Bike Scheme like Dublin, Waterford misses out.

fuzzy dunlop

Cortecs wrote: »

In fairness, to the outside world, Waterford is not really regarded as a city, neither is Kilkenny for that matter.

Nether is Cork, Limerick or Galway.

katydid

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

Nether is Cork, Limerick or Galway.

In international terms, no. But in comparison to Waterford, they are.

fuzzy dunlop

katydid wrote: »

In international terms, no. But in comparison to Waterford, they are.

No they are not. They are officially cities of the same category by Irish and International terms.

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Statistics_on_European_cities

http://static.tijd.be/upload/European_Cities_and_Regions_of_the_Future_201415_4687454-10313872.pdf

You can trust Eurostat, the OECD and the FT or some Internet warrior who decides to draw a line at 76K for no apparent reason other than it suiting them. Credibility is the name of the game and you don't have it.

katydid

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

Well you seem to think a big town of 76k is the same as a big town of 91k. For no rational reason 76k is a magic number that makes a town a city. No you haven't got a vindictive streak at all....

Oh for heaven's sake. Let's take this slowly. 50k is not the same as 70k which is not the same as 90k.

Why are you getting so upset? It's just maths.

fuzzy dunlop

katydid wrote: »

s70k which is not the same as 90k.

Why are you getting so upset? It's just maths.

Well lets take it slower again. Why do you draw the line at 70k? Why not 90k or 200k. Give me the rationale other than one being bigger than the other which makes no sense. Otherwise we just say Dublin and only Dublin is a city in Ireland. The credible institutions draw the line at 50k. Again who should we believe a an internet poster who has trouble with logic or some of the most important statistical institutes in the world?

katydid

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

Well lets take it slower again. Why do you draw the line at 70k? Why not 90k or 200k. Give me the rationale other than one being bigger than the other which makes no sense. Otherwise we just say Dublin and only Dublin is a city in Ireland. The credible institutions draw the line at 50k. Again who should we believe a an internet poster who has trouble with logic or some of the most important statistical institutes in the world?

Maybe you'll answer my question; why are you getting so upset? 90k is almost double 50k, so one place has almost double the population. Fact.

Waterford is small. Get over it.

fuzzy dunlop

katydid wrote: »

Maybe you'll answer my question; why are you getting so upset? 90k is almost double 50k, so one place has almost double the population. Fact.

Waterford is small. Get over it.

Nobody is getting upset. So quit the tactic of creating a deflection. You have a problem with facts.Specifically Galway and Limerick are also small. Oh and I see you conveniently left out Galway in the city comparison. Says it all about the solidity of your argument. Again answer the question why do you draw the line at 76k and not 90k? You make no sense! Get over that!

katydid

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

Nobody is getting upset. So quit the tactic of creating a deflection. You have a problem with facts.Specifically Galway and Limerick are also small. Oh and I see you conveniently left out Galway in the city comparison. Says it all about the solidity of your argument. Again answer the question why do you draw the line at 76k and not 90k? You make no sense! Get over that!

You are clearly someone with a big chip on your shoulder. Waterford is almost half the size of Limerick. And is a good bit smaller than Galway. And WAY smaller than Cork. Get over it. Waterford's not a bad place, just not in the same league as other places.

fuzzy dunlop

katydid wrote: »

You are clearly someone with a big chip on your shoulder. Waterford is almost half the size of Limerick. And is a good bit smaller than Galway. And WAY smaller than Cork. Get over it. Waterford's not a bad place, just not in the same league as other places.

Says the person with the obvious axe to grind.None of this has any relevance. Again why have you this compulsive insistence that Galway is the lower threshold? It is obviously nonsense. So much so that you have to try and denigrate the subject at hand.

katydid

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

Says the person with the obvious axe to grind.None of this has any relevance. Again why have you this compulsive insistence that Galway is the lower threshold? It is obviously nonsense. So much so that you have to try and denigrate the subject at hand.

Axe to grind? I live in Waterford, it's a nice place. I have no axe to grind. But I'm not from Waterford so maybe able to be more objective.

Go and take a chill pill. I'm off to bed.

fuzzy dunlop

katydid wrote: »

Axe to grind? I live in Waterford, it's a nice place. I have no axe to grind. But I'm not from Waterford so maybe able to be more objective.

Go and take a chill pill. I'm off to bed.

I doubt that when you are in total denial about completely objective sources.

cgcsb

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

Nether is Cork, Limerick or Galway.

I think you'd be wrong about Cork there. and Limerick for that matter. Both of which would have city status anywhere in Europe based on their population, except where they are suburban to mega cities.

cgcsb

There is no reason why there can't be a bike scheme in Waterford, or Swords, Tallaght, Blanchardstown, Drogheda, Dundalk, Kilkenny etc. Actually the compactness of Kilkenny should make it ideal. There isn't some mythical population barrier between 60,000 and 70,000 population where the schemes become impractical.
They just need to be better handled than the whole Galway debacle, there should be less scope for anti cycling councilors to throw their weight around, the NTA needs to be firmer.

fuzzy dunlop

cgcsb wrote: »

I think you'd be wrong about Cork there. and Limerick for that matter. Both of which would have city status anywhere in Europe based on their population, except where they are suburban to mega cities.

Not true in Limericks case. It is in the same category of city as Waterford, Galway and Derry according to the accepted standards across Europe. It is bizarre how this is so hard for some to grasp. If you look at any map going back decades at least you will see settlements categorized according to population. And Limerick, Galway and Waterford have more often than not been in the same category.

JourneyMan8

Waterford City alone has less than 50k, take account into the elderly and young children who wouldn't be able to participate and then the people who just couldn't be bothered and/or have cars, you'd be looking at a very small pool of people, like incredibly small.

its bound to be a failure when there's not alot to do in Waterford. the right thing to do is not bring it in yet, maybe in the future, but now isn't the time.

its opinions, just because someone thinks it wouldn't be suitable for Waterford doesn't mean they hate Waterford, too many people getting touchy over this.

fuzzy dunlop

JourneyMan8 wrote: »

Waterford City alone has less than 50k, take account into the elderly and young children who wouldn't be able to participate and then the people who just couldn't be bothered and/or have cars, you'd be looking at a very small pool of people, like incredibly small.

its bound to be a failure when there's not alot to do in Waterford. the right thing to do is not bring it in yet, maybe in the future, but now isn't the time.

its opinions, just because someone thinks it wouldn't be suitable for Waterford doesn't mean they hate Waterford, too many people getting touchy over this.

So again your solution to "nothing to do" is to provide "nothing to do":D The young and the elderly are a small sector of the total population when you consider that most of the young and elderly could still use it. Those aged between 10 and 70 at least. Then their are the 150000 tourists per annum who are being funneled into the Viking Triangle area. There is no reason to think it is not plausible. I wonder did the NTA investigate the "people who just couldn't be bothered" metric or did that close down with the "dept of silly walks":rolleyes:

JourneyMan8

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

So again your solution to "nothing to do" is to provide "nothing to do":D The young and the elderly are a small sector of the total population when you consider that most of the young and elderly could still use it. Those aged between 10 and 70 at least. Then their are the 150000 tourists per annum who are being funneled into the Viking Triangle area. There is no reason to think it is not plausible. I wonder did the NTA investigate the "people who just couldn't be bothered" metric or did that close down with the "dept of silly walks":rolleyes:

as I've said already, Id rather put money into other area's, create more things to do then implement something like this. you know alot of people who just couldn't be bothered with it I'm sure, but lets make a joke about it.:rolleyes:

fuzzy dunlop

JourneyMan8 wrote: »

as I've said already, Id rather put money into other area's, create more things to do then implement something like this. you know alot of people who just couldn't be bothered with it I'm sure, but lets make a joke about it.:rolleyes:

For someone who goes on a lot about "things to do" you have absolutely zero input as to what those things should be. I shouldn't be surprised really as people with this nihilistic attitude are a dime a doze anywhere. Notwithstanding your inability to see the fallacy in your argument there is no reason to think Waterford could not support such a scheme. Failures are more to do with management of the schemes that population or landscape of where the schemes are implemented

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/resources/res_pdfs/csd-19/Background-Paper8-P.Midgley-Bicycle.pdf

http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/why-do-some-bike-share-systems-succeed-and-others-fail-bike-sharing-planning-guide-explains.html

salmocab

Odd aul argument going on here, Id say people would be surprised at the level of use a bike scheme would get. When we were getting one in Dublin it was claimed by a lot of people that nobody would use it and sure the bikes would be vandalized/chucked in the liffey and as it turns out its a very successful system. I don't know Waterford well enough to be sure but when Ive worked down there the traffic has been a pain and the city whilst not huge is spread out a bit so might suit the system. Obviously it would have less bikes and racks but they just need to be placed right.

fuzzy dunlop

salmocab wrote: »

Odd aul argument going on here, Id say people would be surprised at the level of use a bike scheme would get. When we were getting one in Dublin it was claimed by a lot of people that nobody would use it and sure the bikes would be vandalized/chucked in the liffey and as it turns out its a very successful system. I don't know Waterford well enough to be sure but when Ive worked down there the traffic has been a pain and the city whilst not huge is spread out a bit so might suit the system. Obviously it would have less bikes and racks but they just need to be placed right.

I remember when the scheme was introduced in Dublin as I was working there at the time. I thought it was a good idea but it was almost impossible to say something positive about it as the amount of sneering towards it was unreal. I thought it was just where I worked as there was a lot of boy racer types or people who came from car dependent areas. But yeah the "ending up in the Liffey" comment was pretty ubiquitous.

salmocab

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

I remember when the scheme was introduced in Dublin as I was working there at the time. I thought it was a good idea but it was almost impossible to say something positive about it as the amount of sneering towards it was unreal. I thought it was just where I worked as there was a lot of boy racer types or people who came from car dependent areas. But yeah the "ending up in the Liffey" comment was pretty ubiquitous.

Ah its a fairly Irish attitude I think, sneering at new things and being sure the current rubbish way of doing things is best.

cgcsb

JourneyMan8 wrote: »

Waterford City alone has less than 50k, take account into the elderly and young children who wouldn't be able to participate and then the people who just couldn't be bothered and/or have cars, you'd be looking at a very small pool of people, like incredibly small.

its bound to be a failure when there's not alot to do in Waterford. the right thing to do is not bring it in yet, maybe in the future, but now isn't the time.

its opinions, just because someone thinks it wouldn't be suitable for Waterford doesn't mean they hate Waterford, too many people getting touchy over this.

Gawd how negative of you.

cgcsb

So much negativity about. 'There's nothing to do' lol like a moody teenage quip.
There's work isn't there? plenty of Dubliners use them to get to work, or to go around different parts of the city for a ramble on the weekend, see the shops, markets, galleries, exhibitions, cafés etc. I'm sure there's plenty of similar trip generators in Waterford.

wellboytoo

435678 ,the number of angels I can get on the point of MY needle.

robtri

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/downloads/Bike-Scheme-Technical-Report.pdf

worth a read ... these are some of the facts that the decision was based on...

Jamie2k9

I have been to Cork and coming from Dublin I really find it hard to believe the scheme has been a major success despite the claims. At peak times some of the main stations such as Patrick St/Train Station etc are more less 3/4 full where as in Dublin it's more less a race to get to a station where there is bikes.

While it would be nice here I really don't think it's needed at all, place is way to small to start with then you have viability.

JourneyMan8

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

I have been to Cork and coming from Dublin I really find it hard to believe the scheme has been a major success despite the claims. At peak times some of the main stations such as Patrick St/Train Station etc are more less 3/4 full where as in Dublin it's more less a race to get to a station where there is bikes.

While it would be nice here I really don't think it's needed at all, place is way to small to start with then you have viability.

delete this before you are called a Waterford hater lol totally agree.

CHealy

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

I have been to Cork and coming from Dublin I really find it hard to believe the scheme has been a major success despite the claims. At peak times some of the main stations such as Patrick St/Train Station etc are more less 3/4 full where as in Dublin it's more less a race to get to a station where there is bikes.

While it would be nice here I really don't think it's needed at all, place is way to small to start with then you have viability.

So you are saying the numbers are wrong? How long were you in Cork for? Similarly when I was working in Dublin I never once had a problem getting a bike at any station despite what you just said, yet I know the scheme has been a success there.

salmocab

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

While it would be nice here I really don't think it's needed at all, place is way to small to start with then you have viability.

It probably isn't needed however it could be looked at as an amenity. I think sometimes we get caught up in justifying things from a monetary point of view and don't think that maybe it might just make somewhere a better place to be.