# Proper two way cycle lane to be built on Dublin quays



## Brendan Burgess (17 Jun 2014)

*New Quays cycle lane to lead to restrictions for Dublin motorists*



> Plans are being drawn up for a major change in  traffic arrangements on Dublin’s north quays which would introduce a new  two-way cycle lane and restrict private motorists to one lane instead  of two.
> 
> 
> City council chief executive [broken link removed]  acknowledged the proposal would slow up traffic on the busy north  quays, but said restricting the road space available to cars was  essential as part of a sustainable transport system in the city.


----------



## Purple (17 Jun 2014)

I cycle more now than I have in 20 years but I think this is a stupid idea. Dublin isn't just for the people that live in it, it's the capital city and lots of people visit by car and train and this will make slow journeys even slower. Then there's the people who need to travel by car due to physical ability, dropping or collecting children before or after work or the people who have to commute long distances each day where public transport is not a viable option. The idea that these people could or would start cycling is silly.


----------



## Leo (17 Jun 2014)

Stated goal is to increase percentage of commuters who cycle from 4% to 10% by 2020, so I don't think they're suggesting everyone starts cycling. It's no secret the council want to eliminate as much private traffic from the city centre as possible to make public transport more efficient/attractive.

I've never cycled the quays myself, and from driving it, I wouldn't fancy it at all in its current configuration. I'd imagine this change will back up the entire city when there are big events in the point, Croker, etc.


----------



## Steven Barrett (17 Jun 2014)

It's a silly idea. 

Irish weather isn't conducive to cycling into work on a regular basis. And then there is that most work places don't have showering facilities for people to clean themselves once they arrive in work. 

If you want to reduce the number of private cars going into the city every day, give a real alternative i.e. public transport. Cycling in the rain/ wind/ cold is not an alternative. 

People will not give up their cars and buy a bike instead. They will sit in even worse traffic because they have no alternative. 

It's a silly idea that is more personal aspiration than logical. 

Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## Purple (17 Jun 2014)

Leo said:


> Stated goal is to increase percentage of commuters who cycle from 4% to 10% by 2020, so I don't think they're suggesting everyone starts cycling. It's no secret the council want to eliminate as much private traffic from the city centre as possible to make public transport more efficient/attractive.
> 
> I've never cycled the quays myself, and from driving it, I wouldn't fancy it at all in its current configuration. I'd imagine this change will back up the entire city when there are big events in the point, Croker, etc.



By how much will the proposed change reduce the car capacity along the quays? I'm sure it will be more than 6%.


----------



## RainyDay (17 Jun 2014)

SBarrett said:


> Irish weather isn't conducive to cycling into work on a regular basis. And then there is that most work places don't have showering facilities for people to clean themselves once they arrive in work.


Sorry, but this is nonsense. Irish weather is remarkably similar to Dutch weather and Danish weather, where large numbers of people cycle all the time, wearing ordinary clothes - no hi-vis and no helmets. If it rains, wear raingear, or get wet and change your clothes at your destination. 

And lots of larger buildings do have showering facilities. Smart councils like Fingal have insisted on this as a planning condition for all new developments for years now. 

What really needs to change is car-centric attitudes, like the attitude of the Irish Times sub-editor who wrote the headine.

On the overall idea, I'd reserve judgement until I see more details of the design and how it might work. Is it a segregated lane, like the one at the Grand Canal? How will the junctions be managed? How will they keep pedestrians off the lane?

It's worth remembering all the naysayers who told us that the Dublin Bikes scheme will never work and all the bikes will be at the bottom of the Liffey in a week. The Dublin Bikes scheme now has one of the highest usage rates of similar schemes worldwide.


----------



## vandriver (17 Jun 2014)

I don't work in the city centre but when this goes ahead I won't bother shopping there either.Is this what Owen Keegan (and more importantly the shopkeepers)want?


----------



## Orga (17 Jun 2014)

As it stands the quays are a disaster for vehicular traffic, except late at night. A balance needs to be struck and cyclists need to be both protected and encouraged. However, this is, as it stands, another example of poor policymaking: there is little data to support the achievement of the policy objectives and there is no discourse of either the risks inherent to the proposal nor of potential alternatives to achieve the objectives...typical of Irish policymaking.


----------



## Bronte (18 Jun 2014)

SBarrett said:


> Irish weather isn't conducive to cycling into work on a regular basis.


 
This I take issue with, compared to Sligo, Limerick, Galway, there is practically zero rain in Dublin, and as for wind, have you cycled in an Atlantic gale, I used to daily.  And Dublin is, flat, as compared to Cork.  

They even have a particularly kind of rain in the West, I call it horizontal, you won't see umbrellas in Galway on a wet and windy day, of which there are very many.


----------



## Purple (18 Jun 2014)

RainyDay said:


> Sorry, but this is nonsense. Irish weather is remarkably similar to Dutch weather and Danish weather, where large numbers of people cycle all the time, wearing ordinary clothes - no hi-vis and no helmets. If it rains, wear raingear, or get wet and change your clothes at your destination.


 I was going to disagree with you about the Dutch and Danish weather but I checked and Amsterdam gets more days of rain than Dublin, though Dublin gets more in the summer. I also agree about wearing the correct clothing.



RainyDay said:


> And lots of larger buildings do have showering facilities. Smart councils like Fingal have insisted on this as a planning condition for all new developments for years now.


 That’s ok for the upper middleclass employee in a service job in the city centre but many of us work in older buildings and factories and showering is not an option. I’ve very little hair and being a man I don’t wear makeup (in public anyway ) so I don’t have to spend much time “getting ready” in the morning but for many women looking professional after cycling to work would be a challenge.



RainyDay said:


> What really needs to change is car-centric attitudes, like the attitude of the Irish Times sub-editor who wrote the headine.


 I think people need to be less emotional about these issues. There are zealots on both sides and they don’t help. 



RainyDay said:


> On the overall idea, I'd reserve judgement until I see more details of the design and how it might work. Is it a segregated lane, like the one at the Grand Canal? How will the junctions be managed? How will they keep pedestrians off the lane?


 Good question re how to keep pedestrians off the cycle lanes. I won’t use cycle lanes that are just a white line on a footpath. I feel safer on the road. People let their children, their dogs and often themselves wonder across cycle paths. If I hit their child at 30Kmph I could be badly injured!



RainyDay said:


> It's worth remembering all the naysayers who told us that the Dublin Bikes scheme will never work and all the bikes will be at the bottom of the Liffey in a week. The Dublin Bikes scheme now has one of the highest usage rates of similar schemes worldwide.


 It is, but that was a good idea that was well implemented (kudos to the Greens and the civil servants involved). We usually take good ideas and implement them badly.


----------



## Purple (18 Jun 2014)

Bronte said:


> This I take issue with, compared to Sligo, Limerick, Galway, there is practically zero rain in Dublin, and as for wind, have you cycled in an Atlantic gale, I used to daily.  And Dublin is, flat, as compared to Cork.
> 
> They even have a particularly kind of rain in the West, I call it horizontal, you won't see umbrellas in Galway on a wet and windy day, of which there are very many.



Dublin gets 129 days a year of rain, Cork gets 146. Not a massive difference, though Cork gets 1205mm and Dublin only gets 729mm so when it rains in Cork it's heavier.


----------



## RainyDay (18 Jun 2014)

Orga said:


> However, this is, as it stands, another example of poor policymaking: there is little data to support the achievement of the policy objectives and there is no discourse of either the risks inherent to the proposal nor of potential alternatives to achieve the objectives...typical of Irish policymaking.



Can I ask for the basis of your conclusion that there is little data and no discourse? Have you engaged with the Council on this? Have you reviewed discussions at relevant Council committees? Have you participated in public consultations?


----------



## chrisboy (18 Jun 2014)

Owen keegan, did a great job with the traffic in Dun laoghaire, looks like he's going to do the same in Dublin City..


----------



## RainyDay (18 Jun 2014)

Here's the success story of the Dublin Bikes scheme, for anyone interested;

http://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-bikes-coke-zero-1523923-Jun2014/

I'm not sure that I like the idea of sponsorship by Coke, given the role of soda drinks in our obesity crisis, but beggers and choosers and all that.


----------



## Leo (18 Jun 2014)

Purple said:


> By how much will the proposed change reduce the car capacity along the quays? I'm sure it will be more than 6%.



Well, the article states reducing two lanes to one, so 50% reduction for private cars on the north quays, no change on the south. All feeds into the Council's aims to reduce private car usage.

An argument in their favour would be that currently, 39% of commuters into Dublin do so by car (down from ~50% in 2011), these 39% take up far more road space that would be commensurate with their numbers.


----------



## Purple (18 Jun 2014)

Leo said:


> An argument in their favour would be that currently, 39% of commuters into Dublin do so by car (down from ~50% in 2011), these 39% take up far more road space that would be commensurate with their numbers.



The question then is what proportion of that 39% could not use public transport or cycle no matter how good their respective infrastructures were.

There are people who have to drop children or family members off on their way to work. There are people who just live too far away. There are people who may need to use their car during the day for work. There are people with reduced mobility. 
In summary many people have no other choice than to drive into work. What proportion of that 39% do those people constitute.


----------



## AlbacoreA (18 Jun 2014)

People can still use their cars. 

It will just make the buses and taxi's and bicycles more attractive to use.


----------



## markpb (18 Jun 2014)

Purple said:


> It is, but that was a good idea that was well implemented (kudos to the Greens and the civil servants involved). We usually take good ideas and implement them badly.



Dublin Bikes was the brainchild of the then-Lord Mayor of Dublin, Andrew Montague. It was (initially) done entirely without funding from or involvement of the government, the civil service or the (central government) public service. The only people involved were DCC and JCD.

The second phase involved an investment by the Dept. Of Transport but the work was done by DCC.


----------



## Leo (19 Jun 2014)

Purple said:


> The question then is what proportion of that 39% could not use public transport or cycle no matter how good their respective infrastructures were.
> 
> There are people who have to drop children or family members off on their way to work. There are people who just live too far away. There are people who may need to use their car during the day for work. There are people with reduced mobility.
> In summary many people have no other choice than to drive into work. What proportion of that 39% do those people constitute.



Oh, I know, and I'm kinda just playing devil's advocate here. Our problem versus other European capitals is that we don't have the standard of public transport or planning that means you don't need a car on a day to day basis. The building boom that resulted in so many young families living in the outskirts/commuter belt with little or no public transport has played a significant role in that, but our inherent laziness and apparent need to get wherever we're going 5 minutes ago also plays its part. 

There are a lot of people with reduced mobility or who need to drop off kids who currently don't own cars, these people manage.


----------



## dereko1969 (19 Jun 2014)

Purple said:


> The question then is what proportion of that 39% could not use public transport or cycle no matter how good their respective infrastructures were.
> 
> There are people *who have to* drop children or family members off on their way to work. There are people who just live too far away. There are people who may need to use their car during the day for work. There are people with reduced mobility.
> In summary many people have no other choice than to drive into work. What proportion of that 39% do those people constitute.


 
I think in the majority of cases it's not a case of have to but chose to. See here from the CSO
​​​​
_The number of secondary school students travelling to school on a bicycle has decreased from a peak of 50,648 in 1986 to 6,592 in 2011, a *fall of 87 per cent*._
_The decline in the number of girls using a bicycle has been particularly stark, falling from over 19,000 in 1986 to only 529 in 2011._

When I were a lad there were very few kids dropped off by their parents to school, most walked or cycled. Now 6 out of 10 primary school kids are driven to school, why?

[broken link removed]​


----------



## dereko1969 (19 Jun 2014)

markpb said:


> Dublin Bikes was the brainchild of the then-Lord Mayor of Dublin, Andrew Montague. It was (initially) done entirely without funding from or involvement of the government, the civil service or the (central government) public service. The only people involved were DCC and JCD.
> 
> The second phase involved an investment by the Dept. Of Transport but the work was done by DCC.


 
Just to point out Andrew Montague is a Labour Party member, not a green.


----------



## PyritePete (19 Jun 2014)

what makes Dublin so special ? Other EU cities manage this and the recent article in the Irish Times pointed out the success stories of cities like Copenhagen where the bike is so popular that its a victim of its own success. And Copenhagen has a good public transport system also...

 Slightly off-topic, this is Bikeweek. An Bord Taisce in conjunction with schools are giving bike training to encourage cycling.

 I recently got my bike out of the shed and fixed it. Feel better for it !


----------



## MrEarl (19 Jun 2014)

This is a stupid idea.

Simply put, we have limited roads available to those who genuinely need them for private motor transport.  

The city is built in such a way that it cannot really accomodate more roads or wider roads and until such time as the Government successfully arranges good alternative public transport to remove the need for motor cars to be brought into the city at the current levels, we will only make matters worse.

Bring in decent public transportation, invest in infrastructure first (via PPP schemes if the Government doesn't have the money) .... then reduce the amount of road space available to motorists.

Road space is a comody and needs to be used to maximum advantage for the benifit of the population and our economy - not permitted to be toyed with by a dreamer ....


----------



## RainyDay (19 Jun 2014)

Leo said:


> Oh, I know, and I'm kinda just playing devil's advocate here. Our problem versus other European capitals is that we don't have the standard of public transport or planning that means you don't need a car on a day to day basis. The building boom that resulted in so many young families living in the outskirts/commuter belt with little or no public transport has played a significant role in that, but our inherent laziness and apparent need to get wherever we're going 5 minutes ago also plays its part.


I'm not so sure about the 'little or no public transport' thing. Are there many people in the commuter belt who aren't within striking distance of a Bus Eireann stop or a train station?



dereko1969 said:


> I think in the majority of cases it's not a case of have to but chose to. See here from the CSO
> ​​​​
> _The number of secondary school students travelling to school on a bicycle has decreased from a peak of 50,648 in 1986 to 6,592 in 2011, a *fall of 87 per cent*._
> _The decline in the number of girls using a bicycle has been particularly stark, falling from over 19,000 in 1986 to only 529 in 2011._
> ...


Yes, that's a huge issue. I read that there are more secondary school girls driving themselves to school than cycling to school. Is it any wonder we're heading for an obesity epidemic?



PyritePete said:


> what makes Dublin so special ? Other EU cities manage this and the recent article in the Irish Times pointed out the success stories of cities like Copenhagen where the bike is so popular that its a victim of its own success. And Copenhagen has a good public transport system also...


Part of what makes Dublin special is our obsession with the 3-bed semi with garden as the only option for a family. Other cities really don't support this. We need better sized apartments and duplexes, with better facilities for families, including storage space for buggies and bikes. I despair when I go into apartment developments that now have lots of families with kids who expected to have upgraded to their 3-bed semi by now, but are trapped by negative equity, and I see 'no ball playing' signs on the green areas.


PyritePete said:


> I recently got my bike out of the shed and fixed it. Feel better for it !


Woohoo, perfect weather for it too.


----------



## Purple (19 Jun 2014)

RainyDay said:


> I'm not so sure about the 'little or no public transport' thing. Are there many people in the commuter belt who aren't within striking distance of a Bus Eireann stop or a train station?


 I live in the suburbs of Dublin and work on the suburbs on the other side of the city. It’s 10Km. The www.hittheroad.ie route planner gives me a time of 1 hour and 4 minutes. I can drive in 25 minutes and cycle in 30-35. I need my car straight after work 3 days a week so cycling is out of the question on those days. Therefore public transport is not an option for me most of the time. I don’t think I’m unusual in that regard.




RainyDay said:


> Yes, that's a huge issue. I read that there are more secondary school girls driving themselves to school than cycling to school. Is it any wonder we're heading for an obesity epidemic?


 That is an issue but bad urban planning means that kids have to travel further.




RainyDay said:


> Part of what makes Dublin special is our obsession with the 3-bed semi with garden as the only option for a family. Other cities really don't support this. We need better sized apartments and duplexes, with better facilities for families, including storage space for buggies and bikes. I despair when I go into apartment developments that now have lots of families with kids who expected to have upgraded to their 3-bed semi by now, but are trapped by negative equity, and I see 'no ball playing' signs on the green areas.


 Do you live in a house in the leafy South Dublin suburbs or do you live in an apartment or duplex?


----------



## dereko1969 (19 Jun 2014)

Purple said:


> I live in the suburbs of Dublin and work on the suburbs on the other side of the city. It’s 10Km. The www.hittheroad.ie route planner gives me a time of 1 hour and 4 minutes. I can drive in 25 minutes and cycle in 30-35. I need my car straight after work 3 days a week so cycling is out of the question on those days. Therefore public transport is not an option for me most of the time. I don’t think I’m unusual in that regard.
> 
> *If your journey involves going near the quays then yes your car journey make take longer if this plan comes in, however if a significant number of people then chose to switch to public transport or cycling then your journey time may stay the same, initially it will likely increase.*
> 
> ...


 
Where they live doesn't matter it's that the choice of builders (and planners) is that the type of apartment built to date in Dublin are not family-friendly, if they were built to a more mainland European style then we wouldn't have as much traffic on the roads.


----------



## Purple (19 Jun 2014)

dereko1969 said:


> If your journey involves going near the quays then yes your car journey make take longer if this plan comes in, however if a significant number of people then chose to switch to public transport or cycling then your journey time may stay the same, initially it will likely increase.


 I have to go from one side of the city to the other. That involves crossing the river so yes, I have to go near the quays.
The alternative, for the days I don't cycle, is to use the M50. Nearly 3 times the distance.



dereko1969 said:


> Where they live doesn't matter it's that the choice of builders (and planners) is that the type of apartment built to date in Dublin are not family-friendly, if they were built to a more mainland European style then we wouldn't have as much traffic on the roads.


My point is that it's easy for people living in the leafy suburbs to tell other people they should live in apartments, family friendly or not.


----------



## RainyDay (19 Jun 2014)

Here's some interesting perspectives on the facts behind the plan for the quays (as opposed to the misleading Irish TImes reports);

http://irishcycle.com/2014/06/19/wa...in-heres-how-a-newspaper-can-hinder-progress/


----------



## dereko1969 (19 Jun 2014)

Purple said:


> *I have to* go from one side of the city to the other. That involves crossing the river so yes, I have to go near the quays.
> The alternative, for the days I don't cycle, is to use the M50. Nearly 3 times the distance.
> 
> 
> My point is that it's easy for people living in the leafy suburbs to tell other people they should live in apartments, family friendly or not.


 
Is it not a case of you chose to?

I'm not talking semantics here but at essence there were choices involved in your job and your home, no?


----------



## Purple (19 Jun 2014)

dereko1969 said:


> Is it not a case of you chose to?
> 
> I'm not talking semantics here but at essence there were choices involved in your job and your home, no?



In theory I could stay at home and not work at all so I would never clog up the public roads but in practice, given my skills and work history no, I don't choose to, I have to.


----------



## Purple (19 Jun 2014)

RainyDay said:


> Here's some interesting perspectives on the facts behind the plan for the quays (as opposed to the misleading Irish TImes reports);
> 
> http://irishcycle.com/2014/06/19/wa...in-heres-how-a-newspaper-can-hinder-progress/



Good link and shows the other side of the argument but it's hardly an un-biased publication. The comment at the bottom _"These windscreen-bound dinosaurs have had their day!"_ made me laugh. It was like something out of a 1950's Marxist pamphlet.


----------



## dereko1969 (19 Jun 2014)

Purple said:


> In theory I could stay at home and not work at all so I would never clog up the public roads but in practice, given my skills and work history no, I don't choose to, I have to.


 
I think you're deliberately mis-interpreting what I stated. Was that the only place you could live or work? No, so choices *were* made. The choice of "needing" the car after work 3 times a week is also a choice.

For the city to work, given the finite space (and funding) for transporting those people to work and education and socialising, there needs to be choices made regarding what is the most efficient use of that space. Encouraging cycling and public transport by reducing the space available to cars that, in the main, travel short distances and carry only 1 person is the choice proposed by the Council and voted upon by all these Councillors who conveniently seem to have forgotten it's in the Development plan!


----------



## markpb (19 Jun 2014)

MrEarl said:


> Road space is a comody and needs to be used to maximum advantage for the benifit of the population and our economy - not permitted to be toyed with by a dreamer ....



You're right - roads are a commodity. The way to make a road carry the most people is definitely not by car. Approximately 65% of vehicles in the city centre are cars but they're carrying less than 35% of the people. If you want to carry more people, the statistics prove that you wouldn't do it by car.


----------



## MrEarl (19 Jun 2014)

markpb said:


> You're right - roads are a commodity. The way to make a road carry the most people is definitely not by car. Approximately 65% of vehicles in the city centre are cars but they're carrying less than 35% of the people. If you want to carry more people, the statistics prove that you wouldn't do it by car.



Hi,

So what do you suggest, given:

- many people commute to the city from locations where there is not satisfactory public transport

- cycling may not be an option due to such things as safety, distance, necesary dress code (for work, school etc)

In the short term, while trying to roll out longer term infrastructural projects to help deal with the lack of decent public transport would you agree to allowing cars use bus lanes if they had say three or more people in them for example ?


----------



## markpb (19 Jun 2014)

MrEarl said:


> Hi,
> 
> So what do you suggest, given:
> 
> ...



I'm only in favour of HOV lanes with heavy enforcement. Since that never happens here, I'd be totally against it. And even then, I'd never countenance converting a bus lane into a HOV lane because the relative carrying capacity of a fully laden car doesn't even come close to approaching that of a bus. If you want to maximise the use of urban roads, HOV lanes aren't it.

People in Ireland want it both ways. They don't want to spend money on building public transport infrastructure (Luas). They don't want to spend money subsidising public transport (DB, Dart subsidy). They don't want to see cycling facilities being built even if someone else is paying for them (Dublin Bikes). They don't want to convert road lanes into cycling or bus lanes. They don't want to see turning or road restrictions which helps public transport work (SSG reorganisation, O'Connell st restrictions, College Green Bus gate, Memorial Bridge turning restriction, north quays bus lane to the Point). They don't want to see low urban speed limits which would make it safer to cycle. They don't want to live in apartments, they want a semi-d and garden. Some of them don't want to live in towns or cities even though they know that's where they'll end up working because they're not farmers.

And then they complain that they have no choice but to drive because public transport is poor or cycling is unsafe.


----------



## RainyDay (19 Jun 2014)

markpb said:


> People in Ireland want it both ways. They don't want to spend money on building public transport infrastructure (Luas). They don't want to spend money subsidising public transport (DB, Dart subsidy). They don't want to see cycling facilities being built even if someone else is paying for them (Dublin Bikes). They don't want to convert road lanes into cycling or bus lanes. They don't want to see turning or road restrictions which helps public transport work (SSG reorganisation, O'Connell st restrictions, College Green Bus gate, Memorial Bridge turning restriction, north quays bus lane to the Point). They don't want to see low urban speed limits which would make it safer to cycle. They don't want to live in apartments, they want a semi-d and garden. Some of them don't want to live in towns or cities even though they know that's where they'll end up working because they're not farmers.
> 
> And then they complain that they have no choice but to drive because public transport is poor or cycling is unsafe.



Right on the button.


----------



## AlbacoreA (19 Jun 2014)

They don't want change.


----------



## Orga (20 Jun 2014)

RainyDay said:


> Can I ask for the basis of your conclusion that there is little data and no discourse? Have you engaged with the Council on this? Have you reviewed discussions at relevant Council committees? Have you participated in public consultations?



Sure, and am well open to correction.

1. www.dublincitycycling.ie is the city council's official cycling website and it contains no policy data that I could locate
2. the official city council website returns no data on the genesis of the proposed policy
3. the city development plan repeatedly mentions different forms of transport (cycling being but one) and it espouses a policy vision BUT it does not provide the DATA to explain why that vision is a) the best one and b) the consequences of implementation
4. where the council's policy on cycling is mentioned its only support is by way of reference to the government's sustainability strategy
5. I have examined the minutes of council meetings for the last 2 years and they contain no debate of any significance with any factual data.

So, my opinion, is that the policy data is sparse and the policy debate is negligible. I should hasten to add that this does not make the decisions wrong, just ill-conceived. 

Perhaps RainyDay you have some data sources which you could share on the topic?


----------



## RainyDay (21 Jun 2014)

Orga said:


> Sure, and am well open to correction.
> 
> 1. www.dublincitycycling.ie is the city council's official cycling website and it contains no policy data that I could locate
> 2. the official city council website returns no data on the genesis of the proposed policy
> ...



Perhaps I can shortcut the debate with a different contribution to the one I made originally on Friday. 

I'm really not sure that you're looking in the right places. If you'd like to indicate what data you had in mind, I might be able to help dig it out. I guess that traffic volumes on the quays at present would be included. What else did you have in mind?

However, it does look to like to me that you've attacked the Council unfairly. For example, prior discussion of this initiative is more likely to have been at the Transport SPC than at the full Council council meeting, but you seem to have assumed that there was no prior discussion.


----------



## AlbacoreA (21 Jun 2014)

I posted links on Friday which were lost with the problems and restore of the website. 

This pages seems to have some of the links to the main documents. 

http://www.cyclemanual.ie/manual/legislation-and-policy/irish-cycling-policy/

Heres some info on the history of the quays idea...

http://irishcycle.com/2011/11/07/dutch-style-cycle-path-on-dublins-quays/
http://irishcycle.com/2014/01/28/liffey-cycle-route-construction-could-start-next-year/


----------



## Purple (26 Jun 2014)

Kathy Sheridan wrote an interesting piece in yesterdays Irish times about this.
Link


----------



## camlin90 (1 Jul 2014)

I don't cycle in Dublin, so allow me to ask a stupid question.

We already have an artery which runs parallel to the North Quays and is pretty much dedicated to public transport, i.e. the Luas Red Line. 
What are the issues with this being shared with cyclists? 

I apologise if I am missing benefits that accrue from reducing overall road capacity, increasing personal/logistics/business costs and thereby limiting the efficiency of the economy.


----------



## AlbacoreA (2 Jul 2014)

I'm open to correction but I think tram lines are a hazard for bikes. Slippy and also the wheels get stuck in them with people going head first off their bikes. In sections it's too narrow for a segregated cycle lane. Though oddly cycling is banned from the wide bits as its only pedestrian and tram space. 

 opportunity missed for sure though.


----------



## MrEarl (2 Jul 2014)

camlin90 said:


> ....I apologise if I am missing benefits that accrue from reducing overall road capacity, increasing personal/logistics/business costs and thereby limiting the efficiency of the economy.



Apparently in Ireland, we are supposed to do whatever makes least economic sense .....  so time and time again, we plan things badly (i.e. make the port tunnel too low), overpay for things such as various construction projects, squander money on stupid stuff (i.e. the clock in the Liffey or voting machines) and last but not least, make poor use of limited resources such as roads !   

Appointing people to influential positions within government & local authority who lack basic "cop on" or simply refuse to use common sense, may yet prove to be our number one talent...

There's a very simply solution to getting a load of traffic off the roads during peak hours - make all the school teachers & students commence class at either 8am or 11am, thereby taking a massive number of people off the roads during the morning rush hour 

Rather than put bikes down the side of the Liffey, why not get the good people who supplied all the public bikes to now go and supply a load of canoes and we can all start rowing up and down the Liffey every day ... very good exercise, environmentally friendly, extremely cheap to run once the initial investment in the canoes is made, opportunity for sponsorship of the canoes etc


----------



## Purple (2 Jul 2014)

MrEarl said:


> There's a very simply solution to getting a load of traffic off the roads during peak hours - make all the school teachers & students commence class at either 8am or 11am, thereby taking a massive number of people off the roads during the morning rush hour


I start work between 7.30 and 8.00 so this wouldn't suit me therefore it's a stupid idea. 



MrEarl said:


> Rather than put bikes down the side of the Liffey, why not get the good people who supplied all the public bikes to now go and supply a load of canoes and we can all start rowing up and down the Liffey every day ... very good exercise, environmentally friendly, extremely cheap to run once the initial investment in the canoes is made, opportunity for sponsorship of the canoes etc


That's a great idea. We could also erect large nets from the spire and use human cannons placed along the canals. Obviously people would have to carry their own insurance and not have too many loose items about their person but other than that I don’t see any real problems with the plan. It certainly merits the setting up of a com-it-tee.


----------



## AlbacoreA (2 Jul 2014)

The objective is to get people out of their cars. 

 As people will never get out of their cars unless they are forced to.

 They've been decreasing car capacity in the city over many years.


----------



## Purple (2 Jul 2014)

AlbacoreA said:


> The objective is to get people out of their cars.
> 
> As people will never get out of their cars unless they are forced to.
> 
> They've been decreasing car capacity in the city over many years.



A good recession; that's what we need. The last one got all those white vans and most of the commercial 4X4's off the road. 

The last thing the state should be doing is providing infrastructure that people want and need. Force them to do something they don't want, that's what I say! That's how democracy works! 
Bloody people wanting to drive to work, dropping off their small children at the crèche first, doing some shopping on the way home before collecting their children. Sure why couldn't they do that on a bike? It was their choice to have children. Their choice to have a job. They should stay at home with their children and not bother working and paying tax or they should not have children. It's their choice. Whatever happens they should design their lives around not needing to drive. That should be the primary driver  when making any decision;

"Will I have a family? No, I might need a car." 
"Will I get old? No, I might need a car." 
"Will I start a business and provide much needed employment? No, I might need a car" 

Really the only people in Dublin who should be allowed to function normally are those rich enough to live in well serviced suburbs and work in places where there are showers provided or those poor enough to stay at home on welfare.


----------



## Firefly (2 Jul 2014)

Purple said:


> A good recession; that's what we need. The last one got all those white vans and most of the commercial 4X4's off the road.
> 
> The last thing the state should be doing is providing infrastructure that people want and need. Force them to do something they don't want, that's what I say! That's how democracy works!
> Bloody people wanting to drive to work, dropping off their small children at the crèche first, doing some shopping on the way home before collecting their children. Sure why couldn't they do that on a bike? It was their choice to have children. Their choice to have a job. They should stay at home with their children and not bother working and paying tax or they should not have children. It's their choice. Whatever happens they should design their lives around not needing to drive. That should be the primary driver  when making any decision;
> ...



Sounds like you need to take a long, cold shower yourself


----------



## AlbacoreA (2 Jul 2014)

Parts of the Quays are currently one lane only. And it hardly moves at peak. You'll probably not notice the difference especially off peak.


----------



## Purple (2 Jul 2014)

Firefly said:


> Sounds like you need to take a long, cold shower yourself



No, I feel great now


----------



## dereko1969 (2 Jul 2014)

MrEarl said:


> make the port tunnel too low



Hadn't seen this old canard in some time. The tunnel was never built too low, the fact is that some gobdaw in a border county decided to buy up all the trucks that were being sold by people because they were too big for tunnels elsewhere in the continent!


----------



## AlbacoreA (2 Jul 2014)

I had heard about the tunnel. Not about the trucks being bought up.


----------



## Purple (2 Jul 2014)

dereko1969 said:


> Hadn't seen this old canard in some time. The tunnel was never built too low, the fact is that some gobdaw in a border county decided to buy up all the trucks that were being sold by people because they were too big for tunnels elsewhere in the continent!



"Super Trucks" are 4.6 meters high and so cannot be accommodated in many urban areas in Europe. That said they are exactly what's needed; they transport more goods while taking up the same space as standard trucks and therefore the goods they carry have lower carbon miles.


----------

