Copenhagen (Dublin’s model?)

Zebra3

Fantastic piece in the Guardian with a series of graphs.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2018/jun/11/copenhagenize-case-urban-cycling-graphs

Plenty of food for thought. While we should be building a proper rail based underground system, it goes to show that with relatively small spending but with a major shift in attitudes, Dublin can start moving again.

cgcsb

2018 will be a crucial year for transport in Dublin either we'll get a pedestrianized College Green, with a re-organized bus network and a high degree of bus priority along with a radical improvement in the walking and cycling network. OR we'll get more bumbling and we'll see more of the same car park managers deciding transport policy. Good post.

monument

Copenhagen can’t be Dublin’s model for cycling, unless we want a very disjointed cycle network — the Dutch model is far better for Dublin, more adaptive.

LeinsterDub

monument wrote: »

Copenhagen can’t be Dublin’s model for cycling, unless we want a very disjointed cycle network — the Dutch model is far better for Dublin, more adaptive.

Either model is far better than what we have but I see you're point that we should be aiming for the best.

tomfoolery60

monument wrote: »

Copenhagen can’t be Dublin’s model for cycling, unless we want a very disjointed cycle network — the Dutch model is far better for Dublin, more adaptive.

For the uniformed (me!) can you elaborate on the differences?

I think the "arrogance of space" is a fantastic way of looking at the issue of modern commuting/living. It's not just an issue of cycling facilities but also more space for pedestrians and a less hostile/toxic and generally more pleasant environment. The suburbs are in many ways worse than the core as they are completely car focused 1970-90s mindset of moving traffic quickly on massive roads

bk

Interestingly Copenhagens Metro seems to be a major model for Metrolink too. It is mentioned often in the Metrolink documents, self driving, high floor vehicles is what they are using there and we look to be heading in the same direction.

Makes sense they have a very similar population size to us (though quiet a higher population density in the core city), so a closer match then say London.

Amsterdam is probably a slightly closer match to us, but then we probably don't want to be repeating their massive cost and time overruns on their Metro project.

bk

monument wrote: »

Copenhagen can’t be Dublin’s model for cycling, unless we want a very disjointed cycle network — the Dutch model is far better for Dublin, more adaptive.

Could you perhaps go into the details, that sounds interesting?

I apologise, I know I'm pre-empting your explanation, but I increasingly believe "adaptive" tends to lead to poor solutions at least when it comes to Ireland planning and politics.

"Adaptive" here seems to mean a cycle lane is just a blob of red paint which everyone just ignores and parks all over. "Adaptive" is temporary stuff that can easily be pushed aside to make way for more cars.

I increasingly believe that the only solution to Irelands transport problems is genuine hard infrastructure, that can't be ignored, tram lines, pedestrian plazas, fully segregated cycle lanes, etc.

Again sorry if I've misread you.

tomfoolery60 wrote: »

For the uniformed (me!) can you elaborate on the differences?

I think the "arrogance of space" is a fantastic way of looking at the issue of modern commuting/living. It's not just an issue of cycling facilities but also more space for pedestrians and a less hostile/toxic and generally more pleasant environment. The suburbs are in many ways worse than the core as they are completely car focused 1970-90s mindset of moving traffic quickly on massive roads

Yes and it is very obvious here too in Dublin if you look at the various NTA and DCC reports. It is pretty astounding that motoroists only make up roughly 20% of the people in the core city, yet easily enjoy more then 80% of the road space.

monument

tomfoolery60 wrote: »

For the uniformed (me!) can you elaborate on the differences?

I think the "arrogance of space" is a fantastic way of looking at the issue of modern commuting/living. It's not just an issue of cycling facilities but also more space for pedestrians and a less hostile/toxic and generally more pleasant environment. The suburbs are in many ways worse than the core as they are completely car focused 1970-90s mindset of moving traffic quickly on massive roads

This is a simplification, but basically:

Denmark:
— Stepped cycle tracks mostly on relatively wide streets
— No segregation at junctions or roundabouts, people usually use informal space at the front of crossings at junctions to turn left to go right, and cycle lanes on roundabouts.
— Minimal use of two-way cycle paths
— Some contra-flow lanes / bicycle only streets in central areas of Copenhagen etc, relatively few one-way streets.
— Still using barriers in suburban areas on cycle superhighways only a few years ago.
— campaigners talk about the "arrogance of space"

The Netherlands:
— Segregated cycle paths on main streets and roads.
— Segregated, protected junctions and the established standard for roundabouts is segregated cycle paths away from the main roundabout ring with good sight lines and stopping areas for motorists.
— Routes are clear and near-seem-less (ie from interurban route into a cycle path into a bicycle street to service street back to cycle path and into a near traffic free city centre street).
— Segregation gets heavier with horizontal buffer on faster roads and streets.
— Wide-spread use of two-way cycle paths in urban areas in some of the most cycling-friendly cities. Don’t let anybody from Copenhagen or Dublin tell you the Dutch don’t use them anymore. Utrecht is building them all over the place and they aren’t alone!
— Contra-flow standard on one-way streets, with and without lanes. One-way streets used in a way to more of a benefit to cycling.
— Measures like filtered permeability (bollards etc) and one-way streets alternating at junctions used to limit motoring beyond access on smaller streets, both residential and town/city centres.
— you can cycle from side of the country to another and all around cities and find it hard to find any barriers on cycle routes.
— City officials (although not all of them and not everywhere) talk about the politics of space and how carving up space is political.

monument

bk wrote: »

Could you perhaps go into the details, that sounds interesting?

I apologise, I know I'm pre-empting your explanation, but I increasingly believe "adaptive" tends to lead to poor solutions at least when it comes to Ireland planning and politics.

"Adaptive" here seems to mean a cycle lane is just a blob of red paint which everyone just ignores and parks all over. "Adaptive" is temporary stuff that can easily be pushed aside to make way for more cars.

I increasingly believe that the only solution to Irelands transport problems is genuine hard infrastructure, that can't be ignored, tram lines, pedestrian plazas, fully segregated cycle lanes, etc.

Again sorry if I've misread you.

No, as above it’s more about:

Routes are clear and near-seem-less (ie from interurban route into a cycle path into a bicycle street to service street back to cycle path and into a near traffic free city centre street).

bk

Thanks monument, it sounds like you are suggesting truly "hard" cycling infrastructure then what I thought you meant by "adaptive", sorry for the misunderstanding.

From what you say, Denmark does sound like they are further behind the Netherlands in cycling infrastructure. Though they still sound like they are way ahead of us, which of course isn't saying much.

BTW IMO the "arrogance of space" and "how carving up space is political" are the literally most import points when it comes to urban planning. Specially in an environment like Ireland with or planning laws and pump parish politics.

Nearly every single argument on the C&T forum is due to lack of resources. The precious resource of very limited road space and how it is divided up between cars, taxies, buses, bikes, e-scooters, pedestrians. And how money is spent, whether on more buses, or a metro or more bike lanes.

This unfortunately has everything to do with politics. In the end they get to make the final decision.

McAlban

I've travelled to Copenhagen a lot over the last 15 years, While the Cycling & Metro infrastructure now is good. It took a lot of work and disruption to get it there. Plus they just barrelled ahead with segregated metro rather than Luas type on street running. The Cycling infrastructure has improved, but in tandem with an efficient S-Train (Dart Like) system and bus system that is integrated with the Metro. It's quicker to get around the city by Metro/Train or Cycling.

L1011

Copenhagen has some other similarities to Dublin - the metro lines didn't join up properly for ages and they destroyed their city center themselves in the 60s for bad redevelopment rather than having the town planning divisions of the Luftwaffe or RAF do it for them like most others in Europe

I also didn't get hit by a cyclist breaking a traffic light the second time I was there so it's improvements all round :pac:

May Contain Small Parts

Copenhagen has also bitten a bullet we find unpalatable by using vast swathes of road space that we use as on-street parking for cycle-lanes.

The experience of cycling in copenhagen(and generally getting around) is incomparable. It feels much calmer with a great flow to it. Cycling around Dublin can feel like you're fighting for survival.

May Contain Small Parts

L1011 wrote: »

I also didn't get hit by a cyclist breaking a traffic light the second time I was there so it's improvements all round :pac:

In general I found that everyone(all modes) were much more calm, relaxed and respectful. There was generally a very good observance of the rules with little of the normal things that people shout about here. You know the ones - cyclists on red lights, motorists speeding through ambers lights and the first 10 seconds of red, cutting up cyclists, people walking on cycle-lanes, people cycling on foot-paths, parking/stopping/driving on cycle-lanes etc., etc... and you could really see how it helped everything just work better.

all-in-all very nice. I couldn't pick up on any of this us-vs-them nonsense we get so angry about and stops us getting anything done, in case it might benefit that other group that we make villains of.

L1011

My 2012 trip had a direct hit by a cyclist and a close incident with a car, both skipping red lights. On the same day! Didn't give a great impression of any road users

May Contain Small Parts

L1011 wrote: »

My 2012 trip had a direct hit by a cyclist and a close incident with a car, both skipping red lights. On the same day! Didn't give a great impression of any road users

Were...were you driving on the left?

L1011

May Contain Small Parts wrote: »

Were...were you driving on the left?

I was walking in both cases

monument

L1011 wrote: »

Copenhagen has some other similarities to Dublin - the metro lines didn't join up properly for ages and they destroyed their city center themselves in the 60s for bad redevelopment rather than having the town planning divisions of the Luftwaffe or RAF do it for them like most others in Europe

Only one Dutch city was leveled: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Netherlands

L1011

And quite a lot of the core of Utrecht due to the railway hub and HQ. It was the RAF that bombed Utrecht, Rotterdam was the only city bombed by Germany

If Amsterdam had been bombed there'd likely be no tram network (but probably more metro) as they only retained the trams for lines that couldn't take buses due to narrow streets