Journalism and Cycling 2: the difficult second album

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

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

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

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?

Came across this the other day, from Canada but it seems folk are similar all round the world?

I can't agree that they are arguing in good faith if they avoid answering direct questions.

I can't read it, but I assume it leans more on the side of "Yes, it was a misjudged ad, but calling for the board of the RSA to resign is ridiculous"?

This "it seems to me" thread-within-a-thread is a sort of slow-motion Gish Gallop, and it's getting a bit stale now.

OK let me try and explain this a different way. (And bear in mind I am in no way responsible for any of the large amount of available material on induced demand!)

A real example: between my house and a place I work, it's approx. 5km journey. There are no continuous footpaths or cycleways, but there are three roads of roughly equal distance. What mode of transport will I take? Next question: those roads are congested at rush hour, cars are bumper to bumper on some stretches. There is an opportunity to upgrade the infrastructure: what should we spend the money on? Let's emphasise the point: I cycle myself but sometimes must bring children on the same route: should I use the car or bike?

So if we continue as we are, the current roads do induce demand for driving. If we spend the money on sustainable transport, then there will be an induced demand for the other modes. It doesn't mean everyone will give up driving. And people will still drive if it's convenient, so we actually need to make active transport MORE convenient than driving.

You moved to talking about costs also, which is a different discussion entirely. The cost to build motorways Vs railways has no real place in a discussion about urban cycle mode share and induced demand. We need a national motorway network and a national rail network connecting our cities. The national motorway and rail networks are not commuter networks. Their job is not to connect commuters. They're for the smaller number of non-daily trips. Arguments for or against national networks belong in a different thread than arguments for or against the allocation of road space in the urban area.

You make very solid points about current cycle infrastructure. I strongly encourage you to also submit this to your local Council's Part 8 and Section 38's and to their overall transport strategy documents. I regularly do same. The general comment is "this section of cycleway is ok but the fact that the broader network isn't being completed almost completely undermines its usefulness". Luckily we're nowadays in a much better situation here in Cork, where the Councils are working on full corridors.

With regards the M20, the railway line was unfortunately shot down on cost:benefit basis (IÉ were heavily involved in this, so there's no conspiracy). The simplified reasoning was that they felt they could upgrade Limerick Junction, and the Limerick to Junction line and get better overall ridership and allocate their scheduling better that way than a direct connection. It's unfortunate, but at least the analysis was done. That project is one of the best around for analysing all modes correctly. As a final note I'd recommend you go to the infrastructure forum where this type of conversation is had a lot. A lot of the posters there have real detailed background knowledge of the topics, I've learned a lot.

Even outside of the material available, it is also quite logical and intuitive. If you have to choose your transport mode you'll choose the most convenient one. If all you have is busy roads you'll likely choose to drive. We've broadly completed building out Ireland's road infrastructure, and most investment must now turn to sustainable modes. There should be nothing controversial about this in my opinion.

5km and 3 separate roads, personally speaking I'd cycle it along the road, with kids you'd have to use the car unless the weather was particularly fine. But to use your analogy, what method of transport did you use before the roads were built?

The problem with making submissions to the council regarding cycle lanes around Limerick is that, by and large, the council build them without any engagement with their local communities. The one exception is the one along the South Circular road which had to be voted on in the council chambers

With regards to the M20, I think my earlier point about rail being more expensive than roads is exactly what IÉ mean

I think it's an insurance thing. There's a large public sector organisation that's banned ebikes and escooters from being charged in their facilities, even though they previously allowed it, after a fire safety inspection

So what you are saying regarding the M9 is that the existing road wasn't suitable so they built a new one and the traffic didn't increase through induced demand?

Nope, not what I said. What I did say was:

 Not so Kilkenny and more so Carlow. On the occasions I do have to drive to Dublin early in the morning, come 7am Carlow onwards is fairly solid. If the road wasn't there would they take the train instead and as a result drive an upgrade in that service?

I.e., Carlow and to a lesser extent Kilkenny are now seen by some as viable commuter towns for Dublin, therefore that demand has been induced, Were the only choice the old N9 the alternative of rail would be much more attractive. Same can be applied to Gorey, and presumably towns closer to Galway/Sligo/Limerick.

I won't need to use the car for much longer. The Local Authority are investing in dedicated pedestrian and cycle infrastructure for the entirety of the route and I will bring them by bike. This will be induced demand for cycle infrastructure, fully proven out.

What method of transport did I use before the roads were built? I'm not sure where you're going with this question but before the roads were built people generally used bicycles on adjacent routes and before that generally walked. People generally don't walk now because of the dangers posed by fast-moving traffic. I belong to an older demographic that was able to walk and cycle these roads before the big surge of auto ownership in the 00's.

I assure you that Limerick Council have section 38's and part 8's. Whilst we regularly hear a battle-cry of "not enough consultation" when people are protesting sustainable infrastructure, there are very few schemes which do not go to public consultation within urban areas. https://mypoint.limerick.ie/en/browse

Your point about rail being more expensive than roads is not whatsoever what IÉ mean: I suggest you visit the NM20 project website for their justifications. The synopsis is that they intend to invest heavily in the Cork-Limerick corridor via Limerick Junction regardless of this scheme, thus see no advantage in adding another route to get people to the same destination in roughly the same time. Think of it like the M8 and M7 being shared between Limerick and Cork. Would there be an advantage in segregating the two: yes. Is it worth the additional effort: no, especially when we consider the disruption and the urgent investment priorities elsewhere on the network. Thus it goes to the bottom of our "desire" list. https://corklimerick.ie/

You've hit the nail on the head, although not sure if it's an insurance issue, reckon the guy or gal who decided to implement this doesn't like battery powered vehicles of any type. There's a huge campaign at the moment led by the oil industry to knock confidence in electric cars, this is likely an extension of this

They'll have a rude awakening if this takes off

https://www.irishrail.ie/en-ie/news/fast-charging-facilities-for-new-dart-trains-for-d

Paulstown probably was for some but it has no doubt increased. Its north of both Carlow and Kilkenny and wasn't a long distance to existing motorway prior to M9 construction. I'm not surprised though that M9 say south of Carlow doesn't look busy most of the time; there is no real major population hubs below it. Waterford city and county is circa 100k and some of those will use M8 or skip across to junction 9 to use it. Wexford is served by M11, which with improved road network including New Ross bypass is well served.

Junction 9 which is south of Kilkenny is now in play for commuters and is often the best option for people as far south as Clonmel; that will include Callan, Carrick and everything else at a similar distance.

Sarsfield bridge today some stills taken from my dashcam, on one side the footpath with 2 cyclists, on the other side the cycle lane that was once a traffic lane.

Are we seeing the problem yet

At this point I think we can all see the problem…

Come back when you want to actually discuss something!