360M euro per year to be spent on cycling and walking infrastructure

Hurrache

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Wind speeds are far worse in Dublin for cyclists than Copenhagen. There's a big difference between gentle falling rain and howling horizontal rain for a cyclist.

Man up so and get some muscle into your puny legs. Embrace the exercise.

Fred Cryton

Hurrache wrote: »

Man up so and get some muscle into your puny legs. Embrace the exercise.

This is a very Irish response. Bully and lampoon those who raise legitimate concerns about waste of resources.



Ultimately what will kill cycling dead in Ireland is our low population density caused by decades of bad planning. Good luck asking a 50 year old to cycle 30 miles to work. In Copenhagen, the middle class lives in the city centre making cycling more viable.

ExMachina1000

1.8 billion overall. Raise taxes to cover it. Job done

ec18

wonder when the cycling to work changes will be announced? budget time?

I was planning on buying an e bike for getting to and from work to avoid public transport and some fresh air every day, and this announcement has me wondering whether would be better off waiting now :9

Raisins

Tyson Lannister wrote: »

Boomer - stop using those americanisms over here

Ok boomer.

Duckjob

beggars_bush wrote: »

Is there any point in trying to change the behaviour of adult car drivers?
Spend the money on cycling infrastructure instead

Agree. Brute force the increase in cycling for now by putting in infra people can feed safe to use right now.

Changes to attitudes and behavior will happen organically over time as cycling becomes more normal for more people and everybody either cycles themselves sometimes or else has partners, kids, parents etc that cycle.

Ferris

ec18 wrote: »

I was planning on buying an e bike for getting to and from work to avoid public transport and some fresh air every day, and this announcement has me wondering whether would be better off waiting now :9

Just buy the ebike, the savings you make vs fuel / fares will offset any grant which may become available. Also you will get fitter and feel better. I have just started back commuting on the ebike instead of using the car (which I put off the road) post lockdown and its been great.

Thinking of selling the car now to fund a cargo bike so I can continue to drop kids etc.

Raisins

Fred Cryton wrote: »

This is a very Irish response. Bully and lampoon those who raise legitimate concerns about waste of resources.

Ultimately what will kill cycling dead in Ireland is our low population density caused by decades of bad planning. Good luck asking a 50 year old to cycle 30 miles to work. In Copenhagen, the middle class lives in the city centre making cycling more viable.

What are you talking about? The vast majority of Irish people do not drive 30 miles to work let alone cycle. Not true in rural Ireland and city wise Drogheda, Naas, Kildare aren’t even 30 miles from stephens green.

Older generations years ago in rural Ireland cycled more than those that cycle there today.

I’ve also lived in the Netherlands and loads of people cycle into the city on designated, separate, tarmac, cycle lanes. They’re well lit and very safe.

Urbanisation argument is a total myth.

loyatemu

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Ultimately what will kill cycling dead in Ireland is our low population density caused by decades of bad planning. Good luck asking a 50 year old to cycle 30 miles to work. In Copenhagen, the middle class lives in the city centre making cycling more viable.

1. It's too windy - CHECK
2. It's too wet - CHECK
3. Cycling doesn't suit every single person in the country, therefore it's a waste of money - CHECK

keep 'em coming...

beauf

Fred Cryton wrote: »

This is a very Irish response. Bully and lampoon those who raise legitimate concerns about waste of resources.


Ultimately what will kill cycling dead in Ireland is our low population density caused by decades of bad planning. Good luck asking a 50 year old to cycle 30 miles to work. In Copenhagen, the middle class lives in the city centre making cycling more viable.

They are not legitimate concerns.

The vast majority of people do not live 30k from work.
Even if they did, eBikes make this a non issue.
Just because you promote cycling doesn't mean everyone has to cycle.

FinnC

Hairy Japanese BASTARDS! wrote: »

I hope the estuary cycleway goes ahead.

I hope they connect Donabate to Lusk afterwards and don't shoot off on some alternative back route to Ardgillan.

It would be fantastic if the Greenway did Lusk-Donabate-Malahide. Malahide is a beautiful town. Would be a nice place to cycle.

magicbastarder wrote: »

many ways to skin a cat.
i wonder if creating multiple cycle superhighways is one option to address commuting cycling. i'm probably reinventing the wheel that is busconnects (and my concern is that they'll spin busconnects to be mainly about cycling, do the same thing, but claim the money from the cycling budget)

on the northside, have several main routes into the city - coastal option is largely sorted; but malahide road, swords road, N2 and navan road beefed up to make them better for cycling on. create orbital routes on griffith avenue and/or collins avenue (a we're not taking you gardens but tough ****, you ain't parking on the road approach), and most people would live within a kilometre or so of one of these options?
finish the greenway in along the royal canal, job done for the northside.

interestingly, the road patterns on the southside are more scattered, but that's a result of the wicklow mountains, i guess. but having a decent option for people cycling in from lucan would be great; i've not done it but it doesn't sound like a pleasant experience.

Well hopefully it's not just Dublin where all this money will be spent!!

Springy Turf

Fred Cryton wrote: »

This is a very Irish response. Bully and lampoon those who raise legitimate concerns about waste of resources.

I have legitimate concerns about the amount of resources we waste on people who want to drive their cars on their own in and out of urban areas, to the detriment of everyone else.

You have yet to provide a credible reason why your concerns are "Legitimate". The "We are not Copenhagen" argument has certainly fallen apart. The 30 mile commute exists, but its not most commuters - and probably park + ride is the solution here. Finally, e-bikes are an extremely cheap (Compared to cars or commuter ticket costs) way of getting people in and out of work, with little to no exertion if they so wish.

Hurrache

Fred Cryton wrote: »

This is a very Irish response. Bully and lampoon those who raise legitimate concerns about waste of resources.

You haven't raised any legitimate concerns about a waste of resources.

Ferris

Fred Cryton wrote: »

This is a very Irish response. Bully and lampoon those who raise legitimate concerns about waste of resources.

In the UK they did a study on the return of investment of the cycle paths associated with the HS2 and found that it delivered twice the return of the rail development and multiples of an equivalent motorway. Most of the savings were associated with lower maintenenace requirements and - cruically - savings in healthcare / NHS. So if you look at it objectively, building motorways and rail infrastructure is a greater waste of resourses than building cycle infrastructure

I should say they canned the cycle paths for the HS2 due to budget overruns but thats the UK 'innit.

daragh_

Fred Cryton wrote: »

This is a very Irish response. Bully and lampoon those who raise legitimate concerns about waste of resources.



Ultimately what will kill cycling dead in Ireland is our low population density caused by decades of bad planning. Good luck asking a 50 year old to cycle 30 miles to work. In Copenhagen, the middle class lives in the city centre making cycling more viable.

I'm 50 and I cycle 20k each way in to work. 5 days a week. But I get the feeling actual facts aren't your thing.

Fred Cryton

loyatemu wrote: »

1. It's too windy - CHECK
2. It's too wet - CHECK
3. Cycling doesn't suit every single person in the country, therefore it's a waste of money - CHECK

keep 'em coming...

Correction - Cycling doesn't suit about 90% of the working population of this country.



Let me add a fourth - how do you propose to drop off little Johnny and Mary at school in September? on the back of the bike? (bearing in mind the school is likely to be located a substantial distance from the office)

Hurrache

Johhny and Mary I'm sure know how to cycle, and if the money is spent on improving their route all the better.

I, and I'm sure many here, manage it. Some better than others, my family use car pooling, others here have the luxury of being able to cycle with their kids to school and continue on to their place of work.

But it's a red herring, are you implying that money shouldn't be spend because kids may have to get dropped to school?

daragh_

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Let me add a fourth - how do you propose to drop off little Johnny and Mary at school in September? on the back of the bike?

Did that for all 3 of my kids until they were big enough to walk or cycle. Worked fine. And kept my car from clogging up the road outside the school.

keane2097

This seems very genuine

07Lapierre

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Correction - Cycling doesn't suit about 90% of the working population of this country.



Let me add a fourth - how do you propose to drop off little Johnny and Mary at school in September? on the back of the bike? (bearing in mind the school is likely to be located a substantial distance from the office)

Agree ... you'd need a BMW X5 3.0diesel to drop 3 kids to school right?

https://www.facebook.com/stuffdutchpeoplelike/videos/how-to-ride-a-bike-with-3-kids-plus-bags/1040813712637225/

Springy Turf

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Correction - Cycling doesn't suit about 90% of the working population of this country.



Let me add a fourth - how do you propose to drop off little Johnny and Mary at school in September? on the back of the bike? (bearing in mind the school is likely to be located a substantial distance from the office)

Where does your "90%" figure come from?

If cycling is safer, Johnny and Mary's kids will be able to cycle to work from a relatively young age. Most children go to school fairly locally to their home. Those that *have* to drive will have less traffic to contend with.

Anyway, will you accept that your "Copenhagen" argument is in ribbons?

Chips Lovell

Johnny and Mary can walk to school barefoot in the horizontal rain. If it was good enough for us when we were young...

Fred Cryton

Springy Turf wrote: »

Where does your "90%" figure come from?

If cycling is safer, Johnny and Mary's kids will be able to cycle to work from a relatively young age. Most children go to school fairly locally to their home. Those that *have* to drive will have less traffic to contend with.

Anyway, will you accept that your "Copenhagen" argument is in ribbons?

No i don't, Copenhagen and Amsterdam are completely different cities to Dublin. In fact you could not think of more different cities when it comes to cycling.



The key difference you Greens are missing is that in Dublin the wealthy and middle classes with jobs to go to largely live in the suburbs, while the centre is populated by social housing and our own welfare class, or by people who can walk to work so cycling is irrelevant. This is completely the opposite to the continent - in Paris the wealthy live in the centre near their offices, while the poor live out in the subusrbs (banlieue). No amount of wishing will change that fact - distance is king. Meanwhile outside Dublin we have one of the lowest population densities in Europe, cycling is completely and utterly unviable.

Ferris

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Let me add a fourth - how do you propose to drop off little Johnny and Mary at school in September? on the back of the bike? (bearing in mind the school is likely to be located a substantial distance from the office)

Cargo bike is an option here - precisely what the new government is proposing funding for.

Ferris

Fred Cryton wrote: »

The key difference you Greens are missing is that in Dublin the wealthy and middle classes with jobs to go to largely live in the suburbs, while the centre is populated by social housing and our own welfare class, or by people who can walk to work so cycling is irrelevant. This is completely the opposite to the continent - in Paris the wealthy live in the centre near their offices, while the poor live out in the subusrbs (banlieue). No amount of wishing will change that fact - distance is king. Meanwhile outside Dublin we have one of the lowest population densities in Europe, cycling is completely and utterly unviable.

Nonsense. Dublin is not a big sprawling city, its a perfect size for commuting and probably has more available space for cycling infrastructure than Copenhagen et al. I used to commute 50k per day across Dublin, from a north suburb to a south suburb via east wall, it was fine. Down to 30km a day now across rural roads in North Co. Dublin. My commute was greatly improved by a recent Cycleway in baldoyle and I would appreciate more.

Springy Turf

Fred Cryton wrote: »

No i don't, Copenhagen and Amsterdam are completely different cities to Dublin. In fact you could not think of more different cities when it comes to cycling.



The key difference you Greens are missing is that in Dublin the wealthy and middle classes with jobs to go to largely live in the suburbs, while the centre is populated by social housing and our own welfare class, or by people who can walk to work so cycling is irrelevant. This is completely the opposite to the continent - in Paris the wealthy live in the centre near their offices, while the poor live out in the subusrbs (banlieue). No amount of wishing will change that fact - distance is king. Meanwhile outside Dublin we have one of the lowest population densities in Europe, cycling is completely and utterly unviable.

So where does your 90% figure come from? How much of your opinion has a grounding in real-world data?

Will you at least accept that your arguments about weather are completely made up? And if your 90% figure is just a guess, you should admit to that too.

AndrewJRenko

beggars_bush wrote: »

Is there any point in trying to change the behaviour of adult car drivers?

Maybe to stop them killing 2 motorists and pedestrians each week?

cgcsb

Fred Cryton wrote: »

This is a very Irish response. Bully and lampoon those who raise legitimate concerns about waste of resources.



Ultimately what will kill cycling dead in Ireland is our low population density caused by decades of bad planning. Good luck asking a 50 year old to cycle 30 miles to work. In Copenhagen, the middle class lives in the city centre making cycling more viable.

eh we already have a large % of cycle commuters with no infrastructure to support it. Not everyone needs to cycle for cycling to become the dominant mode. If half of people cycled on their commute that would put us in the world's number 1 spot. Not sure what you class point is? There's a massive concentration of upper middle class in the city centre.

Have a look at the household by income heat map of Dublin.

I'm curious, do you think that poor people don't cycle? Are they not more likely to cycle / less likely to own a car?

07Lapierre

Fred Cryton wrote: »

No i don't, Copenhagen and Amsterdam are completely different cities to Dublin. In fact you could not think of more different cities when it comes to cycling.



The key difference you Greens are missing is that in Dublin the wealthy and middle classes with jobs to go to largely live in the suburbs, while the centre is populated by social housing and our own welfare class, or by people who can walk to work so cycling is irrelevant. This is completely the opposite to the continent - in Paris the wealthy live in the centre near their offices, while the poor live out in the subusrbs (banlieue). No amount of wishing will change that fact - distance is king. Meanwhile outside Dublin we have one of the lowest population densities in Europe, cycling is completely and utterly unviable.

Wealthy people cycle too you know?

https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/566538828105535390/?autologin=true&nic_v1=1aOI6desmWNEcffqdun%2B7C5tBHsf%2BXIrZyQEVhQNo7qndDuuKDyQuACZaPx%2F8ks7sc

Macy0161

Going back to the actual infrastructure, I'd prefer a lot of it to be spent on rural footpaths/ cycle paths rather than "greenways". Even with the reduction in traffic at the height of lock down, we still experienced close passes walking and cycling with the children. It's definitely a blocker to removing car journeys, if that's the aim

I really feel in the majority of cases, "greenways" are a tourism thing - and therefore should come out of that budget - rather than actually a transport thing. Not that I don't welcome them, just should be a different vote. I'd really like to see existing fireroads more utilised for this as well.