Transport Ideology (Moved from Transport Infrastructure Service thread)

monument · 31-01-2014 2:48pm #1

Middle Man wrote: »

..., the anti-car brigade reigns (they have being telling us that cars suck for over 20 years now)

Where do you see any "anti-car brigade" reigning?

The country is just finished a major motorway investment with little in the way of comparable spend on sustainable transport in the same time.

Most of the major capital spend is still going towards large road upgrades focused on motoring (Newlands Cross, motorway planned in west etc).

When exactly do you think the "anti-car brigade" reigned?

Telchak · 31-01-2014 3:03pm

monument wrote: »

When exactly do you think the "anti-car brigade" reigned?

I think people like this are just sore about limited access to tiny, congested city streets that can't cope with more cars getting in the way of buses, trams and bicycles.

Copyerselveson · 31-01-2014 3:12pm

There's definitely an anti-rail brigade out there.

monument · 31-01-2014 5:31pm

Copyerselveson wrote: »

There's definitely an anti-rail brigade out there.

Indeed there is, but there's also people calling for rail along routes which cannot support rail in a sustainable way.

Middle Man · 31-01-2014 7:11pm

Telchak wrote: »

I think people like this are just sore about limited access to tiny, congested city streets that can't cope with more cars getting in the way of buses, trams and bicycles.

I would be sore about limited rail investment amid the authorities having the cheek to turn around and say that we use our cars too much. I'm also sore about planning and economic policies that create unnecessary travel patterns after which ordinary people are blamed for using their cars. Not that many people will take up cycling IMO - what we need is a bold rail plan - particularly Dublin.

cgcsb · 31-01-2014 8:13pm

100% agree, €8bn for motorways in Ireland that continue to receive public subsidy at toll locations, and rail is told to go sod it's self. for €8bn, Dublin could be linked to every other city at high speed, and the regional cities connected by conventional rail for €8bn, halving journey time between the cities and slashing carbon emissions. But no, we wanted 1960's style motorway investment.

monument · 31-01-2014 10:06pm

Middle Man wrote: »

I would be sore about limited rail investment amid the authorities having the cheek to turn around and say that we use our cars too much. I'm also sore about planning and economic policies that create unnecessary travel patterns after which ordinary people are blamed for using their cars. Not that many people will take up cycling IMO - what we need is a bold rail plan - particularly Dublin.

70k people use trains or Luas to get to work or study
60k people use bicycles get to work or study

The latter is rising at a steady rate. In the next few years more people are likely to be cycling than taking trains or trams combined. More commuter in Dublin City already cycle than take the Luas.

In that context it's hard to understand comments like "Not that many people will take up cycling."

Cycling and rail work well together -- and cycling is very good at supporting rail use; for example 40-50% of Dutch rail users cycle to stations.

Middle Man · 01-02-2014 1:53am

monument wrote: »

70k people use trains or Luas to get to work or study
60k people use bicycles get to work or study

The latter is rising at a steady rate. In the next few years more people are likely to be cycling than taking trains or trams combined. More commuter in Dublin City already cycle than take the Luas.

In that context it's hard to understand comments like "Not that many people will take up cycling."

Cycling and rail work well together -- and cycling is very good at supporting rail use; for example 40-50% of Dutch rail users cycle to stations.

That's only because we have very few railways - I bet the situation in London is very different given all the rail systems there - London Underground, London Overground, Docklands Light Railway, Thameslink etc - and Crossrail is coming - 2018. Do you seriously see the number of cyclists within London outstripping rail users within London. Even in Dublin - give me two major cycle routes combined (should serve about the same catchment) that would outstrip a single Luas Line in terms of usage - I wish you luck there! Luas and walking would beat cycling anytime for me - so much less stressful.

In my mind, cycling in its current form is incompatible with pedestrians, motor transport, buses and trams in busy built up areas. Cycling is great for leisure and recreation, but not commuting - I did it for years and it was stressful - wind, aggressive dogs etc (and I was one of the fittest cyclists in the area). I now drive a few kilometers to my nearest train station and find it much better and sustainable - I would hate to make do without either the car or train - or walking for that matter.

monument · 01-02-2014 2:50am

Middle Man wrote: »

That's only because we have very few railways - I bet the situation in London is very different given all the rail systems there - London Underground, London Overground, Docklands Light Railway, Thameslink etc - and Crossrail is coming - 2018. Do you seriously see the number of cyclists within London outstripping rail users within London.

Greater London has a population nealy twice the size if Ireland, and a massive amount of commuters in the south east of England and beyond travel into London daily.

If you want to compare Dublin at least use comparable examples -- like Amsterdam and Copenhagen which have massive cycling levels.

Middle Man wrote: »

Even in Dublin - give me two major cycle routes combined (should serve about the same catchment) that would outstrip a single Luas Line in terms of usage - I wish you luck there!

Over €1.5 billion in capital costs has went into Luas (not saying if it was worth it or not) -- spend that on cycling and you'd get a lot more bang for your buck.

Middle Man wrote: »

In my mind, cycling in its current form is incompatible with pedestrians, motor transport, buses and trams in busy built up areas. Cycling is great for leisure and recreation, but not commuting - I did it for years and it was stressful - wind, aggressive dogs etc (and I was one of the fittest cyclists in the area).

I'm not sure what you mean by "its current form" -- but cycling 'form' is changing and has changed in the last few years which has led to more and more people cycling.

murphaph · 01-02-2014 11:11am

I wonder what you'd get for €1.5bn if spent on quality cycle infrastructure. Crayons to the ready...

lucernarian · 01-02-2014 11:11pm

monument wrote: »

70k people use trains or Luas to get to work or study
60k people use bicycles get to work or study

The latter is rising at a steady rate. In the next few years more people are likely to be cycling than taking trains or trams combined. More commuter in Dublin City already cycle than take the Luas.

In that context it's hard to understand comments like "Not that many people will take up cycling."

Cycling and rail work well together -- and cycling is very good at supporting rail use; for example 40-50% of Dutch rail users cycle to stations.

IMO you rightly claim that cycling and rail work well together - yet you don't clarify the speculation that is the idea of more people cycling than taking trains or trams combined. Is this a "more people will cycle ONLY than will use ONLY trains OR trams combined" kind of statement or a "there will be a greater number of people who will cycle at some point over a given period of time than those will use a train or tram over the same period" or what exactly?

Middle Man · 02-02-2014 12:32am

murphaph wrote: »

I wonder what you'd get for €1.5bn if spent on quality cycle infrastructure. Crayons to the ready...

If people want quality cycle (and let's not forget pedestrians) infrastructure, then that means proper grade separated green-ways where possible - or at least the proper cycle tracks like those present in Holland.

Calming main roads is no solution and often results in mediocre cycling infrastructure amid road dis-improvements anyway (which don't just affect motorists). In the general scheme of things, many of our urban areas (mainly 20th century) are totally outmoded (just look at many of the spacious urban roads flanked by cycle tracks in Holland for comparison) and should be gradually rebuilt for the 21st century - this is not little old Ireland anymore - we need to think big and let go of our obsession with property (that's the real problem) - it is seriously holding this country back as well as creating travel patterns (through ridiculous property prices) that are surplus to requirements - do we really need to travel up to 80km to work???

All modes of transportation need proper consideration and all people, including those with mobility issues, must be properly served - let's not accept the right wing 'on your bike' mentality - remember not all people can cycle. Large urban areas should have rail, decent main roads (no, I don't mean racetracks - rather a reasonable 50/60kmph design speed), proper green-ways, proper footpaths (without pesky dishes) and grade separated cycleways where there's a large demand for cycling. Minor roads could be adapted for lesser cycling requirements. Also, land use and economic policy should focus on bringing people (yes, it's people that matter) and their places of work closer (this should be a major focus for transport experts) - another reason why we need to see more flexibility in the property system - technology and lifestyles have changed and the antiquated property system must adapt to the more fluid demographic trends of today - migration of people is ever increasing.

Regarding urban roads, decent main roads are not just for ordinary motorists, but also serve buses, people with mobility issues needing transport, service and utility vehicles and very importantly, emergency vehicles. Ignoring the needy and prioritizing the fittest = right wing. I'm left wing myself and as most people have cars nowadays, punitive measure against cars in urban areas (nothing to do with motorways) are most likely to hit the working classes the hardest - those people have the same right to drive as we do.

Just to clear things up - I constantly hear 'what about all the motorways that were built?'. Well I have this to say: The motorways are long overdue as the motorist have for decades paid through the nose for their vehicles while railway after railway was shut and roads turned into a network of potholes which caused misery for many. I mean it when I say that the authorities deserve no clap on the back for building the motorways - what about the DART inter-connector??? Also, many car journeys are not made on the motorways and the urban roads that many people depend on are now being downgraded - this is anti-car, especially in the absence of proper public transport - we need more Luas lines across Dublin so that people have quality reliable links that they can depend on. Cycling in my mind will always be a minority mode of travel - the recent increases in cycling is probably more to do with economic normalization as the so called Celtic Tiger economy saw a major decrease in cycling.

lucernarian · 02-02-2014 12:47am

Middle Man wrote: »

I'm left wing myself and as most people have cars nowadays, punitive measure against cars in urban areas (nothing to do with motorways) are most likely to hit the working classes the hardest - those people have the same right to drive as we do.

As someone who is reliant on public transport and cannot legally drive mainly for financial reasons, I find that very very hard to believe to the point that I'm even offended by the suggestion! While I know that things like the cycle to work scheme ostensibly benefit those wealthy enough to pay taxes in the first place and are already employed, there is no way in my mind that giving me and my <€100 bike some priority in capital investment over those wealthy enough to drive cars is somehow "right-wing" or in any way inequitable! Not to mention the problems in society caused by unnecessary car travel in the first place and the almost complete absence of economic or societal pitfalls posed by cycling.

Middle Man · 02-02-2014 2:14am

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

As someone who is reliant on public transport and cannot legally drive mainly for financial reasons, I find that very very hard to believe to the point that I'm even offended by the suggestion! While I know that things like the cycle to work scheme ostensibly benefit those wealthy enough to pay taxes in the first place and are already employed, there is no way in my mind that giving me and my <€100 bike some priority in capital investment over those wealthy enough to drive cars is somehow "right-wing" or in any way inequitable! Not to mention the problems in society caused by unnecessary car travel in the first place and the almost complete absence of economic or societal pitfalls posed by cycling.

I've read before that anyone who is anti-car is of the left wing ideology and I just don't think that's true. What I'm really saying is that cars are to be found in all walks of life these days and have no relevance to the political spectrum. When I had much less money, I cycled. However, I know people in disadvantaged areas that drive and that any punitive measure against motoring will hit them hardest IMO. Cars should not be the reserve of the well off - if I had my way, everyone who is fit to drive would have a car and speeders would be off the road.

Of course people have the right to cycle and on narrow country roads or urban areas, I drive slower than others (even my family says I drive too slow), because I'm of the firm belief that pedestrians and cyclists have the same right to be on the roads as I do and that sudden revving and braking shows aggression towards vulnerable road users. I don't think cycling is of the right wing classes. However, promoting cycling to the exclusion of people who need transport is right wing - all social needs must be met whether they're physical or economic...

I hope this clears things up a bit...

monument · 03-02-2014 2:06am

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

IMO you rightly claim that cycling and rail work well together - yet you don't clarify the speculation that is the idea of more people cycling than taking trains or trams combined. Is this a "more people will cycle ONLY than will use ONLY trains OR trams combined" kind of statement or a "there will be a greater number of people who will cycle at some point over a given period of time than those will use a train or tram over the same period" or what exactly?

Sorry, I think it might have been an unfinished thought after getting distracted.

The last bit of that post (ie "Cycling and rail work well together -- and cycling is very good at supporting rail use; for example 40-50% of Dutch rail users cycle to stations") is septate from the rest and should have been posted with a line about how cycling and rail can work together but I still think the future for Dublin is all cycling trips to outnumber all rail trips.

Middle Man wrote: »

Cycling in my mind will always be a minority mode of travel

Care to explain why?

Middle Man wrote: »

- the recent increases in cycling is probably more to do with economic normalization as the so called Celtic Tiger economy saw a major decrease in cycling.

Cycling has been rising in Dublin for every year since 2004 -- at the hight of the boom cycling was increasing not declining.

Middle Man wrote: »

All modes of transportation need proper consideration and all people, including those with mobility issues, must be properly served -

High quality cycling infrastructure is perfect for serving people with mobility issues and, more than that, infrastructure everybody from the young to the old...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSGx3HSjKDo

Middle Man wrote: »

Also, many car journeys are not made on the motorways and the urban roads that many people depend on are now being downgraded - this is anti-car

Can you please give one example of this?

Middle Man wrote: »

promoting cycling to the exclusion of people who need transport

Again, can you please give one practical example of this?

Middle Man · 03-02-2014 1:18pm

monument wrote: »

Sorry, I think it might have been an unfinished thought after getting distracted.

The last bit of that post (ie "Cycling and rail work well together -- and cycling is very good at supporting rail use; for example 40-50% of Dutch rail users cycle to stations") is septate from the rest and should have been posted with a line about how cycling and rail can work together but I still think the future for Dublin is all cycling trips to outnumber all rail trips.

Care to explain why?

Cycling has been rising in Dublin for every year since 2004 -- at the hight of the boom cycling was increasing not declining.

High quality cycling infrastructure is perfect for serving people with mobility issues and, more than that, infrastructure everybody from the young to the old...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSGx3HSjKDo

Can you please give one example of this?

Again, can you please give one practical example of this?

Very good video and totally different approach to what's being done here - maybe you should post that to the NTA. It's clear in that video that all modes are properly catered for and that the infrastructure practically works like shared space with both cyclists and motorists making good progress. NTA designs attempt to spoon feed everybody - Dutch designs don't!

monument · 03-02-2014 2:45pm

Middle Man wrote: »

Very good video and totally different approach to what's being done here - maybe you should post that to the NTA. It's clear in that video that all modes are properly catered for and that the infrastructure practically works like shared space with both cyclists and motorists making good progress. NTA designs attempt to spoon feed everybody - Dutch designs don't!

Can you answer a single one of the questions I posted?

Would explaining your self be so hard? Or are you that afraid that your bold pronouncements lack substance?

Middle Man · 04-02-2014 1:46am

monument wrote: »

Care to explain why?

Well this just in today for a start - the car will always be a very popular mode with Irish people. Also, the practicalities of cycling to work here - I seriously don't feel like having to shower twice a day and launderette requirements are bad enough as it stands - there's probably a number of people that would be OK with this, but I can't see most people wanting the extra hassle - what people also want IMO is public transport - get used to it mate! More Railways!!! More Buses!!! More Footpaths!!! A few more Roads!!! That's what most people in Ireland want! Then there's the problem of bike crime - mind you, compounds should be provided for those who want to cycle (at stations etc) and locked during the day while people are at work.

monument wrote: »

Cycling has been rising in Dublin for every year since 2004 -- at the height of the boom cycling was increasing not declining.

OK, fair enough - but cycling was very small until recently. However, many roads that I travel in urban areas, a lot more people walk than cycle. In fact, walking has seen a massive increase in recent years. Indeed, in my area, buses and trains are extremely popular as is walking - a few do cycle, but it's very much in the minority. I walk quite a bit myself and prefer that mode to cycling - mind you, I do walk fast.

monument wrote: »

High quality cycling infrastructure is perfect for serving people with mobility issues and, more than that, infrastructure everybody from the young to the old...

Again, great video and it's great to see that the Dutch do cater for those with mobility issues as well as the young - and still, they have decent roads along with the excellent cycle/pedestrian infrastructure. Just as well as very elderly people as well as those with severe disabilities may require road transport and then there's the emergency services too.

However, the Dutch seem to know how to plan unlike Mr. Gombeen's (politicians, developments, speculators and bad planners etc) vision for Ireland - so much of our 20th century urban development would have to be pulled in order to redesign our infrastructure to Dutch standards - one thing we could do is plan a new city (maybe about 100k to 200k) with Rail at the center and a motorway system completely outside the city. The rest would be built to Dutch standards, with extensive light rail provision (including proper interchange with the mainline railway). We can then see how the city functions overtime and if successful (and people really take to cycling), get the bulldozers moving...

monument wrote: »

Can you please give one example of this?

So every time someone drives, they have to get in a stretch of motorway??? What about people doing the weekly shopping at the local supermarket (this can by quite heavy)? What about people regularly bringing their kids to sport clubs etc at night - like swimming (as my nephew does at night involving no use of the motorway)??? What about carers who have to transport people with severe disability over relatively short distances - these are just three examples of people who have legitimate reason to drive on urban roads. Even for regular motorway journeys, people still have to get to them via urban roads, so they do have to be of a reasonable standard (as the ones shown in the video you posted). The roads there seem to have good lane widths unlike the NTA's recommendation of 3.0m - this certainly is not good enough for buses etc.

monument wrote: »

Again, can you please give one practical example of this?

I would be delighted to!

The cycle plan for the Blackrock bypass will reduce traffic lane widths to 3.0m as well as reducing pedestrian space along the Bypass. Now, for a start, Blackrock is a shopping area which is very much an area of high motor and pedestrian activity connected with it's function. The DART intensifies the pedestrian flow through Blackrock. To me, it is quite obvious that the two most pressing needs are 1. Pedestrians and 2. Cars. The Sutton to Sandycove Greenway should be built to proper standards and the cyclists diverted to the proposed 8m wide pavement - during the morning rush, this could give cyclists a provision of 4x2m lanes before reverting to cycle/pedestrian mode.

The changes to the Blackrock Bypass prioritizes cycling over everything else - this is wrong IMO. The Blackrock Bypass is precisely that - a bypass to take most of the cars out of Blackrock and divert them to a road of modern design standards. Now, there are problems regarding community severance (this I would agree), but the current plan will IMO exacerbate this making crossing the bypass more complicated for pedestrians who will now have to deal with two different velocities of traffic (as a pedestrian, I totally object to this). Please don't tell me about waiting at lights - they take far too long and would put people off walking. As pedestrians are the most important mode (followed by the car), the pedestrian should be the one seeing the lion's share of improvements. As for the road itself - it is a modern efficient piece of infrastructure and should be kept that way as much as is possible - in fact, some turning bans into side streets might improve pedestrian connectivity as well as increasing traffic efficiency. Ok, the proposed speed table (between the Shopping Centres) is fair enough pending a proper solution involving a straight path open underpass for pedestrians, and I would have as little interruption to the flow of pedestrians (between the shopping centres) as is possible.

As for the proposed traffic calming measures involving cutting down left turns for motorists (along with reduced lane widths), this will only cause more problems such as stop start traffic which will not only cause more pollution, but will also increase severance by delaying traffic into an solid and unpredictable stream - as a pedestrian, this type of traffic is a major headache to cross. It will also make bus travel very uncomfortable as well as increasing the likelihood of accidents as left turning movements will be far too complicated (cyclists coming up on blindside - this is why the Dutch uses a verge - so that motorists are partially turned by the time they meet cyclists thereby increasing legibility for both types of road users - this you should know IMO!).

There are other examples such as Killiney Towers Roundabout (has undergone a 2nd revision since), as well as the specifications in the National Cycle Manual - and no, this is not Dutch design - there is plenty of material on how the Dutch go about designing junctions - unlike the Gombeen solutions that are generated by a few high handed individuals across Ireland letting off a bit of steam.

Carawaystick · 08-02-2014 1:32am

Regarding Ideology, The NTA don't have a public transport centric view of public transport in Ireland. The recent plan by them to hive off the 33a route without integrating fares means passengers who have an existing db prepaid ticket could end up having to let a bus go by without boarding to get a dublin bus fare structured bus to Dublin or Swords-and-a-connection-to-Dublin

The head of public transport regulation division of the nta ( and that is an important position, because he gets lackeys to email his (and it is a he)already written letters to me) stated that the nta will be considering the fragmentation of fares and the non-integration of fares, some time in the future.

Godge · 10-02-2014 1:46pm

monument wrote: »

Where do you see any "anti-car brigade" reigning?

The country is just finished a major motorway investment with little in the way of comparable spend on sustainable transport in the same time.

Most of the major capital spend is still going towards large road upgrades focused on motoring (Newlands Cross, motorway planned in west etc).

When exactly do you think the "anti-car brigade" reigned?

You are right about the motorway build. Too much money was spent on inter-urban motorways that either were not needed or could have been done cheaper or were in the wrong place.

One case in particular.

The Dublin/Cork motorway could have been built further east on its southward trajectory and therefore allowing for a spur to Kilkenny and a spur to Waterford getting rid of the need for the N9 and N10 to be brought up to motorway standard.

It could also have been built as six-lane to allow for any capacity issues.

monument · 11-02-2014 11:02am

There's loads of your points I'd like to reply to because I think you're wrong but I'll try to keep to the main points rathb than micro point replying...

Middle Man wrote: »

Well this just in today for a start - the car will always be a very popular mode with Irish people. Also, the practicalities of cycling to work here - I seriously don't feel like having to shower twice a day and launderette requirements are bad enough as it stands - there's probably a number of people that would be OK with this, but I can't see most people wanting the extra hassle - what people also want IMO is public transport - get used to it mate! More Railways!!! More Buses!!! More Footpaths!!! A few more Roads!!! That's what most people in Ireland want! Then there's the problem of bike crime - mind you, compounds should be provided for those who want to cycle (at stations etc) and locked during the day while people are at work.

Reads like a bunch of excuses.

None of these things a insurmountable to cycling. For example, Dutch have a higher level of car ownership than us; they have more railways along with trams and buses than us; the Dutch have high bike crime levels; and they have some of the longest adverage commutes in Europe, yet these things do not stop them from having the highest level of cycling in Europe.

So, that's a bunch of excuses you've listed. Nothing more.

Middle Man wrote: »

However, many roads that I travel in urban areas, a lot more people walk than cycle.

What's your point that more people cycle?

Middle Man wrote: »

Indeed, in my area, buses and trains are extremely popular as is walking - a few do cycle, but it's very much in the minority.

What area do you live in?

Middle Man wrote: »

I walk quite a bit myself and prefer that mode to cycling - mind you, I do walk fast.

I'm not sure what your point is about how you don't want to cycle; there's the odd person in the Netherlands that never cycles. Your preference is a poor reasoning to set transport policy.

Middle Man wrote: »

Again, great video and it's great to see that the Dutch do cater for those with mobility issues as well as the young - and still, they have decent roads along with the excellent cycle/pedestrian infrastructure. Just as well as very elderly people as well as those with severe disabilities may require road transport and then there's the emergency services too.

You failed on your point that providing for cycling is bad for disabled people so you move onto the emergency services?! Wow!

Excuses and fast moving goal posts...

Middle Man wrote: »

So every time someone drives, they have to get in a stretch of motorway??? What about people doing the weekly shopping at the local supermarket (this can by quite heavy)? What about people regularly bringing their kids to sport clubs etc at night - like swimming (as my nephew does at night involving no use of the motorway)??? What about carers who have to transport people with severe disability over relatively short distances - these are just three examples of people who have legitimate reason to drive on urban roads.

The outrage!?! You really think I'm saying these people only use motorways?

Middle Man wrote: »

Even for regular motorway journeys, people still have to get to them via urban roads, so they do have to be of a reasonable standard (as the ones shown in the video you posted). The roads there seem to have good lane widths unlike the NTA's recommendation of 3.0m - this certainly is not good enough for buses etc.

The Dutch have some of the most narrow lane widths in the world -- so you'll have to try harder with your excuses.

Three meters is in most cases in urban settings fine for buses and trucks.

Middle Man wrote: »

I would be delighted to!

The cycle plan for the Blackrock bypass will reduce traffic lane widths to 3.0m as well as reducing pedestrian space along the Bypass. Now, for a start, Blackrock is a shopping area which is very much an area of high motor and pedestrian activity connected with it's function. The DART intensifies the pedestrian flow through Blackrock. To me, it is quite obvious that the two most pressing needs are 1. Pedestrians and 2. Cars. The Sutton to Sandycove Greenway should be built to proper standards and the cyclists diverted to the proposed 8m wide pavement - during the morning rush, this could give cyclists a provision of 4x2m lanes before reverting to cycle/pedestrian mode.

The changes to the Blackrock Bypass prioritizes cycling over everything else - this is wrong IMO. The Blackrock Bypass is precisely that - a bypass to take most of the cars out of Blackrock and divert them to a road of modern design standards. Now, there are problems regarding community severance (this I would agree), but the current plan will IMO exacerbate this making crossing the bypass more complicated for pedestrians who will now have to deal with two different velocities of traffic (as a pedestrian, I totally object to this). Please don't tell me about waiting at lights - they take far too long and would put people off walking. As pedestrians are the most important mode (followed by the car), the pedestrian should be the one seeing the lion's share of improvements. As for the road itself - it is a modern efficient piece of infrastructure and should be kept that way as much as is possible - in fact, some turning bans into side streets might improve pedestrian connectivity as well as increasing traffic efficiency. Ok, the proposed speed table (between the Shopping Centres) is fair enough pending a proper solution involving a straight path open underpass for pedestrians, and I would have as little interruption to the flow of pedestrians (between the shopping centres) as is possible.

As for the proposed traffic calming measures involving cutting down left turns for motorists (along with reduced lane widths), this will only cause more problems such as stop start traffic which will not only cause more pollution, but will also increase severance by delaying traffic into an solid and unpredictable stream - as a pedestrian, this type of traffic is a major headache to cross. It will also make bus travel very uncomfortable as well as increasing the likelihood of accidents as left turning movements will be far too complicated (cyclists coming up on blindside - this is why the Dutch uses a verge - so that motorists are partially turned by the time they meet cyclists thereby increasing legibility for both types of road users - this you should know IMO!).

There are other examples such as Killiney Towers Roundabout (has undergone a 2nd revision since), as well as the specifications in the National Cycle Manual - and no, this is not Dutch design - there is plenty of material on how the Dutch go about designing junctions - unlike the Gombeen solutions that are generated by a few high handed individuals across Ireland letting off a bit of steam.

And are you going to explain how any of that amounts to excluding other road users?

That was your claim I replied to, but you're not replying to that -- you're going off in all sorts of tangents.

Middle Man · 11-02-2014 11:50pm

monument wrote: »

There's loads of your points I'd like to reply to because I think you're wrong but I'll try to keep to the main points rathb than micro point replying...

Reads like a bunch of excuses.

None of these things a insurmountable to cycling. For example, Dutch have a higher level of car ownership than us; they have more railways along with trams and buses than us; the Dutch have high bike crime levels; and they have some of the longest adverage commutes in Europe, yet these things do not stop them from having the highest level of cycling in Europe.

So, that's a bunch of excuses you've listed. Nothing more.

What's your point that more people cycle?

What area do you live in?

I'm not sure what your point is about how you don't want to cycle; there's the odd person in the Netherlands that never cycles. Your preference is a poor reasoning to set transport policy.

You failed on your point that providing for cycling is bad for disabled people so you move onto the emergency services?! Wow!

Excuses and fast moving goal posts...

The outrage!?! You really think I'm saying these people only use motorways?

The Dutch have some of the most narrow lane widths in the world -- so you'll have to try harder with your excuses.

Three meters is in most cases in urban settings fine for buses and trucks.

And are you going to explain how any of that amounts to excluding other road users?

That was your claim I replied to, but you're not replying to that -- you're going off in all sorts of tangents.

Well look, we can argue this out for months. However, I certainly don't think cycling will be king in this country - cars and pedestrians will always overwhelm the number cyclists - get used to it!!!

Also, with these local elections coming up, you may well be in for a shock - how money is being spent in local areas is sure to come under intense scrutiny in light of economic austerity etc.

Also, the extensive repairs needed for roads, walls, paths and piers (due to adverse weather patterns) will not go unnoticed either. Regarding infrastructural spending, we have to get our priorities right and get back to basics!

BTW, I live in East Meath near the M1.

monument · 12-02-2014 9:13am

Middle Man wrote: »

Well look, we can argue this out for months. .

The bluster in your last post was proven wrong; shown up to be a reply to questions that were never asked; and your excuses were debunked as non-issues.

So, not you're saying that you have a month's worth of excuses and even more bluster?

Middle Man wrote: »

However, I certainly don't think cycling will be king in this country...

This is clearly an example of you arguing against your self: nobody has said "cycling will be king in this country".

Middle Man wrote: »

...get used to it!!!.

Going by current trends, you're going to have to get use to more funding for cycling, more people becoming cycling more often and more 3 meter traffic lanes.... In your own words: get used to it!

Middle Man wrote: »

Also, with these local elections coming up, you may well be in for a shock - how money is being spent in local areas is sure to come under intense scrutiny in light of economic austerity etc.

Why would I be in for a shock? You sound like the odd anti-cycling councilor who has no clue where cycling funding comes from -- I'll give you a clue: if one local council does not want the money, at least ten more of them will take it.

I'm seeing around about more of the same from election candidates around the country. Three meter lane widths are not on the agenda so-far, but I have seen more than a few rural and urban councilors look for cycling projects to be advanced.

Middle Man wrote:

Also, the extensive repairs needed for roads, walls, paths and piers (due to adverse weather patterns) will not go unnoticed either.

Than we better cut down on major road building and public transport project... Cycling is still small fry compared to other spending...

Middle Man wrote: »

Regarding infrastructural spending, we have to get our priorities right and get back to basics!

Sounds like cycling is a perfect fit!

Cycling is back to basics for short to medium distance trips and the cost/benefit makes well placed quality cycling projects a top priority.

Middle Man wrote: »

BTW, I live in East Meath near the M1.

Commuter land where average commuting distances are above the norm? That would be fairly key context to your eairly comments.

serfboard · 20-02-2014 2:03pm

Godge wrote: »

You are right about the motorway build. Too much money was spent on inter-urban motorways that either were not needed or could have been done cheaper or were in the wrong place.

This didn't just apply to motorway builds. Take the Galway-Limerick rail line - in that case too much money was spent on an inter-urban railway line that was definitely in the wrong place, and now is not needed, wanted or used.

Copyerselveson · 20-02-2014 2:32pm

serfboard wrote: »

This didn't just apply to motorway builds. Take the Galway-Limerick rail line - in that case too much money was spent on an inter-urban railway line that was definitely in the wrong place, and now is not needed, wanted or used.

Not needed wanted or used by those who want to rip up the railway and replace it with a cycle path.

serfboard · 20-02-2014 2:47pm

Copyerselveson wrote: »

Not needed wanted or used by those who want to rip up the railway and replace it with a cycle path.

No - not needed, wanted or used by passengers.

Banjoxed · 20-02-2014 6:46pm

serfboard wrote: »

No - not needed, wanted or used by passengers.

Sounds like DeValeran social engineering/wishful thinking to me. Deny something exists to deny its validity.

monument · 20-02-2014 7:17pm

Banjoxed wrote: »

Sounds like DeValeran social engineering/wishful thinking to me. Deny something exists to deny its validity.

Deny what exists?

Banjoxed · 20-02-2014 8:03pm

monument wrote: »

Deny what exists?

My point made for me. You're welcome

patrickbrophy18 · 23-02-2014 8:36pm

monument wrote: »

And are you going to explain how any of that amounts to excluding other road users?

In defense of Middle Man, the examples given are essentially downgrades. The proposed alterations to Blackrock Bypass as well as the alterations made to Killiney Towers Roundabout are exactly that. Moreover, a lot of Dutch roads provide proper grade separation which gives each type of road user their own space and more importantly, remain friendly to buses and trucks. Conversely, the NTA approach seems to want pedestrians, cyclists, cars, buses and trucks crammed into tighter roads. This will only lead to longer journeys for those who use the bus and will also become more hazardous to trucks delivering stock to various shops. Effectively, inconveniencing the car will likely have a knock on affect for bus and truck journeys where time is money. Have said that, bus routes such as the 7 and 8 shouldn't be operating via Blackrock village in the first place and should operate along the bypass like the 4.

Let's not forget that the more time a car or other motorised vehicle remains stationary, the more pollution will be emitted. Traffic calming measures will exacerbate this. It's like the NTA are trying to bring out the worst in motorised traffic. In time, when cars, buses and trucks become more electrified, this argument about being pollutants will become less valid. Nevertheless, I still agree that cycling is a large part of the solution to climate change especially, for journeys that are less than 5 miles in length.

In another thread, I pointed out that the depletion of a very extensive rail and tram network (in Dublin and nationwide) came at a time when the popularity of car usage began to soar. This was mainly due to the nationalization of the infrastructure. As a result, many towns across Dublin and Ireland became disconnected and culminated in the current Ireland where incentives for public transportation usage is scarce. In recent years, private companies such as Aircoach and Dublin Coach are picking up the huge slack leftover from cutbacks to national public transport services which I completely applaud. Furthermore, they are being run far more professionally and with customer expectations in mind.

monument · 24-02-2014 2:30am

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

In defense of Middle Man, the examples given are essentially downgrades.

That's not what he said, he said the redesigns were excluding road users.

I disagree with you that they are downgrades, but that's not the issue and not as strong as the point he tried to make -- he went a lot further trying to claim road users were being excluded. Which is baseless.

Transport Ideology (Moved from Transport Infrastructure Service thread)

Comments