Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Dublin - BusConnects
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
This is literally a thread for a project to vastly improve integrated public transport.
Leaving aside the mountain of evidence that shows how safer cycling infrastructure and removing space from cars increases the number of cyclists.
And there is a similar mountain of evidence that shows
A) Buses or cycling measures are no where near as effective as trams or rail at reducing congestion
Cycling (outside of the rather ironically non mountainous) country of Holland has an extremely low modal split in the vast majority of cities around the world. 0 -
There is no reason why the same can't be done here.
There’s a whole list of reasons why the same can’t be done here including (but not limited to):
A) the fact that Holland is predominately flat and Dublin/Ireland certainly isn’t making it harder to cycle Holland invested in its infrastructure which if history is anything to go by won’t happen here despite the promise of commitments
C) the perception that Ireland has a wet climate not suitable for cycling - I am aware we get similar levels of rain to Amsterdam
D) the power of the motorist lobby and in particular car park owners
E) the lack of adequate facilities in a number of work places
F) the fact that a number of people are not able to cycle and in turn that a strategy focused purely on cycling would be discriminatory
Etc
Etc
And trust me I could go on.
In summary I would say that yes Amsterdam is a paradise for cyclists but it is the exception rather than the norm of most cities. We should not be trying to emulate it as it is simply not feasible. We should seek a balance where cyclists can be safe but most importantly public transport is the main mode to get around the city0 -
And there is a similar mountain of evidence that shows
A) Buses or cycling measures are no where near as effective as trams or rail at reducing congestion Cycling (outside of the rather ironically non mountainous) country of Holland has an extremely low modal split in the vast majority of cities around the world.
A) Efficacy is an utterly irrelevant metric without including cost. Heavy rail is the most effective means of getting people from A to B but we can't build it everywhere. Copenhagen for one. Unsurprisingly the modal share is high where cities have bothered to put the infrastructure in place. You may as well point to the low overall modal share of tram lines as a reason not to build more. 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
is_that_so wrote: »I really don't get why cyclists imagine that better cycling infrastructure will address the volume of cars. It is beneficial for cyclists unquestionably but without vastly improved integrated public transport it really doesn't matter what's done for bikes.
Are you sure about that?
Recent modal share (I think 2017/8) on the left with modal change over one year on the right. btm = bus, tram, metro
Modal share change in Eindhoven:
Clearly we’re looking at different drawings because the new proposals that I was looking at as tweeted by Kevin Baker increases the mixing of pedestrians and cyclists at the corners.
You're trying to claim segregation between cycling and walking increases mixed? You really need to stop talking nonsense.If a cyclist is coming around that bend at speed and a pedestrian is crossing it’s not going to end well.
Scaremongering nonsense following from other ill-informed posts.Under the old proposal this was not an issue. This is an even bigger issue for people with disabilities as I was keen to highlight.
As already posted, which you have yet to address:
Let’s get this straight: There’s people with disabilities who are pedestrians and there’s people with disabilities who are cyclists.
People with disabilities cycle themselves, are carried by bicycles (ie parents), and use cycle tracks things other than bicycles.
And for people with disabilities who do not cycle, crossing a cycle track is far better than mixing with bicycles in shared space.Your last point supports the old proposal over the new one so you’re completely contradicting yourself.
That's gibberish -- if you don't know how to see the difference between shared space and seprate space on drawings, you probably should not be looking at drawings.How are my other posts ill-informed? I’ve said time and time again that investment in trams is a far better investment than cycling or buses if we want to reduce congestion. No one has pointed to a single piece of research or figure that suggests otherwise. When it comes to buses vs trams, the theory is backed up by cso data.
How are your posts ill-informed? You claim to be relying on research yet you have it wrong on why more people don't cycle. It's possable that you're playing the fool here -- you know you are wrong but won't admit it because of your bias against cycling.
I don't know what "reduce congestion" means to you as it means so many things to so many people.
Trams are better at moving people but giving space to buses and cycling in BusConnects will reduce the numbers of people traveling by car across the city far more than the same amount of funding would if it was spent just on a tram line or two. But the plan isn't one or the other -- there are also plans for new or extended tram lines.
Return for investment -- cycling beats trams or buses to a huge degree. A large percentage of the benefits are health, so, it's up to Government to see that not just siloed transport bodies.0 -
-
And there is a similar mountain of evidence that shows
A) Buses or cycling measures are no where near as effective as trams or rail at reducing congestion Cycling (outside of the rather ironically non mountainous) country of Holland has an extremely low modal split in the vast majority of cities around the world.
Yet, Dublin is at 7-10% modal share before it has a single continuously segregated cycle route from city centre to any suburb.
I'm a big fan of tram, but you're data is wrong -- modal share for cycling has been around the same as tram use for Dublin City Council residents for years.There’s a whole list of reasons why the same can’t be done here including (but not limited to):
A) the fact that Holland is predominately flat and Dublin/Ireland certainly isn’t making it harder to cycle
The regions of Holland are predominately, The Netherlands (ie the country) is a little more mixed. And there's still high modal share in less flat places. Electric bicycles can help too. Holland invested in its infrastructure which if history is anything to go by won’t happen here despite the promise of commitments
Same can be said about public transport and expensive trams more than anything (except metro or heavy rail).
Cycling is a cheap way to provide sustainable transport with higher returns than other modes.C) the perception that Ireland has a wet climate not suitable for cycling - I am aware we get similar levels of rain to Amsterdam
Then you're just spreading an excuse. The real barrier is danger from motorists and lack of infrastructure to reduce that.D) the power of the motorist lobby and in particular car park owners
Which somehow does not apply to giving space to trams? :pac:E) the lack of adequate facilities in a number of work places
How much do you think that ranks in being a barrier to cycling when people cycling shorter trips don't need showers etc, and the vast bulk of work places have them are getting them or can be adapted? Again, you're making excuses, not providing reasons.F) the fact that a number of people are not able to cycle and in turn that a strategy focused purely on cycling would be discriminatory
A few points on this:- More people are able to cycle than those who can drive.
- People can also be carried by bicycle.
- Luas-like tram systems can only reach a percentage of the population
- More people cycling is of benefit to the country, even to people who don't cycle
In summary I would say that yes Amsterdam is a paradise for cyclists but it is the exception rather than the norm of most cities. We should not be trying to emulate it as it is simply not feasible.
Amsterdam is far from a paradise for cyclists. Utrecht is a far better example to follow.We should seek a balance where cyclists can be safe but most importantly public transport is the main mode to get around the city
Sure a balance to the second part, but why the second part? Is it even a reachable goal a city with Dublin's density (around about Amsterdam's) to get city-wide 50%, all-trips modal share for public transport?
You mentioned 50%... why not target that as the level of cycling in Dublin? It would still mean loads of options for people who can't cycle or have problems with cycling like some boards.ie posters.0 -
And there is a similar mountain of evidence that shows
A) Buses or cycling measures are no where near as effective as trams or rail at reducing congestion Cycling (outside of the rather ironically non mountainous) country of Holland has an extremely low modal split in the vast majority of cities around the world.
Road space should be based on volume of people each transport mode will move. Cycling is bottom of that pile yet it will get a disproportionate amount of space0 -
A) Efficacy is an utterly irrelevant metric without including cost. Heavy rail is the most effective means of getting people from A to B but we can't build it everywhere. Copenhagen for one. Unsurprisingly the modal share is high where cities have bothered to put the infrastructure in place. You may as well point to the low overall modal share of tram lines as a reason not to build more.
A) I assume you’re talking about efficiency? In that case yes heavy rail is most efficient followed by metro followed by trams etc. We can’t build heavy rail everywhere but we can build light rail lines to serve the vast majority of the city which is more efficient than buses everywhere. I said the vast majority. Of course there is exceptions. Your point about trams is invalid as it has been shown on this thread that trams in Dublin alone carry a significant number of passengers and a high modal share given their relative size. 2 tram lines carrying millions of passengers. 0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement