Traffic-free city centres for Ireland?

blorg

My own experience would bear this out, I have got a lot fitter and sweat a hell of a lot less now than I used to, while doing the same courses significantly faster. Definitely temperature related too, I would sweat very little in the winter or even for that matter an Irish summer. Transplant me to a Spanish summer and I would be running pretty freely.

blorg

faceman wrote: »

these initiatives are great for people who have the luxury of being in a position to cycle to work. But what about people living in Clonee who commute to Ballsbridge? Or people who live in Rathfarnham who commute to Santry? Or people who live in Newbridge and commute to Fairview? Or people who live in Balbriggan who commute to Sandyford?

Taking cars off the road isn't the answer when the majority of employers are based in town centres.

I know one poster on this forum that commutes Clonee-Sandyford each day, but that is beside the point. The majority of commutes are actually under 9km, so while there are people who can't there are also a hell of a lot of people who can, but don't.

Anyway what is being discussed here is removing cars from just the city centre, which is best served by public transport anyway. If you are coming from somewhere ill-served parking at a Luas park and ride would be a good idea.

seamus

Hagar wrote: »

Let's see, 150,000 people not buying €50 of fuel per week is a loss of €390,000,000 in sales per annum.

My car gets 640 km on a €50 tank. To require a refill every week, I'd need to do roughly 100 km/day (leaving lots of room for driving at the weekend). That would be a trip from my parent's house near Baltinglass to the IFSC every day. Which as pointed out before, you absolutely wouldn't cycle.

As a better example, take someone with a trip that's within the county - Firhouse to the IFSC. We'll say 12km each way for simplicity. That's 120km per week. Or 540 km in a month. So we'll say (for simplicity) that each cyclist will fill up 12 times less per year. So €600 per new cyclist. That's around €90m, or around €60m in lost duty by your sums. Since it's very likely that most commutes won't be 12km, but closer to 8 or 9, then this figure is an overestimation.

Can you quantify the benefit to the exchequer and the economy of having 150,000 workers who are in better health, less stressed and have a much lower sickness rate?

I'd factor in the contributions from the cyclists that will offset this but they don't pay any. Yet.

Except the VAT we pay like everyone else, and the tax we already pay on the vehicles we have at home.

My primary concern about "banning" cars from the city centre is that it would make pedestrians even dumber. Ironically less traffic could be more dangerous for cyclists.

Karma

if the train services allowed bikes on them(1) or if there was a working intergated travel ticket(bus, luas, dart, suburban rail and provencial bus services)(2)

these would improve peoples choices and hopefully some change would come about.
better "Working" bike corridors might help, as cycling in dublin is dangerous.(3)

if the NRA did their job and spend their time and our/your money on what they are meant to do instead of thier pr excuses.
btw the Dept of Transport is 69/71 st. stephens green if you need to write to them.

what about park and cycle? eg i used to park in cornelscourt or stillorgan sc and cycle in to city centre when i lived in wicklow.

to allow carshare cars in bus lanes in certin areas or all.
to remove taxis with no customer in it from the bus lane.
Buses to carry cameras (like London) to catch cars in the bus lane.-buses to yield to left hand turning traffic, instead of the undertaking Iceberg impersonation they favour.
to get rid of 24hour bus lanes, really why are they there?
make bus lanes practical, 7-10 am and 4-7pm. while there are many who commute, there are many who also work/deliver travel during the regular working hours so loosen up the rule during the lull.

who brings their bike with them when they travel?(snow bound destinations are not included:) eg London, Barcelona... great places to ride and see the difference.

ride safe.
dotc

Hagar

My figures were very rough and ready, I'll admit that, nevertheless if 150,000 people permanently dramatically cut their motoring spend it will have a significant effect on the exchequer. How will it be made up?

seamus

Hagar wrote: »

My figures were very rough and ready, I'll admit that, nevertheless if 150,000 people permanently dramatically cut their motoring spend it will have a significant effect on the exchequer. How will it be made up?

€60m? If we just fired 100 civil servants we'd get that back with change

But seriously, as I point out, can you quantify the benefit to the exchequer? Not really. I'm definitely healthier cycling to work. I'm more awake when I get to work (so more productive), I get sick far less often (and when I do, I recover much quicker), and the ride in/out gets rid of the stress of the day.

In addition, if traffic in the city centre is lessened overall, how much will the economy and the exchequer benefit from faster delivery times, less employee lateness, improved bus services, etc?

It's very easy to say, "This will cost us X", but at the moment we have absolutely no idea how much money we're losing by having the city choking with traffic in the first place.

Besides, we could very easily make that €60m back if we wanted to. Charge every private vehicle €5 to enter/leave the city (cross either canal) between 7am and 7pm every day. We'd only need 12 million people to drive into the city in a year. For reasons I outlined above, I wouldn't be crazy about completely eliminating vehicles, but strongly discouraging private vehicle use is the way to go.

faceman

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

2 of the 4 you listed are quite doable by bike and sub-hour commutes (admittedly I don't know the routes or the roads that well). That would be half as many commuters ditching cars.

I'm sure these measures would have been proposed as a park and ride scheme similar to what people currently do with luas/bus.

Doable - perhaps, feasible - not necessarily.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Santry, Ballsbridge, Fairview and Sandyford are not in in central Dublin. All are near very substantial residential areas and are very convenient work locations for people who live near them or along the many public transport routes serving them.

Fairview kinda is. What route aside from the M50 or through town can commuters take to reach those locations?

blorg wrote: »

I know one poster on this forum that commutes Clonee-Sandyford each day, but that is beside the point. The majority of commutes are actually under 9km, so while there are people who can't there are also a hell of a lot of people who can, but don't.

Anyway what is being discussed here is removing cars from just the city centre, which is best served by public transport anyway. If you are coming from somewhere ill-served parking at a Luas park and ride would be a good idea.

This is the problem though. The luas and Dart doesnt service all of Dublin. There are feck all park and ride facilities for them and none at all for Dublin bus.

blorg

faceman wrote: »

This is the problem though. The luas and Dart doesnt service all of Dublin. There are feck all park and ride facilities for them and none at all for Dublin bus.

It services the city centre, which is the point here.

The 58% of urban dwellers with sub 9km commutes would all be straight doable on a bike with no park and ride etc at all. Chop a chunk out of that for people who genuinely couldn't do it (disabled, etc.) and it is still a hell of a lot of people.

In any case the proposed reduction on cars is for the city centre only and will benefit all people visiting the centre, not just cyclists, and make the city centre generally a more pleasant place.

faceman

blorg wrote: »

It services the city centre, which is the point here.

The 58% of urban dwellers with sub 9km commutes would all be straight doable on a bike with no park and ride etc at all. Chop a chunk out of that for people who genuinely couldn't do it (disabled, etc.) and it is still a hell of a lot of people.

In any case the proposed reduction on cars is for the city centre only and will benefit all people visiting the centre, not just cyclists, and make the city centre generally a more pleasant place.

I take your point. My issue is with penalizing the other 42% if no other viable public alternative is available

niceonetom

leaving aside issues of excise, sweat and luas provision i have to ask, do we think that a pedestrianised city centre would actually be any easier to traverse by bike than one with cars et al?

the threat of being flattened by a 49a or whitevanman is the only thing that keeps the average ipodestrian walking in anything approaching a straight line, and keeps lemming-like instincts to a tolerable minimum. the thought of trying to get from, say, parnell square to st. stephen's green when these wandering, meandering and utterly oblivious beasts are given the entire width of all these roads is not appealing.

luckily it'll never happen.

Raam

niceonetom wrote: »

leaving aside issues of excise, sweat and luas provision i have to ask, do we think that a pedestrianised city centre would actually be any easier to traverse by bike than one with cars et al?

the threat of being flattened by a 49a or whitevanman is the only thing that keeps the average ipodestrian walking in anything approaching a straight line, and keeps lemming-like instincts to a tolerable minimum. the thought of trying to get from, say, parnell square to st. stephen's green when these wandering, meandering and utterly oblivious beasts are given the entire width of all these roads is not appealing.

luckily it'll never happen.

If taxis and buses are still permitted access, which I would hope would be the case, then it may not be so bad.

Gavin

Well if the place does become pedestrianised, all the 'would cycle but it's too dangerous' folks might start cycling.

Hordes of people cycling through the city center will soon educate people to be far more aware of cyclists than they are now.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Raam wrote: »

If taxis and buses are still permitted access, which I would hope would be the case, then it may not be so bad.

Taxi drivers are hardly on great terms with cyclists...

Ban everything with an engine I say:p

Raam

Sean_K wrote: »

Taxi drivers are hardly on great terms with cyclists...

Ban everything with an engine I say:p

I'll need 'em when I fall out of the pub!

DirkVoodoo

The problem at the moment is that cyclists are a traffic minority. If (When!) they finally outnumber buses, taxis and joe the plumber in his white van, we may see an attitude shift.

Taxis wont be as aggressive when they have to contend with 20 or 30 cyclists in a bunch and a steady stream of bike traffic down O'Connell street would have the same effect on pedestrians as a row of cars speeding past. I would like to think that a measure of equilibrium sets in to a system like this, so for all the cries of lost taxation from fuel and lemming pedestrians, people will adapt and we will be better for it in the long run. I would refer you to my vietnam video from another thread: everyone on 2 wheels and no problems.

Yes, pedestrian/cyclist collisions will invariably increase, but I for one would prefer to be hit by a bike rather than a lorry (well, preferably not be hit at all).

L'Enfer du Nord

Hagar wrote: »

My figures were very rough and ready, I'll admit that, nevertheless if 150,000 people permanently dramatically cut their motoring spend it will have a significant effect on the exchequer. How will it be made up?

I suspect it would be made up by a congestion charge on the rest, who stay in their cars. I would love to see our city centres car free, however If the government are seriously considering this I'd say it is just a fig leaf for congestion charges. With buses, diliveries etc. I don't think you could make Dublin city centre car free anyway. Galway might as well be car-free, not particularly bicycle friendly at the moment though

faceman

I could never see an massive increase in cyclists on the road. I also feel with the current cycle infrastructure, if anything increasing the number of cyclists on the road will only increase the risk of casualties even hire. More cyclists means more breaking red lights, more overtaking and lane manuovers without checking over your shoulder and of course all the above in the dark with no lights.

Gavin

I disagree. More cyclists means that cyclists become more important, for want of a better word. Research has shown that more cyclists means less risk for cyclists. Gardai will be forced to pay more attention to cyclists, enforcing road traffic laws. More money allocated for better infrastructure. General awareness of cycling increases and cyclists will be forced by legal and social pressures to conform to more rigorous rules for cycling. Just as in Holland.

Now as to if there will be a concerted effort to change policy and actually increase cycling numbers.. I'm dubious of that.

Climate Expert

Cycling to work: uncomfortable when wet, sweaty, extremely dangerous over the long term. Just a massive pain in the hole.

Its just not a realistic proposition for most people.

blorg

Climate Expert wrote: »

Its just not a realistic proposition for most people.

But yet it is in other countries with similar or worse weather than Ireland (compare Dublin to Amsterdam or Copenhagen for example.)

As Verb says, increased numbers leads to increased safety.

Climate Expert

Those cities are flat, with better streets, more logical housing patterns and have nicer weather than here.

Raam

Climate Expert wrote: »

Those cities are flat, with better streets, more logical housing patterns and have nicer weather than here.

Any excuse? :rolleyes:

DirkVoodoo

Climate Expert wrote: »

extremely dangerous over the long term......Its just not a realistic proposition for most people.

I would actually strongly object to these two statements. They are completely unsupported for a start. I have far fewer near misses on a bike than I do in a car and most of them are at much slower speeds (even taking relative velocities into account and I would consider myself a competent driver).

I would also like to know what is unrealistic?

I have been driving since the day I turned 17. Before that I would get lifts to school. I drove throughout my 4 years of college, having one bad accident in the process where I was the second car out of a 4 car pile-up (from the rear). When I went back to do a masters I said "nuts to this" and got myself a carrera subway for commuting and haven't looked back. I was strongly discouraged by my parents and others because it was "dangerous". Frankly I think sticking a 17 year old behind a ton of steel is dangerous but there you go.

I can't see anything but positives if more people start cycling. I don't get road rage, I'm not stuck in traffic. I cycled in the wind and rain yesterday, didn't bother me in terms of comfort.

I'm struggling to see what part of me ditching the car and taking up cycling (which led to longer cycles, better bikes and the fantastic boards spins (thanks tiny!)) is unrealistic??

Lumen

Climate Expert wrote: »

Those cities are flat, with better streets, more logical housing patterns and have nicer weather than here.

Dublin is very flat, whereas Copenhagen is very cold and Amsterdam is full of drugged-up stumbling tourists.

Climate Expert

I cycled in the wind and rain yesterday, didn't bother me in terms of comfort.

Some people enjoy misery and going into work sweating like a pig. You can't expect everybody to be like that though.

And as far as accidents my cycling relations were both in a number of serious accidents commuting to work. Actually hurting yourself in a car accident commuting to work would be extremely unlikely. Cars are far safer.

Raam

Climate Expert wrote: »

Some people enjoy misery and going into work sweating like a pig. You can't expect everybody to be like that though.

And as far as accidents my cycling relations were both in a number of serious accidents commuting to work. Actually hurting yourself in a car accident commuting to work would be extremely unlikely. Cars are far safer.

You won't sweat like a pig, unless you want to of course.

DirkVoodoo

Climate Expert wrote: »

Actually hurting yourself in a car accident commuting to work would be extremely unlikely. Cars are far safer.

Again, unsupported. I have a pretty dodgy lower back as a result of the accident. I'm sure someone can dig up some numbers on whiplash injuries. This was also during commuting, coming home from college. The car was changing lanes i think, going fairly fast as he had a clear stretch, didnt see the line of cars stopped at the lights outside the galloping green, smashed into one which smashed into me and i (handbrake up) smashed into car in front of me. Thats a pretty high energy impact. I don't think you are being very balanced here.

Lumen

Climate Expert wrote: »

Some people enjoy misery and going into work sweating like a pig. You can't expect everybody to be like that though.

And as far as accidents my cycling relations were both in a number of serious accidents commuting to work. Actually hurting yourself in a car accident commuting to work would be extremely unlikely. Cars are far safer.

A lot of accidents says more about the rider/driver than the mode of transport, IMO. I crashed cars a fair few times, when I was younger and more stupid.

I love driving, but there is no way I'd drive to work in Dublin - I'd be spending 3 hours a day sitting in traffic.

Bike or train takes about the same amount of time for me (even including a showering, changing and general faffing with the bike). I can see why you'd want to avoid a bike if you hate exercise and being outdoors though.

seamus

Climate Expert wrote: »

Those cities are flat ... and have nicer weather than here.

Complete myth.

Some people enjoy misery and going into work sweating like a pig.

Personally, I find sitting on a bus or in a car and/or in traffic to be the height of misery. Cruising through the streets, even on a day when it's pissing rain and lashing wind, is very liberating and enjoyable.

And as said, you only sweat like a pig if you want to. I enjoy a good sweat. Gets all crap out of your pores.

niceonetom

Climate Expert wrote: »

Cycling to work: uncomfortable when wet, sweaty, extremely dangerous over the long term. Just a massive pain in the hole.

Its just not a realistic proposition for most people.

do you actually know what you are talking about or have you come to this opinion from behind the wheel? honestly? i'm genuinely curious.

as ill-informed, pessimistic, lazy and timid as i find this view to be i also think that it is highly representative of mainstream thinking on commuting by bike.

when we glibly say 'they don't know what they're missing' we don't know how right we are. they don't. these poor fukcers spend 3 hours a day in their (mostly stationary) metal boxes glummly playing with the radio and as we whip past them (to get home in half the time, twice as healthy, full of endorphins and smug self-satisfaction) they actually come to the conclusion that they are the lucky ones!!! the fools! bwahahahahaaaaa.