Benefits of specialised infrastructure: chances of consensus?

monument · 04-10-2015 11:21am

enas wrote: »

I fairness, I'm not a fan of the "Go-Dutch" campaigning approach either, since people understand what they want from it. I'm with monument, what we need is a mix of specific measures. My opinion is that this should be crafted from what the Dutch do, but we should be precise about what we want, instead of simply reducing it to "copy what the Dutch do".

The "Go Dutch" bit is the marketing that most people understand, it needs to be backed by detail of any changes needed but the "Go Dutch" bit can be helpful for marketing, showing the results, and showing what needs to be done, down to the fine detail.

You could just have the detail without the marketing, but that would be a far harder sell to the public, business, officials and politicians.

tomasrojo · 05-10-2015 9:26am

Ah nuts.

A move to force Dublin City Council officials to implement contra-flow cycling provisions on some key city centre streets failed by just one vote, with the city’s lord mayor using her deciding voting against the proposed policy.

http://irishcycle.com/2015/10/05/push-to-secure-contra-flow-cycling-on-key-dublin-streets-fails-by-one-vote/

galwaycyclist · 05-10-2015 11:14am

Hi

Previously in this thread there was discussion around the Dutch CROW guidelines and whether or how there was any mapping with the "Hierarchy of Solutions" approach. The hierarchy approach came from a 1996 document Cycle Friendly Infrastructure - which was a joint publication of the Cyclists Touring Club and the Institute for Highways and Transportation. The authors very much saw themselves as drawing on CROW.

I have scanned the relevant section from that document. The paragraphs about route quality also bear consideration. The idea that the authors of the hierarchy were trying to reject or avoid Dutch experience is nuts.

enas · 09-10-2015 6:48am

monument wrote: »

The "Go Dutch" bit is the marketing that most people understand, it needs to be backed by detail of any changes needed but the "Go Dutch" bit can be helpful for marketing, showing the results, and showing what needs to be done, down to the fine detail.

You could just have the detail without the marketing, but that would be a far harder sell to the public, business, officials and politicians.

I agree with the importance of marketing. I just don't think the "Go-Dutch" is approach a good one. To be honest, I don't think the layman even knows there's something special about cycling in the Netherlands, and among the more initiated, there's mostly misconceptions about what Dutch actually do.

I've always been of the opinion that to appeal to the masses, we need to join forces with the issues pedestrians face (since both are symptoms of the same root cause), which much more people are currently facing, and are likely to sympathise with as a result. And we should highlight those issues on the most vulnerable ones, showing for example how it affects children's wellbeing (which is a sure empathy trigger). Kind of like having our "Stop de kindermoord" moment. But I haven't found any catchy term for all that.

enas · 09-10-2015 6:56am

Thanks for the information!

galwaycyclist wrote: »

The authors very much saw themselves as drawing on CROW.

Unless I'm missing something, I don't see any of the "consider first -> consider last" stuff from the hierarchy, which is the central point of the hierarchy, and the one I disagree with (as I said earlier, it's not about opposing cycle paths to traffic calming, it's about choosing the right tool for the right conditions).

galwaycyclist wrote: »

The idea that the authors of the hierarchy were trying to reject or avoid Dutch experience is nuts.

Do I feel a straw man here? I don't think this point has been made in this thread.

tomasrojo · 09-10-2015 9:20am

enas wrote: »

I've always been of the opinion that to appeal to the masses, we need to join forces with the issues pedestrians face (since both are symptoms of the same root cause), which much more people are currently facing, and are likely to sympathise with as a result.

Yes, quite agree.

In particular, the debate about the city centre should be framed more in terms of pedestrians and cyclists, in that order. Even people who drive to town can't possibly be driving from shop to shop, unless they've got deep pockets and endless patience.

(I doubt this is much of a problem in terms of marketing, but "going Dutch" as a phrase does have its origin in a somewhat negative view of the Dutch, along with "double Dutch", "Dutch courage" and so on. Probably nobody thinks of it in those terms though.)

enas · 09-10-2015 9:42am

tomasrojo wrote: »

(I doubt this is much of a problem in terms of marketing, but "going Dutch" as a phrase does have its origin in a somewhat negative view of the Dutch, along with "double Dutch", "Dutch courage" and so on. Probably nobody thinks of it in those terms though.)

Funny that you mention that, because I've always thought the same

It's an easy and funny enough pun though.

monument · 09-10-2015 10:04am

enas wrote: »

I agree with the importance of marketing. I just don't think the "Go-Dutch" is approach a good one. To be honest, I don't think the layman even knows there's something special about cycling in the Netherlands, and among the more initiated, there's mostly misconceptions about what Dutch actually do.

As a cargo bike owner first in Dublin and then in Mayo I can safely say than a wide range of people have a reasonable idea of Dutch cycling is about -- far more so than the amount who but into the current cycling vision of cycling in Ireland.

enas wrote: »

I've always been of the opinion that to appeal to the masses, we need to join forces with the issues pedestrians face (since both are symptoms of the same root cause), which much more people are currently facing, and are likely to sympathise with as a result.

The masses and pedestrian improvements? Is that really that much of a sell to the masses beyond city centres?

enas wrote: »

And we should highlight those issues on the most vulnerable ones, showing for example how it affects children's wellbeing (which is a sure empathy trigger). Kind of like having our "Stop de kindermoord" moment. But I haven't found any catchy term for all that.

Dutch cycling goes hand in hand with child safety and freedom on streets and independent travel to/from school etc.

tomasrojo · 09-10-2015 10:44am

More about the "expedition" to the Netherlands:

Our next public meeting recounts the findings from a major study tour by 20 Irish cycling experts and advocates, in September 2015.

As most cyclists are aware the Netherlands is a virtual cycling paradise…..but why is this, and how did it happen? Can we here in Dublin and Ireland learn from their experience, and help to bring the level of cycling up? These questions and more will be given a fascinating insight by a group of participants from the Study Tour to the cities of Utrecht, Houten, Den Bosch, and Eindhoven.

http://www.dublincycling.ie/events/regular-monthly-public-meeting-3

enas · 09-10-2015 11:39am

monument wrote: »

As a cargo bike owner first in Dublin and then in Mayo I can safely say than a wide range of people have a reasonable idea of Dutch cycling is about -- far more so than the amount who but into the current cycling vision of cycling in Ireland.

You might very well be right. I was just making a completely subjective and uncorroborated estimation.

But I do believe that in the part of the country where I live, most people wouldn't know what cargo bikes are, and would at best have a vague sense that people do cycle there in the Netherlands, but without really knowing why (or "because it's flat")

monument wrote: »

The masses and pedestrian improvements? Is that really that much of a sell to the masses beyond city centres?

Yes, that covers mostly cities and their surroundings. And that covers a great deal of the Irish population, and furthermore, yes I would argue that making built-up areas more "people friendly" is the top priority.

monument wrote: »

Dutch cycling goes hand in hand with child safety and freedom on streets and independent travel to/from school etc.

Of course it does. My point was precisely that I feel it's more interesting to directly sell the idea of "child safety and freedom on streets". It is highly subjective, but I just think it's more appealing than "Dutch cycling".

Anyway, that was just a minor point, I'm not saying there's anything fundamentally wrong with this rather minor issue, just a personal feeling.

tomasrojo · 09-10-2015 11:49am

enas wrote: »

"because it's flat"

This came up in the Irish media last week. Can't quite remember where, but it was a discussion on the radio about obesity and inactivity and discussing why the Netherlands does so much better than us.

monument · 09-10-2015 7:30pm

@ enas Interesting line of reply which has made me think about a related bit of work I have to refine, so thanks for the interaction on this...

enas wrote: »

You might very well be right. I was just making a completely subjective and uncorroborated estimation.

But I do believe that in the part of the country where I live, most people wouldn't know what cargo bikes are, and would at best have a vague sense that people do cycle there in the Netherlands...

Sorry, was in a rush and did not make my point even half as clear as I had wanted to...

The cargo bike gets people talking about cycling in a way nothing else has for me. When I say people its everybody from friends and family to parents at play school / pre school to randomers on the street.

This is also subjective my subject take from the insights of others but it's a far wider insight overall than I had previous been exposed to.

enas wrote: »

...but without really knowing why (or "because it's flat")

You'll have to tackle misconceptions regardless of what vision you promote.

I think it's easier to tackle the Dutch misconceptions than it is to tackle the general cycling as transport for the masses misconceptions / disbelieve without using the Dutch example.

It's also easier to have the Netherlands as you example of good infra rather than letting our officials and elected members set the bar for infra design.

enas wrote: »

Yes, that covers mostly cities and their surroundings. And that covers a great deal of the Irish population, and furthermore, yes I would argue that making built-up areas more "people friendly" is the top priority.

I'm very much so for improving things for walking -- policy and projects should look at walking and cycling improvements -- but I'm unsure how much mass support you'll get for pedestrian improvements outside key urban areas. Even in parts of Dublin City you won't have people falling over them selfs to do anything which may slow cars (ie the planned pedestrian crossings in Fairview).

I should say that promoting Dutch-like cycling and "people friendly" cities go hand in hand: "We don't do cycling design for cycling, we do it for livable cities" is a paraphrase from more than one Dutch contact. Cycling however is a keystone part of this.

enas wrote: »

Of course it does. My point was precisely that I feel it's more interesting to directly sell the idea of "child safety and freedom on streets". It is highly subjective, but I just think it's more appealing than "Dutch cycling".

To bring about change it likely needs more than one group of people to be calling for these things, so if a number of groups are calling for "going Dutch" or however they want it to be phrased, others can at the same time call for child safety and freedom on streets as their main / only focus.

Even within those calling for "going Dutch", it would be advisable to to have sub-campaign / policy pushes which focuses on child safety issue.

However, going back to child independence: For the vast bulk of the population spread (outside core city centres), there's no better way for child / teenager independence than Dutch-like cycling. It's something I've read about but seeing it outside of Amsterdam city centre (in the suburbs, in other cities, and large towns) is something else. It's amazing compared to what we have here and Dutch cycling is key to this.

enas wrote: »

Anyway, that was just a minor point, I'm not saying there's anything fundamentally wrong with this rather minor issue, just a personal feeling.

I think you're right at least to an extent and I don't think it's minor -- how improvements to our environment are sold to people and officials is fairly key and you're right to say that just saying "Dutch cycling" won't work on its own.

tomasrojo wrote: »

This came up in the Irish media last week. Can't quite remember where, but it was a discussion on the radio about obesity and inactivity and discussing why the Netherlands does so much better than us.

One of the best answers I've heard to the "it's flat" argument was from a traffic engineer: he told us go south to the border. Cycling levels free fall but it's also 'flat'. It's not geography, he said.

A more nuanced argument is that in Ireland you get an 7+ speed bike. Our seven speed Dutch bikes are fine, but I would not like the five or three speed versions living where I live now. Most of Dublin is relatively flat.

tomasrojo · 12-10-2015 4:46pm

Dublin Cycling ‏@dublincycling

Reminder: this evening's public meeting - reflections on Irish NL study trip http://www.dublincycling.ie/events/regular-monthly-public-meeting-3 … #DublinCycling
http://t.co/jVCJSXFs67

https://twitter.com/dublincycling/status/653581312276725761

tomasrojo · 15-10-2015 9:41am

More about the Irish trip to the Netherlands.

http://irishcycle.com/2015/10/15/dutch-cycling-notes-part-3-if-it-doesnt-work-for-children-we-havent-yet-succeed/

I like the emphasis on it being more about urban design than cycling, per se. The bit about not imposing unenforceable rules seems sensible, and was mentioned in the second article in the series too, IIRC.

monument · 15-10-2015 4:56pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

More about the Irish trip to the Netherlands.

http://irishcycle.com/2015/10/15/dutch-cycling-notes-part-3-if-it-doesnt-work-for-children-we-havent-yet-succeed/

I like the emphasis on it being more about urban design than cycling, per se. The bit about not imposing unenforceable rules seems sensible, and was mentioned in the second article in the series too, IIRC.

Btw the first 3 articles in the series (and 2 or so more I have in my inbox) were written without the writers seen the output from the other writers.

It's good to see what's repeated and the differences too.

galwaycyclist · 15-10-2015 7:24pm

enas wrote: »

Thanks for the information!

Unless I'm missing something, I don't see any of the "consider first -> consider last" stuff from the hierarchy, which is the central point of the hierarchy, and the one I disagree with (as I said earlier, it's not about opposing cycle paths to traffic calming, it's about choosing the right tool for the right conditions).

This is page 10 from CFI this is where the Hierarchy is expressed

For measure 1 Traffic reduction they were also talking about car-free zones and mentioned the Dutch town of Houten as an example.

For measure 3 Junction treatment and traffic management. These measures are given a separate list elsewhere in cycle-friendly infrastructure, including:
· Urban traffic control systems designed to recognise cyclists and give them priority
· Provide contra-flow cycle lanes on one-way streets and implement two-way streets for cyclists
· Exempt cyclists from banned turns and access restrictions
· Combined bus/cycle priority measures
· Implement on street parking restrictions
· Advanced stop lines for cyclists at traffic signals
· Bypasses for cyclists at traffic signals
· Junction alterations, signalising roundabouts, changing priorities at junctions, cycle friendly junction design
· Altering lane markings to give more space to cyclists (wide kerb lanes)
· Advanced transport telematics: designing new systems to benefit cyclists

galwaycyclist · 15-10-2015 7:31pm

This is page 11

I include it because they make the point that access to all destinations must be considered. They acknowledge and do not reject a role for flagship routes within an overall framework designed to improve cycling conditions.

They state a need to restrain car traffic.

They acknowledge both sides of the segregation argument without coming down on one or the other.

tomasrojo · 15-10-2015 8:43pm

They do say engineering is less important than, for example, the three Es or cycle-to-work schemes though, which is not a view that is shared by the more recent wave of campaigners.

(Of course, in the Irish context, given our very poor infrastructure design, they'd be right that it doesn't encourage very many people on its own. I don't know about the more general picture. "Encouragement" has a poor record here, I think, and the Irish delegation mentioned a few posts back were taken by the very light Dutch emphasis on enforcement.)

galwaycyclist · 16-10-2015 1:45am

tomasrojo wrote: »

They do say engineering is less important than, for example, the three Es or cycle-to-work schemes though, which is not a view that is shared by the more recent wave of campaigners.

(Of course, in the Irish context, given our very poor infrastructure design, they'd be right that it doesn't encourage very many people on its own. I don't know about the more general picture. "Encouragement" has a poor record here, I think, and the Irish delegation mentioned a few posts back were taken by the very light Dutch emphasis on enforcement.)

There is enforcement and enforcement. If you look into it I suspect you will find that the Dutch (and others) worked very hard to make certain forms of driver behaviour socially unacceptable. This is itself a form of enforcement.

As an example people assume that Germans waiting for green amplemanner at crossings is a sign of unthinking obedience for regulations. Its not, Germans can be extremely bolshie and confrontational about regulations that try to control citizens for no good reason. BUT there is also a shared understanding that part of the duties of an adult is to be a good example for children. Waiting for the green man when there are no cars coming is part of this understanding.

In Ireland, we have a situation where certain state agencies and their fellow travellers in the media work to make it socially unacceptable to walk or cycle in normal clothing. We have a situation where deference and subservience to motor traffic, or motorists, is promoted as some kind of "natural order" and alternatives to motorisation are portrayed as unusual or "unnatural".

tomasrojo · 16-10-2015 9:11am

galwaycyclist wrote: »

In Ireland, we have a situation where certain state agencies and their fellow travellers in the media work to make it socially unacceptable to walk or cycle in normal clothing. We have a situation where deference and subservience to motor traffic, or motorists, is promoted as some kind of "natural order" and alternatives to motorisation are portrayed as unusual or "unnatural".

I agree with everything you just said, especially this.

I was thinking about this the other day. I have a slight problem in that I teach children music at their home, and for the ones further away I cycle over. Very occasionally, I get questions from the kids about me not wearing a helmet, which I just evade. I wonder whether I might occasionally lose work over it, as parents might just feel I'm a bad example, or just weird. No parent has ever said anything about it though.

schemingbohemia · 16-10-2015 12:19pm

A point missed, generally, in media comment on the draft NTA Strategy for Greater Dublin
https://www.nationaltransport.ie/news/greater-dublin-area-draft-transport-strategy-2016-2035-proposes/
is the commitment to finish the GDA Cycle Network (award winning apparently) see here:
To construct the Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network, expanding the urban cycle network to over 1,485 kilometres in length, and with over 1,300 kilometres of new connections between towns in the rural areas of the GDA. The network is intended to provide a quality of service sufficient to attract new cyclists, as well as catering for the increasing numbers of existing cyclists.

monument · 16-10-2015 2:28pm

The GDA cycle network document / plan is award winning and rightly so, it's a great bit of work.

It's implementation is the next chapter. The authors of this on-the ground work are struggling comming up with even a first draft.

tomasrojo · 22-10-2015 9:15am

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2015/oct/22/what-i-learnt-from-a-month-cycling-in-the-netherlands

Another pilgrimage-to-the-Netherlands article.

traprunner · 22-10-2015 9:50am

I was in the south of Spain last week and spent a couple of days in Seville. A few things struck me with regards to cycling (there and in other Spanish cities). I was both a pedestrian and motorist. In no particular order:

1. I didn't see any cyclists in a rush. They were just gently peddling along. It was as if their mentality was very different to the Irish attitude of having to be somewhere as quick as possible.
2. When in pedestrian areas or on footpaths cycle lanes were separated from walkways by silver disks every couple of metres. Such as this: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150209181426-seville-cycling-9-super-169.jpg
Where the silver discs were not provided then the track was painted green.
3. Pedestrians walk on the bike lanes in the city centres but move when cyclists ring their bells. Cyclists are never going so fast that they can't stop or avoid the pedestrians.
4. Cyclists use the footpaths too. People just manage and no one loses their temper.
5. Ramps on to cycle tracks were perfectly smooth. Not even the tiniest of a kerb.
6. Cyclists used zebra crossings at bigger junctions with pedestrians.
7. Cycle lanes on busier roads where separated by dividers such as these: http://www.100resilientcities.org/page/-/100rc/img/blog/bikes%20seville%20clifkr.jpg
Practically all bikes were hybrids. A few are the free city bikes (Dublin bikes) but not many.
8. Cycling appears to be ok on the hard shoulder of motorways. There was even signs indicating this. Walking is also ok on the hard shoulder.
9. It just worked.

tomasrojo · 22-10-2015 10:18am

Thanks, traprunner. I'm interested in Seville, as the rise in cycling participation from very low to medium there seems strongly and plausibly linked to the investment in infrastructure.

The "interrupted kerbs" I rather like, as with a trailer you can end up stuck on separated infrastructure when you meet a parked car.

Participation in cycling in Spain in general is still among the lowest in Europe, is that right? Or am I completely out of date?

traprunner · 22-10-2015 10:27am

One major thing I forgot to mention was the lack of cars in city centres. In Seville in particular there were certain pedestrian areas, no no cars there. However, streets open to cars had very little traffic on them. I'm not sure why. Maybe it's so expensive to get a parking permit if you are a resident. Or that people are just not as lazy as people in Ireland AND that the infrastructure respects pedestrians far more with a huge number of zebra crossings.

traprunner · 22-10-2015 12:01pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

Thanks, traprunner. I'm interested in Seville, as the rise in cycling participation from very low to medium there seems strongly and plausibly linked to the investment in infrastructure.

The "interrupted kerbs" I rather like, as with a trailer you can end up stuck on separated infrastructure when you meet a parked car.

Participation in cycling in Spain in general is still among the lowest in Europe, is that right? Or am I completely out of date?

The interrupted kerbs are a great idea. Seville is like Dublin with ancient narrow streets but where there is room they often use them.

I thought that there were very few cyclists compared to Dublin but then again maybe it was just the time of days I noticed. Life over there runs at different times to life here.

galwaycyclist · 22-10-2015 6:35pm

traprunner wrote: »

One major thing I forgot to mention was the lack of cars in city centres. In Seville in particular there were certain pedestrian areas, no no cars there. However, streets open to cars had very little traffic on them. I'm not sure why. Maybe it's so expensive to get a parking permit if you are a resident. Or that people are just not as lazy as people in Ireland AND that the infrastructure respects pedestrians far more with a huge number of zebra crossings.

I think this is one issue with Seville - it was a historic city already with a large number of older streets pre-dating cars - and with little traffic as a result.

I get the impression they just needed to find a way to connect these up.

The central point is that they already had a sympathetic roads network available in places and the new infrastructure unlocked that potential.

Also I am trying to put a figure on it but I have the impression that putting the flagship cycle facilities into the ring system involved the removal of a large number of car parking places. Its the kind of thing that gets glossed over sometimes.

tomasrojo · 22-10-2015 6:56pm

That's intriguing, galwaycyclist. It's definitely a very interesting case, rising to "fascinating" as far as I'm concerned because it happened in Spain, where, when last I checked, utility cycling really was about as low as it gets in the EU.

tomasrojo · 02-11-2015 10:12am

https://twitter.com/Flaminghobo1/status/661107363919863808

Benefits of specialised infrastructure: chances of consensus?

Comments