Cycle infrastructure planned for south Dublin

tomasrojo

First Up wrote: »

Do you expect people to cycle along Strand Rd to their appointments in St Vincent's or the Blackrock Clinic?

Well, I have and I know plenty of people who have. Without decent, joined-up infrastructure it's not that likely though.

Is this the point where you bring up carrying flat-screen TVs and fridges? I just have a bingo card to fill out.

Seth Brundle

First Up wrote: »

Do you expect people to cycle along Strand Rd to their appointments in St Vincent's or the Blackrock Clinic?

You're just looking for outliers. Nobody is trying to force everyone onto a bike for every journey.
However, the evidence shows that if it is provided, more people will use the opportunity to cycle along safe infrastructure. People can still drive but they have a choice to drive, cycle, bus or whatever.
It is not reasonable to facilitate the least efficient method of commuting simply because many are too lazy to choose not to drive.

First Up wrote: »

Strand Rd could be safely open to bikes, cars, trucks and buses in both directions by building a cycle and pedestrian path over the few hundred meters not already available in the park.

Are you suggesting they remove the foot paths? Or CPO the front gardens of resinbents or what?
Or are you heading down that well worn avenue of building on the biosphere without answering the simple question of whether all alternatives have been looked at?

First Up wrote: »

That's the win/win solution but Mr Keegan has another agenda.

What exactly is his agenda?

AndrewJRenko

First Up wrote: »

Cars can carry a lot of shopping. Bicycles can't.

Ahem

https://www.instagram.com/p/CL13oaGF0li/?igshid=up68dgyajezz

https://twitter.com/pedalmeapp/status/1365271389108908034?s=19

magicbastarder

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Car occupancy rates in Dublin were around 1.2 last time I looked.

it's variable, depending on where you look. i remember on the quays, it was 1.16 on average about 15 years ago. on the M50, not dissimiliar IIRC. but within the suburbs, it's higher, a lot to do with kids being driven to school i think.

First Up

buffalo wrote:

Is this the agenda that you completely support, to reduce car usage?

A safe cycle path along Strand Rd will encourage cyclists to use it. It will have neglible impact on car usage.

tomasrojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's variable, depending on where you look. i remember on the quays, it was 1.16 on average about 15 years ago. on the M50, not dissimiliar IIRC. but within the suburbs, it's higher, a lot to do with kids being driven to school i think.

Think that one early improvement resulting from traffic-reduction schemes this year has been an increase in kids making their own way to school. The school run is a really clear burden at peak travel times, as you can tell from how traffic levels drop on the first day of a school holiday.

buffalo

First Up wrote: »

A safe cycle path along Strand Rd will encourage cyclists to use it. It will have neglible impact on car usage.

Your two statements cannot both be true. When you encourage and increase cycling trips, you discourage and decrease car trips.

Or, more succintly:

First Up

tomasrojo wrote:

Is this the point where you bring up carrying flat-screen TVs and fridges? I just have a bingo card to fill out.

I hope you are as good at avoiding road hazards as you are at missing the point.

Its a pity that any discussion about traffic measures is immediately hijacked by biking zealots, to the exclusion of everything else.

tomasrojo

First Up wrote: »

I hope you are as good at avoiding road hazards as you are at missing the point.

Its a pity that any discussion about traffic measures is immediately hijacked by biking zealots, to the exclusion of everything else.

It is the cycling forum you've chosen to have this discussion on?

AndrewJRenko

First Up wrote: »

A safe cycle path along Strand Rd will encourage cyclists to use it. It will have neglible impact on car usage.

Again, you seem to have forgotten that most of those cyclists have cars, but are choosing to cycle instead.

tomasrojo

I did actually say that these traffic-reduction schemes are only partly about cycling. The reason discussions around the cycling aspect tend to dominate (even outside cycling forums) is because they're regarded as the best line of attack, as people have readily accepted boiler-plate reasons, which we've had a reasonably thorough run through this morning, for why cycling is the preserve of the middle class, cranks, hobbyists, etc.

Seth Brundle

First Up wrote: »

I hope you are as good at avoiding road hazards as you are at missing the point.

Its a pity that any discussion about traffic measures is immediately hijacked by biking zealots, to the exclusion of everything else.

Are you trying to say that existing cyclists will change their route to use it but the number of motorists will not decrease?
Well if so, lets just ignore the complete inaccuracy of your message and focus on the safety from having protected infrastructure...

fat bloke

I never understood why the "One Less Car" slogan never really but into the public (motoring) psyche. Apart from children obviously, virtually every cyclist you see on the road has chosen to leave the car at home, thereby removing one car from the road and therefore leaving more space for every driver on the road. By bullying those people OFF their bikes, you drive (sorry) them back into their cars and back onto the roads in front of you.

Perhaps it's a grammar thing. Car pilots are an intelligent bunch and are acutely rule-cognisant and pedantic. it should of course be "One Car Fewer".

Eamonnator

magicbastarder wrote: »

that probably cost a hundred times as much to install as the car that's on it is worth. and that's not an exaggeration.

20 year old import, certainly not worth a lot.

First Up

buffalo wrote:

Your two statements cannot both be true. When you encourage and increase cycling trips, you discourage and decrease car trips.

Most cycling along Strand Rd is (and will be) a leisure activity. That's what the cycle path is intended to encourage and facilitate.

It will replace some sitting on couches but not many necessary car journeys. It will just divert them.

tomasrojo

First Up wrote: »

Most cycling along Strand Rd is (and will be) a leisure activity. That's what the cycle path is intended to encourage and facilitate.

Where did DCC say it was for leisure cyclists though? Or anyone?

ted1

First Up wrote: »

Every car and truck that used the Strand Rd to get to the Toll Bridge, Dublin Port or Port Tunnel will still have to make that journey. But they will now have to get there via the side roads of Sandymount.

No they don’t. Those that usually drive may cycle or take public transport or reroute via the M50,before Covid I cycled from killiney to the airport. Lots of my colleagues who lived between the two drove. No reason why they can’t cycle, or use public transport. DART to Connolly and the airlink. Or air coach.

markpb

First Up wrote: »

Most cycling along Strand Rd is (and will be) a leisure activity. That's what the cycle path is intended to encourage and facilitate.

It will replace some sitting on couches but not many necessary car journeys. It will just divert them.

Is that your assumption?

magicbastarder

First Up wrote: »

Most cycling along Strand Rd is ... a leisure activity.

genuinely curious if you have a source for that.
i only ever cycled it around rush hour.

First Up

Seth Brundle wrote:

Are you trying to say that existing cyclists will change their route to use it but the number of motorists will not decrease? Well if so, lets just ignore the complete inaccuracy of your message and focus on the safety from having protected infrastructure...

I'm saying that existing motorists will change their route because they reasons they need their cars and trucks will still be there.

I would expect more cyclists to use the route but they won't replace motorists.

buffalo

First Up wrote: »

Most cycling along Strand Rd is (and will be) a leisure activity. That's what the cycle path is intended to encourage and facilitate.

It will replace some sitting on couches but not many necessary car journeys. It will just divert them.

The idea that couch potatoes are the people who decide to head out for a "leisure cycle" is fierce entertaining! :pac::pac::pac:

Seth Brundle

First Up wrote: »

I'm saying that existing motorists will change their route because they reasons they need their cars and trucks will still be there.

I would expect more cyclists to use the route but they won't replace motorists.

If that's the case then why would Strand Rd be different from every other safe cycling infrastructure ever that can be shown to increase the numbers commuting by bike and also sees what is termed as "traffic evaporation"
You're simply trolling! :rolleyes:

AndrewJRenko

First Up wrote: »

I'm saying that existing motorists will change their route because they reasons they need their cars and trucks will still be there.

I would expect more cyclists to use the route but they won't replace motorists.

Did you miss the evidence posted above about the high percentages of single occupant journeys and short journeys driven by car?

First Up

Seth Brundle wrote:

If that's the case then why would Strand Rd be different from every other safe cycling infrastructure ever that can be shown to increase the numbers commuting by bike and also sees what is termed as "traffic evaporation" You're simply trolling!

It may well encourage some commuters to switch to their bikes and that would be a good thing, although I'm not aware of any studies on the subject.

But it doesn't need to be at the cost of pushing cars and trucks into Sandymount village or Irishtown.

First Up

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Did you miss the evidence posted above about the high percentages of single occupant journeys and short journeys driven by car?

No, did you miss the stuff about commercial traffic and people with legitimate reasons to use their cars?

Peregrine

First Up wrote: »

It may well encourage some commuters to switch to their bikes and that would be a good thing, although I'm not aware of any studies on the subject.

So make yourself aware. You're arguing about things that you have fundamentally misunderstood.

magicbastarder

Weepsie wrote: »

I've left town same time as my partner a few times. Me on the bike, she in the car. I'm nearly always home at the very same time, often before

i've mentioned several times here that one summer morning a few years ago, i started swapping places with a chap in an audi on east wall road, and pretty much along the length of the cycle (which took in strand road) i was swapping places with him, all the way to the entrance of leopardstown racecourse.

and the fact that it was summer meant the traffic conditions favoured him, not me; if it had been winter he wouldn't have seen me a second time.

AndrewJRenko

First Up wrote: »

No, did you miss the stuff about commercial traffic and people with legitimate reasons to use their cars?

The "legitimate reasons" stuff is largely your own personal invention - no data, no evidence.

Yes indeed, some people need cars. There is no proposal to ban cars. Just a small restriction on one short stretch of road.

Fighting Tao

Weepsie wrote: »

Everyone is very aware that there are journeys that need to be made in some form of vehicle, due to needs or payload, but most journeys are in fact single occupancy ones that are more than manageable by bike

If only there was a very reasonably priced car share scheme in Dublin for such journeys. Maybe like GoCar or the Toyota equivalent.

Fighting Tao

First Up wrote: »

Every car and truck that used the Strand Rd to get to the Toll Bridge, Dublin Port or Port Tunnel will still have to make that journey. But they will now have to get there via the side roads of Sandymount. That will put them on roads less suitable and will cause congestion and a greater risk of accidents.

Yes, cyclists on Strand Rd will have their own path but the consequences are disproportionate. And all for the sake of a couple of hundred meters over the beach.

Did the m50 and Port Tunnel disappear overnight or something?