TII's role in catering for active transport

hans aus dtschl

marno21 wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/greens-plan-to-shift-billions-to-public-transport-hit-by-roads-budget-1.4250798

This is what I said too a few days ago: I don't think it's actually possible to spend that much money on active transport that quickly. The current projects pipeline is nowhere near ambitious or advanced enough. There's easy wins available for them: the broad "spend 20%" stroke is probably too vague and too ambitious but possibly just an opening gambit.

Some potential realistic active transport goals for the greens:
A commitment to increasing the portion of the transport budget used for active transport up to the 10% target by 2-3 years time.
A commitment to funding full implementation of the sustainable mobility strategy by the end of 2021.
A commitment to specific expansions of various share bike schemes.
A commitment to complete implementation of particular cycle network plans or routes.
A commitment to implementation of pedestrian permeability or network plans.

With all of that said, I have little faith in TII myself from a sustainable transport perspective. They appear to have the culture of "meet current needs" with regards sustainable transport, rather than "achieve modal shift".

marno21

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

This is what I said too a few days ago: I don't think it's actually possible to spend that much money on active transport that quickly. The current projects pipeline is nowhere near ambitious or advanced enough. There's easy wins available for them: the broad "spend 20%" stroke is probably too vague and too ambitious but possibly just an opening gambit.

Some potential realistic active transport goals for the greens:
A commitment to increasing the portion of the transport budget used for active transport up to the 10% target by 2-3 years time.
A commitment to funding full implementation of the sustainable mobility strategy by the end of 2021.
A commitment to specific expansions of various share bike schemes.
A commitment to complete implementation of particular cycle network plans or routes.
A commitment to implementation of pedestrian permeability or network plans.

With all of that said, I have little faith in TII myself from a sustainable transport perspective. They appear to have the culture of "meet current needs" with regards sustainable transport, rather than "achieve modal shift".

That's more the NTA's role than TII. TII are more to do with the national road network and designing/planning light rail. The national road network should not be concerned with active transport/sustainable transport as a whole

hans aus dtschl

marno21 wrote: »

That's more the NTA's role than TII. TII are more to do with the national road network and designing/planning light rail. The national road network should not be concerned with active transport/sustainable transport as a whole

I don't agree with you, but this discussion would possibly be worthy of a thread in its own right?

I agree that TII's remit is the national road network (for instance). But this national road network currently blocks active travel in very many places.
To take Cork (I live there and you know it very well):
From the suburbs East of Cork City into the city centre itself: blocked by TII infrastructure.
Wilton. Divided by TII infrastructure.
Douglas. Divided by TII infrastructure.
These are sometimes inherited schemes, but the active travel solutions they devise and sign off on today still tend to be minimum-viable-product solutions. Typically beg-buttons, diversions, numerous crossings. Absolutely not "desire routes" in any design I've seen. They almost universally prevent, rather than encourage active travel. They almost universally encourage, rather than discourage motorised commuting. I've never seen a TII scheme that manages to put active travel at a higher priority than motorised travel. That's not to say they don't exist, of course, I just haven't seen any.

This is specifically what I'm complaining about: their current mantra is "we enable national road network traffic". My opinion is that the by-line to this mantra is "at all costs". I don't agree that it's the NTA's job to shoehorn good design into these projects.

The TII recently signed off on a line of paint on the Lower Glanmire Road as a "cycle scheme" for instance.
The Dunkettle Interchange has pedestrians crossing 5 roundabouts and dual carriageway slip ramp.
These are surely still a national routes (N8, N25) regardless of the mode of transport used. So why no proper design for active transport users? It's literally the same origin and destination as the "main road" traffic, but no proper design. I don't think it's fair to say that's the NTA's job at all.

Anyway, probably TL/DR and off-topic, but maybe worthy of a discussion elsewhere. But at least I can perhaps explain why I don't have much faith in TII!

hans aus dtschl

Thanks for the thread split: it was a bit O/T where it was.

SeanW

TII's mandate, as I understand it, is to oversee the construction of roads and big-ticket public transport. Because of this, what you would call "active travel" (walking and cycling) are simply not in their remit.

I think we can all agree that things like the Luas expansions, the Dublin Metro, DART upgrade etc are vital. Most of us would also like to see the big-ticket public transport items called for in Cork's CMATS plan, that is electrification of the Cork heavy suburban rail and a Cork Luas. But that's public transport.

As to the matter of roads, by definition these are meant for fast, motorised traffic with an emphasis on long distance usage. A street should provide for "active travel" because lower speeds and the capture of value in a space are the proper functions of a street.
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/10/30/the-stroad
Problems happen if you try to have one public way perform both functions: trying to both facilitate local users and also people/goods travelling long distances through an area. You often end up with something that fails to be a pleasant environment for people on foot, hanging out or whatever, but is slow, frustrating and dangerous for people passing through to get somewhere else.

Much of Ireland's transport problems have been failing to provide "big ticket" public transport to keep people moving in the cities, like the Dart Underground, the Dublin Metro etc. But another problem has been our (albeit we're staring to move away from it) love affair with street-road hybrids, or "Stroads".

Part of getting rid of the stroads we've inherited from the 20th century will involve building more roads that focus for the fast, long distance traveller. Another part will be building big-ticket public transport, so that fewer people will have to travel car-type distances by road. Both of those are TIIs job (and the gov't to fund them) but equally important to the first two will be the proper fitting of streets, which I think is the responsibility of local authorities.

Carawaystick

The N20 project should be building walking and cycling infrastructure linking Charleville, Ballyhea, Buttevant, Newtwopothouse and Mallow, at a minimum.
The N28 should have a cycling and walking infrastructure
the N4 Castlebaldwin scheme should be adding cycling and walking infrastructure

The NRA should update their standards to remove the use of unbound surfaces for cycling routes, there's no way they would propose unbound surface for motor vehicles.

Aontachtoir

Carawaystick wrote: »

The N20 project should be building walking and cycling infrastructure linking Charleville, Ballyhea, Buttevant, Newtwopothouse and Mallow, at a minimum.
The N28 should have a cycling and walking infrastructure
the N4 Castlebaldwin scheme should be adding cycling and walking infrastructure

But how much would these be used, and how much would they increase the cost and complexity of these projects?

Aontachtoir

Aontachtoir wrote: »

But how much would these be used, and how much would they increase the cost and complexity of these projects?

The more cycling & walking infrastructure there is, the more it is used. Silly that this has to be pointed out but there ya go

Aontachtoir

Deleted User wrote: »

The more cycling & walking infrastructure there is, the more it is used. Silly that this has to be pointed out but there ya go

Will it lead to measurable, significant reductions in traffic? I'm just trying to picture how many people are going to cycle from Mallow to Charleville instead of driving if there is a good cycle lane. Even if there was a cycle lane out from Douglas all the way to Ringaskiddy, I doubt I would start cycling the 40 minutes each way over a pretty hilly landscape to get to work. Maybe it's because I grew up in a city, but I don't imagine people who have to travel long distances to work, go shopping, visit friends and relatives etc will suddenly start cycling everywhere just because a cycle lane is available part of the way. It seems more likely this will mostly be used by people cycling for sport in their free time.

In which case, what is the cost-benefit ratio?

hans aus dtschl

Aontachtoir wrote: »

Will it lead to measurable, significant reductions in traffic? I'm just trying to picture how many people are going to cycle from Mallow to Charleville instead of driving if there is a good cycle lane. Even if there was a cycle lane out from Douglas all the way to Ringaskiddy, I doubt I would start cycling the 40 minutes each way over a pretty hilly landscape to get to work. Maybe it's because I grew up in a city, but I don't imagine people who have to travel long distances to work, go shopping, visit friends and relatives etc will suddenly start cycling everywhere just because a cycle lane is available part of the way. It seems more likely this will mostly be used by people cycling for sport in their free time.

In which case, what is the cost-benefit ratio?

Yeah it's a valid question to ask, but some counter-points:
I know people commuting this distance by bicycle right now.
It's not all end-to-end (just like the M20).
I know you say "cycling for sport" (and it's a correct point) but also "cycling for leisure" would be a major traffic generator in cycling terms. Accessing the Blackwater Valley or various train stations would be a big advantage for many people on that corridor.

In terms of cost, I suspect it would be a cheap addition if done at the same time as the M20. The corridor would be around the width of a lane or something like that? Dealing with interchanges would be the most costly bit.

I'm not arguing for an "M20 cycleway", but perhaps the infrastructure should be considered on the legacy N20 corridor and infrastructure as part of the M20 scope maybe?

Carawaystick

Aontachtoir wrote: »

But how much would these be used, and how much would they increase the cost and complexity of these projects?

Obviously the figures are not there because TII didn't bother their holes to collect them.
And TII don't account for the full cost of their infrastructure on society.

At the minute its like saying "because nobody cycles to work from Mahon to Little Island, there is no demand for infrastructue to enable people who dont want to sit in traffic for hours to do so."

Regarding the M20 route, its about allowing people use part of the link, not just the entire route;

The NRA were completely wrong not building rest and service areas into the motorway network from the get go, and they are wrong not catering for active travel now.