikes must obey traffic laws. I see no reason why pedestrians should obey traffic laws.

Why should it be perfectly ok for a pedestrian to walk into moving traffic (be it cycle or vehicular traffic). Its just dangerous. The Green/Red Man is there for a reason. Not to be ignored.

John_Rambo

Hogzy wrote: »

Not really. If Fu*king wrecks my head when one person crosses the road and then all 80 follow him thinking there is power in numbers (which there is). I usually the press the horn and they all scurry like cows to the other side.

I see your type in the city sometimes, all angry and indignant! The only person you are stressing is yourself. Ease up, leave earlier, relax the cax and keep the horn for your missus. Dublin is a relaxed city, people jaywalk, it's not a big deal. Move to Tokyo if you want complete obedience. All cities are different, that's what's good about them.

studiorat

You'd want your head examined driving in Dublin everyday.

Hogzy

John_Rambo wrote: »

Ease up, leave earlier,

The same thing could be said for pedestrians. Leave earlier and dont be lazy. Wait for the man to turn green or cross at a dedicated pedestrian crossing. It might take an extra minute or two but at least your not endangering yourself by walking into moving traffic.

ashleey

It's friday, so maybe you want pedestrians to wear helmets too, then you can just mow them down in case they get in your way?
On a serious note, is there a jaywalking law here?

John_Rambo

ashleey wrote: »

On a serious note, is there a jaywalking law here?

I'm sure there is, I have only seen it enforced once, and deservedly. Cops are fairly relaxed about it unless it really warrants attention.

monument

ashleey wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0930/1224304998939.html

Sort of makes our point. They are going to get strict on the 30km/h speed limit and jaywalking(this bit is over the top maybe)

I don't think it is. Jaywalking here is only limited to at or near a ped crossing and the with these targeted campaigns the gardai usually pick the more important examples -- ie at large multi-lane roads or at junctions where people run across just as traffic is coming.

I've a small but reoccurring leg injury from a slow-speed crash when a a man walked out in front of me -- I tried my best to stop and also avoid him but he stepped out a good bit and then decided to step back when I tried to avoid him by moving behind him. Garda witnessed it -- refused to let me explain myself and promptly advised that I was in the right and the misbehaving ped was getting an asbo.

John_Rambo

There's a minority of "IKNOWMYRIGHTS" in all road users.

The cyclist that freaks when there's someone in a cycle path, even though there's loads of room. The cyclist that goes mental if a car pulls out in front of them when they can simply slow down and nod the car out in to traffic.

The car driver that goes ape when a cyclist is plodding towards him on a one way street even though there is acres of room and the bike is going at 10kph.
The driver that approaches a group of pedestrians on the road red in the face and blasting the horn. The driver that speeds up if someone overtakes him.

The pedestrian that walks in front of traffic cause the green man is green ignoring the fact that there are drunk, inexperienced, drugged, incompetent and drivers driving stolen cars.
The pedestrian that goes nuts when a cyclist uses the ample wide footpath on a dangerous road.

The bus driver that hits the roof when a car breaks down in the buslane.

They are in all walks and wheels of life, I used to think longevity on the road would calm them down, but some of them are not young!!

Thinkingaboutit

One problem this country in comparison to, say, the Netherlands is wind. Rain is easily dealt with, heavy wind, not so much.

tomasrojo

The Gardaí are mangling statistics again:

More than three-quarters of those who are killed or involved in a serious incident in Dublin are so-called “vulnerable road users” – pedestrians, pedal cyclists and motorcyclists.

Pedestrians dwarf the other two. If you took out cyclists, you'd still have about three-quarters of the total.

It's not surprising that pedestrians cross when their light is red. Walking would be completely impractical if you tried to get those volumes of pedestrians across in the scant green time the authorities have deigned to grant them.

Undercover Elephant

tomasrojo wrote: »

The Gardaí are mangling statistics again.

Indeed. It would be just as accurate to say

More than three-quarters of those who are killed or involved in a serious incident in Dublin are so-called “vulnerable road users” – pedestrians, pedal cyclists, motorcyclists, drivers of pink Volvos circa 1994 and giant pandas.

Mandatory helmets for pandas, I say.

tomasrojo

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

Indeed. It would be just as accurate to say

Mandatory helmets for pandas, I say.

That's the makings of a good letter to the editor.

Lumen

tomasrojo wrote: »

It's not surprising that pedestrians cross when their light is red. Walking would be completely impractical if you tried to get those volumes of pedestrians across in the scant green time the authorities have deigned to grant them.

Sure, that's the reason. Not because they're impatient, dozy muppets.

tomasrojo

Lumen wrote: »

Sure, that's the reason. Not because they're impatient, dozy muppets.

It's a rich tapestry.

Beasty

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

Mandatory pandas for helmets, I say.