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

Journalism and Cycling 2: the difficult second album

1256257258259260262»

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,213 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    In a lot of situations, drivers are assuming that the cycle lane is underused because they don't see long lines of cyclists queueing, as cars do. They've missed the point.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,437 ✭✭✭Red Silurian


    I think most people assume that the cycle lane is underused if they see no bikes on it. The counters I mentioned earlier would put that argument to bed or even something similar to what we have for counting cars with those 2 black cables running across the road.

    Fact is nobody has the definitive numbers of how many cyclists use a particular stretch of lane but when no cyclists at all are seen during a rush hour period it certainly suggests underusage



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,786 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    There are counters on cycle tracks? I see them quite often.

    Your point about roads being quiet means they've been designed to meet capacity doesn't really match real life. Going back to the 30s at least (it's mentioned in The Power Broker a few times) it's been clear that building roads and bridges to relieve congestion results in the original roads or bridges remaining congested and the new road or bridge also being congested. Arterial roads never attain anything like clean throughput at peak times. They only are spacious off-peak. It seems to be virtually impossible, in an urban setting, to cater to existing demand for motorized transport capacity without inducing extra demand.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,437 ✭✭✭Red Silurian


    That's interesting, can you confirm what cycle tracks you've seen them on?

    Since the 30's, at a time when more people were buying cars, more cars appeared on the road? I'll hold my shock in this time.

    Cause to effect is very important here, the traffic was induced by the growing need for people to commute more by car. People didn't wake up one day and suddenly decide they were going to aimlessly drive the new road every morning and afternoon at rush hour.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,786 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Cycle track counts (Dublin City only) are mentioned here:

    https://data.smartdublin.ie/dataset/dublin-city-centre-cycle-counts

    Induced demand is a phenomenon that continues to this day. It's a large part of the reason for urban design to have turned away from trying to relieve congestion to trying to provide attractive alternatives to driving. "One more lane will fix it" is a running joke for a reason.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,037 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    I think you are ignoring a lot of the policies that have existed in this country since before the sixties. The car was always given priority so we had ongoing road development projects while public transport projects were few and far between resulting in the relatively poor (but slowly improving) public transport service that we currently have.

    It became a no brainer for someone to get themselves a car to commute or to go shopping, etc. Our roads became more congested so we widened them and we built new ones. Then the congestion filled them, etc. - induced demand in action!

    The more cars that ended up on our roads, the greater the perception of the roads being unsafe for vulnerable road users. And we are where we are now. To many, the perception of the roads being unsafe still remains.

    So if you see a cycle lane going underused, do you ask why such a waste of money was built while taking space away from drivers (which seems to be what you're doing) or do you not ask why aren't more people cycling (including yourself as you sit there wondering about others!)?



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,036 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    The N7 is a great relatively recent example of this and was flagged by many at the time as a very bad idea. Yes you get away from certain villages quicker but you spend just as long in traffic overall at the other end near Dublin.

    I am in work so can't listen but I think this video gives a simplified but good idea of induced demand in the simulator scene, apologies if it is the wrong scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCzCJzwrB_c



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,213 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    People see what they want to see.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

    If any roads are seen as quiet in rush hours, can we take them away for nice plazas and outdoor eating space?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,681 ✭✭✭✭zell12


    😃😄



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,437 ✭✭✭Red Silurian


    You're thinking about it too simplistically.

    Our roads became more congested so we widened them and we built new ones. Then the congestion filled them, etc

    People didn't pick up the keys and drive purely because new roads were built, they drove because they had places to go, people to see. The roads got filled because our population grew and our economy got stronger. People with jobs had to travel to and from them

    My main reasons for using a car instead of a bike is rain and a 45 minute drive to work



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,037 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Firstly I didn't say it was instant. The roads got filled simply because that's what happens - as you've been told it is called induced demand.

    Our country has been let down by car-centric thinking. Our planning system has been led by this and has resulted in transport failures for the people. Now we have people driving long distances to get to work - we built motorways for them but didn't build one inch of new railway.

    Getting back to cycling, our approach to cycling infrastructure until now was largely developer led with absolutely no joined up thinking. What was built was really done as box ticking exercise with no input nor opinion from the end user which means that it comes as no surprise when cyclists often don't use it. My own commute to work has about 90% of it with adjacent cycle paths, none of which I use simply because they are really designed for the benefit of people driving, not cycling!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,150 ✭✭✭nilhg


    Interesting article on the UK experience, it doesn't seem the do things much better than us here but are maybe a little further down the road, so to speak.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/article/2024/aug/23/labour-is-right-about-ltns-the-tories-need-to-learn-the-same-lesson



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,786 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    One major improvement here is that there now is an emphasis on networks of cycling infrastructure. It seems pretty clear from research, and from experience in Dublin, that isolated streets don't induce many people to cycle. It's not too hard to see why. Even when these isolated streets didn't feature very poor design, people mostly weren't going to make a journey of half an hour when oniy two minutes of it felt comfortable. And the minority of people who were ok with the other 28 minutes didn't really need the infrastructure in the first place. So the emphasis on networks in Dublin and other urban areas is very welcome.

    It is true that some people, though definitely a minority in the general scheme of things, are making very long journeys, and nobody expects them to switch to cycling. But a lot of local journeys in Dublin, as you'd expect by the name, are under 5km. And the majority of commutes in Dublin are under 10km. The fact that relatively few of these journeys until recently were being made by bike (or even walking in the local journeys) has a lot to do with designing streets to keep motorized traffic moving: roundabouts, slip lanes, gyratories, long one-way systems. They're all hostile to healthy travel. So its not really a "choice" in all cases to start driving. You might want to walk 3km to do some local activity, but don't fancy sprinting across a roundabout with small children.

    (I'm putting emphasis on Dublin, because I know more about that. And it's also the place with the most cycling.)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,786 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    (This thread is turning into a thread from about twenty years ago.)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,786 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Daily Mail? The "hated" there seems indicative.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,087 ✭✭✭buffalo


    When Dart+ expands to Maynooth, do you think that the same amount of people will drive their commute, or will some switch to the train because of increased reliability, frequency and capacity? Yes/no, why?

    If the government instead sticks an extra lane on the M/N4, do you think nobody will switch from the train to driving because the car journey is now shorter because of increased capacity? Yes/no, why?

    If one or both of those things happen, do you think more people will choose to live in Maynooth and commute to Dublin daily? Yes/no, why?



Advertisement