Cycle Funding Protest 3 October 5:30pm

AlreadyHome

As mentioned in passing on a couple of others threads, there's a protest next Monday 3 Oct @ 5:30pm Merrion Square to call for great funding for cycling infrastructure.

For anyone unsure if they'll be bothered joining, I'd seriously encourage it. Having attended a fair few cycling protests in London, I've always found being amongst a large group of cyclists calling for improvements in infrastructure a very heartening occasion. It's easy when you're commuting to forget you're 1 in several thousand, rather than 1 in 20 you come across en route.

I'll be making a social occasion of it: inviting cyclists and non-cyclists (everyone knows one, after all!) to come along with the reward of a pint to follow!

Hopefully see a good few of ye there.

mr spuckler

yep i'll be there although will have to leave by 6:30

I know this isn't helpful, but in the picture on the poster, what's the thing on the island beside the cone (between the bus and yellow car)? Looks like a clamp or a slug or something?


More relatedly, is there actually money to spend on this? Can we/they (govt) afford to spend more on cycling? What's the intended purpose of it? (ie; does whoever's organising it have a list of things they'd like to see X amount of money spent on? or is it just cycling in general).


I'd be a casual cyclist, and I live in Drogheda, not Dublin, but I can't really see how my commute would be made any better really. I think a lot of the issues faced in Dublin are due to general impatience of everyone. In Drogheda there tends to be a lot more common sense (maybe cos there's less traffic in general, and people aren't always in such a rush, as seems to be the case in Dublin a lot... bit of a stereotype, I know, but it does seem true).


Either way hopefully ye'll get a bump in funding. Not a hope of swapping from 0.5% to 10% but even an extra 1% or 2% is progress in the right direction. I presume (could be wrong) that the likes of the Dublin Bus strikes would cost a lot of money that would share a pot with the amount available to spend on cycling? Or are they considered two different areas? (not overly clued in).

AlreadyHome

Deleted User wrote: »

I know this isn't helpful, but in the picture on the poster, what's the thing on the island beside the cone (between the bus and yellow car)? Looks like a clamp or a slug or something?

I hadn't actually noticed that until now...on closer inspection it looks like it might be a dead bird on its back!

In terms of the demand for more investment in cycling infrastructure - there's been a lot of chat on various threads here about poor road design; ranging from poor planning to "throwing a bit of paint on the side of the road" to poorly maintained pavements that have been retrofitted as bike lanes. There's certainly a massive amount that could be done to put more thought, time and design work into how bike designated lanes interact with pre-existing traffic corridors.

tuxy

Deleted User wrote: »

I know this isn't helpful, but in the picture on the poster, what's the thing on the island beside the cone (between the bus and yellow car)? Looks like a clamp or a slug or something?

It's a dead bird.

Deleted User wrote: »

More relatedly, is there actually money to spend on this? Can we/they (govt) afford to spend more on cycling? What's the intended purpose of it? (ie; does whoever's organising it have a list of things they'd like to see X amount of money spent on? or is it just cycling in general).

Yes there is a transport budget, currently cycling receives 0.5% of this budget. A large turn out would indicate that much higher than 0.5% of the population wish to use cycling as a transport method and therefore a larger % of the budget should be allocated to cycling.

tomasrojo

Also, more than 0.5% of trips are already made by bike in Ireland, and way more than that in Dublin.

AlreadyHome

tomasrojo wrote: »

Also, more than 0.5% of trips are already made by bike in Ireland, and way more than that in Dublin.

Is there an explicit figure? (I'm talking specific number, rather than tasty hourglass)

Moflojo

AlreadyHome wrote: »

Is there an explicit figure? (I'm talking specific number, rather than tasty hourglass)

Here's a link to a CSO survey on modes of transport used in 2012/13:

http://cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-nts/nationaltravelsurvey2012and2013/detailedanalysis/howwetravelled/

Walking & Cycling is combined as one mode of transport in the survey.
The national average of those cycling & walking is 16.7%.
In Dublin the number of those cycling & walking rises to 21.8%.

The main argument surrounding Monday's protest is that 0.5% of the transport budget is allocated to walking & cycling, even though they make up 17-22% of transport modes. The protest is to demand that at least 10% of the transport budget should be spent on cycling and walking.

The Government agrees the budget and how it is distributed between the different departments. The Minister (Shane Ross) and Dept. of Transport decide how they spend their budget allocation. Therefore the protest is targeting the Dept. of Transport directly as the Dept. alone has the power to decide where and how the money is spent.

Weepsie

Surely looking at stuff like the CSO surveys surveys is only part of the stats surely.

I'd wager 99℅ of goods are not transported by foot or bicycle around the country. I'd say haulage and delivery companys and such would have quite a say

Moflojo

Weepsie wrote: »

Surely looking at stuff like the CSO surveys surveys is only part of the stats surely.

I'd wager 99℅ of goods are not transported by foot or bicycle around the country. I'd say haulage and delivery companys and such would have quite a say

That's a red herring argument Weepsie.

obi604

tuxy wrote: »

It's a dead bird.

Could be a snail too. Traffic moving like a snail etc.

ted1

Is this going to stop outside the minsters office ? If so has anybody rang ahead to book a meeting? Because he will probably be gone at five .

AlreadyHome

Weepsie wrote: »

Surely looking at stuff like the CSO surveys surveys is only part of the stats surely.

I'd wager 99℅ of goods are not transported by foot or bicycle around the country. I'd say haulage and delivery companys and such would have quite a say

You're missing the point to such an extent I'm not entirely sure how to respond...

Nobody is saying they want 60% of budget to be diverted for walking and cycling. Increasing cycling's budget by a few % from 0.5% is not suddenly going to cripple our haulage and delivery capabilities.

Weepsie

I'm no more missing the point than this is completely ignoring the entire picture of what the roads are being used for and not just who and what mode.

I'm all for more spending on cycling, pedestrian and public transport infrastructure they are in that order my main modes of transport.

Its also not a simple matter of saying increase the budget x20 which is a very Irish clamour. I'd rather it asked for more conscientious planning, particularly in Urban areas, more consultation and a greater push to gets kids and families out of cars.

This to me is purposely taking out of context some numbers to have a shock effect. If it works, great I guess, but transport budget encompasses so many things that asking for a bigger slice of the pie is simplifying matters all too much.

That's my opinion anyway which many will disagree with.

Moflojo

Weepsie wrote: »

That's my opinion anyway which many will disagree with.

I agree with you on that.

07Lapierre

Weepsie wrote: »

I'd rather it asked for more conscientious planning, particularly in Urban areas, more consultation and a greater push to gets kids and families out of cars.

Yes, but unless you have a Budget, whats the point planning/consultation?

Not much point agreed to this or that if there's no money to implement the plan?

AlreadyHome

I'd rather it asked for more conscientious planning, particularly in Urban areas, more consultation and a greater push to gets kids and families out of cars.

It'd be hard to fit all of that on to a placard.

...asking for a bigger slice of the pie is simplifying matters all too much.

Seems like a good place to start, non? I'd argue that we're asking for a thin slice, rather than just a bit of crust that fell off. Once we get our slice of delicious pie, then we can start rationing morsels of our dessert out from there to areas you detail in your wee list.

This to me is purposely taking out of context some numbers to have a shock effect.

0.5% of the budget for a mode of transport utilised by 17%-22% of the population is fairly shocking alright.

Weepsie wrote: »

That's my opinion anyway which many will disagree with.

Wouldn't dream of it.

Weepsie

07Lapierre wrote: »

Yes, but unless you have a Budget, whats the point planning/consultation?

Not much point agreed to this or that if there's no money to implement the plan?

Not necessarily. I'm not confident an increased budget wouldnt just see more vanity projects, more ludicrous lanes, more advanced stop boxes to be ignored by all and just flushed away as much of the present budget is and many other public budgets.

It needs to part of an overall plan, with all stakeholders, not just siloed and hope it looks after itself.

Weepsie

And .5% is also a little disingenuous. I can still avail of a vast chunk of the rest of the road network legally and safely.

The poster says nothing about walking either. 17-21 % do not cycle they walk or cycle. Again it's disingenuous though not helped by the lumping of them together by CSO

07Lapierre

Weepsie wrote: »

Not necessarily. I'm not confident an increased budget wouldnt just see more vanity projects, more ludicrous lanes, more advanced stop boxes to be ignored by all and just flushed away as much of the present budget is and many other public budgets.

It needs to part of an overall plan, with all stakeholders, not just siloed and hope it looks after itself.

Agree ... that is a risk, but whats the alternative? do nothing? hold a meeting and discuss what should be done and never do anything?

Moflojo

Weepsie wrote: »

And .5% is also a little disingenuous. I can still avail of a vast chunk of the rest of the road network legally and safely.

The poster says nothing about walking either. 17-21 % do not cycle they walk or cycle. Again it's disingenuous though not helped by the lumping of them together by CSO

Weepsie you're free to walk in the middle of the road if you want to (except the motorways) but I wouldn't recommend it.

If you want to start hacking away at the statistics that's fine, but try to present your own alternative statistics rather than just stating "I don't believe that statistic, I believe it's disingenuous." Why do you believe that? What's backing up your belief? Enlighten us.

The 10% is the focal point of the protest but there are other demands, such as a dedicated cycling officer (or department) within the department of transport which will see the budget used in ways that will actually benefit cycling - not just painted lines and boxes.

AlreadyHome

One of the arguments you'll often hear against increased cycling funding (as Weepsie has provided) is "But cyclists are the minority" or "Our economy depends on vehicles" or "Cycling is an impractical lifestyle pursuit by the dedicated" etc.

We talk about current percentages of stakeholders when discussing funding aims - current cyclists, pedestrians, car drivers. What often isn't brought up is the considerable invisible crowd who would cycle if they felt safe. If we want to reduce the strain on public transport, unclog our roads and reduce environmental impact, we really need to be focussing on them, as the below graphic makes clear.



What we should be discussing as a benchmark is: "How do we get to the point where kids, the elderly and the physically or mentally disabled can all safely cycle as their primary form of transport?"

Smokers and Jokers?

Get them to pay the 'road tax' on their bicycles.

Corca Baiscinn

OP I came on this morning to post this link and found you had got there before me with the infographic re remarkable change in London cycling stats! https://rottenindenmark.wordpress.com/2016/07/09/lessons-from-london-cycle-campaigning/ I found it on FB shared from cyclist.ie but can't actually see the link on their site now. Not sure if you are rottenindenmark or quoting from him/her but well done anyway! It's a very though-provoking piece and though quite long I'd really urge everyone interested in cycling improvements/advocacy to read it
On a different note it would be helpful I think if anyone taking part who lives in Shane R's constituency identified themselves as such at the protest if possible. True , he got an overwhelming majority last time but that was from a position as a hurler on the ditch!

AlreadyHome

Corca Baiscinn wrote: »

OP I came on this morning to post this link and found you had got there before me with the infographic re remarkable change in London cycling stats! https://rottenindenmark.wordpress.com/2016/07/09/lessons-from-london-cycle-campaigning/ I found it on FB shared from cyclist.ie but can't actually see the link on their site now. Not sure if you are rottenindenmark or quoting from him/her but well done anyway! It's a very though-provoking piece and though quite long I'd really urge everyone interested in cycling improvements/advocacy to read it
On a different note it would be helpful I think if anyone taking part who lives in Shane R's constituency identified themselves as such at the protest if possible. True , he got an overwhelming majority last time but that was from a position as a hurler on the ditch!

Thanks Corca, though afraid I can't take credit for that excellent piece. Would second your advice to boards.ie cyclists to have a read of the piece in question.

I'm actually from Shane Ross' constituency and emailed him some time ago, receiving an automated response from his office saying "Thanks and we'll get back to you". You won't be surprised to hear this is the last I've heard from him...

Am currently in contact with Dublin Cycling Campaign to see where I can help out (volunteer here), having been involved in the London Cycling Campaign around the time big changes started happening. There's a lot to be learnt from what they achieved and how they went about it.

Doctor Bob

AlreadyHome wrote: »

One of the arguments you'll often hear against increased cycling funding (as Weepsie has provided) is "But cyclists are the minority" or "Our economy depends on vehicles" or "Cycling is an impractical lifestyle pursuit by the dedicated" etc.

To be fair, I think that’s a misrepresentation of Weepsie’s position.

What strikes me about this protest is that the Campaign has fallen into the trap of using the ‘never mind the quality, feel the width’ argument that it has consistently railed against (rightly so) over the years when trotted out by councils and government departments. The standard response to ‘We have 300km of cycle lanes’ has always been ‘Yes, but that says nothing about the quality of those lanes’. So why now is this figure of 10% of the transport budget being thrown around? It’s a bit meaningless, but it does get headlines. Perhaps that’s the point. If so, I wouldn’t hold too fast to it in principle.

I’d be concerned about the capacity of councils to deliver good quality cycling projects. Lots of councils have knowledgeable, capable, passionate people where cycling is concerned, but they’re rarely in the key decision-making positions. Too often I’ve seen good projects get watered down to the point where you’d have to question the wisdom of proceeding at all. But as long as it remains a primary objective in the public sector to spend a budget come what may, there’s a high risk that a very sub-standard product will be delivered if more money is allocated.

There’s also a tendency among engineers – the dominant profession in the transport sphere – to favour construction over other measures that might produce the same – or better – results. It is quite possible to deliver significant growth in cycling numbers with minimal spend, but it requires a fundamental change in the (tacit, but quite apparent) ‘traffic capacity is our primary consideration’ mindset that holds sway in the senior ranks of many councils. It is also possible to spend 10% of the transport budget on cycling and achieve very little if that mindset remains in place.

Yes, more funding is required, but to think that it’s a silver bullet, or even the most important consideration, is a bit naïve. But if it starts the debate, then maybe the protest has done its job...

Corca Baiscinn

I agree with the above point to an extent, in so far as spending money doesn't always or even often equate to spending it wisely especially when the designers are not themselves cyclists. However, a Mass Protest has to have a simple easily understandable slogan that people can rally behind, hence I imagine the 10%. I would trust the organisers enough to believe that they do intend the money to be spent on quality usable and well maintained cycle facilities but unless it's allocated it can't be spent at all

Chips Lovell

Very much agree with this. If you're going to demand more money, you need to be clear on what you want the money spent on.

Because when officials are given a budget they'll spend it for the sake of it if there's no clear vision.

For a start, I'd like to see less of the money that is being spent on cycling being wasted on stuff like handing out high viz vests, poor quality lights and crappy cycle lanes.

shamrock2004

Looks like a dead bird to emphasise the effects of pollution on the environment (see the exhaust emanating from the bus and car).

Moflojo

A few people here are bemoaning the lack of details about what exactly the protest is about, what the money should spent on etc. which I think is missing the point and undermining the main ideas behind the protest, which I understand to be as follows:

- We are many, and we are united.
- We're not happy with our lot and we're not going to accept it any longer.
- Our requirements receive less than 1% of the money, but we compose 5-20% of the user base. We think we should receive at least 10% of the pot.
- Can you hear us Shane Ross? Are you listening?

Beyond that there's not a lot that a big protest can do, it's up to representatives of the various parties to beat out the details. So I'd encourage all cyclists to get behind the protest and show a united front.

AlreadyHome

Doctor Bob wrote: »

To be fair, I think that’s a misrepresentation of Weepsie’s position.

What strikes me about this protest is that the Campaign has fallen into the trap of using the ‘never mind the quality, feel the width’ argument that it has consistently railed against (rightly so) over the years when trotted out by councils and government departments. The standard response to ‘We have 300km of cycle lanes’ has always been ‘Yes, but that says nothing about the quality of those lanes’. So why now is this figure of 10% of the transport budget being thrown around? It’s a bit meaningless, but it does get headlines. Perhaps that’s the point. If so, I wouldn’t hold too fast to it in principle.

I’d be concerned about the capacity of councils to deliver good quality cycling projects. Lots of councils have knowledgeable, capable, passionate people where cycling is concerned, but they’re rarely in the key decision-making positions. Too often I’ve seen good projects get watered down to the point where you’d have to question the wisdom of proceeding at all. But as long as it remains a primary objective in the public sector to spend a budget come what may, there’s a high risk that a very sub-standard product will be delivered if more money is allocated.

There’s also a tendency among engineers – the dominant profession in the transport sphere – to favour construction over other measures that might produce the same – or better – results. It is quite possible to deliver significant growth in cycling numbers with minimal spend, but it requires a fundamental change in the (tacit, but quite apparent) ‘traffic capacity is our primary consideration’ mindset that holds sway in the senior ranks of many councils. It is also possible to spend 10% of the transport budget on cycling and achieve very little if that mindset remains in place.

Yes, more funding is required, but to think that it’s a silver bullet, or even the most important consideration, is a bit naïve. But if it starts the debate, then maybe the protest has done its job...

I didn't think anyone had intimated that an increase in funding was going to sort everything out. When I mentioned Weepsie, I was referring to his mention of delivery vehicles etc.

I agree completely with everything you say re: careful direction of funding. As Moflojo says though, when you protest you need to focus on a fairly clear message. "There's a bunch of us here and we want more money" is pretty clear. Honestly? I think 10% would be too much to increase it by all in one go - probably impractical and likely wasteful. That being said, when I go into negotiations on a professional level, I rarely start the ball rolling with a figure I'd settle at. Ask big, settle lower. 10% in 10-20 years time would be a good aim. I'll take a carefully directed 3% now though.