2,840km of cycle routes for the greater Dublin area

Jawgap

I'd be totally sceptical about the NTA's ability to deliver this.

We'll end up with a few tens of km of decentrack and 2,800km of rubbish......


These maps show the planned 2,840km of cycle routes for the greater Dublin area

THAT MAP WILL represent the cycle networks in Dublin City in 2024 if a new plan by the National Transport Authority is completed.

The strategy aims for a fivefold increase in the cycle network in the greater Dublin area from the current level 500 km to 2,840 km. Planners are aiming for an increase in cycle routes from 500 km to 1,485 km in Dublin City.

More here

http://www.nationaltransport.ie/publications/transport-planning/gda-cycle-network-plan/

Tombo2001

All depends on the definition of a cycle track......a tin of paint it aint.

Inquitus

Tombo2001 wrote: »

All depends on the definition of a cycle track......a tin of paint it aint.

The fact they state an increase from the existing 500 to 2400 would imply they deem the 500km there already to be acceptable, and we can expect more of the same shíte....

Orion

It's a Proposed network. Does that mean we can make submissions on it?

Jabel

Wait... that will mean MORE cyclists on the road...and more in my way

slap/dash

Inquitus wrote: »

The fact they state an increase from the existing 500 to 2400 would imply they deem the 500km there already to be acceptable, and we can expect more of the same shíte....

Most definately. This can only be bad news. Expect increasingly virulent anti cyclist measures to go along with this propagandistic window dressing.

coolemon

Any bigger images of the proposed network?

PDF file is stalling...

Hopefully it includes the connection of the grand canal cycle route between Portobello and inchicore.

Ole Rodrigo

There's a significant percentage ( I'm guessing ) of Dublin motorists who drive for no good reason. Lets say 20% of private motor traffic. If they where persuaded to cycle instead, this proposal could work.

Danjamin1

I didn't read the proposal, is it proposing to improve the existing infrastructure or just add to it?

Jawgap

Danjamin1 wrote: »

I didn't read the proposal, is it proposing to improve the existing infrastructure or just add to it?

I haven't read the detail of it, but it seems there are some proposals for upgrades, some for segregated tracks but the majority of it is just more of the same.

It's basically a proposal to paint about a 2,500km line through the city.....

Danjamin1

Jawgap wrote: »

I haven't read the detail of it, but it seems there are some proposals for upgrades, some for segregated tracks but the majority of it is just more of the same.

It's basically a proposal to paint about a 2,500km line through the city.....

I thought as much. I'm sticking to the roads.

eeeee

Inquitus wrote: »

The fact they state an increase from the existing 500 to 2400 would imply they deem the 500km there already to be acceptable, and we can expect more of the same shíte....

This. Going by what they have done out my way recently I hold out absolutely no hope, only more angry drivers wondering why I don't use all the shíte cycle/death lanes. Sigh.

Tenzor07

Great, hope Mr. Varadkar is serious about these proposals and they do materialise..

We certainly need to move away from the current 30 year old design of red cracked painted "cycle paths". And put in place modern well designed infrastructure.

I would not expect or want "Dutch standard" infra. What I would like is around central Dublin are traffic lights which react to cycles and give priority over motorised transport, fines for parking vehicles on cycle paths, 30kph / 50 kph speed limits which are actually enforced by Gardai.

And central areas which prioritise (with highest first) Pedestrian >> Cycle >> Bus >> Taxi >> Private vehicle.

franer1970

Looks like they can't be bothered improving the situation on the south quays - it's a no-go area the whole way from George's Quay (opposite the Customs House) to Ushers Island (Guinness brewery).

logically

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Great, hope Mr. Varadkar is serious about these proposals and they do materialise..

We certainly need to move away from the current 30 year old design of red cracked painted "cycle paths". And put in place modern well designed infrastructure.

I would not expect or want "Dutch standard" infra. What I would like is around central Dublin are traffic lights which react to cycles and give priority over motorised transport, fines for parking vehicles on cycle paths, 30kph / 50 kph speed limits which are actually enforced by Gardai.

And central areas which prioritise (with highest first) Pedestrian >> Cycle >> Bus >> Taxi >> Private vehicle.

Well said!

Tombo2001

Jabel wrote: »

Wait... that will mean MORE cyclists on the road...and more in my way

a proper cycle track would mean very specifically that cyclists are not in your way, and that you are not in their way.

Tombo2001

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Great, hope Mr. Varadkar is serious about these proposals and they do materialise..

We certainly need to move away from the current 30 year old design of red cracked painted "cycle paths". And put in place modern well designed infrastructure.

I would not expect or want "Dutch standard" infra. What I would like is around central Dublin are traffic lights which react to cycles and give priority over motorised transport, fines for parking vehicles on cycle paths, 30kph / 50 kph speed limits which are actually enforced by Gardai.

And central areas which prioritise (with highest first) Pedestrian >> Cycle >> Bus >> Taxi >> Private vehicle.

You wonder sometimes are they specifically put there so that the telecoms/ water/ gas/ electricity companies will know which part of the road they are supposed to dig up..........

crosstownk

I'll be on the look out for a decent carbon zimmerframe before this comes to pass.

And I'll still use the roads.

detones

I believe the NRA have already procured all the required materials for this project ............

fits

Would you prefer they didn't do anything at all?

I live somewhere where pedestrians and cyclists share the same wide paths but as a result you have to take it handy, if you want to go fast you go out on the road with the motor vehicles. I know these plans aren't great but its a step in the right direction. Anything which encourages more people onto bikes resulting in a stronger bicycling lobby should be encouraged.

Jawgap

fits wrote: »

Would you prefer they didn't do anything at all?

I live somewhere where pedestrians and cyclists share the same wide paths but as a result you have to take it handy, if you want to go fast you go out on the road with the motor vehicles. I know these plans aren't great but its a step in the right direction. Anything which encourages more people onto bikes resulting in a stronger bicycling lobby should be encouraged.

Actually, yes. I would prefer them to do nothing at all in preference to the pigs ear they're going to make of this. It's a great example of "never mind the quality, feel the length......"

I think they will help, but not as much as they'd like to think - it's an attempted and poor engineering solution to what is in effect a cultural problem (namely, attitudes towards cyclists from other road users, and vice versa!).

fits

I agree in a way think there needs to be a move away from the mind set of sticking them onto the side of roads. But still believe doing something is better than nothing.

Inquitus

fits wrote: »

I agree in a way think there needs to be a move away from the mind set of sticking them onto the side of roads. But still believe doing something is better than nothing.

Alot of the 500km we already have that are quoted in the report are actually not better than nothing, I think that's the general concern, lots of money will be wasted on sub par cycle solutions that people won't use. If I come from town out to Swords, there are cycle paths nearly all the way, but none of them I would use for instance.

eeeee

I actually think nothing is better than the crappy efforts for the most part attempted to date.

I would much rather cycle on the road than a bumpy, badly designed, dangerously routed around junctions, full of crap lanes that predominate at the minute.

If they really want to do something I think a broken white line out from drains etc. The best thing they can do until they properly research and develop safe, useable cycle lanes.

What I see happening are shiney new paths disappearing behind junctions and putting cyclists out in front of left turning traffic, glass laden paths up off the road that people mainly run/walk/walk dogs on, the camber too high to pop off to turn left, too high a lip going on road onto path. That last one really annoys me. I am not going to bounce my bike at speed onto badly designed infrastructure!

I remain skeptical *raises eyebrow*

eeeee

Oh and I will add angry drivers trying to force me onto the new cycle lanes. I predict irritation all round, unless by some miracle they get it right.

Everyone involved in the planning and development of these routes should have to cycle around the city and the proposed routes to understand exactly what is needed, or else hold extensive consultations with cyclists on what does or doesn't work/ what will or won't be suitable for all proposed routes.

I would be very happy to be a 'consultant' on such a scheme. I will cost 2 bikes

slap/dash

gadetra wrote: »

I actually think nothing is better than the crappy efforts for the most part attempted to date.

I would much rather cycle on the road than a bumpy, badly designed, dangerously routed around junctions, full of crap lanes that predominate at the minute.

If they really want to do something I think a broken white line out from drains etc. The best thing they can do until they properly research and develop safe, useable cycle lanes.

What I see happening are shiney new paths disappearing behind junctions and putting cyclists out in front of left turning traffic, glass laden paths up off the road that people mainly run/walk/walk dogs on, the camber too high to pop off to turn left, too high a lip going on road onto path. That last one really annoys me. I am not going to bounce my bike at speed onto badly designed infrastructure!

I remain skeptical *raises eyebrow*

Mos def. this half assed irish solution to everything just results in reinforcing the machismo against cyclists already widespread and which directly results in fatalities and serious injuries

Russman

Apologies if this has been asked before, but, are any cycling/commuter lobby groups involved in the planning of these cycle lanes ? I'd love to know if anyone has ever actually spoken to or explained to a local authority just how bad most cycle lanes are, and I'd really love to know what the response was. Do they actually get it ?
Stuff like cycle lanes randomly ending, or bus stops in the middle of them etc etc.

slap/dash

Russman wrote: »

Apologies if this has been asked before, but, are any cycling/commuter lobby groups involved in the planning of these cycle lanes ? I'd love to know if anyone has ever actually spoken to or explained to a local authority just how bad most cycle lanes are, and I'd really love to know what the response was. Do they actually get it ?
Stuff like cycle lanes randomly ending, or bus stops in the middle of them etc etc.

The Dublin cycling campaign are I'm sure. They, unfortunately have shown themselves to be copenhagenize heads who have some sort of issue with anyone wearing lycra

monument

Inquitus wrote: »

The fact they state an increase from the existing 500 to 2400 would imply they deem the 500km there already to be acceptable, and we can expect more of the same shíte....

They don't view all of the current 500km to be acceptable and there's a large focus on improving what's out there (even if some of that new stuff is messed up or not as good as it could be).

Orion wrote: »

It's a Proposed network. Does that mean we can make submissions on it?

Not on the network -- public consultation for that has ended. It was advertised in the national press; on NTA, DLRCC and other websites and social media feeds; and covered in a few news stories.

But individual projects will all have their own consultation.

Jawgap wrote: »

I haven't read the detail...

It's basically a proposal to paint about a 2,500km line through the city.....

It's not.

It includes painted cycle lanes but also cycle paths, greenways, and routes on quite roads.

franer1970 wrote: »

Looks like they can't be bothered improving the situation on the south quays - it's a no-go area the whole way from George's Quay (opposite the Customs House) to Ushers Island (Guinness brewery).

There's plans progressing to provide a two-way route on the north quays: http://irishcycle.com/2014/01/28/liffey-cycle-route-construction-could-start-next-year/

gadetra wrote: »

Everyone involved in the planning and development of these routes should have to cycle around the city and the proposed routes to understand exactly what is needed, or else hold extensive consultations with cyclists on what does or doesn't work/ what will or won't be suitable for all proposed routes.

I think the consultants said something along the lines of them cycling as much of the planned network as posable.

I can't say for sure that all planners and designers involved cycle, but a large percentage of them do. One way or another I don't

detones wrote: »

I believe the NRA have already procured all the required materials for this project ............

Not sure what they would be doing with that colour paint!

Russman wrote: »

Apologies if this has been asked before, but, are any cycling/commuter lobby groups involved in the planning of these cycle lanes ?

As far as I know the Dublin Cycling Campaign / Cyclist.ie and a few more local cycling groups put in submissions on the draft network plan when that was at consultation. The Dublin Cycling Campaign and others also make submissions to individual projects, sit on some council transport SPCs and have contact with councils regularly.

Russman wrote: »

I'd love to know if anyone has ever actually spoken to or explained to a local authority just how bad most cycle lanes are, and I'd really love to know what the response was. Do they actually get it ?
Stuff like cycle lanes randomly ending, or bus stops in the middle of them etc etc.

There's a general acceptance that a lot of what's out there is of poor quality -- but there's limitations on what people agree on, or on what people think is the extent of the problem (for example, some in councils as well as some campaigners think shared use between cyclists and pedestrians at junctions is acceptable, but best international practice says otherwise).

It's worth not looking at this in isolation and try to see more than the council's roads and traffic departments at fault -- area dependent the following people or groups should be factored in: council managers, councilors, government departments, ministers, governments, TDs, the NTA, the NRA, the RPA, the OPW, lobby groups, businesses, and Joe and Jane Public -- they all have input into the problems.

slap/dash wrote: »

The Dublin cycling campaign are I'm sure. They, unfortunately have shown themselves to be copenhagenize heads who have some sort of issue with anyone wearing lycra

I think their members come in all shapes and sizes, even if they've had the badly managed Facebook posts (it's sounds like you're referring to a recent one).

Inquitus wrote: »

Alot of the 500km we already have that are quoted in the report are actually not better than nothing, I think that's the general concern, lots of money will be wasted on sub par cycle solutions that people won't use. If I come from town out to Swords, there are cycle paths nearly all the way, but none of them I would use for instance.

The Swords route is being looked at, but movement on this may now be bundled with the planned BRT to Swords.

Jawgap wrote: »

I think they will help, but not as much as they'd like to think - it's an attempted and poor engineering solution to what is in effect a cultural problem (namely, attitudes towards cyclists from other road users, and vice versa!).

It's a problem not confined to cultural or engineering issues and will need both areas and more tackled.

Our main roads and streets, and many smaller ones too, are now highly engineered to suit traffic. This does not fit well for cycling expect for the brave or determined.

coolemon wrote: »

Any bigger images of the proposed network?

PDF file is stalling...

Hopefully it includes the connection of the grand canal cycle route between Portobello and inchicore.

Yes. It does -- it's actual already due and funded to go to planning this year.

gadetra wrote: »

Going by what they have done out my way recently

Where? And what did they do?

Jabel

Tombo2001 wrote: »

a proper cycle track would mean very specifically that cyclists are not in your way, and that you are not in their way.

But I am a cyclist...;)

diomed

It is amusing that on the written report, page 5, bottom right, the picture at Ongar Distributor Road, is of a cyclist avoiding cycling on the cycle track.