Cycle infrastructure planned for south Dublin

eeeee

Paper on covid implemented infrastructure and it's affect on communities: https://www.pnas.org/content/118/15/e2024399118.
I haven't read the whole thing, but a quick look indicates that two plus two does indeed equal four.

is_that_so

Just saw this on the Sandymount cycleway.

Dublin City Council has itself decided that work on the Sandymount cycleway is does not need planning permission, the High Court has been told.

The fact that the council took this decision itself is said to have surprised objectors to the project.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/objectors-surprised-sandymount-cycleway-does-not-need-planning-permission-1.4545035

tomasrojo

Given the large amount of paperwork it was possible the two days set aside for the hearing may not be enough, counsel said.

Mr Justice Meenan said the case was “getting no more than two days” and he would, if necessary, put down time limits for the parties to make their cases.

- We'd like to take up as much time as possible
- No

Larbre34

Nothing new in that. We knew the Council had taken a decision, albeit informed by a Consultant's input, that the proposed on-road cycle route was exempt development. The third party referral to An Bord Pleanála on this point has yet to see an outcome.

Of far more interest in recent developments concerning DCC, is the imminent collapse of the 30 km/h default speed limit consultation, as Keegan admits promoting the Love 30 campaign on one hand and purporting to run an impartial consultation as the local authority on the other, are incompatible and without credibility. Seems to me he's throwing his own Traffic people under the bus (appropriately enough) before abandoning the idea as well. Probably a sensible move as losing another Council vote on the matter in less than 12 months would leave his executive position very much in question.

yascaoimhin

Larbre34 wrote: »

Nothing new in that. We knew the Council had taken a decision, albeit informed by a Consultant's input,

That is false. The Council came to the conclusion itself that the scheme is exempt development, they reached that conclusion over 6 months ago.

It is only when STC in early 2021 started to complain about the Environmental impact that the Council sought the view of an independent third party to clarify if an EIA was required. They said no it was not required.

Effects

buffalo wrote: »

The folly isn't protected, but the house is. The entry in the RPS doesn't explicitly mention the gardens and the folly, but they could be included as being integral to the architectural or heritage value of the house.

A protected structure usually also extends to the curtilage, which is perhaps where the confusion came from.

I had a brief look, and it seems there's interest in developing apartments on the site, which is perhaps why the owners might be against giving up any land.

But you'd think the government wouldn't have an issue paying a high price to acquire it, given their history of overspending on numerous projects.

eeeee

eeeee wrote: »

Paper on covid implemented infrastructure and it's affect on communities: https://www.pnas.org/content/118/15/e2024399118.
I haven't read the whole thing, but a quick look indicates that two plus two does indeed equal four.

Indeed. I love this particular quote

Active travel makes people healthier and creates a wide range of additional social and environmental benefits. The provision of dedicated infrastructure is considered a crucial policy to increase cycling. However, evaluating the impact of this type of intervention is difficult because infrastructure changes are typically slow.

The rollout of so-called pop-up bike lanes during the COVID-19 pandemic is a unique empirical context to estimate the pull effect of new cycling infrastructure.

We show that the policy has worked. We find large increases in cycling. This result is robust for a variety of empirical counterfactuals. Further research is needed to investigate whether this change is persistent and whether similar results can be achieved in situations outside the context of a pandemic.

So, the next time I'll show them this when someone says "yeah well how do we know this is even worth doing?!?!? Like, will people even use the cycle lanes if we put them in omgwtf11?!?!?"

Qrt

Saw the report about the “Cycle Lane Action Group”

Laughable really. Unfortunately they’ll get all the attention.

Larbre34

Whilst there is a raft of important national issues at hand which need no rehearsal here, does Eoghan Murphy's resignation as TD present an opportunity for a single issue by-election campaign in Dublin Bay South (or at least part of it) between Hazel Chu and Mannix Flynn??!!

Larbre34

Larbre34 wrote: »

Whilst there is a raft of important national issues at hand which need no rehearsal here, does Eoghan Murphy's resignation as TD present an opportunity for a single issue by-election campaign in Dublin Bay South (or at least part of it) between Hazel Chu and Mannix Flynn??!!

Well by-elections are typically a barometer of the government of the day, so its unlikely this would be a single issue campaign. In addition, a bike lane on a particular road is a local election issue, not a by-election issue.

But lets have a look at the numbers for the craic

Given that he contested the general elections in 2011, 2016 & 2020, all unsuccessfully, it would seem like throwing good money after bad for him considering he never got enough votes in any GE to get his deposit back

Looking at the local elections from 2019, Chu got 4,069 and was elected on the first round.

In the same election, Flynn was elected on the 10th count with a total of 941 votes and only just beat out the first runner up by 13 votes so came very close to not being elected at all.

In fact, looking at his track record shows he is rapidly becoming irrelevant to the electorate



In summary, I've no idea if either of them will go forward for the by-election and I've no idea who will win the seat, but one thing I will happily put money on, is Chu winning more votes than the anti-active travel candidate if both do go forward for it.

Looks like there is a thread for the by-election set up here if you wish to join the discussion there.

buffalo

I only realised this morning that the Merrion Row plans make no provision for cyclists. As far as I can see, reversing Ely Place and Hume St adds about a kilometre onto the journey from Merrion Square to Stephen's Green. And that includes that lovely ambiguous merge from Baggot St onto Pembroke St, the unmarked drag strip along Fitzwilliam Square, and then the right turn at the bottom of Leeson Street.

Lots of room on both Ely Place and Hume St to widen the footpaths and add a contra-flow lane.

Have your say at https://consultation.dublincity.ie/traffic-and-transport/merrion-row-consultation/

magicbastarder

https://twitter.com/Dublin_Suzy/status/1387335543625863168

daragh_

I hope Mannix runs because I always like his election posters. I disagree with him about nearly everything but he's got a good eye for design. (Graphic, not Road Design )

nomdeboardie

buffalo wrote: »

I only realised this morning that the Merrion Row plans make no provision for cyclists. As far as I can see, reversing Ely Place and Hume St adds about a kilometre onto the journey from Merrion Square to Stephen's Green. And that includes that lovely ambiguous merge from Baggot St onto Pembroke St, the unmarked drag strip along Fitzwilliam Square, and then the right turn at the bottom of Leeson Street.

Lots of room on both Ely Place and Hume St to widen the footpaths and add a contra-flow lane.

Have your say at https://consultation.dublincity.ie/traffic-and-transport/merrion-row-consultation/

Definitely let them know! (I'd do so myself, but it's been so long since I've cycled (or even walked) in the city centre it would take a long time for me to get my head around the existing and proposed flows and route permutations to make sure I know what I'm writing about (due dilligence & all) )

buffalo

nomdeboardie wrote: »

Definitely let them know! (I'd do so myself, but it's been so long since I've cycled (or even walked) in the city centre it would take a long time for me to get my head around the existing and proposed flows and route permutations to make sure I know what I'm writing about (due dilligence & all) )

I have, but I am only one voice so encouraging others to do the same.

I missed an opportunity to push for a contra-flow lane on Merrion Row itself!

NamelessPhil

Thanks for the link to the consultation. I've filled it in, other than the mention of cycle parking on Hume St. there is no mention of cycling at all. Not even a reference to the current cycle lane markings on Hume St. I did ask for a contraflow cycle lane.

Thelonious Monk

Hard to tell where this is on the south quays but it's much welcomed, I can't think of much worse places for cycling than going west on the quays from O'Connell bridge onwards

https://twitter.com/ciarancannon/status/1387419705456087042

CramCycle

NamelessPhil wrote: »

Thanks for the link to the consultation. I've filled it in, other than the mention of cycle parking on Hume St. there is no mention of cycling at all. Not even a reference to the current cycle lane markings on Hume St. I did ask for a contraflow cycle lane.

It's about the only thing missing from the plan, otherwise I am in full support of this as someone who worked on Merrion row for many years, it should have been single lane years ago, preferably bus only but that would require far more expansive changes, the footpaths were dangerously narrow pre covid. If they wanted to be truly daring, they might consider reducing Hume St. to one lane, and potentially making the road passed the DfT and the AG one way as well but one thing at a time.

Also either ANPR cameras or bollards for buses will be needed as well.

Stark

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Hard to tell where this is on the south quays but it's much welcomed, I can't think of much worse places for cycling than going west on the quays from O'Connell bridge onwards

https://twitter.com/ciarancannon/status/1387419705456087042

His camera angle is terrible but it looks to be Wood Quay based on my recent experiences cycling that way.

Protected cycle lane starts at Wood quay and finishes at Father Matthew bridge.

Overall still a long way to go to even match what they have on the North quays though. Loads of gaps in the cycle lane protection to allow for parking/pulling in out of garages etc. And the dodgiest parts are still totally unprotected.

loyatemu

good example here of what could be done on Merrion Row:
https://twitter.com/BrentToderian/status/1280721128831381504

I've filled in the survey and pointed out the lack of cycle route.

Thargor

Videos like this are very appropriate responses to a lot of the claims made about giving a bit of space to active travel causing congestion:

https://twitter.com/IrishCycle/status/1394572110278893569

Paddigol

Thargor wrote: »

Videos like this are very appropriate responses to a lot of the claims made about giving a bit of space to active travel causing congestion:

https://twitter.com/IrishCycle/status/1394572110278893569

I don't quite get the point - there's only one lane in each direction, no?? So to allocate one lane to two-way cycling would make it a one-way street for vehicles?

I'm not sure how the video helps the point - if someone is anti-cycling they'll simply say "exactly, now imagine how worse it would be with one less lane - we need MORE car lanes". The subtleties of a well-designed, integrated road structure where one way streets with two-way cycle lanes improves the overall flow and accessibility is lost on them.

Paddigol

On a related point - I recoil every time I hear 'protected cycle lane' mentioned, as though it's panacea to all of cycling's problems. It strikes me that it neglects the elephant in the room and the No. 1 problem faced with commuting and shared road use - the idea that cars are primary and more entitled to enjoyment of the roads. I'd say most anti-cycling folks (latent and blatant) would happily agree to big investment in cycling infrastructure if they thought it would rid the roads of cyclists and entitle them to sit on the horn whenever they come up behind a cyclist on the road. They'd probably even give up their demands that cyclists pay for this through 'bike tax'.

CramCycle

Paddigol wrote: »

I don't quite get the point - there's only one lane in each direction, no?? So to allocate one lane to two-way cycling would make it a one-way street for vehicles?

I think the point is it is effectively a one way street anyway, based on this video but I don't know where it is so can't say is it always like this or does it switch in the evening. Either way, as a selfish git, I would be fine with this, the cyclist basically has one lane to himself anyway.

tomasrojo

Paddigol wrote: »

On a related point - I recoil every time I hear 'protected cycle lane' mentioned, as though it's panacea to all of cycling's problems. It strikes me that it neglects the elephant in the room and the No. 1 problem faced with commuting and shared road use - the idea that cars are primary and more entitled to enjoyment of the roads. I'd say most anti-cycling folks (latent and blatant) would happily agree to big investment in cycling infrastructure if they thought it would rid the roads of cyclists and entitle them to sit on the horn whenever they come up behind a cyclist on the road. They'd probably even give up their demands that cyclists pay for this through 'bike tax'.

Something like this would have been my position, but based on the sharp rise of cycling numbers when a dedicated *network* of cycling infrastructure was installed rapidly in Seville, and seeing the change in the make-up of the population of people getting about by bike in areas where they've added even a limited network here, I think dedicated *networks* make a big difference.

Personally, my commute to work was perfectly tolerable before it was changed, but quieter routes with slowed or minimised motor traffic are actually pleasant.

Paddigol

tomasrojo wrote: »

Something like this would have been my position, but based on the sharp rise of cycling numbers when a dedicated *network* of cycling infrastructure was installed rapidly in Seville, and seeing the change in the make-up of the population of people getting about by bike in areas where they've added even a limited network here, I think dedicated *networks* make a big difference.

Personally, my commute to work was perfectly tolerable before it was changed, but quieter routes with slowed or minimised motor traffic are actually pleasant.

Yeah, I do accept that for sure. It's already great to see so many more people getting around by bike. And I'm probably in the minority of MAMILs who actually like to push the speed on the bike - I'm sure we're outnumbered by pure leisure/ easy commute cyclists.

I just think the whole mindset around road usage needs to be tackled, the same way any bad old 'norms' can't just be accepted on the basis that "that's how we've always done things" (think the shocking attitude to women in sport as a primary example).

buffalo

Paddigol wrote: »

Yeah, I do accept that for sure. It's already great to see so many more people getting around by bike. And I'm probably in the minority of MAMILs who actually like to push the speed on the bike - I'm sure we're outnumbered by pure leisure/ easy commute cyclists.

I just think the whole mindset around road usage needs to be tackled, the same way any bad old 'norms' can't just be accepted on the basis that "that's how we've always done things" (think the shocking attitude to women in sport as a primary example).

Encouraging active travel through the provision of decent infrastructure will change those norms gradually as more and more people - who previously wouldn't have considered cycling - start doing it daily because it feels safe and easy.

tomasrojo

buffalo wrote: »

Encouraging active travel through the provision of decent infrastructure will change those norms gradually as more and more people - who previously wouldn't have considered cycling - start doing it daily because it feels safe and easy.

Yeah, my earlier attitude was very much coloured by being shunted off the road onto a cycle track on the footpath and then left there with no way of getting back to the road, or directed down the inside of left-turning traffic to go straight on, but actual networks of joined up routes do seem to be transformative, and, as things stand, I hope to see more of them. Mistakes are still being repeated, and compromises that break the usefulness of the intrastructure are still being made, but I'm pretty happy with the changes I've seen on my usual routes. My daughters are happy to cycle with me around the neighbourhood now, and I don't get disapproval from third parties, so I'm very happy on that count.

tomasrojo

Paddigol wrote: »

Yeah, I do accept that for sure

Oh yeah, I do see your point, as (apart from the pushing-myself bit) I would have shared it in many ways.

buffalo

https://twitter.com/DublinCommuters/status/1395012239141359618

I take full credit.

buffalo wrote: »

I only realised this morning that the Merrion Row plans make no provision for cyclists. As far as I can see, reversing Ely Place and Hume St adds about a kilometre onto the journey from Merrion Square to Stephen's Green. And that includes that lovely ambiguous merge from Baggot St onto Pembroke St, the unmarked drag strip along Fitzwilliam Square, and then the right turn at the bottom of Leeson Street.

Lots of room on both Ely Place and Hume St to widen the footpaths and add a contra-flow lane.

Have your say at https://consultation.dublincity.ie/traffic-and-transport/merrion-row-consultation/