New Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area - cycling content

mgmt

daragh_ wrote: »

Saw something like this in Manchester last year - might have been in the grounds of the University. Sturdy looking secure units with a roof. Entry by swipe card or pin. Size of a small shed.

Will see if I can find a link.

Is this what you mean (4min03sec):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWEp4f-mFEo

Actually watch that clip. It shows how bikes should be integrated into a public transport system.

ciotog

Doctor Bob wrote: »

I see that the NTA has finally released its draft transport strategy after three (?) years of preparation.

http://www.2030vision.ie/

Public consultation runs until the 11th of April, if anyone's interested in making a submission.

The chapter on Walking and Cycling is here.

I see the NTA remain committed to ignoring the NCPF and instead want to force their cycle manual upon cyclists. Ref: Chapter 9, Page 4:

The use by designers of the design guideline principles and approaches for residential areas set out in the Authority’s National Cycle Manual and forthcoming Walking Facilities Manual, and DoT/DoEHLG ‘Manual for Streets'

That would be the manual which has been roundly condemned by cyclist.ie for proposing structures hazardous to cyclists. It's also interesting to see how they've cherry picked from the NCPF in terms of training; the strategy doesn't recognise that infrastructure designers also require training (Objective 18.3). This is important because in its absence you end up with the mess that Galway City Council call their Cycling and Walking Strategy. If Fine Gael want to get rid of another quango then look no further than the NTA.

daragh_

mgmt wrote: »

Is this what you mean (4min03sec):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWEp4f-mFEo

Actually watch that clip. It shows how bikes should be integrated into a public transport system.

More like a shared space for say 10 bikes than the individual lockers at 4:06.

Very interesting clip though. Thanks

tomasrojo

petethedrummer wrote: »

It should be "better than an 8 year old with learning difficulties could design-infrastructure".

A judicious phrase.

What I'm getting at is that just because a facility is "segregated" does not mean it's a Dutch-style facility, since these have their own traffic lights and other measures to minimise the heightened risk of collision at junctions (their main disadvantage compared with using the road).

enas

tomasrojo wrote: »

A judicious phrase.
What I'm getting at is that just because a facility is "segregated" does not mean it's a Dutch-style facility

You're absolutely right. But the converse is true: Dutch-style infrastructures are segregated.

Why I mentioned them is to show how nice well designed infrastructure can be. Most people discard on principle segregated infrastructure on the basis of what happens here in Ireland (and in the UK, and in many european cities), which I find a shame. Honestly, who would say they wouldn't want what you can see in the first video I linked in my previous post? Of course, I'm not even fooled for a second that this kind of infrastructure will ever be built, on a large scale at least, in Ireland. I don't even believe that the people who wrote the report are aware of the details of what made the success of the Dutch facilities. But I believe that people should lobby for the better, not the status quo on the basis that we'll never do it correctly anyway. Having said that, I'm not campaigning myself on anything, I'm pretty happy with my vehicular cycling (or survival) techniques, and being selfish, I don't try to get others into cycling.

Doctor Bob

ciotog wrote: »

I see the NTA remain committed to ignoring the NCPF and instead want to force their cycle manual upon cyclists. Ref: Chapter 9, Page 4:

The use by designers of the design guideline principles and approaches for residential areas set out in the Authority’s National Cycle Manual and forthcoming Walking Facilities Manual, and DoT/DoEHLG ‘Manual for Streets'

That would be the manual which has been roundly condemned by cyclist.ie for proposing structures hazardous to cyclists. It's also interesting to see how they've cherry picked from the NCPF in terms of training; the strategy doesn't recognise that infrastructure designers also require training (Objective 18.3). This is important because in its absence you end up with the mess that Galway City Council call their Cycling and Walking Strategy. If Fine Gael want to get rid of another quango then look no further than the NTA.

I'm not sure I follow your logic there, ciotog. Is Objective 18.3 not satisfied by the very section of the strategy that you've cited above?

This is the full text of 18.3:

18.3 Training of Professionals
We will organise training workshops / sessions for all design professionals
in understanding and using the new guidance produced.
We will also stipulate that all local authority roads engineers and any engineer
wishing to tender for government road contracts should be required to have
taken an approved cycling skills course, together with a course on cycling
friendly infrastructure design.

This 'new guidance produced' is explained in 18.4, viz.:

18.4 New Cycle Guidelines Manual
We will produce new Design Guidance to supersede the existing Cycle
Guidelines Manual / Traffic Management Manual produced by the Dublin
Transportation Office to reflect best international practice and latest
thinking on creating a cycling friendly infrastructure.
We will ensure that the new guidance developed is consistent with new
guidance on Urban Design Policy (Policy 1.4) and informs a revision of
the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges and other relevant guidance
and standards.

(NCPF, pp.48-49.)

I assume that 'the Authority's National Cycle Manual' is the document referred to in 18.4, and it seems reasonable to assume that the 'training workshops / sessions' will follow the Manual's publication.

tl;dr: How can the production of design guidance in fulfilment of an objective of the NCPF be construed as 'ignoring the NCPF and [...] 'forc[ing] their cycle manual upon cyclists'?

monument

Doctor Bob wrote: »

....tl;dr: How can the production of design guidance in fulfilment of an objective of the NCPF be construed as 'ignoring the NCPF and [...] 'forc[ing] their cycle manual upon cyclists'?

There is / was a fear that the NTA's cycle manual will be used to explain away or excuse forgetting about some of the stronger sections of the National Cycle Policy Framework.

That may be a bit of a cynical view, but there's a lot to be cynical about. I'm on the fence for now.

ciotog

Doctor Bob wrote: »

I'm not sure I follow your logic there, ciotog. Is Objective 18.3 not satisfied by the very section of the strategy that you've cited above?

This is the full text of 18.3:

This 'new guidance produced' is explained in 18.4, viz.:

(NCPF, pp.48-49.)

I assume that 'the Authority's National Cycle Manual' is the document referred to in 18.4, and it seems reasonable to assume that the 'training workshops / sessions' will follow the Manual's publication.

tl;dr: How can the production of design guidance in fulfilment of an objective of the NCPF be construed as 'ignoring the NCPF and [...] 'forc[ing] their cycle manual upon cyclists'?

No, it's not satisfied by that section. The cycling manual being produced by the NTA has serious flaws as highlighted by the responses to that draft from Cyclist.ie. It picks and chooses from the NCPF - this was highlighted with the use of the draft manual here in Galway City on the last minute design that was chosen to be used for the Seamus Quirke Road works. This design, for those cyclists not aware (it has been mentioned and discussed on here previously), places cyclists in dangerous road positions in relation to other traffic, inconveniences cyclists rather than creates incentives to cycle, creates conflict points with pedestrians and ends up encouraging pavement cycling. These issues have been raised to the GTU and ignored with the GTU reporting the NTA considered the design 'top drawer'. So I don't agree that it fulfils the NCPF objective.