We have updated our Privacy Notice, you can read the updated document here
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

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

2»

Comments

  • #2


    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.


  • #2


    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?


  • #2


    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.


  • #2


    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.


  • #2


    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


  • #2


    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


  • #2


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


  • #2


    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


  • #2


    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?


  • #2


    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.


  • #2


    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.


  • #2


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


  • #2


    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.


  • #2


    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


  • #2


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


  • #2


    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.


  • #2


    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


  • #2


    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.


  • #2


    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.


Society & Culture