Cycle infrastructure planned for south Dublin

tomasrojo

First Up wrote: »

Good for you, although I wouldn't expect many 60+ year olds to use one.

Where have the goalposts gone now?

They have electric-assist cargo bike and trikes now. Very practical for anyone, including people who don't have that much strength.

Look, plenty of people rely on bikes, and they're a good solution for plenty of urban transport. They're frequently faster than cars and vans too, and pollute less, and cause less wear and tear. Which is why decent joined-up infrastructure is desirable. Which, if you like, brings everyone back to Strand Road, as you desired.

First Up

AndrewJRenko wrote:

I'm not sure if you've managed to work this out yet, but it is very much in the interest of motorists to reduce the number of cars on the road, so that the remaining motorists have some hope of completing their journey before they go grey.

I agree completely.

Now back to Strand Rd.

buffalo

First Up wrote: »

Yes, let's reduce car usage.

Now back to Strand Rd.

"Let's reduce car usage... now let's talk about my opposition to a measure that reduces car usage". :rolleyes:

Weepsie

First Up wrote: »

Good for you, although I wouldn't expect many 60+ year olds to use one.

So when one point fails, onto the next stupid one?

Why wouldn't 60+ years old use it. 60 isn't particularly old. I know quite a few over 70s who cycle either for leisure, exercise and commutting. A neighbour of mine cycled everywhere up until his passing, despite having a car.

Less cars, would make it a lot more appealing for them to cycle too, and with pedal assist and an ever increasing improvement in eBikes it would make sense.

That's before we get to the health benefits

Weepsie

tomasrojo wrote: »

Look, plenty of people rely on bikes, and they're a good solution for plenty of urban transport. They're frequently faster than cars and vans too, and pollute less, and cause less wear and tear. Which is why decent joined-up infrastructure is desirable. Which, if you like, brings everyone back to Strand Road, as you desired.

I've left town same time as my partner a few times. Me on the bike, she in the car. I'm nearly always home at the very same time, often before

I even once mangaed to get home from Donabate before her (admittedly I was absolutely hoofing it)

I've gone from City Centre to Blanchardstown/Clonee quicker than a bus leaving at the same time. Now that bus would be quicker, and more enjoyable if there were fewer cars.

tomasrojo

I have to say, I'm not totally invested in the Strand Road project -- I don't go that way much -- and while it looks like a good use of a trial to me, I won't be crushed if the opponents get their way. But it still looks exactly like all the other objections to traffic reduction schemes, and those schemes mostly have worked out fine in Dublin, and once in place residents tend to like them. They're only partly about cycling anyway.

First Up

tomasrojo wrote:

Look, plenty of people rely on bikes, and they're a good solution for plenty of urban transport. They're frequently faster than cars and vans too, and pollute less, and cause less wear and tear. Which is why decent joined-up infrastructure is desirable. Which, if you like, brings everyone back to Strand Road, as you desired.

Do you expect people to cycle along Strand Rd to their appointments in St Vincent's or the Blackrock Clinic?

Strand Rd could be safely open to bikes, cars, trucks and buses in both directions by building a cycle and pedestrian path over the few hundred meters not already available in the park.

That's the win/win solution but Mr Keegan has another agenda.

buffalo

First Up wrote: »

That's the win/win solution but Mr Keegan has another agenda.

Is this the agenda that you completely support, to reduce car usage?

tomasrojo

First Up wrote: »

Do you expect people to cycle along Strand Rd to their appointments in St Vincent's or the Blackrock Clinic?

Well, I have and I know plenty of people who have. Without decent, joined-up infrastructure it's not that likely though.

Is this the point where you bring up carrying flat-screen TVs and fridges? I just have a bingo card to fill out.

Seth Brundle

First Up wrote: »

Do you expect people to cycle along Strand Rd to their appointments in St Vincent's or the Blackrock Clinic?

You're just looking for outliers. Nobody is trying to force everyone onto a bike for every journey.
However, the evidence shows that if it is provided, more people will use the opportunity to cycle along safe infrastructure. People can still drive but they have a choice to drive, cycle, bus or whatever.
It is not reasonable to facilitate the least efficient method of commuting simply because many are too lazy to choose not to drive.

First Up wrote: »

Strand Rd could be safely open to bikes, cars, trucks and buses in both directions by building a cycle and pedestrian path over the few hundred meters not already available in the park.

Are you suggesting they remove the foot paths? Or CPO the front gardens of resinbents or what?
Or are you heading down that well worn avenue of building on the biosphere without answering the simple question of whether all alternatives have been looked at?

First Up wrote: »

That's the win/win solution but Mr Keegan has another agenda.

What exactly is his agenda?

AndrewJRenko

First Up wrote: »

Cars can carry a lot of shopping. Bicycles can't.

Ahem

https://www.instagram.com/p/CL13oaGF0li/?igshid=up68dgyajezz

https://twitter.com/pedalmeapp/status/1365271389108908034?s=19

Weepsie

First Up wrote: »

Do you expect people to cycle along Strand Rd to their appointments in St Vincent's or the Blackrock Clinic?

.

And just what % of journeys on strand road do these make up?


I don't live in the area, but I did work very close to Sandymount for a year recently, and worked with people in the area, and dealt with a lot of locals in the area, including schools and elderly people. This would have been a huge positive for them.

I've since moved, now in a different part of the city, but not far away, and close to where I worked anyway. Now going on about 10 years in the city centre.

Anything that reduces car journeys into the city centre is only a good thing. It won't just benefit the people on Strand road. It eventually has a wider knock on, as car journeys fall (slowly unfortunately), and people adopt and adapt to new methods

magicbastarder

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Car occupancy rates in Dublin were around 1.2 last time I looked.

it's variable, depending on where you look. i remember on the quays, it was 1.16 on average about 15 years ago. on the M50, not dissimiliar IIRC. but within the suburbs, it's higher, a lot to do with kids being driven to school i think.

First Up

buffalo wrote:

Is this the agenda that you completely support, to reduce car usage?

A safe cycle path along Strand Rd will encourage cyclists to use it. It will have neglible impact on car usage.

tomasrojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's variable, depending on where you look. i remember on the quays, it was 1.16 on average about 15 years ago. on the M50, not dissimiliar IIRC. but within the suburbs, it's higher, a lot to do with kids being driven to school i think.

Think that one early improvement resulting from traffic-reduction schemes this year has been an increase in kids making their own way to school. The school run is a really clear burden at peak travel times, as you can tell from how traffic levels drop on the first day of a school holiday.

buffalo

First Up wrote: »

A safe cycle path along Strand Rd will encourage cyclists to use it. It will have neglible impact on car usage.

Your two statements cannot both be true. When you encourage and increase cycling trips, you discourage and decrease car trips.

Or, more succintly:

First Up

tomasrojo wrote:

Is this the point where you bring up carrying flat-screen TVs and fridges? I just have a bingo card to fill out.

I hope you are as good at avoiding road hazards as you are at missing the point.

Its a pity that any discussion about traffic measures is immediately hijacked by biking zealots, to the exclusion of everything else.

tomasrojo

First Up wrote: »

I hope you are as good at avoiding road hazards as you are at missing the point.

Its a pity that any discussion about traffic measures is immediately hijacked by biking zealots, to the exclusion of everything else.

It is the cycling forum you've chosen to have this discussion on?

AndrewJRenko

First Up wrote: »

A safe cycle path along Strand Rd will encourage cyclists to use it. It will have neglible impact on car usage.

Again, you seem to have forgotten that most of those cyclists have cars, but are choosing to cycle instead.

tomasrojo

I did actually say that these traffic-reduction schemes are only partly about cycling. The reason discussions around the cycling aspect tend to dominate (even outside cycling forums) is because they're regarded as the best line of attack, as people have readily accepted boiler-plate reasons, which we've had a reasonably thorough run through this morning, for why cycling is the preserve of the middle class, cranks, hobbyists, etc.

Seth Brundle

First Up wrote: »

I hope you are as good at avoiding road hazards as you are at missing the point.

Its a pity that any discussion about traffic measures is immediately hijacked by biking zealots, to the exclusion of everything else.

Are you trying to say that existing cyclists will change their route to use it but the number of motorists will not decrease?
Well if so, lets just ignore the complete inaccuracy of your message and focus on the safety from having protected infrastructure...

fat bloke

I never understood why the "One Less Car" slogan never really but into the public (motoring) psyche. Apart from children obviously, virtually every cyclist you see on the road has chosen to leave the car at home, thereby removing one car from the road and therefore leaving more space for every driver on the road. By bullying those people OFF their bikes, you drive (sorry) them back into their cars and back onto the roads in front of you.

Perhaps it's a grammar thing. Car pilots are an intelligent bunch and are acutely rule-cognisant and pedantic. it should of course be "One Car Fewer".

Eamonnator

magicbastarder wrote: »

that probably cost a hundred times as much to install as the car that's on it is worth. and that's not an exaggeration.

20 year old import, certainly not worth a lot.

First Up

buffalo wrote:

Your two statements cannot both be true. When you encourage and increase cycling trips, you discourage and decrease car trips.

Most cycling along Strand Rd is (and will be) a leisure activity. That's what the cycle path is intended to encourage and facilitate.

It will replace some sitting on couches but not many necessary car journeys. It will just divert them.

tomasrojo

First Up wrote: »

Most cycling along Strand Rd is (and will be) a leisure activity. That's what the cycle path is intended to encourage and facilitate.

Where did DCC say it was for leisure cyclists though? Or anyone?

ted1

First Up wrote: »

Every car and truck that used the Strand Rd to get to the Toll Bridge, Dublin Port or Port Tunnel will still have to make that journey. But they will now have to get there via the side roads of Sandymount.

No they don’t. Those that usually drive may cycle or take public transport or reroute via the M50,before Covid I cycled from killiney to the airport. Lots of my colleagues who lived between the two drove. No reason why they can’t cycle, or use public transport. DART to Connolly and the airlink. Or air coach.

markpb

First Up wrote: »

Most cycling along Strand Rd is (and will be) a leisure activity. That's what the cycle path is intended to encourage and facilitate.

It will replace some sitting on couches but not many necessary car journeys. It will just divert them.

Is that your assumption?

magicbastarder

First Up wrote: »

Most cycling along Strand Rd is ... a leisure activity.

genuinely curious if you have a source for that.
i only ever cycled it around rush hour.

First Up

Seth Brundle wrote:

Are you trying to say that existing cyclists will change their route to use it but the number of motorists will not decrease? Well if so, lets just ignore the complete inaccuracy of your message and focus on the safety from having protected infrastructure...

I'm saying that existing motorists will change their route because they reasons they need their cars and trucks will still be there.

I would expect more cyclists to use the route but they won't replace motorists.

buffalo

First Up wrote: »

Most cycling along Strand Rd is (and will be) a leisure activity. That's what the cycle path is intended to encourage and facilitate.

It will replace some sitting on couches but not many necessary car journeys. It will just divert them.

The idea that couch potatoes are the people who decide to head out for a "leisure cycle" is fierce entertaining! :pac::pac::pac: