Cycle Lane on Talbot Memorial Bridge

Beta Ray Bill

Dublin city council have made another interesting adjustment to the roads infrastructure in Dublin.
They've removed a lane of traffic on the Talbot Memorial Bridge and added a cycle lane

I came in on the Motorcycle today (first time in months, sorry if I'm late to the party on this ) and thought t myself:
It's 7:15am, kids are off school, should be grand going in on the bike

No such luck, traffic backed up as far as Annesley Bridge. Got into work (Harcourt St) around 7.50am, which is a joke for someone on a motorcycle. The hold up was on Traffic merging on Talbot Memorial Bridge and Memorial Road which had Bus lane added last year I think.

The Schools open up next month the traffic in that part of the city is going to be the worst it's ever been.
I'm all for cycle infrastructure, I think it's a good idea. But not at the expense of other road users.

The thing Dublin councilors just don't seem to get is that: Irish People like their cars, and are prepared to sit in them for 3 or 4 hours a day rather than use public transport. And that's not gonna change.

The thing that, if you make things slower for motorists, it will inadvertently have a knock on affect on public transport and make it slower.
It also makes it slower for people that are on more efficient modes of transport IE: Motorcycles, Bicycles, Mopeds etc.
And it also creates more pollution.

I even believe that if they put a congestion charge in Dublin which the canals as the barrier, you'd still have the same amount of traffic coming into Dublin City centre. Because people want to use their cars.

I get that if you build more roads and make it easier for motorists to get in and out of town, you will inevitably attract more cars into town, so that's not really an option either.
There was a report out earlier that year that Dubliners spend more time in Traffic than nearly every other country.

Something needs to be done, but what!?
We can't keep going they way are.

BTW I used the DART 99% of the time!

GLaDOS

I take that route daily and it way busier this morning than it has been for weeks, not sure why.

Merging at the bridge is a big hold up though, and once kids are back in school it will be a nightmare I imagine (I'll be back on public transport then). The cycle lane was added at the start of the summer and I noticed a difference to traffic as soon as the work started.

magicbastarder

how many lanes left for motorised traffic now? three or four?

Riskymove

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

The thing Dublin councilors just don't seem to get is that: Irish People like their cars, and are prepared to sit in them for 3 or 4 hours a day rather than use public transport. And that's not gonna change.

I think they do get it tbh as the only response seems to be to make traffic as difficult as possible to force people to change

Salary Negotiator

Seems like a great idea, bikes are much more efficient than cars and if some people are happy to sit in their cars for 3 to 4 hours a days then let them. Other people will switch to the bus, bike, dart or whatever.

magicbastarder

begs the question - where are people who are crossing matt talbot bridge in private cars, actually going? and why should we assume that we should not provide cycling infrastructure so as not to inconvenience them?

GLaDOS

magicbastarder wrote: »

how many lanes left for motorised traffic now? three or four?

Three, only one going left so that causes the hold up as all Eastbound traffic merges into one lane.

is_that_so

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

Seems like a great idea, bikes are much more efficient than cars and if some people are happy to sit in their cars for 3 to 4 hours a days then let them. Other people will switch to the bus, bike, dart or whatever.

Not if you want to go to Cork today! Cycling is only "efficient" if an average cyclist doesn't have much more than 10Km each way. Really, why exactly would they suddenly do that?

is_that_so

magicbastarder wrote: »

begs the question - where are people who are crossing matt talbot bridge in private cars, actually going? and why should we assume that we should not provide cycling infrastructure so as not to inconvenience them?

To work would be a good guess.

Salary Negotiator

is_that_so wrote: »

Not if you want to go to Cork today! Cycling is only "efficient" if an average cyclist doesn't have much more than 10Km each way. Really, why exactly would they suddenly do that?

Not many people crossing the Talbot bridge on their way to Cork though. :rolleyes:

is_that_so

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

Not many people crossing the Talbot bridge on their way to Cork though. :rolleyes:

You seem to have missed the point here. I pointed out the limits of "efficiency".

magicbastarder

so, three lanes for motorised traffic, and one for cyclists, and that's unfair on motorists? or what am i missing?

is_that_so

Riskymove wrote: »

I think they do get it tbh as the only response seems to be to make traffic as difficult as possible to force people to change

DCC and Keegan have some half-assed vision of a city of well over a million functioning like a small Dutch town. They really don't care just as long as they can push traffic where it suits them. The M50 wouldn't be far enough for some!:D I have no issue with better cycling facilities but it's the complete lack of joined-up thinking that is the real concern.

Salary Negotiator

is_that_so wrote: »

You seem to have missed the point here. I pointed out the limits of "efficiency".

Reductio ad absurdum

Bikes are more efficient within a city which is where this bridge is located, removing lanes from cars and converting to bikes both increases the number of bikes and decreases the number of vehicles making the road much more efficient.

Now, who is going to Cork and why are you bringing it up?

is_that_so

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

Reductio ad absurdum

Bikes are more efficient within a city where this bridge is located, removing lanes from cars and converting to bikes both increases the number of bikes and decreases the number of vehicles making the road much more efficient.

Now, who is going to Cork and why are you bringing it up?

No reductio ad anything, clearly a poor example on my part seeing as you didn't get it. You've made two claims :
Firstly that cycling is efficient, secondly that people somehow will magically appear on public transport and now you've added a third claim that it will reduce the number of cars. All of this comes with no backup argument whatsoever.

magicbastarder

uhh, you claimed that cycling is not efficient on distances over 10km, 'with no backup argument whatsoever'. why are you allowed do that, and then call out other people for doing the same?

loyatemu

get used to it, these changes are going to have to be made all over the city.

You say "I'm all for cycle infrastructure, I think it's a good idea. But not at the expense of other road users." - where else do you think the space is going to come from?

Salary Negotiator

is_that_so wrote: »

No reductio ad anything, clearly a poor example on my part seeing as you didn't get it. You've made two claims :
Firstly that cycling is efficient, secondly that people somehow will magically appear on public transport and now you've added a third claim that it will reduce the number of cars. All of this comes with no backup argument whatsoever.

Traffic Evaporation

Induced demand - granted this is from the UK but no reason to think it wouldn't apply in Ireland.

Beta Ray Bill

magicbastarder wrote: »

so, three lanes for motorised traffic, and one for cyclists, and that's unfair on motorists? or what am i missing?

It's not that it's unfair, having cordoned off cycle lanes is a great idea.
I means the cyclists don't get in the cars way, and the cyclists have a faster, safer dedicated route.
It's a brilliant idea, It's just Dublin implementation of said idea is poor at best.
The Talbot memorial bridge, the cycle lane from Clanwilliam Place to Herbert Place and the Cycle lane along the Clontarf road are all prime examples of where they could have implemented a dedicated, cordoned off cycle lane a lot better than they did.

magicbastarder wrote: »

uhh, you claimed that cycling is not efficient on distances over 10km, 'with no backup argument whatsoever'. why are you allowed do that, and then call out other people for doing the same?

I cycled for a while, in and around town it's great.
However if you're cycling in from somewhere like swords or malahide, well that's more of realm of a dedicated cyclist (IE the kind of person who goes out on Sunday morning and hammers out 100km ). And that kind out cycling isn't for everyone, it's not for most people in fact

Beta Ray Bill

loyatemu wrote: »

get used to it, these changes are going to have to be made all over the city.

You say "I'm all for cycle infrastructure, I think it's a good idea. But not at the expense of other road users." - where else do you think the space is going to come from?

Fair point,
They need to build them somewhere!

However I think they should be avoided on choke points such Bridges etc.
Like they could have built another cycling only bridge there.

cdaly_

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

It's not that it's unfair, having cordoned off cycle lanes is a great idea.
I means the cyclists don't get in the cars way, and the cyclists have a faster, safer dedicated route.
It's a brilliant idea, It's just Dublin implementation of said idea is poor at best.

You have a point there. Properly implemented, it would mean that private cars don't get in the cyclists' way. That would be a truly people-friendly city...

dr.kenneth noisewater

Been a disaster since they changed it, was also a bit of a bottle neck but now its 2 lanes merging into 1 with the pedestrian lights going red more regularly. they seem to taken half of one car lane  on the bend of the bridge to allow for 2 bike lanes going the same direction from what I can see, once you get by the pedestrian crossing it becomes 2 lanes again. Just seems a bit pointless when there was already a segregated cycle lane there already

cdaly_

dr.kenneth noisewater wrote: »

Been a disaster since they changed it, was also a bit of a bottle neck but now its 2 lanes merging into 1 with the pedestrian lights going red more regularly.

You mean prioritising people over private cars? Sounds good to me...

Beta Ray Bill

cdaly_ wrote: »

You mean prioritising people over private cars? Sounds good to me...

You get that there are people in private cars too right?

cdaly_

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

You get that there are people in private cars too right?

Um yeah?

Something like 1 (isolated) person per 12sqm (stationary), more like 1 (isolated) person per 50sqm (in city traffic).

This compares with maybe 10 people per 12sqm (standing) and maybe 20 people per 50sqm (walking).

See what prioritising people gets you?

magicbastarder

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

I cycled for a while, in and around town it's great.
However if you're cycling in from somewhere like swords or malahide, well that's more of realm of a dedicated cyclist (IE the kind of person who goes out on Sunday morning and hammers out 100km ). And that kind out cycling isn't for everyone, it's not for most people in fact

that's talking about difficulty rather than efficiency; yes, it takes more effort to cycle longer distances, but that doesn't affect efficiency. however, i know you were responding to a question i posed to someone else, so i wouldn't expect you to explain what they meant.

i can cycle 20km on my commute in 50 minutes (which i haven't done in several weeks, to be fair - been on leave and working from home a lot); that's 50 minutes winter or summer, on a stretch that would probably take at least 40 minutes in a car in summer and well over an hour when the holidays end. cycling is still far more efficient than driving for that sort of spin, but i understand not everyone wants to do that.

Beta Ray Bill

cdaly_ wrote: »

Um yeah?

Something like 1 (isolated) person per 12sqm (stationary), more like 1 (isolated) person per 50sqm (in city traffic).

This compares with maybe 10 people per 12sqm (standing) and maybe 20 people per 50sqm (walking).

See what prioritising people gets you?

Agreed cars are not efficient when it comes to space taken up. In fact they are woefully inefficient as most cars have one occupant.

The point still remains though that people are going to use their car no matter what. So there needs to be a balance.

I also agree that public areas are nice places, however the traffic needs to go somewhere.
You're just moving the problem somewhere else.

I think we need to solve the problem not move it.

I don't have a solution to this btw
Owning a vehicle is very expensive, public transport works out way cheaper - So cost/taxation hasn't/won't fix the issue
Public transport is also faster (most of the time) and less polluting - So speed/efficiency hasn't/won't fix the issue
People just want their private space and are prepared to make it crap for cyclists, motorcyclists, Pedestrians, etc to get it.

It's weird.

Salary Negotiator

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

Agreed cars are not efficient when it comes to space taken up. In fact they are woefully inefficient as most cars have one occupant.

The point still remains though that people are going to use their car no matter what. So there needs to be a balance.

For these people there is no fixing the issue, as you say they'll stay in their cars no matter what, so really, how much consideration should we be giving them?

forumlover

I drive into the city regularly for work purposes. Other than that I stay away. Pedestrianizing & adding more cycle lanes into and around the city is great for the local people, but an absolute nightmare for local businesses. Traffic times are awful, parking is impossible & avoiding the lunatic two wheeled warriors & jaywalkers is lethal. Red lights are for more than just cars.
Anyhoo, for all you eco-warriors out there, Good Luck getting your 50 inch flat screen home, on the back of your bike.

Beta Ray Bill

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

For these people there is no fixing the issue, as you say they'll stay in their cars no matter what, so really, how much consideration should we be giving them?

Yes but them using their cars impacts everyone else.
Their problem effectively becomes my problem.

magicbastarder

forumlover wrote: »

Anyhoo, for all you eco-warriors out there, Good Luck getting your 50 inch flat screen home, on the back of your bike.

going by the reaction of supposed city centre traders, trips for 50 inch flatscreens must make up half the shopping trips into the city centre. seems to be the de facto 'but i need to get my car into the city centre' excuse, and is demonstrably an absurd example to use.

even though (as far as i am aware) most retailers selling them stock them in warehouses out around the M50, not in the city centre.

Beta Ray Bill

magicbastarder wrote: »

going by the reaction of supposed city centre traders, trips for 50 inch flatscreens must make up half the shopping trips into the city centre. seems to be the de facto 'but i need to get my car into the city centre' excuse, and is demonstrably an absurd example to use.

even though (as far as i am aware) most retailers selling them stock them in warehouses out around the M50, not in the city centre.

Bar Arnotts Furniture, I don't think anyone is stocking bulky items in Dublin City anymore.
And even then, it's probably just a show room

magicbastarder

arnott's warehouse is out on the old airport road, and i think when you buy anything bulky, it's shipped to you, rather than you trying to wrestle a 50 inch TV into your car. which you'd probably need a large car for anyway.

forumlover

magicbastarder wrote: »

even though (as far as i am aware) most retailers selling them stock them in warehouses out around the M50, not in the city centre.

Good point, buy them in the warehouse & then wait as they magically teleport them back into the city centre apts............... Engage!!

cdaly_

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

Traffic Evaporation

Induced demand - granted this is from the UK but no reason to think it wouldn't apply in Ireland.

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

Agreed cars are not efficient when it comes to space taken up. In fact they are woefully inefficient as most cars have one occupant.

The point still remains though that people are going to use their car no matter what. So there needs to be a balance.

I also agree that public areas are nice places, however the traffic needs to go somewhere.
You're just moving the problem somewhere else.

I think we need to solve the problem not move it.

See 'Traffic Evaporation' above.

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

Yes but them using their cars impacts everyone else.
Their problem effectively becomes my problem.

So they should get lowest priority in a city.

average_runner

Was the bridge down by the CHQ made for cyclists and pedestrians?

If there is a cycling lane on talbot bridge and can they make the chq bridge pedestrian only. Cyclists seem to think they rule that bridge and give no way to pedestrians on it.

magicbastarder

forumlover wrote: »

Good point, buy them in the warehouse & then wait as they magically teleport them back into the city centre apts............... Engage!!

i'm struggling to understand your actual point. what has buying 50 inch TVs got to do with cycling not being efficient?

magicbastarder

average_runner wrote: »

Was the bridge down by the CHQ made for cyclists and pedestrians?

pedestrian only, AFAIK.

cgcsb

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

Dublin city council have made another interesting adjustment to the roads infrastructure in Dublin.
They've removed a lane of traffic on the Talbot Memorial Bridge and added a cycle lane

I came in on the Motorcycle today (first time in months, sorry if I'm late to the party on this ) and thought t myself:
It's 7:15am, kids are off school, should be grand going in on the bike

No such luck, traffic backed up as far as Annesley Bridge. Got into work (Harcourt St) around 7.50am, which is a joke for someone on a motorcycle. The hold up was on Traffic merging on Talbot Memorial Bridge and Memorial Road which had Bus lane added last year I think.

The Schools open up next month the traffic in that part of the city is going to be the worst it's ever been.
I'm all for cycle infrastructure, I think it's a good idea. But not at the expense of other road users.

The thing Dublin councilors just don't seem to get is that: Irish People like their cars, and are prepared to sit in them for 3 or 4 hours a day rather than use public transport. And that's not gonna change.

The thing that, if you make things slower for motorists, it will inadvertently have a knock on affect on public transport and make it slower.
It also makes it slower for people that are on more efficient modes of transport IE: Motorcycles, Bicycles, Mopeds etc.
And it also creates more pollution.

I even believe that if they put a congestion charge in Dublin which the canals as the barrier, you'd still have the same amount of traffic coming into Dublin City centre. Because people want to use their cars.

I get that if you build more roads and make it easier for motorists to get in and out of town, you will inevitably attract more cars into town, so that's not really an option either.
There was a report out earlier that year that Dubliners spend more time in Traffic than nearly every other country.

Something needs to be done, but what!?
We can't keep going they way are.

BTW I used the DART 99% of the time!

Already way too much space for cars. If people want to sit in cars for 4 hours, fine, they should be taxed into oblivion for doing so and be banned from doing so if they drive diesel, because the rest of us don't want cancer from their illogical choices.

cgcsb

is_that_so wrote: »

Not if you want to go to Cork today! Cycling is only "efficient" if an average cyclist doesn't have much more than 10Km each way. Really, why exactly would they suddenly do that?

Extreme whataboutary. Anybody going to Cork is wasting their time on Talbot Bridge. The vast majority of commutes are under 10km.

Dyr

Cant help but notice the junction of Pearse Street and Lombard street is being messed around with now, presumbaly pedestrians at a crazy busy juntion being squeezed in even more for a bike lane

forumlover

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm struggling to understand your actual point. what has buying 50 inch TVs got to do with cycling not being efficient?

Cycling is efficient, but so are vehicles. Vehicles can carry extra passengers & goods. Bicycles are limited in what they can carry. Closing off a lane to traffic on one of the busiest routes into the city is madness.

5ide5h0w

magicbastarder wrote: »

pedestrian only, AFAIK.

Yeah the Sean O'Casey bridge is Pedestrian only

cgcsb

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

Fair point,
They need to build them somewhere!

However I think they should be avoided on choke points such Bridges etc.

Choke points are where they are needed the most so that cyclists can bypass all the cars.

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

Like they could have built another cycling only bridge there.

At what cost? there is pleanty of space on the existing bridge, it's just a matter of re-allocating space from the most inefficient user, the single occupant car, and giving it over to the second most efficient user, the cycling commuter.

Podge_irl

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

I'm all for cycle infrastructure, I think it's a good idea. But not at the expense of other road users.

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

The point still remains though that people are going to use their car no matter what. So there needs to be a balance.

Indeed, there should be balance. And even with changes made it is still weighted far, far too heavily in the direction of private motorists. Having twice or three times as much road space as public transport and cyclists is not "balance".

There is no solution that will allow people to drive smoothly and quickly into and through the city centre and it shouldn't be (and isn't thankfully) an aim of DCC or the govt.

magicbastarder

forumlover wrote: »

Cycling is efficient, but so are vehicles. Vehicles can carry extra passengers & goods. Bicycles are limited in what they can carry.

the average occupancy of a private car in rush hour traffic in the city centre is approx. 1.2 occupants. to compare, a nearly empty bus - with only three passengers - is a more efficient use of space than two private cars.

but let's take your point and run with it - private cars would be much more efficient if they were full, rather than the majority being occupied by the driver. so we should ban single occupancy vehicles from the city centre.

i'm joking, but again, i don't know what your point is. you're talking about hypothetical situations which don't actually apply in reality.

how many full private cars do you normally see in the morning driving into the city centre? and when was the last time you had to transport a 50 inch TV out of the city centre?

cgcsb

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

Agreed cars are not efficient when it comes to space taken up. In fact they are woefully inefficient as most cars have one occupant.

The point still remains though that people are going to use their car no matter what. So there needs to be a balance.

I also agree that public areas are nice places, however the traffic needs to go somewhere.
You're just moving the problem somewhere else.

I think we need to solve the problem not move it.

I don't have a solution to this btw
Owning a vehicle is very expensive, public transport works out way cheaper - So cost/taxation hasn't/won't fix the issue
Public transport is also faster (most of the time) and less polluting - So speed/efficiency hasn't/won't fix the issue
People just want their private space and are prepared to make it crap for cyclists, motorcyclists, Pedestrians, etc to get it.

It's weird.

Are you saying we should ban cars outright? I think you're onto something there but I'd limit the area the ban applies to. There isn't a real need for car commuters on Aston Quay or Bachelors walk for example.

cgcsb

forumlover wrote: »

I drive into the city regularly for work purposes. Other than that I stay away. Pedestrianizing & adding more cycle lanes into and around the city is great for the local people, but an absolute nightmare for local businesses. Traffic times are awful, parking is impossible & avoiding the lunatic two wheeled warriors & jaywalkers is lethal. Red lights are for more than just cars.
Anyhoo, for all you eco-warriors out there, Good Luck getting your 50 inch flat screen home, on the back of your bike.

Yes, Everyone in their deisel cars heading into the centre of Dublin between 7.30 and 9 am to pick up a flat screen tv every single day. Makes sense.

magicbastarder

an aside - i remember years ago there was utter gridlock in the city centre - as in cars simply not moving for up to an hour at a time, on christmas eve.
the head of DCC at the time was on the radio a few days later, and was asked in sombre tones what he would like to say in motorists caught up in this, did he feel like an apology might be apt?
his response was (i'm paraphrasing, this was probably more than 15 years ago) 'if you're expecting me to apologise to people who decided to wait to do their christmas shopping in the city centre on the very last shopping day before christmas, i don't know what to say to you. they had it coming'.

cgcsb

forumlover wrote: »

Cycling is efficient, but so are vehicles. Vehicles can carry extra passengers & goods. Bicycles are limited in what they can carry.

'Can' being a key word. Average vehicle occupancy is 1.2 persons, a horrific waste of resources, even compared to an old diesel bus.

forumlover wrote: »

Closing off a lane to traffic on one of the busiest routes into the city is madness.

No it isn't. The cycle lane will move more people to where they want to go than the car lane will. We see this on Bachelor's walk in the morning, where cyclists outnumber cars but cars have all the road space assigned to them.

forumlover

cgcsb wrote: »

Yes, Everyone in their deisel cars heading into the centre of Dublin between 7.30 and 9 am to pick up a flat screen tv every single day. Makes sense.

It was an example. Cars, vans & trucks are used to transport many things in & out of the city. The majority of bicycles transport a single person.