Are Cycleways/Paths a Massive Snowjob to Avoid Spending on Actual Public Transport?

MyLove4Satan

I used to think Greenways were a good idea. Now I just see them as sophisticated means to destroy rail transport. I also think the Greens are putting in cycle paths everywhere to create a superficial gesture towards 'public transport' infrastructure.

You have 2 points, so I'll treat each as separate

I used to think Greenways were a good idea. Now I just see them as sophisticated means to destroy rail transport.

Greenways destroying rail transport.......umm, how???? Please expand on how you even came to that conclusion

Greenways make use of closed rail lines, sure, but only where a service is not viable in the short to medium terms. In addition, any lease signed for a rail line clearly states that it can be returned to a rail line as and when IR choose. This is legally binding.

I also think the Greens are putting in cycle paths everywhere to create a superficial gesture towards 'public transport' infrastructure.

The simple truth is, over the lifetime of this govt there is to be 1.5 bil spent on cycling related infrastructure. There is more to be spent during this term on cycling infrastructure than in the previous 5 or 6 terms combined. However, this is LONG overdue. Considering cycling hasn't managed more than 1% (open to correction on that #) of funding for the last 50 years, its fair to say it needs funding

As for spending in bus/rail, well there is several billion being pumped into those too through the bus connects programs in Dublin, Cork, Limerick & Galway and through continued investment by IR into new and existing rail infrastructure

The billions spent on roads is coming to an end. About the only major projects left to do are the M20 and the Galway Ring Road. After that there will be no big ticket items (500 mil +) for roads so funding is naturally going to go to the likes of the Dart, Metro, Luas, BE, DB, IR, & bike infrastructure.

cgcsb

Don't see that tbh. The rural greenways are a bit of a cop out in a way they are bits of active travel infrastructure built without taking any roadspace and mostly not built for commuter use but rather for leisure and tourism.

Even still the greed and selfishness of the average person comes out and causes blockage of progress as we've seen in the case of the kerry greenway where farmers weren't happy with the amount of compensation given for land that they stole from CIE in the first place.

It's simply too difficult for official Ireland to effectively tackle the nimby to date.

We're in an era where that could all change though, Dublin may get a late 20th century transport system by the end of this decade although parts of it are already heavily delayed or scrapped completely ( metrolink south). We're also seeing the nimby establishment get really challenged on the building front so maybe we could see great change. Greenways are an easy win. We should still have them but they can't continue to form the bulk of our sustainability in transport funding.

magicbastarder

it's not an either/or situation. cycle infrastructure is far easier to provision, that's why there was such a ramping up of it during lockdown - especially at a time where PT was seeing a massive falloff.

Thelonious Monk

If I'm not mistaken, the Minister for Transport who is a Green, made this money available - but isn't it up to the local councils to actually build the cycling infrastructure, and up to them whether to put the money into greenways or cycle lanes?
You'll probably see more of it spent on greenways, especially in rural Ireland, because most councils wouldn't dare upset motorists and put in bike lanes that might inconvenience them in any way. Greenways are a bit of red herring that don't change the status quo.

Kewreeuss

Most councils maybe, but not Dublin City Council.

Thelonious Monk

Kewreeuss wrote: »

Most councils maybe, but not Dublin City Council.

the city centre is still very hostile towards cycling and walking, they've done almost nothing

cgcsb

Kewreeuss wrote: »

Most councils maybe, but not Dublin City Council.

The only good quality cycling lanes built by DCC to date are the short sections by both canals and the coastal route between Sutton and Clontarf, effectively mini greenways. At least Cork City have put in a few decent attempts in the city centre. There's nothing in Dublin at all that's not built along side a body of water on space that was otherwise waste ground. They certainly haven't entertained taking road space for such schemes, that would be sacrilege.

Even the long trumpeted liffey, clontarf and clonskeagh cycle routes have been abandoned.

specialbyte

cgcsb wrote: »

Even the long trumpeted liffey, clontarf and clonskeagh cycle routes have been abandoned.

Not entirely true. All of those projects are progressing, just way too slowly.

The Interim Liffey Cycle Route is making progress in reallocating road space on both quays. It's not as ambitious as it should be but it's a good start at reducing the quays down to a single general traffic lane on each quay.

Clontarf to City Centre, which will be the first major on-road cycle route project in Dublin, is at tender phase right now. https://trello.com/c/sljdIlQI/3-clontarf-to-city-centre-cycle-route

Clonskeagh is totally up the air as far as I can tell. It's years in the pre-planning phase.

You can see the progress on all cycling infrastructure projects on Dublin Cycling Campaign's Infrastructure Tracker board: https://trello.com/b/dps7lepq/infrastructure-projects and tracker map: http://bitly.com/dublin-cycle-map

The progress has been far too slow, but DCC are picking up speed. They have delivered more cycling infrastructure in 2020 than they did in the previous 6 years. So hopefully that continues to ramp up as they avoid complex engineering solutions and just reallocate existing road space with quick solutions.

Thelonious Monk

I thought Clontarf to city centre was about to start i.e. shovels in the ground. It's still out to tender?

cgcsb

specialbyte wrote: »

Not entirely true. All of those projects are progressing, just way too slowly.

The Interim Liffey Cycle Route is making progress in reallocating road space on both quays. It's not as ambitious as it should be but it's a good start at reducing the quays down to a single general traffic lane on each quay.

Clontarf to City Centre, which will be the first major on-road cycle route project in Dublin, is at tender phase right now. https://trello.com/c/sljdIlQI/3-clontarf-to-city-centre-cycle-route

Clonskeagh is totally up the air as far as I can tell. It's years in the pre-planning phase.

You can see the progress on all cycling infrastructure projects on Dublin Cycling Campaign's Infrastructure Tracker board: https://trello.com/b/dps7lepq/infrastructure-projects and tracker map: http://bitly.com/dublin-cycle-map

The progress has been far too slow, but DCC are picking up speed. They have delivered more cycling infrastructure in 2020 than they did in the previous 6 years. So hopefully that continues to ramp up as they avoid complex engineering solutions and just reallocate existing road space with quick solutions.

Public consultation on liffey cycle route concluded 2 years ago and no work has been done since. The current temporary arrangements are poor quality and are unlikely to be compatible with final design.

Clontarf was supposed to start in August but still not so much as a contractor appointed in late May so if it happens it'll be starting later in the year but doubt it.

Clonskeagh is pie in the sky stuff.

What DCC has delivered in 2020 is bargain basement versions of projects that were overdue 10 years ago or more.

tDw6u1bj

MyLove4Satan wrote: »

I just see them as sophisticated means to destroy rail transport.

I disagree.

I'm a big proponent of rail transport and think it should be built to encourage more sensible development rather than waiting for us to miraculously discover sensible planning, but..

The alignments we're talking about are terrible. They were suitable for walking-pace rail in the 1850's but not for a modern system.

The development of rail should happen along new alignments (we have no hesitation about making this investment for motorways).
The sections that are being turned into greenways are unredeemable* for rail and greenways are a great use for them.


*with the possible exception of the mullingar<->Athlone line which is a pretty good alignment in a spot that could become very useful in the future, especially with plans to develop another station north of the liffey.

Effects

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

the city centre is still very hostile towards cycling and walking, they've done almost nothing

They have done quite a bit to be fair.
Better routes on the north and south quays.
More contra flow cycle lanes.
Better protected cycle lanes.

Thelonious Monk

Coming from the northside via Fairview they've done nothing at all on my route to College Green, zilch.

Murph85

Totally agree with the op. I am a massive cycling advocate. All of this spend and disruption and lessening of road space. Firstly we have as good as free motor tax , built nearly an entirely car dependent city. All of these extra bike lanes are deserted, around dundrum where I am, they made the village one way , the cycling infrastructure is still deserted. We need a proper public transport system for Dublin I know we all agree on that... that is du and dm, these cycle lanes are pi$"ing in the wind, excuse the expression...

It's one thing converting road space for bus lanes, but the bang for buck for cycling, seems pretty appalling and it is increasing congestion and pollution...

With electric cars now, there is virtually no maintenance , no fuel cost, no motor tax ...

riddlinrussell

Murph85 wrote: »

Totally agree with the op. I am a massive cycling advocate. All of this spend and disruption and lessening of road space. Firstly we have as good as free motor tax , built nearly an entirely car dependent city. All of these extra bike lanes are deserted, around dundrum where I am, they made the village one way , the cycling infrastructure is still deserted. We need a proper public transport system for Dublin I know we all agree on that... that is du and dm, these cycle lanes are pi$"ing in the wind, excuse the expression...

It's one thing converting road space for bus lanes, but the bang for buck for cycling, seems pretty appalling and it is increasing congestion and pollution...

With electric cars now, there is virtually no maintenance , no fuel cost, no motor tax ...

"I'm a massive cycling advocate", followed by exclusively anti-cycling infrastructure rhetoric? Has Mannix found the infrastructure boards?

Wanderer78

Well they ain't exactly green for starters lots of concrete and tarmac, there's no need for most of that. I was on the currently being built new Ross greenaway last week, IMHO, not much else needs to be done to sections of it, some top soil, roll it, grass seed, job done, no need for the rest, cheaper, more natural and pleasing to the eye

Effects

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Coming from the northside via Fairview they've done nothing at all on my route to College Green, zilch.

Take a left at Newcomen Bridge and have a more enjoyable, but longer, spin.

I almost got squeezed out of the cycle lane on the Howth Road this morning, so I do know what you mean about lack of infrastructure around there.

riddlinrussell

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Well they ain't exactly green for starters lots of concrete and tarmac, there's no need for most of that. I was on the currently being built new Ross greenaway last week, IMHO, not much else needs to be done to sections of it, some top soil, roll it, grass seed, job done, no need for the rest, cheaper, more natural and pleasing to the eye

Potentially a misnomer sure, non-tarmaced trails definitely exist, the idea is to provide something that anyone could use, not just an able walker or someone on a mountain bike. A hard surface allows access by wheelchairs, prams, touring cyclists with trailers, cargo bikes etc. These routes aren't suppose to be pure 'nature trails' (Although good wildlife recovery plans along the route needs to be built into the plans for them), the government sees them as tourist draws, but the real benefit is seen in re-connecting local communities without need for the car, going forward there needs to be a clear plan for link routes to local towns and villages, benefits the locals and might entice tourism to towns which would otherwise miss out.

Wanderer78

riddlinrussell wrote: »

Potentially a misnomer sure, non-tarmaced trails definitely exist, the idea is to provide something that anyone could use, not just an able walker or someone on a mountain bike. A hard surface allows access by wheelchairs, prams, touring cyclists with trailers, cargo bikes etc. These routes aren't suppose to be pure 'nature trails' (Although good wildlife recovery plans along the route needs to be built into the plans for them), the government sees them as tourist draws, but the real benefit is seen in re-connecting local communities without need for the car, going forward there needs to be a clear plan for link routes to local towns and villages, benefits the locals and might entice tourism to towns which would otherwise miss out.

the borrow towpath, note the cyclists on the 'greenway', i understand all of the above, but lumping tons of concrete and tarmac actually isnt necessary at times, yes in place its required, but nowhere near as much that is used. and it really really isnt good for biodiversity, and people really do need to actually get away from all the concrete and tarmac for their well being, we re not building greenways, we re building mini roadways through the countryside

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Well they ain't exactly green for starters lots of concrete and tarmac, there's no need for most of that. I was on the currently being built new Ross greenaway last week, IMHO, not much else needs to be done to sections of it, some top soil, roll it, grass seed, job done, no need for the rest, cheaper, more natural and pleasing to the eye

Sit in a wheelchair and see how you get on with a grass surface, then see if its acceptable

Or push a buggy

Or use any kind of mobility aid

The bare minimum should be a surface that is suitable for all users.

Seth Brundle

Wanderer78 wrote: »

the borrow towpath, note the cyclists on the 'greenway', i understand all of the above, but lumping tons of concrete and tarmac actually isnt necessary at times, yes in place its required, but nowhere near as much that is used. and it really really isnt good for biodiversity, and people really do need to actually get away from all the concrete and tarmac for their well being, we re not building greenways, we re building mini roadways through the countryside

What about people in a wheelchair or with buggys or is it just a case of feck them all?

And the river is the Barrow, not Borrow!

Wanderer78

Deleted User wrote: »

Sit in a wheelchair and see how you get on with a grass surface, then see if its acceptable

Or push a buggy

Or use any kind of mobility aid

The bare minimum should be a surface that is suitable for all users.

Seth Brundle wrote: »

What about people in a wheelchair or with buggys or is it just a case of feck them all?

And the river is the Barrow, not Borrow!

i understand folks need to be facilitated, but surely we can come up with better materials than concrete and tarmac, oh actually we can!

oh and in the world of dyslexia, its 'borrow'!

ARX

Effects wrote: »

They have done quite a bit to be fair.
Better routes on the north and south quays.
More contra flow cycle lanes.
Better protected cycle lanes.

And still the worst - by a big margin - road surfaces I've seen in any European city, east or west. Dublin is a city that looks like it's been picked up and dropped.

Thelonious Monk

ARX wrote: »

And still the worst - by a big margin - road surfaces I've seen in any European city, east or west. Dublin is a city that looks like it's been picked up and dropped.

I cycled on Merrion whatever its called outside the Dept of Taoiseach and Nat Hist museum today and the road is a complete mess, uneven surfaces and pot holes everywhere. It's really horrible for one of our most important streets with lovely buildings.

cgcsb

Murph85 wrote: »

Totally agree with the op. I am a massive cycling advocate. All of this spend and disruption and lessening of road space. Firstly we have as good as free motor tax , built nearly an entirely car dependent city. All of these extra bike lanes are deserted, around dundrum where I am, they made the village one way , the cycling infrastructure is still deserted. We need a proper public transport system for Dublin I know we all agree on that... that is du and dm, these cycle lanes are pi$"ing in the wind, excuse the expression...

It's one thing converting road space for bus lanes, but the bang for buck for cycling, seems pretty appalling and it is increasing congestion and pollution...

With electric cars now, there is virtually no maintenance , no fuel cost, no motor tax ...

Your comment is demonstrably false. The canal cordon count of 2019 showed about 50% public transport use and only 6% bicycle use. The former would be higher than average in Europe and the later waaaay lower. Clearly there is a requirement for better cycling infrastructure to improve that 6%.

Per € investment internationally walking facilities produce the most benefits, followed by cycling with public transport third.

Clearly you are not a cycling advocate.

cgcsb

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I cycled on Merrion whatever its called outside the Dept of Taoiseach and Nat Hist museum today and the road is a complete mess, uneven surfaces and pot holes everywhere. It's really horrible for one of our most important streets with lovely buildings.

All of our public realm needs a complete overhaul.

cgcsb

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Well they ain't exactly green for starters lots of concrete and tarmac, there's no need for most of that. I was on the currently being built new Ross greenaway last week, IMHO, not much else needs to be done to sections of it, some top soil, roll it, grass seed, job done, no need for the rest, cheaper, more natural and pleasing to the eye

What on earth is this comment about?

Wanderer78

we re not building greenways, we re building mini roadways through the countryside, theres too much concrete and tarmac going into these things, its not good for the environment or our well being, the picture provided is a 'green'way

ARX

cgcsb wrote: »

All of our public realm needs a complete overhaul.

True - and putting a stop to the practice of allowing any clown with a consaw to wreck public property would be a start.

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

i understand folks need to be facilitated, but surely we can come up with better materials than concrete and tarmac, oh actually we can!

Thankfully the minimum requirements set out in the specs disagree

tDw6u1bj

Wanderer78 wrote: »

the borrow towpath, note the cyclists on the 'greenway', i understand all of the above, but lumping tons of concrete and tarmac actually isnt necessary at times, yes in place its required, but nowhere near as much that is used. and it really really isnt good for biodiversity, and people really do need to actually get away from all the concrete and tarmac for their well being, we re not building greenways, we re building mini roadways through the countryside

Keep in mind:

*You're looking at people on mountain bikes

*A tow path is going to be exceptionally well drained. Attempting what you're suggesting on greenways will result in a lot of boggy/swampy sections which will be impassible without losing a welly for most of the year.

Amirani

Wanderer78 wrote: »

we re not building greenways, we re building mini roadways through the countryside, theres too much concrete and tarmac going into these things, its not good for the environment or our well being, the picture provided is a 'green'way

Green doesn't have to refer to the colour of the surface, but the nature of the usage - i.e. walkers, cyclists.

Do you have issues with people referring to wind as "green energy" despite the fact the wind isn't normally green?

whisky_galore

cgcsb wrote: »

Don't see that tbh. The rural greenways are a bit of a cop out in a way they are bits of active travel infrastructure built without taking any roadspace and mostly not built for commuter use but rather for leisure and tourism.

Even still the greed and selfishness of the average person comes out and causes blockage of progress as we've seen in the case of the kerry greenway where farmers weren't happy with the amount of compensation given for land that they stole from CIE in the first place.

They hardly 'stole' it, CIE offered surrounding landowners state lands at knock down prices. CIE were divesting any costs and liabilities, pulling the plug and not coming back.

Larbre34

Greenways are a leisure facility, nothing more.

They cannot obfuscate public transport investment because they aren't related or connected. Neither, frankly, are urban cycle routes.

whisky_galore

Amirani wrote: »

Green doesn't have to refer to the colour of the surface, but the nature of the usage - i.e. walkers, cyclists.

Do you have issues with people referring to wind as "green energy" despite the fact the wind isn't normally green?

The poster is referring to the non "green" origin of the construction materials, not the colour obvs

Larbre34

Larbre34 wrote: »

Greenways are a leisure facility, nothing more.

They can be both for leisure & commuting.

Personally I'm looking forward to the Galway-Dublin greenway being finished on the Galway side as it will allow me to travel in and out of the city on the bike (if it ends up going through my area). I know of many others who are also looking at it as a safe commuting route for the bike

magicbastarder

the royal canal greenway would be great for D15 commuters to cycle into the city centre. if it's built out that far.

veryangryman

Larbre34 wrote: »

Greenways are a leisure facility, nothing more.

Loads use the Greenway to walk or cycle to work as part of their journey. Athlone's section neatly links the town centre with the Blyry/Garycastle Industrial estate. More will too with the under construction extension to the river and more again when the Shannon bridge is complete

cgcsb

Wanderer78 wrote: »

we re not building greenways, we re building mini roadways through the countryside, theres too much concrete and tarmac going into these things, its not good for the environment or our well being, the picture provided is a 'green'way

So what do you think of the 1,000km of 30m+ wide motorways built in the past 20 years?

Also what about the plan to build an additional 500km or so as motorway/dc projects?

Current projects include:

A motorway between Cork and Limerick, a dual carriageway between Limerick and Waterford, a motorway between Cork and Ringaskiddy, a motorway bypass of north Cork, a dual carriageway bypass of Galway, a dual carriageway from Mullingar to Sligo, a Motorway from Enniscorthy to Rosslare.

All with associated bridges tunnels and side roads consuming millions of tonnes of concrete and increasing car usage. But you've probably little to say about that I guess?

riddlinrussell

Larbre34 wrote: »

Greenways are a leisure facility, nothing more.

They cannot obfuscate public transport investment because they aren't related or connected. Neither, frankly, are urban cycle routes.

Simply untrue, I was using one of the canal greenways for my daily commute before the pandemic and it wasn't even surfaced yet! I'll be using it every day when it is made a greenway as it wont end up as a mud pit in rain. My situation is not unique for greenways, to claim that actual urban cycle routes aren't an investment related to public transport is bonkers. If you got 50% of current drivers out of their cars and on a bike, do you not think buses would travel more easily due to reduced congestion? All you need to do is look at the per hour capacity of a lane to see that bike lanes are a much better use of a lane than a car lane.

Anyway the whole premise of the OPs argument is flawed in the context of the current government, by the nature of the negotiated transport budget priorities Cycling and Walking get 10% of the whole budget, then PT gets 2/3rds of the rest and roads get 1/3. So all of them are separate and the walking and cycling aren't going to 'eat into' the (considerably increased btw) Public Transit budget.

Paddigol

Larbre34 wrote: »

They cannot obfuscate public transport investment because they aren't related or connected. Neither, frankly, are urban cycle routes.

Can you clarify? Because surely you can't be suggesting that 'urban cycle routes' (which I can only take to mean either i) cycle lanes in urban areas and/ or b) routes on and off road in urban areas used by cyclists) are not 'related or connected' to public transport investment?

As in, if I commute 5km/ 10km/ 20km from office to home on a bicycle in an urban area, that any infrastructure I use on my journey isn't 'related or connected' to public transport investment.

As a member of the public being transported from door to door without use of a motorised vehicle, I'd have to disagree with that conclusion.

yascaoimhin

They're spending nearly €10 billion on public transport projects.

bk

yascaoimhin wrote: »

They're spending nearly €10 billion on public transport projects.

Plus, Amsterdam and Copenhagen have fantastic public transport systems and a big reason for that is the excellent walking and cycling infrastructure they have.

Quality public transport and cycling/walking infrastructure are all part of the same story.

Phil.x

magicbastarder wrote: »

the royal canal greenway would be great for D15 commuters to cycle into the city centre. if it's built out that far.

https://consult.fingal.ie/en/consultation/royal-canal-urban-greenway

magicbastarder

that shows it taking the northside of the canal, which is where the fight is between castleknock and coolmine railway stations.

hans aus dtschl

Larbre34 wrote: »

Greenways are a leisure facility, nothing more.

They cannot obfuscate public transport investment because they aren't related or connected. Neither, frankly, are urban cycle routes.

Well I don't agree with you. The LA's nearest to me all consider Greenways to be transport infrastructure and list it accordingly in their development plans.

I'd be all ears if you can show me any documentation that says the opposite, because I find the designation of "greenway" as a piece of transport infrastructure pretty annoying, when cycling... I don't particularly enjoy slaloming people/buggies/dogs and stopping for every side-road.

yascaoimhin

Larbre34 wrote: »

Greenways are a leisure facility, nothing more.

They cannot obfuscate public transport investment because they aren't related or connected. Neither, frankly, are urban cycle routes.

Who put 50p in Labre?
Are you getting thrown a few bob every time you post an objectively incorrect reply?

Cycling infrastructure is as much transport infrastructure as the roads the buses run on or the rails the trains do. It is infrastructure that facilitates movement. Simple as that babes.

It's inherently naive to act like fewer people cycling wouldn't have an effect on congestion and the public transport network.

If all the people who cycled into Dublin city pre-pandemic switched to driving or public transport there would be a marked impact on the ability of the transport system to carry them or the roads to facilitate them

Cycle lanes including Greenways are part of the country's transport infrastructure whether you like it or not.

Posting on here won't change that

brocbrocach

I would think that the point being made is obvious. Various LAs are building greenways focused on leisure/active life use and pointing to that saying 'look we spent 10 million for cyclists' when in actual fact the benefit to local cycle commuters is tangential and often small.

riddlinrussell

brocbrocach wrote: »

I would think that the point being made is obvious. Various LAs are building greenways focused on leisure/active life use and pointing to that saying 'look we spent 10 million for cyclists' when in actual fact the benefit to local cycle commuters is tangential and often small.

That is already reflected in the fact that the funding so far for walking/cycling has been split between 'greenway' scheme funding and 'active transport' scheme funding.

I think there are some obvious 'tourist' greenways, and other places would clearly benefit much more from it being a commuter route, or simply a local community link, the amount of small villages that could be revitalised if there was a way for people to safely walk home from the pub locked is huge, so I kind of dislike that 'greenway' is being viewed as a separate thing in this regard.

That said, given that there seem to be so few preconditions attached to the 'active travel' that places like limerick are using it for road resurfacing its a bit of a con really, Eamon needs to massively overhaul the design guide, make it stricter/more enforceable and make adhering to it a precondition of any funding.