Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Private profiles - please note that profiles marked as private will soon be public. This will facilitate moderation so mods can view users' warning histories. All of your posts across the site will appear on your profile page (including PI, RI). Groups posts will remain private except to users who have access to the same Groups as you. Thread here
Some important site news, please read here. Thanks!

Cycle Lane on Talbot Memorial Bridge

  • 13-08-2019 8:15am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 2,800 ✭✭✭ 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 :confused:

    I came in on the Motorcycle today (first time in months, sorry if I'm late to the party on this :o ) 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!? :confused:
    We can't keep going they way are.

    BTW I used the DART 99% of the time!


«1345

Comments

  • Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 23,110 Mod ✭✭✭✭ 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.

    Cake, and grief counseling, will be available at the conclusion of the test



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 43,402 Mod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,823 ✭✭✭✭ Riskymove


    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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,148 ✭✭✭ 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.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 43,402 Mod ✭✭✭✭ 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?


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 23,110 Mod ✭✭✭✭ GLaDOS


    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.

    Cake, and grief counseling, will be available at the conclusion of the test



  • Registered Users Posts: 32,141 ✭✭✭✭ is_that_so


    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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 32,141 ✭✭✭✭ is_that_so


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,148 ✭✭✭ 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:


  • Registered Users Posts: 32,141 ✭✭✭✭ is_that_so


    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".


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 43,402 Mod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 32,141 ✭✭✭✭ 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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,148 ✭✭✭ 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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 32,141 ✭✭✭✭ is_that_so


    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.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 43,402 Mod ✭✭✭✭ 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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,472 ✭✭✭✭ 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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,148 ✭✭✭ 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,800 ✭✭✭ Beta Ray Bill


    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.
    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 :D ). And that kind out cycling isn't for everyone, it's not for most people in fact


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,800 ✭✭✭ 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,440 ✭✭✭ cdaly_


    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...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,259 ✭✭✭ 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


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,440 ✭✭✭ cdaly_


    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...


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,800 ✭✭✭ 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? :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,440 ✭✭✭ cdaly_


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


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 43,402 Mod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder


    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 :D ). 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,800 ✭✭✭ 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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,148 ✭✭✭ Salary Negotiator


    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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 40 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,800 ✭✭✭ Beta Ray Bill


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 43,402 Mod ✭✭✭✭ 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.


Advertisement