Dublin between the canals: how to remove cars.

Metrobest

While we wait years for new public transport to serve central Dublin, an obvious solutions waits patiently. The humble bicycle.

But the streets of Dublin are not a friendly place for cycling. Quite the contrary. My question is, what can be done *right now* to make things safer on city streets and encourage people to get on their bikes for journeys of less than 30 mins?

Suggestions welcome.

Thomond Pk

Metrobest wrote:

Suggestions welcome.

Deal with real politik for once.

For someone with such technical knowledge I find many of your positions very dissapointing, theoretical and undeliverable.

jubbly

More streets would have to be made pedertrian/cyclist only (and goods viechles). A proper park and ride car parks would have to be built all around the M50 and a joined up Luas / Dublin bus network connecting them and the city center. After that they could introduce a scheme like they have in USA where you can pick up a bike for free.

Cant see it ever happening though.

Metrobest

Here's a simple one. Motorists should not be allowed park on city centre streets. Rows of parked cars in most of the cycle routes through town block up space that should be made into segregated cycle lanes. I find it incredible, for example, that people are allowed park right outside St Stephen's Green shopping centre when there are several multistorey car parks nearby.

SeanW

How about encouraging motorcycling nationwide? They're much smaller than cars, use a hell of a lot less fuel, and can be used efficiently in placed where public transport is either nonexistent or useless.

Hagar

Why not just ban cars?
Then all we have to do is find another €4,200,000,000 to make up for what the motorist currently put into the nation's coffers every year.

Simple really. :mad:

Hotblack Desiato

SeanW wrote:

How about encouraging motorcycling nationwide?

Shure can't be seen to be doin' dat, dey're dangerous dem tings :rolleyes:

In the UK every local authority has to take account of motorcyclists' needs as part of its area transport plan. Usage in city centres is being encouraged, bus lanes are being opened up to motorbikes. This is in recognition of the fact that even London's public transport system - far better than anything we can imagine here - cannot meet all needs and car drivers need flexible alternatives to tempt them out of cars. This policy (and the congestion charge) has succeeded in London to the extent that the big problem now is a shortage of public motorcycle parking spaces.

In Dublin we have no public motorcycle parking spaces. Many private multistory car parks do not allow motorcycles; parking on the pavement is illegal and even 'traditional' parking areas in use for decades (e.g. either end of Grafton St.) are at the mercy of the overenthusiastic jobsworth traffic warden or garda. I heard the other day that O'Connell Street's bike (and bicycle?) parking areas are to be removed :mad:

The succession of muppets in charge of transport here have never understood motorcyclists; they just see us as bumping up their road casualty statistics (funny how pedestrians and cyclists aren't so regarded) and would much prefer it if we all bought nice cars instead. It's as if riders are assumed to be at fault in any accident; the large proportion of motorcycle accidents caused by cars is a CAR problem, not a bike problem (just as the pedestrian or cyclist accidents caused by cars should be addressed by improving car driver competence, not by discouraging walking or cycling.)

About 2-3% of private vehicles are motorcycles. If we could get that up to the European average (more like 10%) imagine the beneficial effects on congestion and pollution - all without putting more pressure on overloaded public transport systems, and while maintaining the govt's income from fuel duty, road tax, VRT etc...

Oh, and yes it does rain here. It rains in other countries too. I heard (in a cycling thread) that if you ride daily, year round, you'll need wet gear about 3% of the time. Seems about right to me. Modern bike clothing keeps you warm and dry no matter what the weather.

Sarsfield

Hagar wrote:

Why not just ban cars?
Then all we have to do is find another €4,200,000,000 to make up for what the motorist currently put into the nation's coffers every year.

Simple really. :mad:

I'm afraid you can't just buy a right to drive your car anywhere you want. If that were the case you could buy the right to do anything, regardless of the overall consequences.

The area covered by the city center is miniscule so it wouldn't be a great loss for car drivers if suitable alternatives were available.

Regarding the topic title (not just your bicycle solution), there's no single solution, but they include alternatives such as cycle-friendly access, bus priority, Luas, Dart and other rail, park&ride at public transport points outside the centre.

Disincentives to driving would be acceptable if introduced in tandem with the introduction of alternatives. Disincentives should include the removal of on-street parking, thus making more space for bicycles & on-street public transport. Public transport only streets (including bicycles taxis etc) would work as both a disincentive to drive and an incentive to switch. Similar to the Nassau St, Suffok St system.

copacetic

Sarsfield wrote:

I'm afraid you can't just buy a right to drive your car anywhere you want. If that were the case you could buy the right to do anything, regardless of the overall consequences.

The area covered by the city center is miniscule so it wouldn't be a great loss for car drivers if suitable alternatives were available.

Regarding the topic title (not just your bicycle solution), there's no single solution, but they include alternatives such as cycle-friendly access, bus priority, Luas, Dart and other rail, park&ride at public transport points outside the centre.

Disincentives to driving would be acceptable if introduced in tandem with the introduction of alternatives. Disincentives should include the removal of on-street parking, thus making more space for bicycles & on-street public transport. Public transport only streets (including bicycles taxis etc) would work as both a disincentive to drive and an incentive to switch. Similar to the Nassau St, Suffok St system.

miniscule? rubbish, there are thousands of people who live between the 2 canals, now they can't park outside their houses or indeed own a car?

Sarsfield

daveym wrote:

miniscule? rubbish, there are thousands of people who live between the 2 canals, now they can't park outside their houses or indeed own a car?

It's miniscule in terms of surface area (in the context of the whole country). It was referring to Hagars post, not the topic in general.

I do not even remotely suggest banning cars. I should also have been clearer in regards to banning on-street parking. I have no problem with residents of the centre having a parking spot and if there's no alternative then they should have an on-street space. However, all residential development inside the canals should have off-street parking as a requirement (I'm pretty sure that's the case now anyway).

On-street parking should not be an option to the commuter specifically.

strassenwolf

Could a congestion charge work? e.g. drivers would incur a charge for entering the Grand Canal-Suir Road-SCR-NCR-Seville Place-Sheriff St.-East Wall Road "oval". I haven't been in London since they introduced their one but I'm told it works well.

Hagar

Of course it works.
When you've got someone by the bollux just squeeeeeeeeeeez :mad:

Sarsfield

strassenwolf wrote:

Could a congestion charge work? e.g. drivers would incur a charge for entering the Grand Canal-Suir Road-SCR-NCR-Seville Place-Sheriff St.-East Wall Road "oval". I haven't been in London since they introduced their one but I'm told it works well.

I don't favour a congestion charge. Certainly not before there are enough alternatives in place.

The aim of reducing cars in the city centre should be to make it a more attractive and efficient city to live and work in. If you just charge people to drive into town then all you're doing is encouraging them to take their business elsewhere.

Offices will move out of town to the suburban office parks.

If the city is seen as a nice, pedestrian-friendly location, with easy access by non-car transport then people will visit to shop and socialise. If not, they'll flock to Dundrun, Blanch etc.

I don't want to live in a donut shaped city with a gap in the centre where the city used to be. I want to see people choose to come to the centre. Charging people to drive in won't do that.

Hagar

Sarsfield wrote:

I'm afraid you can't just buy a right to drive your car anywhere you want.

That's not the point at all. The motorist is contributing more to the state coffers than is being spent on the roads. If the motorist stops contributing there will be no money to spend on the roads which includes cycle lanes btw. Also the excess taxation which is not spent on the roads will not be available to the state to spend on anything else. eg subsidising public-transport, health, education, un-employment benefits or whatever.

The words "get a grip" spring to mind.

Sarsfield

Hagar wrote:

That's not the point at all. The motorist is contributing more to the state coffers than is being spent on the roads. If the motorist stops contributing there will be no money to spend on the roads which includes cycle lanes btw. Also the excess taxation which is not spent on the roads will not be available to the state to spend on anything else. eg subsidising public-transport, health, education, un-employment benefits or whatever.

The words "get a grip" spring to mind.

You said "Why not ban cars". A ridiculous over-reaction to some reasonable suggestions about reducing cars in a very small area. Nobody in their right mind would suggest banning cars. So your point about loss of revenue is nonsense.

Victor

Hagar wrote:

Why not just ban cars? Then all we have to do is find another €4,200,000,000 to make up for what the motorist currently put into the nation's coffers every year.

Explain to me how this works?

Metrobest

We're not talking about banning cars. Just about how to place controls, in urban areas, on what people use their cars for.

Should you have the right to park your car on a busy city centre street while you go shopping when there are mulitstoreys all around the city? Or feed the metre all day in the car you parked outside your office door on Fitzwilliam Square?

The provison of car parking spaces on city streets acts as a magnet pulling cars into the canal zone from well outside it. As long as these spaces are freely available, you will have an polluted environment in the city centre. The more cars there are, the more we all suffer.

Research suggests that cyclists' lungs are damaged by the fumes of cars and buses, so this is a health issue that needs to be addressed. Against all the odds, Irish people accepted the workplace smoking ban because they realised that there were valid reasons for its introduction. The prime reason being the effects of second-hand smoke. Well here's a newsflash. The pollution that wafts out of cars and buses is a health hazard for all of us, and we have a duty of protect people's health. In this context, I think an awful lot of people would be in favour of the removal of almost all cars from the canal zone.

The money that motorists contribute to the economy is false economy. There are the costs to society of road-building, accidents, insurance premia, etc etc. Money that motorists contribute to the economy would, in any event, be spent on other commodities, and as such would be subject to other forms of indirect tax.

Hagar

Sarcasm guys, sarcasm.
I can't believe anybody took what I said literally.

Have another read of the post and my later posts, you will see I'm making the point that the relentless persecution of the motoring community is madness. The state could not exist without the revenue it takes from motorists. If the motorists are hunted to extinction as some posters seem to want how will the revenue they generate be replaced?

Victor

Hagar wrote:

Have another read of the post and my later posts, you will see I'm making the point that the relentless persecution of the motoring community is madness. The state could not exist without the revenue it takes from motorists. If the motorists are hunted to extinction as some posters seem to want how will the revenue they generate be replaced?

By taxing the replacement expenditure. :rolleyes: Rather than spending all that money on cars, people will spend it on something else.

Hagar

Victor wrote:

By taxing the replacement expenditure. :rolleyes: Rather than spending all that money on cars, people will spend it on soething else.

Yeah but will that replacement expenditure be as clearly defined and as highly taxable?
I might spend my money on second hand binoculars and fishing rods and you might buy classic comic books. How are the Revenue boys going to pull in the same money from potentially diverse expenditure?

egan007

Sarsfield wrote:

I'm afraid you can't just buy a right to drive your car anywhere you want

We do

Zaph0d

Hagar wrote:

... persecution of the motoring community...

This is an empty concept. There is no broad community of motorists. There is an underclass of people too young, too old, too poor or too disabled to drive. I imagine they have little sympathy for 'persecuted' motorists like me in my 2.2 automatic.

One of the great things about having a car is that for a road tax of a few hundred quid a year I get to lease all the land taken up with roads around the country. I doubt I could lease the land taken up by the road outside my house for the price I pay, let alone a timeshare on land as valuable as O'Connell Street.

Mucco

Hagar wrote:

The state could not exist without the revenue it takes from motorists.

I don't have any references to hand, but I think that car drivers are actually subsidised over all.

Regarding removing cars, a range of solutions is required.
I'm just back from London where the congestion charge is £8, and parking in a city centre car park is about £12/day. So £100/week for taking the car to work. A similar charge would be relatively simple in Dublin, just put cameras on all the canal bridges.
Of course, a carrot is needed too. At the same time, I would provide many new bus routes, perhaps with bus lanes so they're fast. Buses are a relatively cheap, easy and fast way to provide extra capacity.
Regarding cycling - that will pick up if the car numbers drop, it has in London.

M

saobh_ie

I have to second Ninja's post above. There's a few good points. I did notice myself when in London recently and in other European cities over the years that there is an absence of cars parked along the sides of most streets as is the situation currently in the city center.

I did notice literally thousands of bicycles parked everywhere, the place wasn't littered with them, they were parked neatly and tidily, but there was always parking nearby and while never full (indicating sufficient capacity to support the cycling mass’s). The other things I loved to death was five or six motorcycles/scooters parked on every corner.

Walking, Cycling around myself I noticed the car density, on the road moving, well usually stopped at lights. Was not that high. Rush hour in the center of London the cars were backed up for a while, but they seemed to be moving with every change of the lights, there was always somewhere for the cars to go when they got a green.

In Dublin on my motorbike I've filtered up to traffic lights, had them go green and gotten to travel three meters, half way across the junction again before I had to start filtering again. The city lacks the infrastructure for the amount of traffic its currently being asked to accommodate and 42 billion isn't going to do anything about that unless every second block of buildings is demolished to make the roads into uber wide boulevards.

Footpath outside premises the width of a bus. Three lanes of traffic. Paved median the width of three lanes of traffic. Three lanes of traffic. Footpath outside premises the width of a bus. Of course if you did that everyone would drive their cars into the city.

I don't drive into the city unless I'm taking someone somewhere, I would bring them on the bike but we'd get run over, simple as that.

mackerski

Mucco wrote:

A similar charge would be relatively simple in Dublin, just put cameras on all the canal bridges.

You don't seem to have a very thorough understanding of the London system, nor to have considered the comparison with Dublin for very long. London has cameras at many points within the congestion zone, not just at the zone boundary (this would be too hit-and-miss). Furthermore, London has high-capacity roads outside the zone (and forming much of its boundary) that are capable of taking the strain now that there is a disincentive to entering the zone. How should you drive from, say, Killester to Terenure while avoiding your Canal zone? And would the overall Dublin traffic picture be better or worse for it?

All of this is completely ignoring the fact that London has extremely good and dense public transport, especially inside the charged zone, whereas we don't even have a public transport plan. Put this one on the back burner for another 15 years, I think...

Dermot

Mucco

mackerski wrote:

You don't seem to have a very thorough understanding of the London system, nor to have considered the comparison with Dublin for very long. London has cameras at many points within the congestion zone, not just at the zone boundary (this would be too hit-and-miss).

Actually, the cameras within the zone are few and far between (~20%). There are mobile camera vans, but all the entrances are comprehensibly covered, many with 6 or 7 cameras. Anyhow, I don't see how this is an issue as cameras could be put up inside any zone in Dublin too.

mackerski wrote:

Furthermore, London has high-capacity roads outside the zone (and forming much of its boundary) that are capable of taking the strain now that there is a disincentive to entering the zone. How should you drive from, say, Killester to Terenure while avoiding your Canal zone? And would the overall Dublin traffic picture be better or worse for it?

You're correct that there are some good roads around the zone, but getting from say Bermondsey to Maida Vale is not straightforward, and that's the point: trying to persuade people of alternatives to car travel.

mackerski wrote:

Put this one on the back burner for another 15 years, I think...

One of the major problems with transport in Dublin is a lack of imagination and open thinking for new (well, new to Dublin) ideas. 15 years is too late to start thinking about reducing car use.

Macy

Significant and cost effective (for the commuter) park and ride scheme's on all the major routes into the city have to be done before congestion charging is considered.

The rights and wrongs of the planning situation shouldn't be gotten into really - we are where we are. To solve the city congestion we need to give those commuting from the satellite towns the option to park up on the outskirts of the city - well away from the M50 congestion.

London has the carrot of an excellent public transport system to allow the stick to work. Introducing a congestion charge in Dublin with no plans, let alone concrete ones, for extra public transport would be pure folly imo.

antoinolachtnai

Congestion in the city centre in Dublin isn't actually that bad, certainly it's not the worst congestion in the city. The biggest problems are out at the edges. It's not surprising; if you want to travel from Stillorgan to Citywest (say) the only really viable way is to take the car.

If you did go for a congestion charge between the canals, I fear you would push a lot of cars into areas like Ballyfermot, Walkinstown and Phibsboro. These areas are pretty congested already.

If you wanted to do something quickly for the transport situation? Easy, sort out how the bus system is going to be run, sort out information and fares for the whole public transport system and introduce a double capital-allowance on bus vehicles for use on scheduled routes in the Greater Dublin area.

Metrobest

The idea of a congestion charge in the canal zone is certainly very interesting. It would certainly create a culture in which driving in/through the city centre would become a privilage, not the "right" that it currently is. However, it might be more productive to
(1) remove all on-street parking that forms a barrier to safe space for cyclists
(2) charge for any remaining on-street parking at an absolute premium, as do cities like Amsterdam and Copenhagen.
(3) introduce an "environment tax" deducted from the thouands of office workers who (presently) enjoy free car parking spaces in the canal zone. It's not fair and they should pay for their pollution

Some people are saying this can't be done, that we're suffering from decades of bad planning. That's only partly true. We don't have to keep repeating the same car-centric mistakes. We can reverse some of the bad decisions, change them for the better. The first step is to remove all on-street parking from the canal zone on the main cycle routes in, out of, and through the city, for the health and safety of cyclists and pedestrians, and making the city a better place for everyone - including car drivers.

Sarsfield

Metrobest wrote:

(3) introduce an "environment tax" deducted from the thouands of office workers who (presently) enjoy free car parking spaces in the canal zone. It's not fair and they should pay for their pollution

I was told recently (or did I read it here?) that office parking spaces are not liable for benefit-in-kind. Very unreasonable, but given that those with power and influence tend to have reserved spaces, hardly surprising :mad:

Hotblack Desiato

If you're a motorcyclist, this is what you now get (courtesy of Dublin City Council):



The new, "beautified" O'Connell St. now has no room for motorcyclists, unfortunately few other places in Dublin city centre do, either. So much for encouraging more sustainable alternatives to car commuting.

Mucco

As I said before, a carrot and stick approach has to be taken.

Introducing a vastly improved bus system, with park and ride (thanks Macy), is a cheap and quick option that could be up and running prior to any congestion penalties.

The aim of a congestion charge would be to change people's perceptions that driving into the centre of town is a right or even a necessity, forcing them think of alternatives; in London, 50-60% moved to public transport, 20-30% avoided the zone, and the remainder car-shared (source: wikipedia)

antoinolachtnai wrote:

if you want to travel from Stillorgan to Citywest (say) the only really viable way is to take the car.

I beg to differ, two wheels is a viable option. Just because there is not really a public transport alternative at the moment does not mean one can't be introduced.

I'm coming around to the idea of road tolling via satellite tracking. The technology is there, but is the willing?

dermo88

OOOh great.

Another tax. I am not a motorist, but this rubbish of dreaming up additional taxes is a socialists (and I use that term in the loosest possible way) solution to everything. Listen, if I want to get mugged, theres a few heroin addicts around Parnell Street or Sherriff Street. Until that point, I suggest you get your thieving hands off our wallets. We had you wasters in the 1980's, and we have'nt forgotten what your so called solutions brought us.

Meanwhile, give us a decent public transport system. DART lines for distances greater than 10km out to 60km from the city centre. Luas for the distances less than 15km, and a lot more of them please.

Then you can talk about congestion charging.

Until then, shut up. Dublin Bus timetables are a work of fiction. They are perceived as being used by skangers. Take a look at Luas and DART and its clean and reasonably skanger free.

We know its expensive. Thats why its called CAPITAL expenditure. Your not wasting it on interest payments, people on the dole, civil servants wages, or keeping some piddly West of Ireland town going. Borrow for it, it will work. Our capital city deserves NOTHING LESS. In the meantime tell those daft fools from West on Track to stick their useless branchline up their fat arses. Luas carries more people in ONE DAY, than that yoke will carry in a year

antoinolachtnai

Large scale congestion charging using satellite tracking is definitely not a technically proven option at this point.

Removing all on-street parking spaces would upset ratepayers, drive businesses out beyond the canals and would result in a drop in rates income for the City Council.

Yes, you could make it from Stillorgan to Citywest on two wheels, but it certainly wouldnt be for everyone.

Obviously, a public transport alternative could be introduced. But there isn't one at the moment, and I'm suggesting how more services could be introduced.

The main thing to remember is that congestion is a general problem for the whole greater dublin area, not just the area with nice old buildings between the canals.

blorg

Completely agree with the removing on-street parking idea, it's a nightmare for cyclists. Particularly insane when a bike lane is put right beside parallel parking, right in the car's door zone. In Spain they tend to put carparks under public squares, which seems like a good option?

mackerski

Mucco wrote:

One of the major problems with transport in Dublin is a lack of imagination and open thinking for new (well, new to Dublin) ideas. 15 years is too late to start thinking about reducing car use.

You misunderstand me - it's the "hey, why not try a congestion charge?" kinds of suggestions I'm saying should go on the back burner, precisely because the initiatives we need are ones to get public transport and traffic management into a state where charging would:

a) Work
b) Be a fair and reasonable measure

Dermot

Mucco

Improving public transport without it costing a fortune means buses, and more importantly, bus lanes.

When the tunnel is open, there is the opportunity for a complete rethink of traffic flow in the centre. To remove cars from the centre, I would
Add more bus lanes, even change some roads into dedicated bus-only roads. This will increase car-congestion, but speed up buses, encouraging people to use them.
Get more buses. To be useful, buses need to be frequent.
Add more routes. Some routes between the suburbs would be nice, we don't all want to go into town.
And, in due course, add a congestion charge, though a satellite tracking system would be better to discourage a morning/evening rush.

Victor

dermo88 wrote:

Meanwhile, give us a decent public transport system. DART lines for distances greater than 10km out to 60km from the city centre. Luas for the distances less than 15km, and a lot more of them please.

Here's two tram lines and a port tunnel, now can we impose some restrictions?

mackerski

Victor wrote:

Here's two tram lines and a port tunnel, now can we impose some restrictions?

What kind did you have in mind? Presumably it'd be something that only restricted the behaviour of the folks that benefit in some way from Luas or the tunnel...

Dermot

Bee

Victor wrote:

Here's two tram lines and a port tunnel, now can we impose some restrictions?

Excellent idea

How about jailing the idiots involved in mis spending public money vis-a-vis congestion creating tram lines, a too small tunnel, mind boggling cost over runs and the night time dangerous waste land created by the lack of traffic just north of the Liffey because of the Clueless tram system.

I suggest jailing the civil servants/politicians and brown paper bag merchants for inflicting the unwelcome farce on Dublin

Bee

Hagar

Well said Bee.

saobh_ie

Yeah Bee's spot on. The way it is if the project managers on those jobs weren't working for the geverment they'd be out on the street with the **** they're doing. or rather, what they're not doing.

Sarsfield

saobh_ie wrote:

Yeah Bee's spot on. The way it is if the project managers on those jobs weren't working for the geverment they'd be out on the street with the **** they're doing. or rather, what they're not doing.

Are you commenting on the projects themselves or the management of the projects? 2 entirely different things.

And I'm not sure the millions of Luas passengers would agree with Bee. And as for Luas turning Benburb St into a wasteland, my memory of the area at night-time pre-Luas isn't exactly glowing!

SeanW

Oh dear. So a lack of vehicular traffic is a bad thing? And the people "responsible" for bringing trams back to the city should be thrown in jail. Wow. that's an unusual stand.

jax frost

Lads, this is an interesting thread.

I cycle 21km per day and it has reduced my Ample African frame somewhat.

Interestingly, over time, I have also not dissolved in this "terrible weather" people on this rock insist they have. I also practically have the cycle lanes to myself because less than 3% of Irish commuters cycle to work. This, selfishly, works for me too.

Yes bad drivers give me a cramp. Yes comatose pedestrians get on my nerves and the potholes in cycle paths are laughably large. I have also had to dodge the odd daft cyclist who just didn't look before pulling out. Cyclists, motorists and public transport junkies are all a bit stupid going to work and back like sheep. It's a modern malaise.

My take on this is: "Cycle if you want to get to work on time, alert and thinner. Drive if you don't."

The economic effect that cars have on the economy is more than significant but in the event of everyone cycling overnight, the government would readjust it's budget and gather revenue elsewhere. Do you honestly think that they are short of ways to gather moolah? What do we pay them for?

Mucco

Bee wrote:

congestion creating tram lines,

Remind me again how trams create congestion? I always thought it was down to the cars.

M

jax frost

I agree. More people on trams = fewer people in cars = less congestion.

Metrobest

jax frost wrote:

Lads, this is an interesting thread.

I cycle 21km per day and it has reduced my Ample African frame somewhat.

Interestingly, over time, I have also not dissolved in this "terrible weather" people on this rock insist they have. I also practically have the cycle lanes to myself because less than 3% of Irish commuters cycle to work. This, selfishly, works for me too.

Yes bad drivers give me a cramp. Yes comatose pedestrians get on my nerves and the potholes in cycle paths are laughably large. I have also had to dodge the odd daft cyclist who just didn't look before pulling out. Cyclists, motorists and public transport junkies are all a bit stupid going to work and back like sheep. It's a modern malaise.

My take on this is: "Cycle if you want to get to work on time, alert and thinner. Drive if you don't."

The economic effect that cars have on the economy is more than significant but in the event of everyone cycling overnight, the government would readjust it's budget and gather revenue elsewhere. Do you honestly think that they are short of ways to gather moolah? What do we pay them for?

You're absolutely right. The only thing that's stopping Dublin from increasing its numbers of cyclists is political will. Or lack of it, I should say.

FergusF

Metrobest wrote:

You're absolutely right. The only thing that's stopping Dublin from increasing its numbers of cyclists is political will. Or lack of it, I should say.

I agree that there's a lack of political will to increase cycling, I wonder how many of them cycle regularly to the Dail? City planning also makes it more difficult, all those roundabouts, suburban estates, fast traffic routes, etc. Another thing stopping people is what jax alluded to above, the 'herd mentality' of people, not wanting to be seen to be different, etc. is a big influence on what we buy, what transport we use etc.

Metrobest

At Leinster House there is a bike rack near the security hut on Kildare Street. Parked on it, last time I looked at it, were about ten bicycles. I presume these belong to low-rank staff and not senior politicians. Government ministers are chauffer driven everywhere so I can't imagine them cycling to work. However, I think a couple of politicians in the Green Party cycle to the Dail. Maybe if the Greens get into government (shudder ) they would do something for cycling in Dublin?

The herd mentality is a huge factor, I agree. And it's not hard to see why. We grow up in a culture where kids are driven to school in SUVs, the status of a EUR1,80 toll on the M50 motorway is a matter of intense political protest and where politicians boast about building new roads as if they were saving the planet. And then there is the endless newspaper and television advertisements for cars and the car industry, the "drivetime" radio shows whereby advertising revenue depends on thousands of motorists being stuck in gridlocked traffic, and the utter lack of ANY campaign, through the media or through even halfway good cycle planning, that would encourage people out of their cars.

The number of cyclists on Dublin's streets could, and should, increase tenfold. Please let's not fool ourselves into thinking that this is impossible. It surely must be possible - if it's possible for Amsterdam, with its narrow streets, bad weather, similar population profile, then it's possible for Dublin.

Hagar

People are trotting out the "Amsterdam is full of bikes" arguement but nobody is mentioning the obvious, Holland is flat as a pancake and Ireland is not! You could cycle 5 or 10km around Amsterdam without too much phyical effort but the same distance across Dublin would leave you a sweaty mess and not really fit to go into an office and work with people for 8 hours.