Cycle infrastructure planned for south Dublin

tomasrojo · 03-03-2021 01:00AM

Effects wrote: »

I'm kind of set on getting a Bullitt bike, as I don't really like the look/style/design of most others!

That's a nice-looking bike. Stronger brakes as well.

Effects · 03-03-2021 01:04AM

Yeah, I had a quick test on one early last year. But I'm going to have another spin I think.
I've a mate who used to be a courier, who knows the guys in the Bike Institute well, so hoping they might let me take one for a few days.

buffalo · 04-03-2021 02:11PM

buffalo wrote: »

Larbre34 wrote: »

They could and they should. And honestly its what the locals want.

...

The solution for Sandymount, is a single lane village with increased public realm work and a complementary cycle lane on the Promenade of Sandymount strand. What DCC have tried to railroad through satisfies neither of those desires and goes against common sense and an achieveable win-win.

I haven't seen anything showing that any of the local groups are campaigning for the above. All I've seen is a rejection of any changes. Could you show where the locals are asking for this?

I note no response to this.

Other locals I've spoken to were dismissive of LTNs, which would solve the biggest concern of rat-running traffic. All I've seen from opposition to the trial is a demand to keep Strand Road open by any means, nothing about improving the area with any other measures.

Duckjob · 04-03-2021 04:53PM

No matter what is being proposed, it will be opposed.

The eternal opposition is a mix of people who:

a) just want to maintain the same ****ty status quo,

and

b) who spend their lives triggering themselves about "cyclists" and have wired their brains to automatically reject any changes if there is the faintest sniff that it might benefit people getting around on bikes.

Pretty sad really.

First Up · 04-03-2021 07:07PM

Duckjob wrote:

No matter what is being proposed, it will be opposed.

The objection is to road closures, not cyclists. The best solution would accomodate both but it looks like DCC isn't looking for that.

Let me illustrate the problem;

Access to the East Link Bridge is via Sean Moore Rd. No other option.

Sean Moore Rd has a junction with Strand Rd. I don't have exact figures but with almost 20,000 bridge crossings each day a conservative estimate is that about 8,000 motor vehicles take that route northbound every weekday. DCC might know the precise number but no evidence they ever looked for it or want to share it.

Sean Moore Rd can otherwise only be accessed via Sandymount Green or Bath Avenue/Londonbridge Rd or through Ringsend. If Strand Rd is closed to them, anyone using the East Link will have to go one of those routes.

That's a lot of cars, lorries, vans and trucks and even casual observation shows those roads are ill-suited to either large volume or large vehicles.

The response to that in this forum so far is that everyone should be using bikes or else shouldn't use the East Link Bridge. I wouldn't expect any better around here but all I have seen so far from the CEO of DCC are flippant and dismissive comments. No analysis , no planning.

We are entitled to more responsible and thorough analysis from Keegan and DCC before they cause such disruption to road users. I hope that our elected officials see it is done.

AndrewJRenko · 04-03-2021 07:23PM

First Up wrote: »

The objection is to road closures, not cyclists. The best solution would accomodate both but it looks like DCC isn't looking for that.

Let me illustrate the problem;

Access to the East Link Bridge is via Sean Moore Rd. No other option.

Sean Moore Rd has a junction with Strand Rd. I don't have exact figures but with almost 20,000 bridge crossings each day a conservative estimate is that about 8,000 motor vehicles take that route northbound every weekday. DCC might know the precise number but no evidence they ever looked for it or want to share it.

Sean Moore Rd can otherwise only be accessed via Sandymount Green or Bath Avenue/Londonbridge Rd or through Ringsend. If Strand Rd is closed to them, anyone using the East Link will have to go one of those routes.

That's a lot of cars, lorries, vans and trucks and even casual observation shows those roads are ill-suited to either large volume or large vehicles.

The response to that in this forum so far is that everyone should be using bikes or else shouldn't use the East Link Bridge. I wouldn't expect any better around here but all I have seen so far from the CEO of DCC are flippant and dismissive comments. No analysis , no planning.

We are entitled to more responsible and thorough analysis from Keegan and DCC before they cause such disruption to road users. I hope that our elected officials see it is done.

A) the road isn't being closed. It will be open to one way vehicular traffic and two way cycling.

cyclists are road users too, and are disrupted every day by dangerous driving and illegal parking.

First Up · 04-03-2021 07:25PM

AndrewJRenko wrote:

A) the road isn't being closed. It will be open to one way vehicular traffic and two way cycling. cyclists are road users too, and are disrupted every day by dangerous driving and illegal parking.

Q.E.D.

Seth Brundle · 04-03-2021 07:32PM

First Up wrote: »

That's a lot of cars, lorries, vans and trucks and even casual observation shows those roads are ill-suited to either large volume or large vehicles.

What percentage (roughly) of those car journeys need to be made by car and could not be made using alternative means?

Fighting Tao · 04-03-2021 07:40PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

A) the road isn't being closed. It will be open to one way vehicular traffic and two way cycling.
cyclists are road users too, and are disrupted every day by dangerous driving and illegal parking.

He knows all that but sadly he chooses to pretend to be ignorant to the facts as they don’t suit his agenda.

First Up · 04-03-2021 08:39PM

Weepsie wrote:

How much traffic crosses the bridge for Poolbeg, and Irish town and is crossing back over it merely hours later too? How much of that 20,000 is in fact northbound? It's the only toll that there is not data for it seems now, and it's owned by DCC so maybe they'll produce it,

It would be helpful if they did. The last figures released are for 2016 and show 14,000 - 17,000 crossings per day. The economy has grown by about 15% since then so it should be somewhere in the 19/20 thousand region now. The breakdown in 2016 was higher for southbound usage, hence my estimate of 8,000 going north but DCC could tell us if they wanted to

First Up · 04-03-2021 08:51PM

Seth Brundle wrote:

What percentage (roughly) of those car journeys need to be made by car and could not be made using alternative means?

I suggest you ask DCC for their research into that. I mean surely they wouldn't do something as drastic without careful thought?

Mind you, somebody must have thought the East Link Bridge was needed once upon a time so maybe ask them too

First Up · 04-03-2021 09:03PM

Fighting Tao wrote:

He knows all that but sadly he chooses to pretend to be ignorant to the facts as they donâ€™t suit his agenda.

AndrewJ already proved my point but thanks for underlining it.

First Up · 04-03-2021 10:38PM

Weepsie wrote:

But they did produce the data for traffic on strand road which shows that you woefully overestimate how much commerical haulage and such is using it in the busiest hours.

Whatever their reasons and their composition, thousands of vehicles a day go northbound on the East Link Bridge. The easiest way to get there has long been Strand Rd and that route has the least impact on the surrounding area. Closing Strand Rd to northbound traffic won't make that traffic disappear. It will just force it to go somewhere else.

Some might want to still use the East Link and take their chances through Sandymount, Ballsbridge or Ringsend. Maybe some will try going through town; maybe some will take the long way round on the M50. Maybe some will cycle or take the bus or DART. But they will almost all want to go somewhere, somehow. and DCC has to anticipate and cater for the impact of their actions.

Hoping they just evaporate is as much as some posters here have managed. I know I shouldnt expect more from a Cyclists forum but we should all be demanding more from DCC. The plan for Strand Rd looks like they haven't thought it any further than looking trendy and giving the finger to motorists. They cannot be allowed abdicate their responsibilities like that.

04-03-2021 10:54PM

First Up wrote: »

Hoping they just evaporate is as much as some posters here have managed.

Its bizarre how you have managed to stay uneducated about this part of the topic the whole way through this thread. I mean, even accidentally, you should have learned something by now.

Lets say it would or wouldn't have evaporated. How would you have determined what the actual result would be? Seriously, I want to know.

A trial maybe?

I know I shouldnt expect more from a Cyclists forum but we should all be demanding more from DCC. The plan for Strand Rd looks like they haven't thought it any further than looking trendy and giving the finger to motorists. They cannot be allowed abdicate their responsibilities like that.

Their responsibilities are to everyone, regardless of their mode of transport.

Thankfully the pyramid of priority has been inverted with private motorists now at the bottom with pedestrians, cyclists and PT (in that order) on top.

First Up · 04-03-2021 11:10PM

Deleted User wrote:

Lets say it would or wouldn't have evaporated. How would you have determined what the actual result would be? Seriously, I want to know.

It's the people proposing the closure of Strand Rd to northbound traffic who should be doing that. Has DCC has made any reference to the anticipated impact? Keegan's comments suggest he doesn't care.

Deleted User wrote:

A trial maybe?

Yes, a trial that includes the overall plan. Just closing Strand Rd isn't a plan, nor is counting bicycles an evaluation.

First Up · 04-03-2021 11:20PM

Deleted User wrote:

Thankfully the pyramid of priority has been inverted with private motorists now at the bottom with pedestrians, cyclists and PT (in that order) on top.

Reflect on that gibberish when your supermarket has run out of stock, your plumber or electrician can't fix your emergency and your builder can't repair your leaking roof.

We live in an interconnected and interdependent world. Smart people are working to make it work better. There's an expression "The genius of AND instead of the tyranny of OR." We need smarter administrators, not tyrants.

Seth Brundle · 04-03-2021 11:36PM

First Up wrote: »

Reflect on that gibberish when your supermarket has run out of stock, your plumber or electrician can't fix your emergency and your builder can't repair your leaking roof.

Why would this happen?

First Up wrote: »

We live in an interconnected and interdependent world. Smart people are working to make it work better. There's an expression "The genius of AND instead of the tyranny of OR." We need smarter administrators, not tyrants.

Your point being?
Are you suggesting that smart people will choose to commute using alternative means because, as is being acknowledged across the world, the prioritization of the motor car in a city is unsustainable?

AndrewJRenko · 05-03-2021 12:27AM

First Up wrote: »

Reflect on that gibberish when your supermarket has run out of stock, your plumber or electrician can't fix your emergency and your builder can't repair your leaking roof.

We live in an interconnected and interdependent world. Smart people are working to make it work better. There's an expression "The genius of AND instead of the tyranny of OR." We need smarter administrators, not tyrants.

Are plumbers and electricians allergic to using one way streets?

AndrewJRenko · 05-03-2021 12:30AM

First Up wrote: »

Whatever their reasons and their composition, thousands of vehicles a day go northbound on the East Link Bridge. The easiest way to get there has long been Strand Rd and that route has the least impact on the surrounding area. Closing Strand Rd to northbound traffic won't make that traffic disappear. It will just force it to go somewhere else.

Some might want to still use the East Link and take their chances through Sandymount, Ballsbridge or Ringsend. Maybe some will try going through town; maybe some will take the long way round on the M50. Maybe some will cycle or take the bus or DART. But they will almost all want to go somewhere, somehow. and DCC has to anticipate and cater for the impact of their actions.

Hoping they just evaporate is as much as some posters here have managed. I know I shouldnt expect more from a Cyclists forum but we should all be demanding more from DCC. The plan for Strand Rd looks like they haven't thought it any further than looking trendy and giving the finger to motorists. They cannot be allowed abdicate their responsibilities like that.

Let's be honest - there is no proposal for Strand Road that you will agree with that involves any slight restriction on motor traffic, is there? Cycle lanes are only acceptable in your book where they don't impinge in any way on important motorists, right?

CramCycle · 05-03-2021 12:45AM

First Up wrote: »

Hoping they just evaporate is as much as some posters here have managed. I know I shouldnt expect more from a Cyclists forum but we should all be demanding more from DCC. The plan for Strand Rd looks like they haven't thought it any further than looking trendy and giving the finger to motorists. They cannot be allowed abdicate their responsibilities like that.

MOD VOICE: Only coming back as a mod as your posts are getting reported. Engage in discussion and use evidence going forward or find yourself excluded from the discussion. Traffic evaporation is a valid theory backed up by peer reviewed research. Do not dismiss it unless with evidence. It doesn't mean your views are invalid but you need to start countering opposing views with something other than snide comments that actually don't make sense. I'd start with the institution of civil engineers, IJST and there are some related environmental analysis papers that touch on it but they refer to it as spillover reduction rather than traffic evaporation.

magicbastarder · 05-03-2021 01:12AM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Are plumbers and electricians allergic to using one way streets?

you'd think it'd be second nature to electricians. and plumbers too, come to think of it.

First Up · 05-03-2021 08:35AM

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Let's be honest - there is no proposal for Strand Road that you will agree with that involves any slight restriction on motor traffic, is there? Cycle lanes are only acceptable in your book where they don't impinge in any way on important motorists, right?

Wrong. I made a suggestion last week about an alternate flows system at the pinch point between the promenade and Ringsend Park as well as supporting the idea of a causeway for bikers and walkers on the same stretch.

I am looking for a solution that accommodates bothb cyclists and motorists, not a victory for one over the other.

First Up · 05-03-2021 08:42AM

Seth Brundle wrote:

Your point being? Are you suggesting that smart people will choose to commute using alternative means because, as is being acknowledged across the world, the prioritization of the motor car in a city is unsustainable?

I'm saying that smart people look for solutions that allow for choice.

Fighting Tao · 05-03-2021 08:48AM

First Up wrote: »

I'm saying that smart people look for solutions that allow for choice.

The choice is to make the route safer for many people or not to. People who drive still have lots of choice. It appears that you are taking the trial as a personal slight as you feel inconvenienced and so you come up with a million different reasons that it won’t work. However you are against a trial that if you were true to what you say, would prove you right. However, you know that it will prove you wrong for the reasons repeatedly highlight to you in this thread. The fear is strong in you, and is understandable. Change can be hard at times even if it just adds 2 minutes to your preferred tourist hotspot of the East Link bridge. Try seeing it as an opportunity to tell everyone that you told them so.

buffalo · 05-03-2021 08:48AM

First Up wrote: »

Wrong. I made a suggestion last week about an alternate flows system at the pinch point between the promenade and Ringsend Park as well as supporting the idea of a causeway for bikers and walkers on the same stretch.

I am looking for a solution that accommodates bothb cyclists and motorists, not a victory for one over the other.

And I showed you where that suggestion was investigated by DCC for its impact, and dismissed as unworkable. Have you any realistic suggestions?

First Up · 05-03-2021 09:18AM

CramCycle wrote:

MOD VOICE: Only coming back as a mod as your posts are getting reported. Engage in discussion and use evidence going forward or find yourself excluded from the discussion. Traffic evaporation is a valid theory backed up by peer reviewed research. Do not dismiss it unless with evidence. It doesn't mean your views are invalid but you need to start countering opposing views with something other than snide comments that actually don't make sense. I'd start with the institution of civil engineers, IJST and there are some related environmental analysis papers that touch on it but they refer to it as spillover reduction rather than traffic evaporation.

I described the impact of preventing motor vehicles accessing Sean Moore Rd via Strand Rd in an earlier post. Have a look at it - and the replies.

The target of my criticism is DCC who have a wider responsibility than pleasing cyclists.

I wasn't expecting to be thanked for that here.

First Up · 05-03-2021 10:02AM

buffalo wrote:

And I showed you where that suggestion was investigated by DCC for its impact, and dismissed as unworkable. Have you any realistic suggestions?

DCC's "dismissal" is revealing. If the tailback from an alternate light sequence on Strand Rd would extend back to Merrion Rd, what does that say about the volume of traffic going to the Toll Bridge that has to find an alternate route? Has DCC DCC addressed that anywhere?

DCC has it's own preferred solution, more for ideological than operational reasons. Its investigation of alternatives can be viewed as such.

buffalo · 05-03-2021 10:04AM

First Up wrote: »

DCC's "dismissal" is revealing. If the tailback from an alternate light sequence on Strand Rd would extend back to Merrion Rd, what does that say about the volume of traffic going to the Toll Bridge that has to find an alternate route? Has DCC DCC addressed that anywhere?

DCC has it's own preferred solution, more for ideological than operational reasons. Its investigation of alternatives can be viewed as such.

I'll refer you back to my earlier posts on the matter.

AndrewJRenko · 05-03-2021 10:59AM

First Up wrote: »

Wrong. I made a suggestion last week about an alternate flows system at the pinch point between the promenade and Ringsend Park as well as supporting the idea of a causeway for bikers and walkers on the same stretch.

I am looking for a solution that accommodates bothb cyclists and motorists, not a victory for one over the other.

Q. E. D.

Seth Brundle · 05-03-2021 11:04AM

First Up wrote: »

I'm saying that smart people look for solutions that allow for choice.

...but you're not!
You are following the mantra that drivers should have priority. This has been recognised across the world as the wrong policy to have within a city.

True choice would be for people to have the option to drive, cycle, walk, bus, train, etc.
Currently drivers are objecting to having their commutes changed to allow the majority travel in their chosen manner. Look at BusConnects. Look at Sandymount!

Cycle infrastructure planned for south Dublin

Comments