has cork city been ruined by bike lanes?

j8wk2feszrnpao

mire wrote: »

All I am suggesting is some perspective, some calm - what is a bit disappointing is people claiming that Cork's efforts to introduce cycling have failed - before the scheme has even been completed!

Introduce cycling? Cycling has been around for along time, and will be for a long time to come.
The general theme of the thread isn't against cycle lanes. What contributors have an issue with is the currently implementation of the cycling lanes, and that includes the cyclists using them.

mire wrote: »

This debate - for me- suggests that Cork has some growing up to do - because the level and tone of debate on this issue is a bit emarrassing to say the least. This is not me being condescending, it's my closely-held view on this.

Suggesting that people have growing up to do before they agree with your closely held view, is very condescending.

Stepping Stone

evilivor wrote: »

"the cyclists were cycling and chatting to each other two abreast, and that he drove behind them for a while, then beeped to let them know he was behind them"

What a moron.

What a good, publically minded citizen to let them know that he was behind them. Must remember to beep at all cyclists from now on, just in case the large vehicle with the engine noise behind them isn't obvious.

Personally, I wouldn't overtake one cyclist on that hill, so I think that warrants a dangerous driving charge in itself. :mad:

TINA1984

munstermagic11 wrote: »

I'd imagine that those who have to pay for; a car, car tax, car insurance, servicing, NCT, parking discs, petrol/diesel, tolls; would expect some investment on the taxes/vat they have to pay.

It's too early to write it off or champion it. I hope my doubts are wrong and that it works very well.

Your contention appears to be that cycling infrastructure is expendable but roads should always have money spent on them, this I would suggest is a viewpoint from another era.

From a public policy perspective, most modern countries have realised that neverending roads spending to facilitate the motor vehicle, particularly in urban areas, just leads to more congestion. There's not much more can be done for Ireland's urban areas in terms of roads, its public transport and cycling infrastructure which should be taking priority from here on in.

j8wk2feszrnpao

TINA1984 wrote: »

Your contention appears to be that cycling infrastructure is expendable but roads should always have money spent on them, this I would suggest is a viewpoint from another era.

No, that's not my viewpoint, which is why I didn't say that.

TINA1984

munstermagic11 wrote: »

No, that's not my viewpoint, which is why I didn't say that.

You said on the previous page that you didn't want to see spending on cycling infrastructure?

j8wk2feszrnpao

TINA1984 wrote: »

You said on the previous page that you didn't want to see spending on cycling infrastructure?

How can you not pickup that I've said I'm pro cycle lanes, but the against the wasting of money on sub-par lanes that even cyclists don't use.

munstermagic11 wrote: »

I'm for good cycling lanes as it'll benefit me.

munstermagic11 wrote: »

I think these are the areas that they should have targeted with really good cycle lanes

munstermagic11 wrote: »

And who has been saying that Cork should abandon cycling infrastructure? People just want it done correctly.

munstermagic11 wrote: »

The only issue I have is that the road infrastructure isn't there, and the costs may be beyond the slim finances that are there

munstermagic11 wrote: »

I think it could be done over time, and with a good planned process, but that doesn't appear to be happening unfortunately.

I just don't believe that we have the funds (which we don't as we're borrowing) to prioritize huge/large spending on a cycling infrastructure (when there's a €2B budget adjustment coming).

Bacchus

munstermagic, I agree with you in general but it was my understanding that the money for this was from Europe, specifically for the implementation of cycle lanes, and therefore not available for any other projects. It was a spend it or loose it deal.... so I believe... can't remember how I came to this info but it's sticking in my mind. Can anyone confirm?

j8wk2feszrnpao

Bacchus wrote: »

munstermagic, I agree with you in general but it was my understanding that the money for this was from Europe, specifically for the implementation of cycle lanes, and therefore not available for any other projects. It was a spend it or loose it deal.... so I believe... can't remember how I came to this info but it's sticking in my mind. Can anyone confirm?

Yeah, I think I saw that somewhere as well, but can't confirm.
I'd just like to see us use it as beneficial as possible when building the lanes (i.e. not having the lanes surface rip apart as we've seen occur). Lets do it right.

mire

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Introduce cycling? Cycling has been around for along time, and will be for a long time to come.
The general theme of the thread isn't against cycle lanes. What contributors have an issue with is the currently implementation of the cycling lanes, and that includes the cyclists using them.

Suggesting that people have growing up to do before they agree with your closely held view, is very condescending.

Yes, introduce cycling. In traffic management and mobility terms, cycling is effectively being introduced [or more accurately re-introduced] as a mode of effective transport. The city's streets and roads are effectively being re-designed to reflect this. Many contributors here display a general ambivalence and suspicion of cycling as if it was invented by Cork City Council. In addition, many of the design comments are premature - let;'s wait5/10 years before a forensic analysis.

Cork has a lot of growing up to do.

Bacchus

mire wrote: »

Yes, introduce cycling. In traffic management and mobility terms, cycling is effectively being introduced [or more accurately re-introduced] as a mode of effective transport. The city's streets and roads are effectively being re-designed to reflect this. Many contributors here display a general ambivalence and suspicion of cycling as if it was invented by Cork City Council. In addition, many of the design comments are premature - let;'s wait5/10 years before a forensic analysis.

Cork has a lot of growing up to do.

I think you're missing a key point here. There is no "ambivalence and suspicion of cycling". Posters have reiterated that is the planning and design that they have the problem with. You seem to think the changes, as they are being done, have some sort of design to them. I can't, nor can others, see that design. I'd rather not have to wait 10 years to see "ooooooh, that's what they were going for". If this was done right, we should be seeing some sort of pattern or proper re-design of Corks roads already. Instead, we've 1 lane here, 2 lanes there, just shoved on to the existing road. Proper design would look at the roads, pedestrian footpaths, parking and cycle lanes together. This is not the case and I suspect the reason is because there is an expiration date on this money (again, would love if someone could confirm it's Europe money) and they are trying to spend it quickly at the expense of proper planning.

Red Nissan

mire wrote: »

Cork has a lot of growing up to do.

What Cork has is a series of forced changes over the years that may or may not be for its own embetterment.

There have been many, the City Centre was denuded of people as the City Council did not want to see nappies drying in clothes lines across streets.

So they made, Knocknaheeny, Togher and Mayfield and later to try and address the issues caused by that they made Lota, the Glen, Mahon and Grange.

The denuded City Centre has become economically untenable for merchants, many of whom now reside in the major shopping centres around the city with as many as five more planned.

We are not far off the mark already were tourists and cyclist are the only living things passing through an otherwise ghost town and all these changes have all been heralded by bringing us into the next century and growing up.

j8wk2feszrnpao

mire wrote: »

Cork has a lot of growing up to do.

Maybe you need to check the mirror.

Contributors here have repeatedly stated that they are for cycle lanes that are well designed and effective, and that work as part of a plan that encourages people to use a bicycle instead of their car.
Cyclists themselves (and I've one of them), some of which have experience of cycling in cities that have got it right, are giving their opinion that the changes are not being implemented correctly and deter current cyclists from using them; leading to the conclusion that future/new cyclists may not be encouraged to use them either.

In 5/10yrs they may very well get it right; I would hope that a decade later they would.

AugustusMinimus

mire wrote: »

Cork has a lot of growing up to do.

You are completely ignoring the argument from a lot of people in here that the cycle lanes have been ill designed, sometimes dangerously and have caused traffic chaos for motorists at a lot of very important junctions throughout the city centre.

You clearly are interpreting what you want from what people have been typing. Something very different to what they are actually trying to say.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that the cycle lanes installed on Washington Street are safe and a good idea ?

mire

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

You are completely ignoring the argument from a lot of people in here that the cycle lanes have been ill designed, sometimes dangerously and have caused traffic chaos for motorists at a lot of very important junctions throughout the city centre.

You clearly are interpreting what you want from what people have been typing. Something very different to what they are actually trying to say.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that the cycle lanes installed on Washington Street are safe and a good idea ?

I am simply suggesting some perspective, and balance. I think it is ridiculous to suggest that just because you are a cyclist, you know better than a designer how to design and build cycling infrastructure. In the same way that motorists aren't automatically qualified as road engineers just because they use roads. I don't agree that the as yet unfinished works are dangerous, and I think this is a bit of an overreaction. An I am suggesting that people wait a while before judging.

I don't see an issue with Washington Street; I've heard a lot of ill-informed and reactionary commentary. Cycle lanes installed, car lanes reduced, disruption, congestion - part and parcel of retrofitting a city. A contra-flow cycle lane from UCC to Courthouse; nothing unusual or dangerous here. Materials used are not very aesthetically pleasing but that can be enhanced when more funding becomes available. A job was done, some people less than happy - this is entirely predictable. This will all calm down and people will get used to the changes.

TINA1984

mire wrote: »

I am simply suggesting some perspective, and balance. I think it is ridiculous to suggest that just because you are a cyclist, you know better than a designer how to design and build cycling infrastructure. In the same way that motorists aren't automatically qualified as road engineers just because they use roads. I don't agree that the as yet unfinished works are dangerous, and I think this is a bit of an overreaction. An I am suggesting that people wait a while before judging.

I don't see an issue with Washington Street; I've heard a lot of ill-informed and reactionary commentary. Cycle lanes installed, car lanes reduced, disruption, congestion - part and parcel of retrofitting a city. A contra-flow cycle lane from UCC to Courthouse; nothing unusual or dangerous here. Materials used are not very aesthetically pleasing but that can be enhanced when more funding becomes available. A job was done, some people less than happy - this is entirely predictable. This will all calm down and people will get used to the changes.

It's most amusing to see such great concern for the quality of cycling infrastructure and the welfare of cyclists coming from our friends who just so happen to be car commuters inconvenienced by it all.

TINA1984

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Maybe you need to check the mirror.

Contributors here have repeatedly stated that they are for cycle lanes that are well designed and effective, and that work as part of a plan that encourages people to use a bicycle instead of their car.
Cyclists themselves (and I've one of them), some of which have experience of cycling in cities that have got it right, are giving their opinion that the changes are not being implemented correctly and deter current cyclists from using them; leading to the conclusion that future/new cyclists may not be encouraged to use them either.

In 5/10yrs they may very well get it right; I would hope that a decade later they would.

So we need high quality cycling infrastructure, but we don't have the money for it? this is the nexus of your argument?

Days 298

TINA1984 wrote: »

Your contention appears to be that cycling infrastructure is expendable but roads should always have money spent on them, this I would suggest is a viewpoint from another era.

From a public policy perspective, most modern countries have realised that neverending roads spending to facilitate the motor vehicle, particularly in urban areas, just leads to more congestion. There's not much more can be done for Ireland's urban areas in terms of roads, its public transport and cycling infrastructure which should be taking priority from here on in.

To be fair we are decades behind our European counterparts on all road infrastructure. In the States they have massive highways and wider roads making further spending on roads daft.

We have crap roads for cyclists and motorists. Its not like motorists currently are driving on brilliant infrastructure here.

If it wasnt for european help I would wonder how much money would have been spent on either

TINA1984

Days 298 wrote: »

To be fair we are decades behind our European counterparts on all road infrastructure. In the States they have massive highways and wider roads making further spending on roads daft.

We have crap roads for cyclists and motorists. Its not like motorists currently are driving on brilliant infrastructure here.

If it wasnt for european help I would wonder how much money would have been spent on either

On the contrary, we have arguably the most comprehensive Motorway Network in Europe. Yes there are still big gaps, but I don't think any country can match us when it comes to brand new shiny, yet very empty, motorways.

This is especially true when one considers the respective populations of our urban area's connected by motorways. Would the M20/17/18 be built to connect 3 relatively small urban area's in Europe? probably not.

Our national and secondary routes ain't as good, but when you consider the massive amounts of N, R & L routes polluted with one-off housing, its cost prohibitive to the Irish state to bring all these roads up to standard.

Bacchus

mire wrote: »

I am simply suggesting some perspective, and balance. I think it is ridiculous to suggest that just because you are a cyclist, you know better than a designer how to design and build cycling infrastructure. In the same way that motorists aren't automatically qualified as road engineers just because they use roads. I don't agree that the as yet unfinished works are dangerous, and I think this is a bit of an overreaction. An I am suggesting that people wait a while before judging.

I don't see an issue with Washington Street; I've heard a lot of ill-informed and reactionary commentary. Cycle lanes installed, car lanes reduced, disruption, congestion - part and parcel of retrofitting a city. A contra-flow cycle lane from UCC to Courthouse; nothing unusual or dangerous here. Materials used are not very aesthetically pleasing but that can be enhanced when more funding becomes available. A job was done, some people less than happy - this is entirely predictable. This will all calm down and people will get used to the changes.

Perspective and balance? You're the one coming across as needing perspective and balance, telling us from your high horse that Cork needs to "grow up". There is plenty of reasoned arguments in this thread and it's been said time and time again that people are open to cycle lanes, but just not how they are being done.

If you don't see what is wrong with Washington Street...

It starts off grand but then as you come up to the little bridge for the River Lee hotel the curb separating the cycle lane from the parking spaces breaks for about the length a car. It then reappears about 3 foot further out into the road. The cycle lane (on the inside of the curb) opens up very wide and then there is more parking spaces (I can't recall does the curb disappear again or move back in the 3 foot to accommodate the parking spaces). The cycle lane narrows again coming up to the traffic lights and inexplicitly joins the pedestrian footpath forcing cyclists to cycle through the area where pedestrians, waiting for the lights to change, stand. After which it moves back on to the road.

BTW, noone has complained about the aesthetics of the lanes. I quite like it actually. It's nice see to designated cycle lanes appearing around the place even if it is a bit of a disorganised mess.

Bacchus

TINA1984 wrote: »

So we need high quality cycling infrastructure, but we don't have the money for it? this is the nexus of your argument?

Where did you get that from what you quoted?

There clearly is funding. The problem is it doesn't seem to be spent very well due to an apparent lack of planning.

TINA1984

Bacchus wrote: »

Where did you get that from what you quoted?

There clearly is funding. The problem is it doesn't seem to be spent very well due to an apparent lack of planning.

MunsterMagic has repeatedly stated this point in several ways

I just don't believe that we have the funds (which we don't as we're borrowing) to prioritize huge/large spending on a cycling infrastructure (when there's a €2B budget adjustment coming).

I can't speak for him, but I presume he's suggesting the kind of high-quality cycling infrastructure; streets closed to cars etc. should be built, but we can't afford it right now.

i'm nor sure if he's aware that, in addition to urban initiatives, the state has begun funding the start of a national Greenway network.

j8wk2feszrnpao

mire wrote: »

I am simply suggesting some perspective, and balance.

You've attempted to slam anyone that doesn't conform to your view, coming across as preachy and arrogant. Perspective and balance are absent in your statements.
I never said that I'm more qualified than a designer who has done cycle lane designs as part of their job. But as I don't know, and you don't know, who is doing the designing and their qualifications, perhaps you should prejudge either.

Bacchus

TINA1984 wrote: »

MunsterMagic has repeatedly stated this point in several ways

Ah I see, the bit you quoted didn't match up with what you were saying but I see what you mean now. Yeah, that spending/budget stuff went off on a tangent for a while there

j8wk2feszrnpao

TINA1984 wrote: »

It's most amusing to see such great concern for the quality of cycling infrastructure and the welfare of cyclists coming from our friends who just so happen to be car commuters inconvenienced by it all.

You must be easily amused, as it's both motorists and cyclists that have complained about some of the cycle lanes.

TINA1984 wrote: »

So we need high quality cycling infrastructure, but we don't have the money for it? this is the nexus of your argument?

If we don't have money for patients on trolleys and special needs care, then clearly we don't have the money for large/huge spending on cycling infrastructure. There's a €2B budget with taxes/cuts coming this year, and another adjustment the following year.
That doesn't mean no spending, or using assigned funding, for cycling infrastructure. How many times do I need to write this.

TINA1984 wrote: »

On the contrary, we have arguably the most comprehensive Motorway Network in Europe. Yes there are still big gaps, but I don't think any country can match us when it comes to brand new shiny, yet very empty, motorways.

Have you been outside this country? We do not have the most comprehensive motorway network in Europe. The M20 isn't even completed.
And what exactly are you basing your argument that we have empty motorways? Where's your data for this statement?

TINA1984 wrote: »

I can't speak for him, but I presume he's suggesting the kind of high-quality cycling infrastructure; streets closed to cars etc. should be built, but we can't afford it right now.

Closing a street to cars costs relatively nothing, so no I don't mean that.
Have you visited London/Paris/Amsterdam and seen the outlay of their cycling infrastructure?

TINA1984 wrote: »

i'm nor sure if he's aware that, in addition to urban initiatives, the state has begun funding the start of a national Greenway network.

I'm well aware of it and looking forward to it's implementation.


To clarify (so I don't have to repeat it again), I'd love to see a top class cycling infrastructure in the city, it's be great as I enjoy cycling and would love to see it prosper. This is my own desire.
But I have my doubts that it's currently something that we can afford to match what's been done in cycling cities where's it's been done well. Again, that doesn't mean no spending, or using assigned funding, for cycling infrastructure.
The currently scheme/plan seems to be badly implemented, with some poor lanes and a lack of joining up of lanes that will encourage new cyclists to jump onto their bike.
I have my doubts that the Cork (with narrow one way streets, wet climate, hilly region) will have the uptake in cyclists that is desired; but I think the investment is worth it to try alleviate the current situation and change peoples habits for a better city/country.

I may be wrong about my doubts (that's why I've said doubts and not facts) and I hope that my doubts will be proven to be incorrect and that it will all fall into place with desirable results.
However, "grow up", "get over the inconvenience", "wait 5/10yrs" are not compelling or factual arguments to negate any of the doubts I've raised.

TINA1984

munstermagic11 wrote: »

You must be easily amused, as it's both motorists and cyclists that have complained about some of the cycle lanes.

From what I can see the cyclists unhappy with the layout are unhappy for the same reasons they are unhappy with most other pieces of cycling infrastruture, namely breaks in the lane and continued sharing of road space with other road users.

Motorists are unhappy because their precious commute times have been increased.

In otherwords people are unhappy for wildly differing reasons.

munstermagic11 wrote: »

If we don't have money for patients on trolleys and special needs care, then clearly we don't have the money for large/huge spending on cycling infrastructure. There's a €2B budget with taxes/cuts coming this year, and another adjustment the following year.
That doesn't mean no spending, or using assigned funding, for cycling infrastructure. How many times do I need to write this.

You can repeat it all you like, it doesn't tally with the facts on the ground. The government are and will continue to fund modestly priced cycling infrastructure, despite the misery of it all.

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Have you been outside this country? We do not have the most comprehensive motorway network in Europe. The M20 isn't even completed.

Most countries don't build Motorways betweeen comparatively sparsely populated settlements like we do. If we followed the Euro model we'd only have Motorway between Dublin-Belfast and a single motorway to Munster. The M20/17/18 would not be built in Europe.

munstermagic11 wrote: »

And what exactly are you basing your argument that we have empty motorways? Where's your data for this statement?

Check the NRA AADTs for our motorways, large sections of the Interurbans have tiny amounts of traffic relative to the design capacity of the Motorway. Now compare those numbers to AADTs for British & European Motorways, see the difference for yourself .

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Closing a street to cars costs relatively nothing, so no I don't mean that.
Have you visited London/Paris/Amsterdam and seen the outlay of their cycling infrastructure?

We're back to comparing massive urban area's with Cork, it's not a fair comparison. I'd love to see similar infrastructure here to there but I'd be just as happy to see a relatively modest cycleway network for Cork.

munstermagic11 wrote: »

To clarify (so I don't have to repeat it again), I'd love to see a top class cycling infrastructure in the city, it's be great as I enjoy cycling and would love to see it prosper. This is my own desire.
But I have my doubts that it's currently something that we can afford to match what's been done in cycling cities where's it's been done well. Again, that doesn't mean no spending, or using assigned funding, for cycling infrastructure.
The currently scheme/plan seems to be badly implemented, with some poor lanes and a lack of joining up of lanes that will encourage new cyclists to jump onto their bike.
I have my doubts that the Cork (with narrow one way streets, wet climate, hilly region) will have the uptake in cyclists that is desired; but I think the investment is worth it to try alleviate the current situation and change peoples habits for a better city/country.

I may be wrong about my doubts (that's why I've said doubts and not facts) and I hope that my doubts will be proven to be incorrect and that it will all fall into place with desirable results.
However, "grow up", "get over the inconvenience", "wait 5/10yrs" are not compelling or factual arguments to negate any of the doubts I've raised.

You can't imagine up a comprehensive cycling network just like that, it takes years if not decades. You might not like that, but that's the way it is. A handy comparison is the motorway network, it was built piecemeal over a period of decades with the gaps gradually filled.

We in Ireland have only recently come around to the idea that our roads are not just for cars, so its going to take a while for improvements for public transport, cyclists & pedestrians to come to fruition, this scheme is just the start of that.

kooga

anyway being such a fine day today i opted to cycle from my house to work. I got in much quicker even obeying the rules of the road and was impressed by the new infrastructure in the city.

j8wk2feszrnpao

TINA1984 wrote: »

Motorists are unhappy because their precious commute times have been increased.

We get it. You have issues with motorists.

TINA1984 wrote: »

You can repeat it all you like, it doesn't tally with the facts on the ground. The government are and will continue to fund modestly priced cycling infrastructure, despite the misery of it all.

It appears that no matter have many times it's repeated, you still don't get it.
I'm happy that we are funding cycling infrastructure.

TINA1984 wrote: »

Most countries don't build Motorways betweeen comparatively sparsely populated settlements like we do. If we followed the Euro model we'd only have Motorway between Dublin-Belfast and a single motorway to Munster. The M20/17/18 would not be built in Europe.

We have built two lane motorways (dual carriageways) between our major cities.
The M20 is not even complete, which should connect Cork (2nd city) and Limerick (3rd city). The M18 isn't complete to connect Limerick to Galway (our 4th city).
These type of roads (dual carriageways) do exist in Europe connecting similar populations. I've driven on them. Blackpool to Preston (on the way to Manchester), and both those areas can't be much bigger than Cork to Limerick. Have you been to the UK or continental Europe?

TINA1984 wrote: »

Check the NRA AADTs for our motorways, large sections of the Interurbans have tiny amounts of traffic relative to the design capacity of the Motorway. Now compare those numbers to AADTs for British & European Motorways, see the difference for yourself .

Can you provide the link to these stats?
You won't get an argument from me that spending on motorways should be scaled back if it is wasting money and doesn't aid economic recovery.

TINA1984 wrote: »

We're back to comparing massive urban area's with Cork, it's not a fair comparison. I'd love to see similar infrastructure here to there but I'd be just as happy to see a relatively modest cycleway network for Cork.

Well quite often they are the cities that are mentioned when it comes to arguing for cycle lanes/infrastructure/culture; that's why I quoted them. It doesn't have to be the same as those cities; similar, but obviously on a smaller scale.
"a relatively modest cycleway network for Cork" that works and encourages people to cycle is what I'm also for, and hopefully it can be upgraded/improved in the future.

TINA1984 wrote: »

You can't imagine up a comprehensive cycling network just like that, it takes years if not decades. You might not like that, but that's the way it is.

Well I can imagine it, but I as I said I don't expect it to happen overnight, if at all (due to the points I made, in particular about our current financial situation). So it's nothing to do with not liking it.

TINA1984 wrote: »

We in Ireland have only recently come around to the idea that our roads are not just for cars, so its going to take a while for improvements for public transport, cyclists & pedestrians to come to fruition, this scheme is just the start of that.

Cars/bicycles/pedestrians have shared roads for a long time. The idea of 'roads for just motorists does exist' in the mindset of some, but it's not shared among all the motorists in Ireland.

TINA1984

munstermagic11 wrote: »

We get it. You have issues with motorists.


It appears that no matter have many times it's repeated, you still don't get it.
I'm happy that we are funding cycling infrastructure.

As a motorist myself I have no "issues" as you imply with my fellow drivers. And you can forgive my confusion, On the one hand you say you support cycling infrastructure investment, yet then you repeatedly mention how the state can't afford to build cycling infrastructure as there is more pressing concerns, then you say you support the construction of Greenways, but then proceed to say you think the investments in cycling infrastructure are doomed to failure.

munstermagic11 wrote: »

We have built two lane motorways (dual carriageways) between our major cities.
The M20 is not even complete, which should connect Cork (2nd city) and Limerick (3rd city). The M18 isn't complete to connect Limerick to Galway (our 4th city).
These type of roads (dual carriageways) do exist in Europe connecting similar populations. I've driven on them. Blackpool to Preston (on the way to Manchester), and both those areas can't be much bigger than Cork to Limerick. Have you been to the UK or continental Europe?

Can you provide the link to these stats?
You won't get an argument from me that spending on motorways should be scaled back if it is wasting money and doesn't aid economic recovery.

Once again, you're not comparing like with like here. Not only are Preston & Blackpool considerably closer together then Cork/Limerick/Galway, they are in/near 2 of the largest metropolitan areas in the UK, with a combined population of 4m+. Cork/Limerick/Galway combined population, even with towns along the M20/17/18 route, represent a fraction of that and the motorway will have for most of its length nowhere near the amount of traffic as they will in the heavily urbanized NW of England.

The NRA website is easy to navigate to find AADTs, the UK highways one less so, I'll leave it you to go googling to your hearts content.

munstermagic11 wrote: »

"a relatively modest cycleway network for Cork" that works and encourages people to cycle is what I'm also for, and hopefully it can be upgraded/improved in the future.

And the Wash. St. upgrade & Cork Bikes scheme is the start point for this to happen.

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Cars/bicycles/pedestrians have shared roads for a long time. The idea of 'roads for just motorists does exist' in the mindset of some, but it's not shared among all the motorists in Ireland.

When its come to spending, roads have traditionally had the lions share. We're slowly beginning to see this imbalance being rectified in urban areas, much to the anger of some motorists. Ime I've found that a lot of motorists are both impatient and have an aggressive/reckless attitude to cyclists.

Red Nissan

TINA1984 wrote: »

When its come to spending, roads have traditionally had the lions share. We're slowly beginning to see this imbalance being rectified in urban areas, much to the anger of some motorists. Ime I've found that a lot of motorists are both impatient and have an aggressive/reckless attitude to cyclists.

Motorists are the most oppressed group of people of all time, we get aggro for driving big 4x4s with our children to school, those same vehicles are amongst the safest to carry passengers.

We get harassed again by dropping our children off to school with "no stopping" and tipple yellow lines in a schools vicinity.

We get hassled by the traffic warden and the parking attendant for taking up so much room and they see us as the rich elite and WANT and are early looking to give us a ticket, a fine or a clamp as soon as we leave our [precious motors.

We are hassled if we drive too slowly, we can't enjoy the view as we must and are obliged to make progress. We can't go too fast either as we have to pay an extra tax and collect penalty points for often very minor offenses.

We have to have our cars examined in another extra tax and by have to pay to fix faults to pass the test that another mechanic would say is fine and indeed often passes the same test in another centre, so we are targeted for abuse again just because we are motorists.

We have paid for the road system in direct read tax and vehicle registration tax and now we have to pay a company tolls to actually use our roads as well as paying 80% for the fuel we use to the government.

Without motorists, we'd not have the road system that exists today and we'd be using mountain bicycles 'off road' so to speak.

TINA1984

Red Nissan wrote: »

Motorists are the most oppressed group of people of all time, we get aggro for driving big 4x4s with our children to school, those same vehicles are amongst the safest to carry passengers.

We get harassed again by dropping our children off to school with "no stopping" and tipple yellow lines in a schools vicinity.

We get hassled by the traffic warden and the parking attendant for taking up so much room and they see us as the rich elite and WANT and are early looking to give us a ticket, a fine or a clamp as soon as we leave our [precious motors.

We are hassled if we drive too slowly, we can't enjoy the view as we must and are obliged to make progress. We can't go too fast either as we have to pay an extra tax and collect penalty points for often very minor offenses.

We have to have our cars examined in another extra tax and by have to pay to fix faults to pass the test that another mechanic would say is fine and indeed often passes the same test in another centre, so we are targeted for abuse again just because we are motorists.

We have paid for the road system in direct read tax and vehicle registration tax and now we have to pay a company tolls to actually use our roads as well as paying 80% for the fuel we use to the government.

Without motorists, we'd not have the road system that exists today and we'd be using mountain bicycles 'off road' so to speak.

Magnificent satire there, I'm LOLing :P

j8wk2feszrnpao

TINA1984 wrote: »

As a motorist myself I have no "issues" as you imply with my fellow drivers.

Your tone suggests otherwise.

TINA1984 wrote: »

And you can forgive my confusion, On the one hand you say you support cycling infrastructure investment, yet then you repeatedly mention how the state can't afford to build cycling infrastructure

There is no forgiving your confusion when you can read basic English and ignore what I was repeatedly said.

• Supports affodable cycling infrastructure.
• Don't believe that we can afford large/huge scale cycling infrastructure

TINA1984 wrote: »

you support the construction of Greenways, but then proceed to say you think the investments in cycling infrastructure are doomed to failure.

Yes, I support Greenways.
I never doomed investment in cycling infrastructure, repeatedly said this, and you continue to be obvious to what's written down before you.

TINA1984 wrote: »

Once again, you're not comparing like with like here. Not only are Preston & Blackpool considerably closer together then Cork/Limerick/Galway, they are in/near 2 of the largest metropolitan areas in the UK, with a combined population of 4m+. Cork/Limerick/Galway combined population, even with towns along the M20/17/18 route, represent a fraction of that and the motorway will have for most of its length nowhere near the amount of traffic as they will in the heavily urbanized NW of England.

You are not comparing like with like. I'm not speaking of Manchester, and it's motorways. Talk about moving the goalposts to suit your argument.
I gave you an example. Yet you provide nothing to back up your claim.
Blackpool (142,000) and Preston (140,500)
And yes it's a shorter journey, and yet a motorway between them all the same.

TINA1984 wrote: »

The NRA website is easy to navigate to find AADTs, the UK highways one less so, I'll leave it you to go googling to your hearts content.

Right, so data you've already researched and yet can't be bothered to display it.

TINA1984 wrote: »

When its come to spending, roads have traditionally had the lions share. We're slowly beginning to see this imbalance being rectified in urban areas, much to the anger of some motorists. Ime I've found that a lot of motorists are both impatient and have an aggressive/reckless attitude to cyclists.

Again another moan at motorists. You're as bad as those you dislike.

TINA1984

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Your tone suggests otherwise.

Behave.

munstermagic11 wrote: »

There is no forgiving your confusion when you can read basic English and ignore what I was repeatedly said.

• Supports affodable cycling infrastructure.
• Don't believe that we can afford large/huge scale cycling infrastructure

We're going round and round here so let's clear this up, you're saying in some posts we should look towards Amsterdam/Paris/London for inspiration for dedicated cycling infrastructure, instead of what has been installed on Wash St., but then in other posts you're saying we're not in a position to afford it?

munstermagic11 wrote: »

You are not comparing like with like. I'm not speaking of Manchester, and it's motorways. Talk about moving the goalposts to suit your argument.
I gave you an example. Yet you provide nothing to back up your claim.
Blackpool (142,000) and Preston (140,500)
And yes it's a shorter journey, and yet a motorway between them all the same.

It's all about population density or lack thereof, Blackpool and Preston are 2 small urban areas in or near 2 massive urban areas. Cork/Limerick/Galway are small urban areas far, far apart. You many not like it, but you're not comparing like with like here. Again.

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Right, so data you've already researched and yet can't be bothered to display it.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=nra+traffic+count+data

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=UK+highways+agency+traffic+count+data

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Again another moan at motorists. You're as bad as those you dislike.

My you've taken this very personally.

j8wk2feszrnpao

TINA1984 wrote: »

Behave.

No need to take it personally. I'm only pointing out what your tone and some of your words, towards motorists has suggested.

TINA1984 wrote: »

We're going round and round here so let's clear this up,......

No, you are going around in circles (and I suspect at this stage it may be deliberate).
If you are unable to read what's been clearly rewritten a number of times, then I'm not going to waste further time on this.

TINA1984 wrote: »

Blackpool and Preston are 2 small urban areas.

Yes, with a motorway between them. And it's not a the sole example within the UK and Europe.
Nothing to do with not liking your attempts to include the wider area (serviced by another other motorway in the area); it's just boring that you have to repeat questions when they've been answered.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=nra+traffic+count+data
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=UK+highways+agency+traffic+count+data
Thank you for the links, even if you have to be juvenile to provide links to statements/stats that you claimed.
Haven't found anything yet to actually confirm your claim that there are "empty motorways".
I'd ask for you to display the data (as anyone would when making a claim such as that, and then asked for) but not looking for similar answered provided.

Anyways ..... that's it for me.
Said my piece and having to repeat myself isn't debate.
Save driving/walking/cycling to all.

TINA1984

munstermagic11 wrote: »

No need to take it personally. I'm only pointing out what your tone and some of your words, towards motorists has suggested.

No, you are going around in circles (and I suspect at this stage it may be deliberate).
If you are unable to read what's been clearly rewritten a number of times, then I'm not going to waste further time on this.


Yes, with a motorway between them. And it's not a the sole example within the UK and Europe.
Nothing to do with not liking your attempts to include the wider area (serviced by another other motorway in the area); it's just boring that you have to repeat questions when they've been answered.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=nra+traffic+count+data
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=UK+highways+agency+traffic+count+data
Thank you for the links, even if you have to be juvenile to provide links to statements/stats that you claimed.
Haven't found anything yet to actually confirm your claim that there are "empty motorways".
I'd ask for you to display the data (as anyone would when making a claim such as that, and then asked for) but not looking for similar answered provided.

Anyways ..... that's it for me.
Said my piece and having to repeat myself isn't debate.
Save driving/walking/cycling to all.

bladebrew

I think even the motorist's on here want proper cycle lanes, cyclist should have space away from cars, but it is difficult to retrofit it into a city like Cork,
I would have thought the Council would have to do a study into this before they spent any money to see if it makes sense, like the famous well road roundabout, It's not actually bad now it's done but it also wasn't bad before, they spent €1m to fix a problem that wasn't there, but they don't answer to anyone so nobody cares!
Are the cycle lanes overkill? Have they asked people would they begin to commute by bicycle with new cycle lanes? People might be delayed by 5 minutes but they won't buy a bike because of that, the council won't force people out of their cars with a bit of traffic, they may force cars out to Mahon/Wilton and Douglas though!

Harry Angstrom

bladebrew wrote: »

I think even the motorist's on here want proper cycle lanes, cyclist should have space away from cars, but it is difficult to retrofit it into a city like Cork,
I would have thought the Council would have to do a study into this before they spent any money to see if it makes sense, like the famous well road roundabout, It's not actually bad now it's done but it also wasn't bad before, they spent €1m to fix a problem that wasn't there, but they don't answer to anyone so nobody cares!
Are the cycle lanes overkill? Have they asked people would they begin to commute by bicycle with new cycle lanes? People might be delayed by 5 minutes but they won't buy a bike because of that, the council won't force people out of their cars with a bit of traffic, they may force cars out to Mahon/Wilton and Douglas though!

Perhaps when people see how the cycle lanes might benefit them, they may actually decide to get out of their gas-guzzling cars and cycle to work instead. One can only hope. If not, that's their lookout. The lanes are in place and the incentive to cycle is there.
I was almost knocked off my bike today by a doddery old fart who, for some reason, decided to drive tight into the footpath whilst passing me. If a cycle lane with a proper kerb had been in place, the only damage done would have been to him and his car, and I doubt he would've been so stupid in the first place.

Bacchus

My God Tina and MM, that escalated quickly. To weigh in on it, MM has made his stance VERY EXTREMELY clear. Tina, you're borderline trolling at this point IMO. So what if MM looks to other cities for inspiration, what has that got to do with what we can/can't afford. It's only inspiration FFS, not a carbon copy implementation. His point about funding are crystal clear too, "funding for cycle infrastructure - yay!", "wasting huge amounts of money on cycle infrastructure - nay!" Where's the problem with this that's causing all your confusion.

And so what about the motorways between Ireland's cities? What has that got to do with cycle lanes in Cork. Even if you're looking at a money spent vs return angle I'm sure the motorways have been a huge success. Think of the amount of business that is done around this country thanks to those roads. A 3-4 hour Limerick-Dublin trip cut down to under 2 hours. A 4 hour Galway-Dublin trip cut down to 2 hours. How is this even an argument?! Would you prefer they were never built? Is that what you're getting at?

Balmed Out

never get the motorist vs driver vitriol. I do both as I imagine most have at one point or another. There are dodgy drivers and dodgy cyclists.

TINA1984

Bacchus wrote: »

My God Tina and MM, that escalated quickly. To weigh in on it, MM has made his stance VERY EXTREMELY clear. Tina, you're borderline trolling at this point IMO. So what if MM looks to other cities for inspiration, what has that got to do with what we can/can't afford. It's only inspiration FFS, not a carbon copy implementation. His point about funding are crystal clear too, "funding for cycle infrastructure - yay!", "wasting huge amounts of money on cycle infrastructure - nay!" Where's the problem with this that's causing all your confusion.

tbh MM comes across as like he's a bit of a flip-flopper, after all I can only go on what he has typed.

He decries the lack of a "plan" when it comes to implementing cycling infrastructure, its pointed out to him there is a "plan"...he doesn't think it'll work.

Then he keeps on mentioning foreign examples being better then what we're doing on Wash St...but we can't afford it, nurses and special needs dontcha know...

But we are building an expensive Greenway network modelled on Europe...he does support it

But he doesn't think anything will work anyway, after all isn't Cork & Ireland too wet and hilly for this sort of thing?

Then he gets a bit snotty, not just with me but with a few others who have different opinions to him.

My suspicion is MM supports cycling infrastructure, just not infrastructure that inconveniences him. Like the Wash St lanes.

Bacchus wrote: »

And so what about the motorways between Ireland's cities? What has that got to do with cycle lanes in Cork. Even if you're looking at a money spent vs return angle I'm sure the motorways have been a huge success. Think of the amount of business that is done around this country thanks to those roads. A 3-4 hour Limerick-Dublin trip cut down to under 2 hours. A 4 hour Galway-Dublin trip cut down to 2 hours. How is this even an argument?! Would you prefer they were never built? Is that what you're getting at?

Yeah to be fair you're going even further off topic by mentioning the Dublin - Limerick Motorway & Dublin - Galway Motorway. Neither myself nor MM were discussing those roads, Just the Atlantic Corridor. Perhaps if you'd read back over the past few pages you'd have a better idea of why we were discussing it?

ComeraghBlue

It would be great if the car drivers of Cork could stop parking in the new bike lanes!

Balmed Out

ComeraghBlue wrote: »

It would be great if the car drivers of Cork could stop parking in the new bike lanes!

By the silver key is hilarious

Red Nissan

Balmed Out wrote: »

By the silver key is hilarious

It used to be a truck stop you might remember. Far too many needs for roadside parking here to have a dedicated cycle lane imo.

The Silver Key itself, Cork Con, GAA's two parks, the funeral home, school open days and I'm sure I've forgotten a few.

Stepping Stone

The issue with parking by the Silvery Quay is compounded by the fact that it doesn't necessarily look like a cycle lane. If you were looking for parking, saw a space and took it (without prior knowledge of the area) you could be forgiven for the mistake because there is just a sign at the end telling you that the cycle lane has ended. They need more visible signage and actual enforcement to keep it car free. That said, I would wonder how used it would be anyway, since the roads are not swept very well and there is probably quite a bit of debris collection there (issue with maintenance, not cycling infrastructure).

Bacchus

TINA1984 wrote: »

Yeah to be fair you're going even further off topic by mentioning the Dublin - Limerick Motorway & Dublin - Galway Motorway. Neither myself nor MM were discussing those roads, Just the Atlantic Corridor. Perhaps if you'd read back over the past few pages you'd have a better idea of why we were discussing it?

Ah give over, you mentioned a bunch of roads yourself, M20, M18, M17. What difference does what roads I list. My point is the motorways have nothing to do with cycle lanes in the first place.

As for the other part of your post. I haven't seen MM to be a flipflopper at all. He's been consistent in what he says.

There is an apparent lack of a plan with the cycle lanes. Noone has pointed out that there IS a plan. Some have suggested in 10 years we might see one but (pardon my language) fcuk that. If you're going to do a job do it right.

He has a point that parts of Cork are too hilly to have successful cycle lanes but that doesn't mean he (or anyone else) is against cycle lanes. A pointed that has been repeated and you keep ignoring.

TINA1984

Bacchus wrote: »

Ah give over, you mentioned a bunch of roads yourself, M20, M18, M17. What difference does what roads I list. My point is the motorways have nothing to do with cycle lanes in the first place.

No, you "give over", the discussion went off on a tangent with regards to general infrastructure spend and potential AADTs on the Atlantic Corridor, which is the M20/17/18, and has nothing to do with Dublin which you mentioned. Like I said if you cared to read my and MM's back and forth on topic you'll see why we were discussing it. Please do that rather replying again on why you think its pointless.

Bacchus wrote: »

As for the other part of your post. I haven't seen MM to be a flipflopper at all. He's been consistent in what he says.

That's not how I read it.

Bacchus wrote: »

There is an apparent lack of a plan with the cycle lanes. Noone has pointed out that there IS a plan. Some have suggested in 10 years we might see one but (pardon my language) fcuk that. If you're going to do a job do it right.

There is a plan, both locally and nationally namely revolving around the national cycling strategy. Some very quick googling would have made you realise this. Remember, just because you didn't hear about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Bacchus wrote: »

He has a point that parts of Cork are too hilly to have successful cycle lanes but that doesn't mean he (or anyone else) is against cycle lanes. A pointed that has been repeated and you keep ignoring.

And as has been repeated in this thread and which YOU keep ignoring, there are examples of wet and hilly cities where cycling has taken off. Cork is not unique no matter what some of its denizens like to think

Bacchus

I'm joining munstermagic11 and leaving this farce of a conversation. You believe what you want to believe Tina and 'read it' however suits you. I'm not wasting any more time repeating myself.

FrStone

Bacchus wrote: »

I'm joining munstermagic11 and leaving this farce of a conversation. You believe what you want to believe Tina and 'read it' however suits you. I'm not wasting any more time repeating myself.

I wonder will Tina reply to this with another bullying and condescending image, like munstermagic11 received...

TINA1984

Bacchus wrote: »

I'm joining munstermagic11 and leaving this farce of a conversation. You believe what you want to believe Tina and 'read it' however suits you. I'm not wasting any more time repeating myself.

FrStone wrote: »

I wonder will Tina reply to this with another
bullying and condescending image, like munstermagic11 received...

Probably for the best, its not like either of ye guys actually contributed anything to the thread

Bacchus

Some sense seems to have prevailed, at least on Proby's Quay anyway, the parking spaces have been moved back away from the traffic lights by about 3 or 4 car lengths. This has helped avoid the "is the car parked or in line at the lights" confusion and gives more space to allow traffic going left to progress without being held up by traffic waiting to turn right. Shows how ridiculous the original layout was but at least the council fixed it promptly.

There is a new problem there though that I've only noticed since they painted on the cycle lane markings. That lane is contra flow. The only way for cyclist to get to that lane is a rather dangerous manoeuvre cutting across traffic on Bishop Street. There is no right turn there so cyclists HAVE to cut across traffic that will be continuing on straight. Not the end of the world I guess but I would have thought a cycle lane continuing straight on would have made more sense and the Proby's Quay one should be in the same direction as traffic.

I've noticed a lot of the cycle lanes are contra-flow too. In my opinion, that doesn't really take bikes off the road to the safety of the cycle lane. It just introduces a weird two direction system in a city where most streets are one way. Any cyclists have an opinion on that one?

hallo dare

You should see Dundalk OP. Must be the same chap that designed both!!!