Cycle infrastructure planned for south Dublin

Weepsie

First Up wrote: »

It would be helpful if they did. The last figures released are for 2016 and show 14,000 - 17,000 crossings per day. The economy has grown by about 15% since then so it should be somewhere in the 19/20 thousand region now. The breakdown in 2016 was higher for southbound usage, hence my estimate of 8,000 going north but DCC could tell us if they wanted to

But they did produce the data for traffic on strand road which shows that you woefully overestimate how much commerical haulage and such is using it in the busiest hours.

It's mostly private vehicles which should see a drop off with home working and as they see there is an alternative

First Up

Weepsie wrote:

But they did produce the data for traffic on strand road which shows that you woefully overestimate how much commerical haulage and such is using it in the busiest hours.

Whatever their reasons and their composition, thousands of vehicles a day go northbound on the East Link Bridge. The easiest way to get there has long been Strand Rd and that route has the least impact on the surrounding area. Closing Strand Rd to northbound traffic won't make that traffic disappear. It will just force it to go somewhere else.

Some might want to still use the East Link and take their chances through Sandymount, Ballsbridge or Ringsend. Maybe some will try going through town; maybe some will take the long way round on the M50. Maybe some will cycle or take the bus or DART. But they will almost all want to go somewhere, somehow. and DCC has to anticipate and cater for the impact of their actions.

Hoping they just evaporate is as much as some posters here have managed. I know I shouldnt expect more from a Cyclists forum but we should all be demanding more from DCC. The plan for Strand Rd looks like they haven't thought it any further than looking trendy and giving the finger to motorists. They cannot be allowed abdicate their responsibilities like that.

First Up

First Up wrote: »

Hoping they just evaporate is as much as some posters here have managed.

Its bizarre how you have managed to stay uneducated about this part of the topic the whole way through this thread. I mean, even accidentally, you should have learned something by now.

Lets say it would or wouldn't have evaporated. How would you have determined what the actual result would be? Seriously, I want to know.

A trial maybe?

I know I shouldnt expect more from a Cyclists forum but we should all be demanding more from DCC. The plan for Strand Rd looks like they haven't thought it any further than looking trendy and giving the finger to motorists. They cannot be allowed abdicate their responsibilities like that.

Their responsibilities are to everyone, regardless of their mode of transport.

Thankfully the pyramid of priority has been inverted with private motorists now at the bottom with pedestrians, cyclists and PT (in that order) on top.

First Up

Deleted User wrote:

Lets say it would or wouldn't have evaporated. How would you have determined what the actual result would be? Seriously, I want to know.

It's the people proposing the closure of Strand Rd to northbound traffic who should be doing that. Has DCC has made any reference to the anticipated impact? Keegan's comments suggest he doesn't care.

Deleted User wrote:

A trial maybe?

Yes, a trial that includes the overall plan. Just closing Strand Rd isn't a plan, nor is counting bicycles an evaluation.

First Up

Deleted User wrote:

Thankfully the pyramid of priority has been inverted with private motorists now at the bottom with pedestrians, cyclists and PT (in that order) on top.

Reflect on that gibberish when your supermarket has run out of stock, your plumber or electrician can't fix your emergency and your builder can't repair your leaking roof.

We live in an interconnected and interdependent world. Smart people are working to make it work better. There's an expression "The genius of AND instead of the tyranny of OR." We need smarter administrators, not tyrants.

Seth Brundle

First Up wrote: »

Reflect on that gibberish when your supermarket has run out of stock, your plumber or electrician can't fix your emergency and your builder can't repair your leaking roof.

Why would this happen?

First Up wrote: »

We live in an interconnected and interdependent world. Smart people are working to make it work better. There's an expression "The genius of AND instead of the tyranny of OR." We need smarter administrators, not tyrants.

Your point being?
Are you suggesting that smart people will choose to commute using alternative means because, as is being acknowledged across the world, the prioritization of the motor car in a city is unsustainable?

AndrewJRenko

First Up wrote: »

Reflect on that gibberish when your supermarket has run out of stock, your plumber or electrician can't fix your emergency and your builder can't repair your leaking roof.

We live in an interconnected and interdependent world. Smart people are working to make it work better. There's an expression "The genius of AND instead of the tyranny of OR." We need smarter administrators, not tyrants.

Are plumbers and electricians allergic to using one way streets?

AndrewJRenko

First Up wrote: »

Whatever their reasons and their composition, thousands of vehicles a day go northbound on the East Link Bridge. The easiest way to get there has long been Strand Rd and that route has the least impact on the surrounding area. Closing Strand Rd to northbound traffic won't make that traffic disappear. It will just force it to go somewhere else.

Some might want to still use the East Link and take their chances through Sandymount, Ballsbridge or Ringsend. Maybe some will try going through town; maybe some will take the long way round on the M50. Maybe some will cycle or take the bus or DART. But they will almost all want to go somewhere, somehow. and DCC has to anticipate and cater for the impact of their actions.

Hoping they just evaporate is as much as some posters here have managed. I know I shouldnt expect more from a Cyclists forum but we should all be demanding more from DCC. The plan for Strand Rd looks like they haven't thought it any further than looking trendy and giving the finger to motorists. They cannot be allowed abdicate their responsibilities like that.

Let's be honest - there is no proposal for Strand Road that you will agree with that involves any slight restriction on motor traffic, is there? Cycle lanes are only acceptable in your book where they don't impinge in any way on important motorists, right?

Weepsie

First Up wrote: »

Reflect on that gibberish when your supermarket has run out of stock, your plumber or electrician can't fix your emergency and your builder can't repair your leaking roof.

We live in an interconnected and interdependent world. Smart people are working to make it work better. There's an expression "The genius of AND instead of the tyranny of OR." We need smarter administrators, not tyrants.

This is absolute nonsense and you're doing yourself no favours. For one, the shops tend to be restocked at off peak times. A one way street isn't going to stop an electran or whatever coning to work.

You've completely ignored that there were only approx 50 commercial vehicles taking the strand road at the busiest hours. These problems you are envisaging are ones you are creating in your head and nothing more.

It's breathtakingly stupid to be honest. It's like you're going out of your way to think of new nonsense scenarios that are not, and should not be the in the minds of planners

CramCycle

First Up wrote: »

Hoping they just evaporate is as much as some posters here have managed. I know I shouldnt expect more from a Cyclists forum but we should all be demanding more from DCC. The plan for Strand Rd looks like they haven't thought it any further than looking trendy and giving the finger to motorists. They cannot be allowed abdicate their responsibilities like that.

MOD VOICE: Only coming back as a mod as your posts are getting reported. Engage in discussion and use evidence going forward or find yourself excluded from the discussion. Traffic evaporation is a valid theory backed up by peer reviewed research. Do not dismiss it unless with evidence. It doesn't mean your views are invalid but you need to start countering opposing views with something other than snide comments that actually don't make sense. I'd start with the institution of civil engineers, IJST and there are some related environmental analysis papers that touch on it but they refer to it as spillover reduction rather than traffic evaporation.

magicbastarder

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Are plumbers and electricians allergic to using one way streets?

you'd think it'd be second nature to electricians. and plumbers too, come to think of it.

First Up

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Let's be honest - there is no proposal for Strand Road that you will agree with that involves any slight restriction on motor traffic, is there? Cycle lanes are only acceptable in your book where they don't impinge in any way on important motorists, right?

Wrong. I made a suggestion last week about an alternate flows system at the pinch point between the promenade and Ringsend Park as well as supporting the idea of a causeway for bikers and walkers on the same stretch.

I am looking for a solution that accommodates bothb cyclists and motorists, not a victory for one over the other.

First Up

Seth Brundle wrote:

Your point being? Are you suggesting that smart people will choose to commute using alternative means because, as is being acknowledged across the world, the prioritization of the motor car in a city is unsustainable?

I'm saying that smart people look for solutions that allow for choice.

Fighting Tao

First Up wrote: »

I'm saying that smart people look for solutions that allow for choice.

The choice is to make the route safer for many people or not to. People who drive still have lots of choice. It appears that you are taking the trial as a personal slight as you feel inconvenienced and so you come up with a million different reasons that it won’t work. However you are against a trial that if you were true to what you say, would prove you right. However, you know that it will prove you wrong for the reasons repeatedly highlight to you in this thread. The fear is strong in you, and is understandable. Change can be hard at times even if it just adds 2 minutes to your preferred tourist hotspot of the East Link bridge. Try seeing it as an opportunity to tell everyone that you told them so.

buffalo

First Up wrote: »

Wrong. I made a suggestion last week about an alternate flows system at the pinch point between the promenade and Ringsend Park as well as supporting the idea of a causeway for bikers and walkers on the same stretch.

I am looking for a solution that accommodates bothb cyclists and motorists, not a victory for one over the other.

And I showed you where that suggestion was investigated by DCC for its impact, and dismissed as unworkable. Have you any realistic suggestions?

First Up

CramCycle wrote:

MOD VOICE: Only coming back as a mod as your posts are getting reported. Engage in discussion and use evidence going forward or find yourself excluded from the discussion. Traffic evaporation is a valid theory backed up by peer reviewed research. Do not dismiss it unless with evidence. It doesn't mean your views are invalid but you need to start countering opposing views with something other than snide comments that actually don't make sense. I'd start with the institution of civil engineers, IJST and there are some related environmental analysis papers that touch on it but they refer to it as spillover reduction rather than traffic evaporation.

I described the impact of preventing motor vehicles accessing Sean Moore Rd via Strand Rd in an earlier post. Have a look at it - and the replies.

The target of my criticism is DCC who have a wider responsibility than pleasing cyclists.

I wasn't expecting to be thanked for that here.

First Up

buffalo wrote:

And I showed you where that suggestion was investigated by DCC for its impact, and dismissed as unworkable. Have you any realistic suggestions?

DCC's "dismissal" is revealing. If the tailback from an alternate light sequence on Strand Rd would extend back to Merrion Rd, what does that say about the volume of traffic going to the Toll Bridge that has to find an alternate route? Has DCC DCC addressed that anywhere?

DCC has it's own preferred solution, more for ideological than operational reasons. Its investigation of alternatives can be viewed as such.

buffalo

First Up wrote: »

DCC's "dismissal" is revealing. If the tailback from an alternate light sequence on Strand Rd would extend back to Merrion Rd, what does that say about the volume of traffic going to the Toll Bridge that has to find an alternate route? Has DCC DCC addressed that anywhere?

DCC has it's own preferred solution, more for ideological than operational reasons. Its investigation of alternatives can be viewed as such.

I'll refer you back to my earlier posts on the matter.

AndrewJRenko

First Up wrote: »

Wrong. I made a suggestion last week about an alternate flows system at the pinch point between the promenade and Ringsend Park as well as supporting the idea of a causeway for bikers and walkers on the same stretch.

I am looking for a solution that accommodates bothb cyclists and motorists, not a victory for one over the other.

Q. E. D.

Seth Brundle

First Up wrote: »

I'm saying that smart people look for solutions that allow for choice.

...but you're not!
You are following the mantra that drivers should have priority. This has been recognised across the world as the wrong policy to have within a city.

True choice would be for people to have the option to drive, cycle, walk, bus, train, etc.
Currently drivers are objecting to having their commutes changed to allow the majority travel in their chosen manner. Look at BusConnects. Look at Sandymount!

First Up

Seth Brundle wrote:

...but you're not! You are following the mantra that drivers should have priority. This has been recognised across the world as the wrong policy to have within a city.

Equality isn't priority.

Fighting Tao

First Up wrote: »

Equality isn't priority.

It is priority when there is 7m plus wide of tarmac given over to drivers.

The idea that cars should have priority is dead in cities thankfully. People should have priority and therefore people walking and cycling take up less space than two armchairs and a couch that has an average occupancy of 1.2 people.

I just wish regional towns and villages woke up and changed their ways too.

Please bear in mind that I haven’t been on a bike in about 4 months. Therefore I am most certainly a fully fledged motorist at the moment.

Seth Brundle

First Up wrote: »

Equality isn't priority.

...what is your point?
Drivers should have equality?
ok then.
Let drivers pay accordingly for the deaths on the roads.
Let drivers pay accordingly for the damage they cause.
Let drivers travel at a speed equal to vulnerable road users.
Let drivers have an amount of road space in the city equal to their percentage of commuters (bearing in mind that this would involve many more roads being reallocated away from cars).

tomasrojo

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Let drivers have an amount of road space in the city equal to their percentage of commuters (bearing in mind that this would involve many more roads being reallocated away from cars).

Certainly in the city centre, people who habitually drive are allocated way more than 30% of available public space.

(Again, don't know enough about Sandymount and how it connects to neighbouring areas to comment on them directly myself.)

First Up

It's clear from this forum that for the cyclistas, Strand Rd has attained symbolic status and become an ideological battleground. No room for logic in that and I should have known better than try to introduce it.

Best of luck to all, especially anyone depending on DCC for a sensible solution.

tomasrojo

First Up wrote: »

It's clear from this forum that for the cyclistas, Strand Rd has attained symbolic status and become an ideological battleground.

You've posted more here than anyone else?

tomasrojo

First Up wrote: »

cyclistas

It's "ciclista".

First Up

tomasrojo wrote:

You've posted more here than anyone else?

And probably collected more abuse than anyone else but who's counting?

tomasrojo

First Up wrote: »

And probably collected more abuse than anyone else but who's counting?

You can flag abuse. If you're going to call people childish names though, you might expect some push-back.

Seth Brundle

First Up wrote: »

It's clear from this forum that for the cyclistas,

By using attempts at insults, you belittle your own argument :rolleyes:

First Up wrote: »

Strand Rd has attained symbolic status and become an ideological battleground.

I think it is more that as people who have firsthand seen how scary it can be to cycle on that road, the trial of something safe is too good to allow some NIMBY residents and politicians to block just so they can continute to have the unsustainable levels of traffic travel along the road.

First Up wrote: »

No room for logic in that and I should have known better than try to introduce it.

Personally, I had thought you were trolling and got the reaction that you were looking for.

First Up wrote: »

Best of luck to all, especially anyone depending on DCC for a sensible solution.

A sensible solution would involve the de-prioritisation of motor vehicles in favour of the likes of BusConnects, and sustainable travel.