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

John_Rambo

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.

Hundreds. I did. And I cycled because of it as I was towing an infant in a trailer and felt it was perfect for it. I know a few people that used it because of it and much more that used it and would have cycled anyway (had it not been there).

magicbastarder

how much falloff has there been because of the roadworks?

John_Rambo

Haven't a notion Magic. But the Howth road (alternative route) has a steady stream of cyclists every morning.

magicbastarder

i've used the howth road myself a couple of times recently (but not at rush hour); it does have a nice wide cycle lane for a good part of it.

plodder

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.

The section just before Alfie Byrne road is very widely used. I use part of it when I'm cycling and there is a constant stream on it in the mornings and in the opposite direction in the evenings.

My view on this whole thing is that it might be better to identify specific works that are needed (and not just in Dublin), estimate what they would cost, and then go looking for that amount of money, rather than plucking a figure like a billion out of the air, which isn't going to be taken seriously imo.

Chuchote

plodder wrote: »

My view on this whole thing is that it might be better to identify specific works that are needed (and not just in Dublin), estimate what they would cost, and then go looking for that amount of money, rather than plucking a figure like a billion out of the air, which isn't going to be taken seriously imo.

Plodder, may I repeat what I said above? This is typical Irish short-termism. It is what led to the stench of sewage at Sandymount every summer, because the engineers estimated how much sewage processing would be needed, and then the population exploded.

The cycling population is already increasing fast, and is about to explode, for all kinds of reasons. We need to build for what it's going to be in the next 100 years, not for what it is now.

Carawaystick

Probably the best cycle lanes, along Alfie Byrne road are used for parking busses on when it suits the corpo and cops.
unless that sort of attitude is removed, then it's hard to see how any mandatory usage of cycle infrastructure could be implemented.

Then you have the Road Safety Authority, who have an official position that it's legal for cars to drive in mandatory cycle lanes, when the law clearly states the opposite. Then they have the brazen necks to state that cyclists must use cycle lanes, when the law is the opposite.

plodder

Chuchote wrote: »

Plodder, may I repeat what I said above? This is typical Irish short-termism. It is what led to the stench of sewage at Sandymount every summer, because the engineers estimated how much sewage processing would be needed, and then the population exploded.

The cycling population is already increasing fast, and is about to explode, for all kinds of reasons. We need to build for what it's going to be in the next 100 years, not for what it is now.

I think the connection between sewerage and population is an easier one to prove. Nobody would doubt that. I just find the way of thinking on this similar to people who say "Look. There's a euro being spent on infrastructure in Dublin. We have to therefore spend 2 euros outside Dublin, because there's twice as many people outside Dublin". Budget that just has to be spent isn't always spent wisely as we saw with the Western Rail corridor. By all means produce a list of projects (greenways, urban cycle ways, improved road design standards). I'd support that all the way. But, even then, I don't see why they should be taken purely out of a "cycling" budget. Be careful what you wish for, is all I'm saying. I can just imagine certain politicians signing up to this, and then when belts have to be tightened, it would be the first thing to get cut.

magicbastarder

the thing is, an expensive new sewerage system running beyond capacity is not something worth celebrating at all.
an expensive new cycle route operating beyond capacity is worth celebrating, in one obvious way.

blackwhite

Chuchote wrote: »

Plodder, may I repeat what I said above? This is typical Irish short-termism. It is what led to the stench of sewage at Sandymount every summer, because the engineers estimated how much sewage processing would be needed, and then the population exploded.

The cycling population is already increasing fast, and is about to explode, for all kinds of reasons. We need to build for what it's going to be in the next 100 years, not for what it is now.

I'm not sure that was what was meant at all.

How I took it to mean was, the better approach would be to draw up and cost a plan of what facilities and infrastructure should be built to both serve the current need, and be able to cope with the projected "explosion" in demand over the coming 15-20 years.
Inevitably there will be the usual naysayers who will try to dismiss the plans as over-engineered, a white elephant, etc, etc. But at least there would be a solid plan to back up the calls for €1bn (or whatever the costed number came to) of investment.
Making calls for a simplistic, round-sum number without a plan of where to spend the money just makes it far too easy for the call for increased funding to be dismissed out of hand.

(and TBH, allocation of funds to unspecified projects that don't have a costed plan in place sounds far too much like the Bertie-nomics that caused our public expenditure to get so out of hand a decade ago).

magicbastarder

has anyone ever approached the council with any success about removing superfluous traffic islands?
i'd pass a few regularly enough, which don't serve much positive purpose but generally mean that the provided cycle lane is more likely to accumulate debris, and was wondering how responsive the council are in relation to modifying or removing them.
a couple of examples; the first seems to exist for the sole purpose of placing the traffic light there:
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3875531,-6.258059,3a,75y,286.95h,89.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7eoRzcdTX1Z32PGJ528FJg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

the one on the left here is entirely superfluous, and the weird slalom in the one on the right is very abrupt if you're moving at a reasonable speed - and the chicane fills up with leaves in the autumn, masking the kerb, so a cyclist not familiar with the road could easily end up on their snot.
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3706758,-6.2336104,3a,75y,281.85h,79.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-AbY7EwaS6jIVpkaZr73Ww!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Carawaystick

magicbastarder wrote: »

has anyone ever approached the council with any success about removing superfluous traffic islands?
]

Next you'll be wanting no speed ramps in cycle lanes going up Ballymun road
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3768031,-6.2694955,3a,75y,324.94h,62.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYSve7PcS_NPROb9kil4QDQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Roadhawk

magicbastarder wrote: »

has anyone ever approached the council with any success about removing superfluous traffic islands?
i'd pass a few regularly enough, which don't serve much positive purpose but generally mean that the provided cycle lane is more likely to accumulate debris, and was wondering how responsive the council are in relation to modifying or removing them.
a couple of examples; the first seems to exist for the sole purpose of placing the traffic light there:
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3875531,-6.258059,3a,75y,286.95h,89.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7eoRzcdTX1Z32PGJ528FJg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

They do look quite awkward but my best guess is that they are there to assist with lane positioning? making sure cars dont vere into the cycle lane when undertaking other cars turning right...i could be wrong.

the one on the left here is entirely superfluous, and the weird slalom in the one on the right is very abrupt if you're moving at a reasonable speed - and the chicane fills up with leaves in the autumn, masking the kerb, so a cyclist not familiar with the road could easily end up on their snot.
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3706758,-6.2336104,3a,75y,281.85h,79.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-AbY7EwaS6jIVpkaZr73Ww!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en[/QUOTE]

The little chicane appears to be there because of the on-street parking that comes after it. maybe its there to warn cyclists or get them to slow down on approach?

magicbastarder

the big problem with the chicane is that - you can see further back along the road - the cycle lane is already well out from the kerb, and it pushes the cycle lane from outside the bus lane, up to the kerb relatively gently, and then swings it back out very quickly; the island's sole purpose seems to be to push the cyclists into the kerb for no other benefit.
if you did happen on the chicane at any speed, you've very little wiggle room for steering at speed.

Corca Baiscinn

Plodder, Blackwhite, of course you are both right re the need for any funds to be spent on costed, targeted specific infrastructure but I think you are wrong to assume that that is not the campaigners' plan also. True, the €Billion is a headline figure representing 1% of transport funding but the Dublin Cycling Campaign and Cyclist.ie the umbrella group to whom they are affiliated have years of engagement, experience and research behind them and you can be sure that they have priority areas/infrastructure in mind based on need and cyclist safety. The groups have posts today, post Budget, on their FB pages asking again for cyclists to email/tweet Shane Ross re #allocate4cycling. Suggested email content provided. Many posters here have done this already afaik. A protest campaign needs snappy headlines, "We shall overcome!", Can't pay, won't pay!" or whatever but you can be sure that behind the slogans there is a plan

lucernarian

Comparing cycling and public transport funding is a dangerous red herring when the best examples of cities with proper cycling infrastructure have a large rail-based mass transportation system underpinning it all. No one can deny the stark picture you're greeted with when you see the mahoosive bike parking facilities right Amsterdam Centraal... And the trains to carry bikes too.

The two should be seen as complimentary and required for each other, not scrapping for the same paltry funds.

Chuchote

lucernarian wrote: »

Comparing cycling and public transport funding is a dangerous red herring when the best examples of cities with proper cycling infrastructure have a large rail-based mass transportation system underpinning it all. No one can deny the stark picture you're greeted with when you see the mahoosive bike parking facilities right Amsterdam Centraal... And the trains to carry bikes too.

The two should be seen as complimentary and required for each other, not scrapping for the same paltry funds.

They should, but Amsterdam's excellent public transport system mainly came after the cycleways were built.

lucernarian

Chuchote wrote: »

They should, but Amsterdam's excellent public transport system mainly came after the cycleways were built.

I can't be certain right now but all the heavy rail infrastructure in the region apart from Almere-lelystad and the Schiphol rail network (excluding high-speed rail for this discussion) was there 50 years ago. Many or most of the tram lines too. The metro system is not a big component of Amsterdam's transport infrastructure.

magicbastarder

lucernarian wrote: »

The two should be seen as complimentary and required for each other, not scrapping for the same paltry funds.

welkom op ierland.

Cookie_Monster

magicbastarder wrote: »

a couple of examples; the first seems to exist for the sole purpose of placing the traffic light there:
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3875531,-6.258059,3a,75y,286.95h,89.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7eoRzcdTX1Z32PGJ528FJg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

that one puts you outside the traffic light and hence not subject to it :pac:

Chuchote

Toronto study finds that good cycling infrastructure gets women on bicycles :
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/one-in-three-cyclists-female-toronto-centre-for-active-transport-1.3802869

And in New York: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2016/09/29/bike-lanes-are-sound-public-health-investment.html

Every $1,300 New York City invested in building bike lanes in 2015 provided benefits equivalent to one additional year of life at full health over the lifetime of all city residents, according to a new economic assessment.

That's a better return on investment than some direct health treatments, like dialysis, which costs $129,000 for one quality-adjusted life year

cython

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

that one puts you outside the traffic light and hence not subject to it :pac:

You may have said that in jest (maybe you were serious, but the smiley suggested otherwise ), but there is at least one similar construction in Dublin on a more macro scale (i.e. for a bus lane) where that is precisely the intention: https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3260421,-6.3584528,3a,75y,288.67h,83.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjY1zu1yEijXaHgMLUET8fw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

So that interpretation may not be as far from the truth as it seems!

magicbastarder

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

that one puts you outside the traffic light and hence not subject to it :pac:

that'd be an interesting one in court, true.
unlike the bus lane cython links to, there's a pedestrian crossing there, so it clearly wasn't the same intention.

magicbastarder

Chuchote wrote: »

And in New York: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2016/09/29/bike-lanes-are-sound-public-health-investment.html

it's a rather odd comparison and one that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, that cycle lanes are cheaper than kidney dialysis. i decried the same sort of logic when it was used to justify a mandatory helmet law.

Chuchote

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's a rather odd comparison and one that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, that cycle lanes are cheaper than kidney dialysis. i decried the same sort of logic when it was used to justify a mandatory helmet law.

Fox News reporting

But whatever about the comparison, the fact that the cycle lanes save money on the Health budget should be one Irish legislators look deep and thoughtfully at.

Chuchote

Interesting address by RHH International chief executive on how Ireland's transport planning focus needs to change:

http://nigeldugdale.ie/2016/10/10/no-one-shouted-stop-growth-cars-suburbia/

magicbastarder

Chuchote wrote: »

But whatever about the comparison, the fact that the cycle lanes save money on the Health budget should be one Irish legislators look deep and thoughtfully at.

one thing (and i'm going OT here) which drives me nuts is people (and i know a few) who suggest that driving should be taught in schools. i hate the notion that driving would be considered a 'life skill' to that point.

one thing i'd give far more support to is cooking classes in schools. i'm not atypical for an irish bloke my age - i had a stay at home mum who cooked everything for us, and never really tried to learn to cook until i was well into my 20s. just a guess, but a lot of the obesity problem has to come from people not knowing where to start when it comes to making dinner for themselves.

Roadhawk

Chuchote wrote: »

Interesting address by RHH International chief executive on how Ireland's transport planning focus needs to change:

http://nigeldugdale.ie/2016/10/10/no-one-shouted-stop-growth-cars-suburbia/

RHH International is an 8 month old company...how credible is John Moran? I have never heard of him but he knows a lot about a lot.

ThisRegard

He's one of the Cycling Illuminati.

Isn't he a former secretary general in the department of finance, worked in the central bank and CEO of a couple of private banks as well as a member of a number of economic forums, and a lobbyist. So as long as that paper wasn't paid for, I imagine pretty credible.

(I only know this because I know someone with by the same name, but probably not the same amount of money)

Roadhawk

ThisRegard wrote: »

He's one of the Cycling Illuminati.

Isn't he a former secretary general in the department of finance, worked in the central bank and CEO of a couple of private banks as well as a member of a number of economic forums, and a lobbyist. So as long as that paper wasn't paid for, I imagine pretty credible.

(I only know this because I know someone with by the same name, but probably not the same amount of money)

I was wondering...after i googled Rhh International the first 2 results were lobbying.ie haha

I quite like his economic approach to urbanisation.