Cycle Funding Protest 3 October 5:30pm

ted1

Moflojo wrote: »

Socially deprived areas are being omitted by the Dublin Bikes scheme, and pretty blatantly too. Otherwise, could DublinBikes explain why IMMA is better served by the network than Connolly station?

There are 5 DB stations around Grand Canal dock alone. There are 6 stations in total to the west of the Four Courts on the northside.

Rialto, Dolphin's Barn, The Coombe, Blackpitts, Arbour Hill, O'Devaney Gardens, Grangegorman, East Wall. Sure they don't deserve public transport infrastructure.

I think it's much more to do with work force , grand canal Dock has a huge work force. Centralised in one area

Weepsie

Connolly station itself may not have a bike stand, but there are 4 within a less than 5 minute walking distance and another 2 around the IFSC.

Putting them at mostly residential areas wouldn't make sense to me. IMMA has Heuston, Kilmainham and a hospital nearby. Tourism, business and transport. Lots of reasons why there'd be a large demand there.

Fully agree it should be extended though, and believe it will just not anytime soon

Chuchote

ted1 wrote: »

I think it's much more to do with work force , grand canal Dock has a huge work force. Centralised in one area

Or maybe with a very specific type of workforce? Plenty of working people in working-class areas!

Moflojo

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Sigh, it's not a conspiracy.

Oh yeah? Then how do you explain...this?! *Swings wildly with pitchfork*

Moflojo

In all seriousness though, I do understand that it may just be a coincidence that those areas have been omitted. That doesn't, however, explain why the network was extended in such a dead-end manner, with long thrusts into certain areas instead of a series of concentric expansions from the core. The dead ends just make the network inefficient and costly to maintain (distribution trucks are under more pressure to redistribute bikes to and from dead ends, and have further to travel to get to them).

Chuchote

Moflojo wrote: »

In all seriousness though, I do understand that it may just be a coincidence that those areas have been omitted. That doesn't, however, explain why the network was extended in such a dead-end manner, with long thrusts into certain areas instead of a series of concentric expansions from the core. The dead ends just make the network inefficient and costly to maintain (distribution trucks are under more pressure to redistribute bikes to and from dead ends, and have further to travel to get to them).

I don't think it's a coincidence. In most transport maps of Dublin, Clanbrassil Street is where they put the logo. They think it's the bogland where the Ninth Legion disappeared, as far as I can see.

ted1

Chuchote wrote: »

Or maybe with a very specific type of workforce? Plenty of working people in working-class areas!

But they are not centrally located. The are much more dispersed

Chuchote

Michael O'Leary weighs in…

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/rte-is-a-ratinfested-north-korean-union-shop-olearys-blistering-tirade-at-fg-fundraiser-35115132.html

Introduced by Michael Noonan as Ireland's leading businessman and leading all-round decent person, O'Leary said (among other stuff):

Then for over 40 minutes and to rapturous applause from those in attendance, the Ryanair chief attacked the public sector, the European Union, the health service and Dublin City Council.
He accused the Dublin local authority of destroying the city centre through "nonsensical pandering to bloody cyclists". He said the State was "really crap at running the health service" and called for it to be privatised.
Mr O'Leary then targeted the European Union, saying it was anti-competition, but said the Government's response to the Apple tax fiasco was "weak and limp-wristed".

The rich friends of the government were in attendance (though it's not clear if the price was for a table or an individual):

International auditing and accountancy firms, along with some of the country's most successful law practices, were among the businesses to fork out for a table of 10 at a cost of €550 each.
The fundraising event was held a week before the Budget as Government ministers were in the middle of negotiations over how to spend the country's finances.

He'll be speaking at another event, this time for Fianna Fail, next month.

When's the next cycling protest?

HivemindXX

O'Leary is very predictable.

Cyclists slow down his bogus chauffeured car / taxi and unlike all the other cars which he can almost empathise with he would never cycle so he bitches about cyclists. He doesn't bother to put 2 and 2 together and think that more cyclists mean less cars and they are the thing that is really slowing him down.

The EU (which he loved a few months ago by the way) is terrible because they apply a huge penalty to a company for possibly dodgy practices. That could be HIS company and their dodgy practices! Our government is limp wristed because they didn't come out with O'Leary style scorched earth and bull**** when they fought the ruling.

The only one I don't understand is the HSE. I assume he has platinum health insurance and the private health sector are either completely independent or depend on the public system. Perhaps this is based on the way some of his taxes are spent on a service that he would never use.

Chuchote

HivemindXX wrote: »

The only one I don't understand is the HSE. I assume he has platinum health insurance and the private health sector are either completely independent or depend on the public system. Perhaps this is based on the way some of his taxes are spent on a service that he would never use.

People who believe in privatisation have a sweet, charming faith that in all cases services will be better if someone is making a profit out of them. Doesn't stop them dodging over to France if they suddenly need superb health treatment, though.

tomasrojo

Did O'Leary mention whether anyone needed to be taken outside and shot? I mean apart from cyclists, ministers and government representatives, travel agents, environmentalists, consultants and European Commission regulators.

Weepsie

10-12 million was budgeted for a 7km stretch of the royal canal in 2015. I imagine costs in Dublin might be considerably more. 23 million might get a vast network elsewhere around the country but it will not go as far as it should in Dublin unfortunately.

That and local politics probably comes into play. Check out the article linked in the future as about Endas local club getting funding.

fat bloke

Some craic when they install the post Brexit customs checkpoints on all those cross border greenways

Chuchote

Deedsie wrote: »

Not really sure where to post as we don't really have a cycling infrastructure spending thread. We probably should have one.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-38251667


The EU has pledged more than €23m euros to create almost 80 kms of new greenway linking towns and cities on either side of the Irish border. Funding will go to new projects connecting Newry with Carlingford and Derry and Strabane with Donegal. The second phase of the Ulster Canal Greenway will also benefit.

It is hoped the projects will cut car journeys and create sustainable travel routes for cyclists and pedestrians. Gina McIntyre of the Special EU Programmes Body said teach of the projects would "substantially increase the quality and quantity of greenway offering on both sides of the border".

The Department for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland and Ireland's Department of Transport will match fund the EU monies.

The Irish government is going to spend €23 million on cycling greenways in Louth and between Donegal & Derry but cant afford the dodder greenway or to upgrade permanent cycle tracks in Dublin for thousands of commuters.

Great that they are investing in cycling but surely investing in cycling infrastructure in Dublin to alleviate traffic congestion should be the priority of any cycling budget?

Should we make a case for greenways crossing the tense border between northside and southside Dublin?

Weepsie

Deedsie wrote: »

They got €20000. You wouldn't pay to get the Street cleaner to clear the current crappy cycle tracks in Dublin for that price.

Sorry, its not about that funding at all just thay there's a link in the thread to an academic article about how cycling infrastructure spending in Ireland has been heavily influence by stroke and parish pump style politics. On phone so can't link it here

Chuchote

Dublin badly needs to start building protected bike lanes - probably first as temporary lanes, in the method pioneered by Janette Sadik-Khan when she was Transport Commissioner in New York.

I'm trying to persuade neighbours to back a cycle dualway along a suburban road, where there are two schools, one of which has applied for permission to expand to take 400 children. A cycleway would virtually stop the problem that is making their lives hell - parents parking across their driveways and down their lane and abusing them if they're asked to move. But their answer is "That'll come - eventually, but for now we have to…"

If Dublin starts building cycleways and they become the norm, this 'eventually' will disappear. It's past time for our car-worshipping councillors to move on it.

schemingbohemia

Deedsie wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-38251667


The EU has pledged more than €23m euros to create almost 80 kms of new greenway linking towns and cities on either side of the Irish border. Funding will go to new projects connecting Newry with Carlingford and Derry and Strabane with Donegal. The second phase of the Ulster Canal Greenway will also benefit.

It is hoped the projects will cut car journeys and create sustainable travel routes for cyclists and pedestrians. Gina McIntyre of the Special EU Programmes Body said teach of the projects would "substantially increase the quality and quantity of greenway offering on both sides of the border".

The Department for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland and Ireland's Department of Transport will match fund the EU monies.


The Irish government is going to spend €23 million on cycling greenways in Louth and between Donegal & Derry but cant afford the dodder greenway or to upgrade permanent cycle tracks in Dublin for thousands of commuters.

Great that they are investing in cycling but surely investing in cycling infrastructure in Dublin to alleviate traffic congestion should be the priority of any cycling budget?

Sorry duplicate post

You're interpreting the Quote wrong but perhaps understandably so - providing match funding is not the same as providing matching funding. Ireland and NI providing some funding, these projects are 85% funded by EU. Projects also have to be cross-border so it's not a case of this being done instead of Dublin.

See here for more details
www.seupb.eu

P_1

Certainly a case of it being too late but the other day I noticed they've put up some bollards (similar to the ones on O'Connell Street a few years back) to segregate the cycle lane from the general traffic at the junction where Donna Fox was killed. If they could add these to left junctions on a more widespread basis it will be a great start.

buffalo

P_1 wrote: »

Certainly a case of it being too late but the other day I noticed they've put up some bollards (similar to the ones on O'Connell Street a few years back) to segregate the cycle lane from the general traffic at the junction where Donna Fox was killed. If they could add these to left junctions on a more widespread basis it will be a great start.

Is it? Now there's no choice but to proceed up the inside of left-turning traffic, the cyclist with a false sense of safety and the motorist not thinking of the cyclist as being part of the flow of traffic.

It should either be segregated or not - this half-baked magic flexi-wand nonsense doesn't help much at all. Either teach cyclists to take the lane and motorists to respect their position, or provide off-road facilities with equal priority at junctions (i.e. same amount of traffic light time and no yielding to side roads).

P_1

buffalo wrote: »

Is it? Now there's no choice but to proceed up the inside of left-turning traffic, the cyclist with a false sense of safety and the motorist not thinking of the cyclist as being part of the flow of traffic.

It should either be segregated or not - this half-baked magic flexi-wand nonsense doesn't help much at all. Either teach cyclists to take the lane and motorists to respect their position, or provide off-road facilities with equal priority at junctions (i.e. same amount of traffic light time and no yielding to side roads).

The bollard row (for lack of a better term) seems to carry on over a meter or so beyond the apex of the turn on the motorist's side which I guess forces the driver to take a wider turning circle leaving plenty of room for the cyclist. Not ideal but a step in the right direction.

Annie get your Run

P_1 wrote: »

The bollard row (for lack of a better term) seems to carry on over a meter or so beyond the apex of the turn on the motorist's side which I guess forces the driver to take a wider turning circle leaving plenty of room for the cyclist. Not ideal but a step in the right direction.

Unfortunately they left up the barriers on the left/footpath. A truck can cross the bollards as they're not rigid and a cyclist still has nowhere to go, yes it's a 'start' but it's still not good enough.

buffalo

P_1 wrote: »

The bollard row (for lack of a better term) seems to carry on over a meter or so beyond the apex of the turn on the motorist's side which I guess forces the driver to take a wider turning circle leaving plenty of room for the cyclist. Not ideal but a step in the right direction.

It's not a start. That's it. They've done *something* so now the problem has been solved!

brocbrocach

buffalo wrote: »

Is it? Now there's no choice but to proceed up the inside of left-turning traffic, the cyclist with a false sense of safety and the motorist not thinking of the cyclist as being part of the flow of traffic.

It should either be segregated or not - this half-baked magic flexi-wand nonsense doesn't help much at all. Either teach cyclists to take the lane and motorists to respect their position, or provide off-road facilities with equal priority at junctions (i.e. same amount of traffic light time and no yielding to side roads).

These things won't happen in the next 5/10/20/50 years. In the meantime the flexi-wands are a lot better than nothing on that particular corner.

Harrybelafonte

brocbrocach wrote: »

These things won't happen in the next 5/10/20/50 years. In the meantime the flexi-wands are a lot better than nothing on that particular corner.

No they're not. As explained above.

brocbrocach

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

No they're not. As explained above.

I don't think it's explained at all. I can't see how they worsen the corner from a cyclists pov and they certainly improve it in some ways.

buffalo

brocbrocach wrote: »

I don't think it's explained at all. I can't see how they worsen the corner from a cyclists pov and they certainly improve it in some ways.

It's worse because it does not prevent vehicles (including HGVs) from turning left on top of a cyclist, and it increases the likelihood of this happening because:
* cyclists are given a false sense of security by the poles and therefore more likely to indulge in risky behaviour/less likely to be cautious (i.e. ride assertively / take the lane)
* the motorist is less likely to be cautious of the cyclist as the cyclist is behind a barrier and therefore not part of the traffic on the road.

The basic conflict of cyclists proceeding straight being directed up the inside of left-turning traffic still exists, and the metal barriers which prevent the last-resort escape to the footpath are still in place. How is this an improved situation?

magicbastarder

generally, at a junction like this, if there's heavy vehicles, i'll tend to - if possible - move out into the lane and sit between the vehicle in front and the cehicle behind. the bollards like this could potentially prevent this option.

P_1

I'll try to grab a pic on the way home but the way they are set up seem to give you the option of taking the lane of you're going straight

buffalo

Deedsie wrote: »

This is an awkward situation for the council. Who does and doesnt have right of way at a junction with a left turn. Who's responsibility is more important in different scenarios. If (and I am not suggesting anyone who died because they didnt) I see a left turning truck or bus I am going nowehere near the inside of it. Ill slow down, stop and wait.

Is that right, no, but we all share the roads and the truck or bus needs to be able tune left sometimes.

Its easy say the bollards wont help. Tell us a reasonable way to fix this situation?

It is not an easy fix.

Already done:

buffalo wrote: »

Either teach cyclists to take the lane and motorists to respect their position, or provide off-road facilities with equal priority at junctions (i.e. same amount of traffic light time and no yielding to side roads).

Grassey

Deedsie wrote: »

This is an awkward situation for the council. Who does and doesnt have right of way at a junction with a left turn.

If the lane (cycle) is straight through and sits to the left of a traffic lane which turns left across it, it's pretty obvious that any traffic that is crossing another lane has to yield. There was a sign to this effect previously at Fosters Ave.

Any other interpretation is nonsensical as it'd suggest that cars can enter minor roads/driveways etc across a cycle lane without yielding.