New plan for Dublin looks good for cyclists

Qualitymark

From The Irish Times:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/dublin-city-revamp-to-make-life-easier-for-those-on-bike-and-foot-1.1520481

Dublin city revamp to make life easier for those on bike and foot

The study also proposes an extensive city centre cycle network, giving cyclists “defined routes . . . to traverse and access the city centre with minimal conflict with other road users” – in recognition of a 40 per cent rise in cycling commuters between 2006 and 2011.

Jawgap

You've got to wonder what's the point of paying road tax.......

Some interesting ideas discussed in the article it would be great to see at least some of them come to fruition - especially the plan for College Green / Westmoreland Street.

tunney

When the DCC is looking at the next round of layoffs PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE get rid of the "cycling officer" first #fvckinguseless

If the people who implement things don't understand, as they clearly don't, the plans will always be muck

rollingscone

Jawgap wrote: »

You've got to wonder what's the point of paying road tax.......

Some interesting ideas discussed in the article it would be great to see at least some of them come to fruition - especially the plan for College Green / Westmoreland Street.

I think I'm going to fund my next roadbike by selling Road Tax to worried aggro motorists who are afraid someone will point out that it's VRT.

Qualitymark

tunney wrote: »

When the DCC is looking at the next round of layoffs PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE get rid of the "cycling officer" first #fvckinguseless

If the people who implement things don't understand, as they clearly don't, the plans will always be muck

Eh?

I would have thought that Dublin's cycling infrastructure has been improving a bit lately, and we have the Cycle to Work scheme and the Dublin Bikes?

ThisRegard

Jawgap wrote: »

You've got to wonder what's the point of paying road tax.......

Ah, I see you also go by the name of ValerieONeillMorrissey :P who posted the following

No doubt my voice will be the unpopular one in this debate. I take exception to this plan on the grounds that if it goes ahead it will ultimately priortises pedestrians and cyclists. As a car owner I pay road tax to use the roads. What do cyclists bring to the table in terms of revenue

Jawgap

^^^^^^I find it difficult to take seriously any woman with a double barreled surname:)

My response to her would be, "sh1t or get off the pot, love" - take his name, don't take his name but don't subject us to your pretentiousness.

PerrDub

Looks great for pedestrian's, cyclists and bus/luas users will really transform the city center and make it more liveable..

Though you are bound to get complaints from the "I pay Road tax brigade" who won't be able to zip through town, but get over it, there should be a congestion charge for the city center anyways like they have in London.

Qualitymark

Like many (perhaps most) cyclists, I pay the carbon tax imposed on car owners; I'll probably stop soon, though, as over €1,000 a year is a bit crazy for the amount I actually use the car. I'm sure the same decision is being taken by lots of others.
Whether it's more advantageous to the city to have fleets of people cycling or fleets of cars, most with only a single passenger, is another question, of course.

PerrDub: the plan's method of having several different entry points with easy exit points may well work better than any congestion charge.

Jawgap: double-barrelled names were often a feminist thing, with couples like Frank Skeffington and Hanna Sheehy taking their spouse's names and becoming Frank and Hanna Sheehy Skeffington. It's not always pretension.

Jawgap

I'm all for making the city more liveable but I think a congestion charge would be grossly unfair in Dublin because the public transport options are limited (relative to London) and a generation of housing policy has forced dispersed patterns of settlement on large chunks of the population.

Saying that, I think there are a lot of people who drive who don't have to so making the city more bike and pedestrian (and tourist) friendly might give them the shove they need to realise they don't need the car as often as they think they do.

Jawgap

Qualitymark wrote: »

Jawgap: double-barrelled names were often a feminist thing, with couples like Frank Skeffington and Hanna Sheehy taking their spouse's names and becoming Frank and Hanna Sheehy Skeffington. It's not always pretension.

I think that was done to 'preserve' the name and keep some of the recognition that went with it for quite altruistic or political reasons - mostly today I'd say it's done for pretentiousness.

Qualitymark

Jawgap wrote: »

I think that was done to 'preserve' the name and keep some of the recognition that went with it for quite altruistic or political reasons - mostly today I'd say it's done for pretentiousness.

Jawgap, there are two different kinds of double-barrelled names:

1) 'upper-class' people who want to lay claim to both family names

2) feminists who share both of their names rather than the woman shedding hers and taking the man's.

PerrDub

Jawgap wrote: »

I'm all for making the city more liveable but I think a congestion charge would be grossly unfair in Dublin because the public transport options are limited (relative to London) and a generation of housing policy has forced dispersed patterns of settlement on large chunks of the population.

Dunno bout that in this context m8, I mean how many will it really effect?

The only people that have car parking spaces around the D1 . D2 area are civil/public servants, everyone else uses public transport. Or those who earn enough to pay for car parking. So would have limited impact really.

Harrybelafonte

Qualitymark wrote: »

Jawgap, there are two different kinds of double-barrelled names:

1) 'upper-class' people who want to lay claim to both family names

2) feminists who share both of their names rather than the woman shedding hers and taking the man's.

Or people who've had children together out of wedlock and who see no reason that one name be prioritised over another.

Point 2) is bull as well, my mother never gave up her maiden name and I definitely would not categorise her as a feminist.

Qualitymark

PerrDub wrote: »

Dunno bout that in this context m8, I mean how many will it really effect?

The only people that have car parking spaces around the D1 . D2 area are civil/public servants, everyone else uses public transport. Or those who earn enough to pay for car parking. So would have limited impact really.

And public servants have free parking, I think?

Harrybel: not all people who take double-barrelled names are feminists. Not all feminists take double-barrelled names. I think that covers it

Jawgap

PerrDub wrote: »

Dunno bout that in this context m8, I mean how many will it really effect?

The only people that have car parking spaces around the D1 . D2 area are civil/public servants, everyone else uses public transport. Or those who earn enough to pay for car parking. So would have limited impact really.

.......and no one comes into the city centre to shop, transact business, 'do their messages' go to college, etc?


Incidentally, the following is from a DIT Study (which showed the value of car shoppers is significantly over-estimated by shops).....quoting from Australian research it says....

Research in 2007 by Alison Lee [3] sought to identify the economic value of replacing car parking with bike parking in shopping strips. The case study in Carlton, Melbourne showed that cycling generates 3.6 times more expenditure. Even though a car user spends more per hour on average compared to a bike rider, the small area of public space required for bike parking suggests that each square metre allocated to bike parking generates $31 per hour, compared to $6 generated for each square metre used for a car parking space, with food/drink and clothing retailers benefiting the most from bike riders.

This suggests that cycling may receive too little priority and investment relative to its economic value in city centre traffic management policy and strategy.

Jawgap

Qualitymark wrote: »

And public servants have free parking, I think?

......

Only some APs and above get free car parking.........



........and just because you get it, doesn't mean you use it;)

Qualitymark

Jawgap wrote: »

Only some APs and above get free car parking.........



........and just because you get it, doesn't mean you use it;)

Ah, free for the wealthy nomenklatura, but the proles have to pay. Plus ça change…

Interesting piece here:

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2013/03/08/bicycling-means-business-how-cycling-enriches-people-and-cities/

businesses on Eighth and Ninth Avenues in New York saw a 50 percent increase in sales receipts (http://www.streetsblog.org/2012/10/29/dot-big-report-on-local-retail-impact-of-sustainable-streets-coming-soon/) after protected bike lanes were installed on the corridor. On San Francisco’s Valencia Street, two-thirds of the merchants said bike lanes had been good for business. If a business has a bike-share station out front, bike-share users are more likely to patronize it.

also from that piece:

Portland built its entire bicycle network, up until 2008, for the cost of one mile of urban four-lane freeway

PerrDub

Jawgap wrote: »

.......and no one comes into the city centre to shop, transact business, 'do their messages' go to college, etc?

Yes, shopping and hopping onto a Luas/Bus would not cause hardship to the majority of people...
Business people I am sure could swallow the few quid congestion charge by putting it down on expenses..
Driving to college... Yes, would cause awful hardship to a poor 19yr old car owner who is perfectly fit and healthy

Qualitymark

PerrDub wrote: »

Yes, shopping and hopping onto a Luas/Bus would not cause hardship to the majority of people...
Business people I am sure could swallow the few quid congestion charge by putting it down on expenses..
Driving to college... Yes, would cause awful hardship to a poor 19yr old car owner who is perfectly fit and healthy

To be fair, there are people who sometimes need to drive and shouldn't be charged, like plumbers and carpenters who must carry heavy tools and supplies, and lawyers loaded down with case files.

Jawgap

Qualitymark wrote: »

Ah, free for the wealthy nomenklatura, but the proles have to pay. Plus ça change…

Unless said prole has a decent manager who likes to cycle......

ThisRegard

Qualitymark wrote: »

Ah, free for the wealthy nomenklatura, but the proles have to pay. Plus ça change…

I have free parking in Dublin 2 for the last 15 years or so and I welcome my new societal title.


I don't work for the state !

Qualitymark

Jawgap wrote: »

Unless said prole has a decent manager who likes to cycle......

…and who doesn't mind costing the city the €5,000 or so per year that paid parking would contribute :eek:

Zen0

As a public servant who cycles/uses public transport, I would estimate the majority of my colleagues either walk, cycle or use public transport to get to work. The ones most likely to drive are the more junior grades who were priced out of the Dublin housing market.

rollingscone

Will this change the current one way system?

Apart from the quays and the occasional drive-by hard man I think the city centre is pretty safe to cycle in but it's mainly the frustration as a rule obeying road user of being shunted around a one way system designed to control excessive motor traffic.

Squidgy Black

rollingscone wrote: »

Will this change the current one way system?

Apart from the quays and the occasional drive-by hard man I think the city centre is pretty safe to cycle in but it's mainly the frustration as a rule obeying road user of being shunted around a one way system designed to control excessive motor traffic.

Don't think it'll be that extensive, I think they'll probably just stick to College Green and Westmoreland Street.

If they could get rid of the no right turns at the Seville Place junction at North Wall there that'd be great.

gerrowadat

PerrDub wrote: »

Dunno bout that in this context m8, I mean how many will it really effect?

The only people that have car parking spaces around the D1 . D2 area are civil/public servants, everyone else uses public transport. Or those who earn enough to pay for car parking. So would have limited impact really.

Nope, plenty of offices around there have parking, lots of apartment buildings with parking as well.

Not opposed to pedestrianisation, the plan looks good in general, but a congestion charge only works if there's an alternative in the form of good, cheap public transport. Which Dublin doesn't have.

tunney

Qualitymark wrote: »

Eh?

I would have thought that Dublin's cycling infrastructure has been improving a bit lately, and we have the Cycle to Work scheme and the Dublin Bikes?

And either of these has what to do with the officer in charge of bike lanes etc?

IMHO only a fvcking idiot uses the death traps called "cycle lanes" in Dublin

Lumen

I couldn't tell from the IT coverage what effect this will have on road cycling.

Is this an attempt to reimpose mandatory cycle lane usage?

I have no interest in dedicated roadspace. Drafting buses gets me into work faster.

Squidgy Black

tunney wrote: »

And either of these has what to do with the officer in charge of bike lanes etc?

IMHO only a fvcking idiot uses the death traps called "cycle lanes" in Dublin

I'm fairly certain there is no officer in charge of bike lanes, it just falls under general roads. Which are also in bits in places.

Lots of the cycle lanes are grand, of course there's the few ones that are in pieces like Drumcondra road and the few others that were really poorly laid out, but they don't have the money to resurface and widen every road.

Chips Lovell

A plan that reduces overall traffic volumes in the city centre is certainly welcome but I'm always very leery of cycling specific infrastructure - for reasons of quality, practicality and perception.

Shared space with public transport and remaining motor traffic would be much more desirable in my view.

Single, well maintained routes, rather than a hodgepodge of roads and tracks with multiple intersections.

Darkglasses

Plan looks excellent to me. Westmoreland street as it is is absolutely awful, 5 lanes of traffic and tiny paths? Don't care about the cycling track there to be honest, I wouldn't mind seeing it all pedestrianized.

MadsL

Darkglasses wrote: »

Plan looks excellent to me. Westmoreland street as it is is absolutely awful, 5 lanes of traffic and tiny paths? Don't care about the cycling track there to be honest, I wouldn't mind seeing it all pedestrianized.

However that image of Westmoreland St really demonstates DCC's commitment to never having any street lighting on it. Quite an impressive statement to have Dublin's darkest street preserved like that.

Darkglasses

Huh, honestly never actually noticed.

hardCopy

Darkglasses wrote: »

Huh, honestly never actually noticed.

Probably those glasses

hueylewis

TBH I think we should just put some masking tape over the stuff we want to keep in Dublin, level everything else, then build everything again - properly this time.

Bunnyhopper

I've long thought they should just put the cars on a road over the Liffey. I mean, it's hardly ever used. You could probably get a Luas line down there, too.

MadsL

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

I've long thought they should just put the cars on a road over the Liffey. I mean, it's hardly ever used. You could probably get a Luas line down there, too.

Not this again. Gee, wouldn't that boost tourism...

Last plan was to concrete over the canals. :rolleyes:

Squidgy Black

MadsL wrote: »

Not this again. Gee, wouldn't that boost tourism...

Last plan was to concrete over the canals. :rolleyes:

Not a terrible idea about the liffey, pedestrianize the quays. Not really a plausible one, but a nice one all the same.

MadsL

_Tyrrell_ wrote: »

Not a terrible idea about the liffey, pedestrianize the quays. Not really a plausible one, but a nice one all the same.

So that you can go for a stroll next to a motorway??

Better idea would be a tunnel near Grangegorman that pops out near Donneybrook. With a PnR at each end.

DubVelo

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

I've long thought they should just put the cars on a road over the Liffey. I mean, it's hardly ever used. You could probably get a Luas line down there, too.

Here's an idea, totally mad, a bit out there but bear with me; we could put boats on it. River bus like London or Amsterdam or...
No, no. Sorry, I got carried away, that's too crazy.

Squidgy Black

MadsL wrote: »

So that you can go for a stroll next to a motorway??

Better idea would be a tunnel near Grangegorman that pops out near Donneybrook. With a PnR at each end.

Who says it has to be a motorway?

MadsL

_Tyrrell_ wrote: »

Who says it has to be a motorway?

You are not serious?

Good grief.

Perhaps you'll revive the cable car down the Liffey idea as well.

buffalo

MadsL wrote: »

However that image of Westmoreland St really demonstates DCC's commitment to never having any street lighting on it. Quite an impressive statement to have Dublin's darkest street preserved like that.

I've been meaning to write to DCC about that actually, there's one light opposite the old parliament, over the old public toilets, but it's lost in trees. I'm afraid that if I mention it though, they'll just cut down the trees.

MadsL

buffalo wrote: »

I've been meaning to write to DCC about that actually, there's one light opposite the old parliament, over the old public toilets, but it's lost in trees. I'm afraid that if I mention it though, they'll just cut down the trees.

DCC are useless when it comes to the public realm, if they are not coming up with cycle paths to kill cyclists on the canals, they are tearing up granite pavements to 'improve them'.

buffalo

MadsL wrote: »

DCC are useless when it comes to the public realm, if they are not coming up with cycle paths to kill cyclists on the canals, they are tearing up granite pavements to 'improve them'.

um, how many cyclists have been killed using the canal cycle paths?

MadsL

buffalo wrote: »

um, how many cyclists have been killed using the canal cycle paths?

Do you think they are a safer design than leaving well alone?

CramCycle

MadsL wrote: »

Do you think they are a safer design than leaving well alone?

Personally I would have just preferred a wider road but it occurs to me that all that would happen is that cars would double up on a single lane and I would not get through at all.

I think the silly things a small minority think they can do because the path is there, is roughly equivalent to the same number of people who would jump the regular lights and the pedestrian lights anyway.

MadsL

CramCycle wrote: »

Personally I would have just preferred a wider road but it occurs to me that all that would happen is that cars would double up on a single lane and I would not get through at all.

I think the silly things a small minority think they can do because the path is there, is roughly equivalent to the same number of people who would jump the regular lights and the pedestrian lights anyway.

I took one look at it, and the layout and thought to myself are they actually trying to aim cyclists under cars.

Terrible design.

Qualitymark

MadsL wrote: »

Do you think (the canal cycle paths) are a safer design than leaving well alone?

Safer, more pleasant, a lovely cycle, away from cars. Yes.

MadsL wrote: »

I took one look at it, and the layout and thought to myself are they actually trying to aim cyclists under cars.

Terrible design.

Are they open to input from the public? Could you send them suggestions for improvement?

Chips Lovell

Are ye talking about the same side of the canal?