Irish cyclists looking for a €1b investment? - note stay on-topic warning, post #160

monument

No replying to moderation in-thread! Use PM if you need to. Read the charter!

- moderator

ted1

dfeo wrote: »

If we do spend 1,000,000,000 Euro, the the use of the infrastructure MUST become mandatory. Otherwise, it's wasted money.

I think a system like in The Netherlands where 50cc mopeds can share the cycle lane too would be fair.

If it's safe cyclists will deffo use it. I have a wife and two daughters one is7 and the other is 5 I also have a 15 month year old son. When I leave the house in the morning to go to work my one job is to return alive. If I Can do that using bike lanes I will, but the current infrastructure is dangerous do I work t use them, sometimes they are safe sometimes not.

Carlos Orange

ted1 wrote: »

If it's safe cyclists will deffo use it.

Generally speaking cyclists do whatever is most expedient for them as individuals at any given moment. Unless our entire transport infrastructure is designed around cyclists they will continue to do that.

coolbeans

Just like everyone else then.

Carlos Orange

coolbeans wrote: »

Just like everyone else then.

It is different to the behaviour of other vehicle users but I wouldn't expect to convince cyclists, especially on the internet.

Chuchote

psinno wrote: »

It is different to the behaviour of other vehicle users but I wouldn't expect to convince cyclists, especially on the internet.

Cyclists aren't a cult! Heh!

But serio, it could be useful to run a campaign for drivers to see cyclists and watch out for them; sometimes you feel like a ghost on the road.

Carlos Orange

Chuchote wrote: »

Cyclists aren't a cult! Heh!

The only real difference between a cult and a religion is religions have been around longer.

monument

psinno wrote: »

The only real difference between a cult and a religion is religions have been around longer.

Chuchote wrote: »

Cyclists aren't a cult! Heh!

But serio, it could be useful to run a campaign for drivers to see cyclists and watch out for them; sometimes you feel like a ghost on the road.

psinno wrote: »

It is different to the behaviour of other vehicle users but I wouldn't expect to convince cyclists, especially on the internet.

Last warning!

Back on topic or there will be infractions.

Posts directly replying to off-beat issues on the question of infrastructure are ok, but a few posts removed from that and unrelated talk about educating other road users is not on-topic.

-- moderator

Chuchote

Editorial in The Irish Times today:

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/making-cycling-safer-1.2820837

Cyclists are in the ha’penny place when it comes to capital funding for transport, as shown by the fact that cycling and walking – the “active modes” as they are termed – together account for a miserable one per cent of the 2016-2021 transport investment programme.

shootermacg

Wow there wasn't one bad word about cyclists in that whole article, must be just 100% Shane Ross bashing week then ^ ^

SeanW

Chuchote wrote: »

Editorial in The Irish Times today:

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/making-cycling-safer-1.2820837

Would that be, €100,000,000?

magicbastarder

anyway, i'm disappointed no-one picked up on my suggestion of creating critical mass by paying the €1bn directly to cyclists for cycling.

what's the sort of design the cycling lobby groups would be aiming for? i think - assuming the €1bn won't be forthcoming - that one option would be a 'rim and spoke' design - e.g. create a good quality cycleway on one of the ring roads (e.g. from finglas village along glasnevin avenue, collins avenue, out to donnycarney and the howth road, and then nominate 'high quality' cycle lanes inbound and outbound, e.g. ballymun road, malahide road etc.
rinse and repeat for the rest of the city and hopefully most people would live close enough to one of these as an option?

Chuchote

magicbastarder wrote: »

anyway, i'm disappointed no-one picked up on my suggestion of creating critical mass by paying the €1bn directly to cyclists for cycling.

what's the sort of design the cycling lobby groups would be aiming for? i think - assuming the €1bn won't be forthcoming - that one option would be a 'rim and spoke' design - e.g. create a good quality cycleway on one of the ring roads (e.g. from finglas village along glasnevin avenue, collins avenue, out to donnycarney and the howth road, and then nominate 'high quality' cycle lanes inbound and outbound, e.g. ballymun road, malahide road etc.
rinse and repeat for the rest of the city and hopefully most people would live close enough to one of these as an option?

First would be the cycleways that are currently planned and in some cases half constructed but needing to be joined up: the Liffeyside Cycleway (that's not its official title, but I can't remember what is…) which would bring bikes on a protected cycleway alongside a bus/taxi lane on the north quays. Second is the Mountains-to-Sea Cycleway all the way along the Dodder from Glenasmole down to where the river debouches into the sea at Ringsend, where that route would join the Liffey route. Third is the Royal Canal Cycleway, and fourth is the Grand Canal Cycleway. (The funding for the last three, not a huge amount of money, was last month taken away and fed into the billionaire Luas building, which was half of what sparked the ongoing cycle protests, the other half being the death of Donna Fox as she cycled to work near the Sam Beckett Bridge.)

Second would be separated cycleways along the main commuter routes, I'd guess, though I would also hope that we would try to get separated cycleways to as many schools as possible; for instance, the road I live on is 2.7km long and has three schools on it; a two-way cycleway all along this road would allow hundreds of children to cycle safely to school, since most of the kids live on this road or within a side road or two of it.

A cycleway along a road has several advantages - halved pollution and noise; more shopping, since cyclists hop off and go in and browse; more trade for cafes for the same reason; safer road. It has one disadvantage: cycleways tend to bring gentrification, squeezing out working-class people from areas that were traditionally a nice mix.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/oct/05/blame-bike-cycling-contribute-city-gentrification

Banjoxed

Arthur.beaker wrote: »

eeguy wrote: »

I will absolutely cycle on the footpath if I deem the road too dangerous.
There's plenty of right hand turns in Dublin with no filter light that are hazardous to cars, never mind cyclist.

I've never heard of anyone getting a penalty notice. Not a single guard pays any heed to cyclists, since the risk of harm is so low.

So your boast about not breaking the law earlier was hot air? I'll have that medal back, please.

Oi! Give that biscuit back to the dog as well.

patrickbrophy18

Duckjob wrote: »

+1

What i'd love is for them to to get a budget like that and then hire a proper expert like this guy to oversee the spend:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX8zZdLw7cs

That's an excellent video and I knew that I recognized the guy in that video. He's the CEO of Copenhagenize Design Co. (Mikael Colville-Andersen). There is a very good series of videos at the following thread featuring him:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057099587

In the video posted by Duckjob as well as the video series on Vimeo, he makes a lot of sense. One of the things mentioned is a city designed by 5-10 year olds which highlights a lot of truths about the way in which cities have been designed over the last century. That truth is that our cities are very car-centric and unsafe for kids. A few hours of walking through Dublin City a couple of weeks ago has completely opened my eyes to this. The pedestrian crossing between O'Connell Bridge and O'Connell Street is overflowing with pedestrians. Taking cars out of the equation here will allow the footpaths to be widened at this hazardous junction.

Let's not forget that Dublin's once extensive network of tram lines and railways were torn up in vain of a city that is now extremely car dependent. I had another look at the quays project which Monument posted here and I am in favor of the proposal. Westmoreland Street (5 lanes) and to a slightly lesser extent D'Olier Street (4 lanes) are death traps for cyclists and pedestrians due to their excessive road widths. I am also in favor of the plan to have a pedestrianized thoroughfare at College Green. The joining up of the two Luas lines adjacent to this thoroughfare should give less motorists an excuse to use it. Besides, from a motorists perspective, I prefer getting the DART into town as driving around town is too much hassle.

monument

Any posts of random things or which are off-topic are now being deleted and the users are getting warnings which will turn into infractions.

When a mod says on-topic and goes to the bother of sticking that warning in the thread title -- it's not being said likely. We're not going back off-topic here again, this is about 10% of cycling funding.

lawlolawl

Yeah, let's spend money on more cycle lanes/shared spaces that cyclists can continue to ignore whilst cycling on the main road in 100km/h traffic 5 feet away from said cycle lane/shared space.

Danjamin1

I'd love to know (though I could probably guess) how experienced any of the anti-investment posters are with cycling on the existing infrastructure. It's not fit for purpose, is badly planned, badly maintained & outright dangerous at sections. Mandatory use makes cycling certain routes impossible due to a lack of joined up routes & a prevalence of sudden ends to the lanes or continuous lanes that don't offer an alternative route to follow the roadway.

I don't know what level of investment would be required to upgrade the infrastructure to an acceptable standard but it's ridiculous to suggest the investment should be based on mandatory use. Whatever investment is ultimately agreed on there needs to be a reasonable amount spent on consultation & planning, the worst case scenario would be endless miles of new cycle lanes added to the existing standard.

Chuchote

I cycle from Rathmines to Donnybrook most days. About 100 metres of that cycle - along a tiny bit of Milltown Road - is on a cycle path, and that path is a streak of paint and different-coloured surface along the Milltown Road.
Most of the rest of the cycle is on back roads, because I don't feel that drivers regard my safety enough on main roads. On Beaver Row, I simply get off and walk - it's narrow, and it's a rat run, with cars speeding down it, and the surface is truly dangerous (picture below).
Sometimes, when I have time, I then go down to the sea, cycling for pleasure on the mixed walking and cycling paths going further down the Dodder, beside Herbert Park to Ballsbridge, and then from Ballsbridge to Ringsend behind Lansdowne Road Stadium. This is a real pleasure, and there's a lovely buzz between walkers and cyclists who use the path, with lots of dog walkers, local people out for a stroll, little kids on their balance bikes and scooters, and Googleland types wandering along talking about algorithms.
It's a living example of how awful our roads are to cycle that it's not easy to take the more direct way; instead, you have to take back roads to be safe.
And it's an example of how lovely a cycleway can be when it's done right.

Beaver Row potholes, deadly for cyclists on this narrow road:

Duckjob

Chuchote wrote: »

I cycle from Rathmines to Donnybrook most days. About 100 metres of that cycle - along a tiny bit of Milltown Road - is on a cycle path, and that path is a streak of paint and different-coloured surface along the Milltown Road.
Most of the rest of the cycle is on back roads, because I don't feel that drivers regard my safety enough on main roads. On Beaver Row, I simply get off and walk - it's narrow, and it's a rat run, with cars speeding down it, and the surface is truly dangerous (picture below).
Sometimes, when I have time, I then go down to the sea, cycling for pleasure on the mixed walking and cycling paths going further down the Dodder, beside Herbert Park to Ballsbridge, and then from Ballsbridge to Ringsend behind Lansdowne Road Stadium. This is a real pleasure, and there's a lovely buzz between walkers and cyclists who use the path, with lots of dog walkers, local people out for a stroll, little kids on their balance bikes and scooters, and Googleland types wandering along talking about algorithms.
It's a living example of how awful our roads are to cycle that it's not easy to take the more direct way; instead, you have to take back roads to be safe.
And it's an example of how lovely a cycleway can be when it's done right.

Beaver Row potholes, deadly for cyclists on this narrow road:

Even the dogs are tut-tutting the state of it

shootermacg

Wait until it fills with water or leaves, that's when the accident's happen.

Banjoxed

Danjamin1 wrote: »

I'd love to know (though I could probably guess) how experienced any of the anti-investment posters are with cycling on the existing infrastructure. It's not fit for purpose, is badly planned, badly maintained & outright dangerous at sections. Mandatory use makes cycling certain routes impossible due to a lack of joined up routes & a prevalence of sudden ends to the lanes or continuous lanes that don't offer an alternative route to follow the roadway.

I don't know what level of investment would be required to upgrade the infrastructure to an acceptable standard but it's ridiculous to suggest the investment should be based on mandatory use. Whatever investment is ultimately agreed on there needs to be a reasonable amount spent on consultation & planning, the worst case scenario would be endless miles of new cycle lanes added to the existing standard.

Ballyhooing about "investing" in cycle infrastructure is a cheap distraction from the real infrastructure investments needed to bring Dublin up to scratch. Imagine anyone picking Dublin as an alternative to the City of London when what we are offering in reality is an hour and a half commute from sprawled suburbs with oversubscribed Catholic schools. We are fooling ourselves if anyone really thinks Ireland's traditional half arsed approach to capital investment will really suffice anymore. In any case our administrative masters are far more comfortable expecting decline and emigration.

As for cycle lanes, they will always be done on the cheap and rarely be fit for purpose. But hey, we will be seen to be "investing in health and infrastructure" without spending enough on either. And that's what Official Ireland loves. The optics.

monument

Banjoxed wrote: »

Ballyhooing about "investing" in cycle infrastructure is a cheap distraction from the real infrastructure investments needed to bring Dublin up to scratch. Imagine anyone picking Dublin as an alternative to the City of London...

I'll stop you at claiming cycling is a cheap distraction and London...

YouTube videos show that London's new kerb-protected Cycle Superhighways are packed with cyclists, especially during morning and afternoon peaks, and now Transport for London confirms that cyclists are, indeed, flocking to the new routes.

“Early cycle counts show that there has been an average 60 per cent increase in cyclists using the new routes when compared to before they were built," Leon Daniels, MD of Surface Transport at TfL, told BikeBiz. "At its busiest, cyclists make up 70 per cent of all traffic on Blackfriars Bridge on the North-South Cycle Superhighway."

http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/cycling-surge-in-london-due-to-protected-cycle-superhighways-says-tfl/019677

One of those YouTube videos shows why "cheap distraction" is hard to understand:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn6Xj6XZDIw

Those workers in London don't want to be back in cars or buses or trains!

shootermacg

That video makes me happy ^ ^.

Chuchote

Banjoxed wrote: »

Ballyhooing about "investing" in cycle infrastructure is a cheap distraction from the real infrastructure investments needed to bring Dublin up to scratch.

Speaking as an existentialist I would say that cycleways are equal in reality to car highways!

Building good cycleways is good for other roads too, because it means fewer cars on the roads wearing them out.

But there are also other things that take up road space; for instance, why should people feel they have the right to store their cars on the public road outside their homes, rather than make a parking space in the front garden, if they have one? Think how much road space would be released if car parking was off the street surface.

bk

I have to say, I can't think of any other project that would have more benefit on transport infrastructure in general and the people of Dublin, then spending 1 billion on cycling infrastructure.

1 Billion would be enough to get you a core high quality, segregated and safe cycle network that would cover all the major routes into and around Dublin and likely a piece of infrastructure that would last a hundred years if maintained properly. And you probably have enough left over for lots of new Dublin bike stations and more dedicated bike parking.

But how would that benefit others?

Well I 100% believe (and well proven by other cities) that if you build high quality, safe cycling infrastructure, that tens of thousands of people will flock to use it. That means 10,000's of less people taking buses, darts, luases and sitting in cars in traffic. It could go a very long way to taking the serious pressure off our struggling public transport infrastructure and traffic congestion off our roads.

Just think about how much quieter traffic congestion is during the summer months because schools are on holidays. Now imagine that year round because 10'000's less people are sitting in a car next to you, as they have instead decided to cycle!

I literally can't think of a single other way that spending 1 billion could have a greater impact on ALL transport in Dublin and for the general health of the city and not just for cyclists.

Stop and think about it, what project could you spend a billion on that would be more beneficial to Dublin transport problems?

- Road projects, well basically there are zero major road projects planned for Dublin at the moment and the reason is that there simply isn't any more space for more roads in the cramped medieval streets of Dublin.

- Metro North and DART underground, fantastic projects that I'm a big fan of. By they are going to cost 10 billion, not 1 billion. 1 billion will barely get you a hole dug on these projects and as a result they are unlikely to happen for at least another ten years. So lets spend the 1 billion on adjusting the street space to give less to cars and more to pedestrians/bikes/buses/trams.

- Luas, well you might get another new tram line for 1 billion. But to where? We are sort of running out of places we can extend Luas to in a sensible manner and that has a good return on investment. There is another thread on this forum with people arguing about what should be the next Luas line. Lucan, Finglas, etc. But all the suggestions look pretty poor and of questionable value for money. And certainly one new Luas extension will touch less of the city, then a billion spent on a comprehensive cycle network throughout the whole city.

- Buses, you could of course spend some more on buses. But the reality is that the issues with buses isn't money, rather it is that we have pretty much already maxed out the available street space with as many buses as you can. All you have to do is stand on Westmorland Street to watch the chaos of buses queuing up trying to get to the bus stops to pick people up. It is quiet clear to me that we can't fit too many more buses on our streets as they currently are laid out.

You could argue that you could spend the money to reduce street space for cars and give more space, priority and facilities to buses. But I would argue, if you are doing that, it would be easy to also put a high quality dedicated cycle paths in at the same time and also increase and improve footpaths. I'd argue all three go very well together.

So honestly, I can't think of a better way to spend 1 billion on transport infrastructure in Dublin.

Banjoxed

monument wrote: »

I'll stop you at claiming cycling is a cheap distraction and London...

Did you read my last paragraph Monument?

robyntmorton

If I could just say everything BK said above again it would be perfect.

It is definitely a case of if you build it they will come. The trouble though, is that Iteland has a tendency to half ass most things, say it'll do, and have to constantly upgrade/redo what they've done. That will not work here.

What is needed is a phased release of funds, to high quality, well planned projects. It is not good enough to toss a little money to make the current problem go away for a while. Building everything properly takes a little longer, but offers long term solutions and benefits.

magicbastarder

how many cyclists were using the clontarf to sutton cycleway before the works started at st. anne's park?
would be especially interested in how many were using it for commuting (thus actually taking motorised traffic off the roads).

will also be interesting to see if there's much upswing in traffic once it's complete.

Chuchote

magicbastarder wrote: »

how many cyclists were using the clontarf to sutton cycleway before the works started at st. anne's park?
would be especially interested in how many were using it for commuting (thus actually taking motorised traffic off the roads).

will also be interesting to see if there's much upswing in traffic once it's complete.

I'd guess that not much will happen at first, then come a really fine summer week a few people will discover it, then a few more, then a flood.