# Time to ease parking restrictions in city centre?



## IsleOfMan (15 Mar 2020)

Lots of people working from home. Shops closing. Might encourage social distancing on buses. Allow people to park longer than three hours in their car parking space. Reduce parking costs to make it more affordable?
It seems wrong that buses are packed with people, yet there are lots of empty parking spaces in the city centre.  Those people with cars that are sitting in their driveway could use them at less daily cost.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (15 Mar 2020)

An interesting idea.

We charge for parking because we want to encourage public transport.

But now we want to discourage public transport or at least reduce the crowding on it.

Most of the shops will be closed so people won't be driving it go shopping in BTs.

I think it should be tried.  Waive parking charges until further notice.

There might well be some unforeseen outcome in which case, the trial can be scrapped.

Brendan


----------



## WaterWater (17 Mar 2020)

Has anyone in Government discussed this does anyone know? It would certainly make sense for those families that work in the city centre but cannot park their cars there because of cost. Even the health workers.


----------



## SPC100 (17 Mar 2020)

I think it would be good to raise this via your TD. I scanned the 57 page plan for ireland prep for the virus, and I don't remember anything about this.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (15 Apr 2020)

Apparently, Dublin City Council has not been charging for parking at meters for some weeks. 

I had been told that by someone who is parking free of charge near her office. But there is no official statement anywhere. 

I have just spoken to a clamper who was clamping a car parked on double yellow lines and he confirmed that they are not checking meters for payment. 

Brendan 
Disclaimer:  Before doing this, you might want to confirm it.


----------



## joer (15 Apr 2020)

There should be no parking charges since this lock -down started. There should be no clamping either. There are not too many people other than front line staff working at present , so give people a well earned break...


----------



## Leo (15 Apr 2020)

joer said:


> There should be no clamping either.



I wouldn't agree with going that far. People who park illegally in loading or disables bays, blocking entrances or on double yellows are selfishly hindering others going about whatever they need to do. There should be no amnesty for that.


----------



## joer (15 Apr 2020)

I agree with that Leo....People should park legally but there needs to be an easing off of charges in the present climate. I would give people a chance to explain themselves ,I would personally.


----------



## mf1 (15 Apr 2020)

I'm told that Dublin City Council are operating a "Christmas Day " sort of parking regime- so no parking charges but parking in loading bays/taxi ranks/double yellow lines areas will result in clamping/removal.

My source is a Dublin City Council employee and a client but I can't find any official source.

I've been working in my office (in Dublin city centre) )part time since lockdown- massive increase in wills queries and, unfortunately, Probates but none seem to be Covid 19 related. The other big issue ( now that conveyancing has just stopped) is all about rents and whether landlords can afford to offer rent payment holidays to tenants.

I had been using public transport but much happier using my own transport.

mf


----------



## Leo (16 Apr 2020)

joer said:


> I agree with that Leo....People should park legally but there needs to be an easing off of charges in the present climate. I would give people a chance to explain themselves ,I would personally.



Circumstances will vary with cases like this, but with so little traffic on the roads at the moment there's plenty of designated parking available. Anyone who clearly parks illegally instead of walking a couple of minutes to such a space deserves to be clamped. I'd even be in favour of increased fines for inconsiderate behaviour during a national emergency. I've heard there's been an increase in people parking in disabled bays as people believe they won't get clamped, annecdotal though, so I'm not sure there's much basis to it as I'm couped up and sticking to my neighbourhood.


----------



## joer (16 Apr 2020)

People who park in disabled bays and illegally should without doubt be clamped. I am sure that many car parks have plenty of room to park these days but I still think the charges should be reduced or indeed suspended for now anyway.


----------



## Leo (16 Apr 2020)

joer said:


> charges should be reduced or indeed suspended for now anyway.



Charges are suspended in public areas, they're only clamping people who park illegally.


----------



## mathepac (16 Apr 2020)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Apparently, Dublin City Council has not been charging for parking at meters for some weeks.


Any word from Galway, Cork, Limerick, Waterford councils or other LAs?


----------



## mf1 (28 Apr 2020)

The party's over for free parking- at least in Dublin. 

Clamping for non payment of charges will re-commence tomorrow. 

Back to public transport................

mf


----------



## Sunny (28 Apr 2020)

mf1 said:


> The party's over for free parking- at least in Dublin.
> 
> Clamping for non payment of charges will re-commence tomorrow.
> 
> ...



Wonder what the logic of that is? Surely, if you need to get to work, it is better to use private transport...Weird....


----------



## losttheplot (28 Apr 2020)

Sunny said:


> Wonder what the logic of that is? Surely, if you need to get to work, it is better to use private transport...Weird....


Maybe it's encouraging unnecessary travel.


----------



## Sunny (28 Apr 2020)

losttheplot said:


> Maybe it's encouraging unnecessary travel.



Maybe but sure why would you want to go into Dublin City Centre unless you had to? Would have thought the risk of more people on public transport was much riskier than a few people deciding to drive in and walk around the city.


----------



## Leo (28 Apr 2020)

Sunny said:


> Would have thought the risk of more people on public transport was much riskier than a few people deciding to drive in and walk around the city.



Maybe that's it, the people who are currently driving into town to go to a preferred shop wouldn't take the bus to do so and would stay local instead?

That or they're afraid of creating another water charges fiasco where people protest having to pay for something that they got used to being free when earlier charges were abolished?   

The current traffic volumes could be an opportunity to reinvent transportation around our major cities.


----------



## Baby boomer (28 Apr 2020)

I suspect a bit of ideological Green zealotry is operating here.  They absolutely HATE private cars and it must be really galling for them to see cars move so freely around Dublin City.  That thinking is received doctrine in Dublin City Council.


----------



## Leo (28 Apr 2020)

Baby boomer said:


> They absolutely HATE private cars



I've heard that before, but the vast majority of infrastructure in Dublin city centre is dedicated to private cars, even though the majority of commuters into the city take other modes of transport. The evidence on the ground would suggest they hate the others more.


----------



## odyssey06 (28 Apr 2020)

Leo said:


> I've heard that before, but the vast majority of infrastructure in Dublin city centre is dedicated to private cars, even though the majority of commuters into the city take other modes of transport. The evidence on the ground would suggest they hate the others more.



They didnt put that infrastructure there... look at the additions v removals of space for private cars in city centre in last 30 years.
It is not just reduction in private car space... have started cannibalising space from buses for the Luas.


----------



## Leo (28 Apr 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> They didnt put that infrastructure there...



So who installed all the public parking? Majority of road space is taken up by private cars....


----------



## Baby boomer (29 Apr 2020)

Leo said:


> I've heard that before, but the vast majority of infrastructure in Dublin city centre is dedicated to private cars, even though the majority of commuters into the city take other modes of transport. The evidence on the ground would suggest they hate the others more.


Perhaps once upon a time what you say was true and infrastructure was built for private cars.  It's been a long time since that was the case!  Since the early eighties, it has been all downhill for car infrastructure.  There has been:
- a constant increase in bus lanes
- and quality bus corridors
- increased traffic light priority for buses
- constant removal of on-street parking
- increased parking charges
- introduction of clamping
- increased cycle lanes
- bus gates at college green
- widening of footpaths into roadway space
- ongoing reduction in speed limits
- "temporary" traffic restrictions for luas works that turned out to be permanent
- ramps and chicanes to slow car traffic

Against all that, I struggle to think of a single instance where more infrastructure has been provided for cars in the last few decades.  So indisputably, the people now in charge of Dublin's transport policy have implemented huge changes that favour cycling, bus, luas, and dart over private cars.

There is no evidence whatsoever the people currently in charge hate these other modes of transport more than they hate cars.  Quite the contrary.


----------



## odyssey06 (29 Apr 2020)

Leo said:


> So who installed all the public parking? Majority of road space is taken up by private cars....



Was it any of the people currently directing policy in Dublin City Council?
Do you have many examples of extra road space allocated to private cars in the last 25 years to counter the increase in LUAS tracks, bus lanes, cycle tracks, pedestrian streets?
They only thing they like about private cars is the parking fees - even in the current situation where private transport is a health protection step for essential workers based in city centre.


----------



## Leo (29 Apr 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> Do you have many examples of extra road space allocated to private cars



Can you point where I said that?


----------



## Leo (29 Apr 2020)

Baby boomer said:


> Perhaps once upon a time what you say was true and infrastructure was built for private cars.



The majority of recent road redevelopment continue to dedicated more space to general traffic lanes over public transport and dedicated cycling infrastructure. Even the redevelopment of the stretch of canal around Ormond Quay consisted of a single shared bus/cycle lane with two traffic lanes and car parking on both sides.

Fewer than 28% of journeys into Dublin are now by private car, yet private cars still take up the vast majority of space. 7% cycle, but national spend on cycling infrastructure has been steadily falling over recent years down to only 2% of the transport budget now, with most of that being directed to tourism projects rather than commuters.


----------



## odyssey06 (29 Apr 2020)

Leo said:


> Can you point where I said that?



I'm not sure I said you had, but it's what would be needed to justify the argument about the disposition of Dublin City Council to private cars i.e. the additions \ reductions over past generation, i.e. where they have had to make decisions and changes rather than maintaining the 20th century network.


----------



## Purple (29 Apr 2020)

Baby boomer said:


> There is no evidence whatsoever the people currently in charge hate these other modes of transport more than they hate cars. Quite the contrary.


Why talk in such emotive terms? There’s no room to put in more roads so the objective is to get people using transport which moves the most number of people per square meter of road. Single occupancy cars are the least space efficient mode of transport there is so it makes sense to look to increase the use of other modes of transport which will allow more people to use the existing space we have. It’s that simple.

Adults don’t frame these discussions in terms of “hating” motorists or “loving” cyclists. They look for solutions by examining the data, taking the non-changeable constraints into account.


----------



## Baby boomer (29 Apr 2020)

Leo said:


> Even the redevelopment of the stretch of canal around Ormond Quay consisted of a single shared bus/cycle lane with two traffic lanes and car parking on both sides.


There's a canal around Ormond Quay?

Surely, it's the very opposite that's been happening on the quays.  From Heuston to O'Connell Bridge, where there once were 2 to 3 lanes open to car traffic, it's now down to one car lane, with ridiculous zig-zag shifts in position from left to right lanes and vice versa.  For most of the quays this miserable single lane sits beside TWO wide bus/cycle lanes that barely have enough traffic for one!  It was obviously designed by someone who wants to make drivers' lives a misery.  

And busconnects will make it even worse if it goes ahead!  How on Earth do you construe this as dedicating* "more space to general traffic lanes?"*



Leo said:


> Fewer than 28% of journeys into Dublin are now by private car, yet private cars still take up the vast majority of space. 7% cycle, but national spend on cycling infrastructure has been steadily falling over recent years down to only 2% of the transport budget now, with most of that being directed to tourism projects rather than commuters.


That 2% is very misleading.  Perhaps 2% of new infrastructure is new dedicated cycle path.  But to really assess the true cost of cycle infrastructure, you'd have to go back and count the original cost of roads that have now been handed over from private cars to cycle/bus lanes.


----------



## Leo (29 Apr 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> I'm not sure I said you had, but it's what would be needed to justify the argument about the disposition of Dublin City Council to private cars i.e. the additions \ reductions over past generation, i.e. where they have had to make decisions and changes rather than maintaining the 20th century network.



Fair enough. The percentage share of journeys into Dublin by private car have plummeted over the years, but private cars take up more space in the city than they ever did. If they were really anti-car they'd be taking far more proactive steps to remove parking and dedicate more space to public transport and pedestrians.


----------



## Leo (29 Apr 2020)

Baby boomer said:


> Surely, it's the very opposite that's been happening on the quays.  From Heuston to O'Connell Bridge, where there once were 2 to 3 lanes open to car traffic, it's now down to one car lane, with ridiculous zig-zag shifts in position from left to right lanes and vice versa.



No, that whole section still has significantly more space dedicated to general traffic and parking.  



Baby boomer said:


> And busconnects will make it even worse if it goes ahead!  How on Earth do you construe this as dedicating* "more space to general traffic lanes?"*



On very few routes, but even with that ambitious proposal, the vested interests are in action seeking reduction in the space given over to public transport. I expect whatever will finally come up of it to be watered down and disjointed, and will leave trying to move around Dublin a miserable experience for all. 



Baby boomer said:


> That 2% is very misleading.  Perhaps 2% of new infrastructure is new dedicated cycle path.



No, 2% of budget is 2% of budget, it's pretty clear. The transport budget covers new projects along with maintenance of the existing infrastructure.


----------



## Baby boomer (29 Apr 2020)

Leo said:


> ...but private cars take up more space in the city than they ever did.


Not true.  There are fewer cars commuting into the city than there were previously according to CSO figures.  They are clearly taking up less space.



Leo said:


> If they were really anti-car they'd be taking far more proactive steps to remove parking and dedicate more space to public transport and pedestrians.



Don't worry, they'll get around to it!  It's the classic boil-the-frog strategy.  They are simply avoiding a motorist backlash by gradually making things worse and worse in small steps.


----------



## Purple (29 Apr 2020)

Baby boomer said:


> Not true. There are fewer cars commuting into the city than there were previously according to CSO figures. They are clearly taking up less space.


Excellent; the plan is working.
Do you think we should be encouraging more people to drive into the city centre? Given that the total road space is constant that could only be achieved by reducing public transport and cycling infrastructure. The net result would be more congestion as cars take up more space per passenger than any other form of mass transport. Do you think that would be a good thing?


----------



## Baby boomer (29 Apr 2020)

Leo said:


> No, that whole section still has significantly more space dedicated to general traffic and parking.


Hmmm, debatable, there are sections where cars have less than one third of the space.  But anyway, it's beyond doubt that there has been a huge transfer of space AWAY from cars and given over to bus and cycle.  




Leo said:


> On very few routes, but even with that ambitious proposal, the vested interests are in action seeking reduction in the space given over to public transport. I expect whatever will finally come up of it to be watered down and disjointed, and will leave trying to move around Dublin a miserable experience for all.


The vested interests have sought the preservation of tree and front gardens, not general traffic lanes.  The response has been to maintain the proposals for increased bus and cycle lanes, and to take even more general traffic space in order to preserve the trees!   You are right though - busconnects will be a miserable experience both for its own users AND the motorists it displaces.  Even its proponents admit it can only be a temporary solution and will run out of capacity in 2030 or thereabouts.  Time to bite the bullet and go underground.  That way you can have good public transport AND road space for those who choose to use it.



Leo said:


> No, 2% of budget is 2% of budget, it's pretty clear. The transport budget covers new projects along with maintenance of the existing infrastructure.


Not really.  Suppose you spend a million this year building a section of road.  Then next year you spend €20k on paint to turn it into a cycle lane.  Technically, you've only spent 2% on dedicated cycleways.  But, in reality, cycle has got the entire benefit.


----------



## Leo (29 Apr 2020)

Baby boomer said:


> Then next year you spend €20k on paint to turn it into a cycle lane. Technically, you've only spent 2% on dedicated cycleways. But, in reality, cycle has got the entire benefit.



Tell me where that has ever happened?


----------



## Baby boomer (29 Apr 2020)

Purple said:


> Excellent; the plan is working.
> Do you think we should be encouraging more people to drive into the city centre? Given that the total road space is constant that could only be achieved by reducing public transport and cycling infrastructure. The net result would be more congestion as cars take up more space per passenger than any other form of mass transport. Do you think that would be a good thing?


Ah, the either/or fallacy!  Firstly road space isn't a constant.  You can increase capacity by smarter traffic signalling systems, tunnels or overpasses.  Second, you can vastly increase public transport capacity by going underground.  It is the green lobby that constantly demonises motorists rather than advocating for a solution that works for both cars and public transport users.


----------



## Baby boomer (29 Apr 2020)

Leo said:


> Tell me where that has ever happened?


That's why I prefixed it with "Suppose..."!  

I'm just illustrating the point with an exaggerated imaginary example.  It's a legitimate debating technique.  And it does illustrate how misleading it is to count the spend on converting general traffic infrastructure into cycle infrastructure but NOT the cost of the original project.


----------



## Leo (29 Apr 2020)

Baby boomer said:


> It's a legitimate debating technique.



If you're Trump maybe. If you're just making stuff up there's little point debating!



Baby boomer said:


> And it does illustrate how misleading it is to count the spend on converting general traffic infrastructure into cycle infrastructure but NOT the cost of the original project.



It absolutely doesn't. There has never, ever been a case where a road was built and then entirely given over entirely to commuter cyclists at a later date.  Cycling infrastructure only got a share of transport budget in the recent past. In the last number of years, the cycling share of budget has fallen.


----------



## Baby boomer (29 Apr 2020)

Leo said:


> If you're Trump maybe. If you're just making stuff up there's little point debating!


Like I said, I prefixed it with "Suppose..." There's a difference between a supposition, advanced to test or illustrate a point, and making stuff up.  If you continue to misrepresent those as identical, then, yes, there's little point debating you!  




Leo said:


> It absolutely doesn't. There has never, ever been a case where a road was built and then entirely given over entirely to commuter cyclists at a later date.  Cycling infrastructure only got a share of transport budget in the recent past. In the last number of years, the cycling share of budget has fallen.


But there are copious examples where a road was built and then a large section of it was converted to bus/cycle lanes.  If you only count the cost of conversion, you're hugely underestimating the cost of the bus/cycle infrastructure.


----------



## Leo (29 Apr 2020)

Baby boomer said:


> Like I said, I prefixed it with "Suppose..." There's a difference between a supposition, advanced to test or illustrate a point, and making stuff up. If you continue to misrepresent those as identical, then, yes, there's little point debating you!



Proposing a potential scenario with basis in fact is one thing, supposing an entire road would be built and then later dedicated solely to cycling is quite far removed. 




Baby boomer said:


> But there are copious examples where a road was built and then a large section of it was converted to bus/cycle lanes. If you only count the cost of conversion, you're hugely underestimating the cost of the bus/cycle infrastructure.



The context was dedicated cycling infrastructure budget, how do buses come into that? Roads budget is separate, bus and car lanes come from that single budget.


----------



## Purple (29 Apr 2020)

Baby boomer said:


> Ah, the either/or fallacy!  Firstly road space isn't a constant.  You can increase capacity by smarter traffic signalling systems, tunnels or overpasses.  Second, you can vastly increase public transport capacity by going underground.  It is the green lobby that constantly demonises motorists rather than advocating for a solution that works for both cars and public transport users.


Seriously? Tunnels and overpasses shoehorned into Dublin city Centre?
It would cost tens of billions of Euro in construction, take decades and cause billions in disruption.
We could have drones or helicopters picking up cars and flying them into the city centre. That would be cheaper and more commercially viable.

I suggest that if we are boring tunnels we'd be better off running trains through them. That way we wouldn't have new roads popping out of the ground in what are already congested city streets. I travel 10Km from one side of Dublin to the other each day. Even with the fantastic lockdown traffic it is only 5 minutes slower on the bike. Dublin is far more cycle friendly and safer than it was 20 years ago. That means more people cycle so there is more room for those who drive.


----------



## Baby boomer (29 Apr 2020)

Leo said:


> Proposing a potential scenario with basis in fact is one thing, supposing an entire road would be built and then later dedicated solely to cycling is quite far removed.


Again, at the risk of repeating myself, it is quite legitimate to make a SUPPOSITION along the lines of: *If A happened, then B would follow.*  The supposition may be unlikely or fanciful, but that doesn't invalidate the essential logic of the *If A, then B* proposition. It is independent of whether A is correct or not.




Leo said:


> The context was dedicated cycling infrastructure budget, how do buses come into that? Roads budget is separate, bus and car lanes come from that single budget.


Ah, so the 2% doesn't include the vast majority of cycle lanes then!  Very smooth propagandizing!  The real budget for cycling infrastructure is vastly bigger then if you allocate the share of the roads budget consumed by cycle lanes and bus/cycle lanes.  These are off-limits to private cars.


----------



## Leo (29 Apr 2020)

Baby boomer said:


> Again, at the risk of repeating myself, it is quite legitimate to make a SUPPOSITION along the lines of: *If A happened, then B would follow.*



Again, it's only valid if based in reality. Supposing what would happen if we were all given flying cars in the morning doesn't achieve much, yet that is exactly as likely to happen as your scenario.




Baby boomer said:


> Ah, so the 2% doesn't include the vast majority of cycle lanes then!  Very smooth propagandizing!



You only catching up now? No, dedicated cycle infrastructure is just that. It doesn't cover the cycle lanes that are essentially car parks.


----------



## Leo (29 Apr 2020)

Purple said:


> That means more people cycle so there is more room for those who drive.



There's also the awareness in numbers phenomenon where when cyclist numbers increase to around a 10% share, motorists become more aware of vulnerable users and behaviours change resulting in a significant drop in overall injury collisions numbers.


----------



## Baby boomer (29 Apr 2020)

Purple said:


> Seriously? Tunnels and overpasses shoehorned into Dublin city Centre?
> It would cost tens of billions of Euro in construction, take decades and cause billions in disruption.
> We could have drones or helicopters picking up cars and flying them into the city centre. That would be cheaper and more commercially viable.
> 
> I suggest that if we are boring tunnels we'd be better off running trains through them. That way we wouldn't have new roads popping out of the ground in what are already congested city streets. I travel 10Km from one side of Dublin to the other each day. Even with the fantastic lockdown traffic it is only 5 minutes slower on the bike. Dublin is far more cycle friendly and safer than it was 20 years ago. That means more people cycle so there is more room for those who drive.


You're strawmanning.  I didn't say tunnels and overpasses were desirable, merely that they were possible.  And we already have a very successful port tunnel in Dublin. 
But improved traffic signalling measures could increase effective road capacity. That's real low hanging fruit.

As for drones and helicopters picking up cars and flying them into the city centre - that's just ridiculous!  Nor would it be cheaper than tunnels.

But, yes, you're absolutely right about building tunnels for underground rail.  This is so obvious, I'm amazed it hasn't already been started.  It'll have to happen anyway as the busconnects bodge will only meet the demand for a decade or so at best.  Wouldn't it make more sense to provide a half decent rapid transit system first that might tempt people out of their cars rather than torture them out of their cars as per current policy? 

If all 50,000 people who commute daily into Dublin decided to switch to public transport tomorrow (well ok, post virus return to normality tomorrow) the capacity just isn't there.  Luas, commuter rail and Dart are packed to the rafters at peak times.  Buses are full too, where would they go?  Cars will be a part of the commuting mix for the foreseeable future; we should plan for it and stop this ideological persecution of motorists.


----------



## Baby boomer (29 Apr 2020)

Leo said:


> Again, it's only valid if based in reality. Supposing what would happen if we were all given flying cars in the morning doesn't achieve much, yet that is exactly as likely to happen as your scenario.


 *"doesn't achieve much" *and* "based in reality"* are two separate concepts.  Fortunately, the human brain is well able to process hypotheticals that might not be based in reality.  It may not always achieve much but sometimes it will.  The power of imagination!  




Leo said:


> You only catching up now? No, dedicated cycle infrastructure is just that. It doesn't cover the cycle lanes that are essentially car parks.



Try driving (yet alone parking) in a bus/cycle lane and the Garda will quickly disabuse you of the notion that it's a car park.  Anyway glad we agree that the totality of cycling infrastructure (dedicated plus non-dedicated) considerably exceeds 2% of cost.


----------



## Purple (29 Apr 2020)

Baby boomer said:


> You're strawmanning.


I'm strawmanning?! Sweet This post will be deleted if not edited immediately.

You do know that there is a Dublin Traffic Management and Incident Centre which manages and improves traffic flows in Dublin?
It's state of the art and is doing, and has been doing, what you think should happen. 
If you don't know why the State has not built a Metro in Dublin then you must not have read a newspaper or listened to a radio in the last 15 years.

So, your solution is to do something we are already doing or build tunnels and overpasses for cars, or not for cars, for trains, but have more road space for cars, not for cyclists, even though it's the bus lanes that actually take lanes away from cars. I think you need to think about tis a bit more.

That's me finished here.


----------



## Baby boomer (29 Apr 2020)

Purple said:


> I'm strawmanning?! Sweet This post will be deleted if not edited immediately.


Well, you did imply I was advocating tunnels and overpasses when I merely said they were possible!  Which was in response to your claim that road space is fixed.  Which it obviously isn't.  



Purple said:


> That's me finished here.


Given the extent to which you misrepresented my position, that's probably a good thing!


----------



## Purple (29 Apr 2020)

Baby boomer said:


> Well, you did imply I was advocating tunnels and overpasses when I merely said they were possible! Which was in response to your claim that road space is fixed. Which it obviously isn't.


Okay, I'll bite.
You said;


Baby boomer said:


> Ah, the either/or fallacy! Firstly road space isn't a constant. You can increase capacity by smarter traffic signalling systems, tunnels or overpasses.


That's you saying that road space isn't constant because tunnels and overpasses can be built. In a discussion about the provision of cycle paths and public transport when you bring these things up as alternatives then people will think that you are proposing them as alternatives. If you don't want people to think you are serious please preface your comment with the qualification that what follows is a flight of fantasy, a hypothetical musing, and should be completely ignored in the context of the discussion which is being conducted. 



Baby boomer said:


> Given the extent to which you misrepresented my position, that's probably a good thing!


 My apologies, I thought what you said was what you meant.


----------



## Sunny (29 Apr 2020)

So anyway, the Coronavirus thing...….


----------



## Baby boomer (29 Apr 2020)

Purple said:


> My apologies, I thought what you said was what you meant.


Yes but what I meant wasn't the same as what you thought that what I said meant and what you said you thought I said isn't the same as what I said anyway.  

Lock this thread quick, please!


----------



## Bigbangr1 (29 Apr 2020)

The clampers will be back too work from 2moro


----------



## Leo (30 Apr 2020)

Baby boomer said:


> *"doesn't achieve much" *and* "based in reality"* are two separate concepts.  Fortunately, the human brain is well able to process hypotheticals that might not be based in reality.  It may not always achieve much but sometimes it will.  The power of imagination!



It's quite clear you have a vivid imagination. But talking about hypotheticals that have 0% chance of ever becoming a reality are a complete waste of time in erlation to



Baby boomer said:


> Try driving (yet alone parking) in a bus/cycle lane and the Garda will quickly disabuse you of the notion that it's a car park.



Anyone being honest who drives around Dublin on an average day will witness hundreds of these offences, few if any are penalised. The published numbers very clearly confirm that. 



Baby boomer said:


> Anyway glad we agree that the totality of cycling infrastructure (dedicated plus non-dedicated) considerably exceeds 2% of cost.



We don't![/QUOTE]


----------



## Baby boomer (30 Apr 2020)

Leo said:


> Anyone being honest who drives around Dublin on an average day will witness hundreds of these offences, few if any are penalised. The published numbers very clearly confirm that.


True enough, to a point I suppose. Depends on where and when.  There are spots where Gardai are on "bus lane duty" pretty regularly, eg M3 inbound during morning rush hour. And they DO penalise offenders.  I have also noticed that a lot of motorists avoid using bus/cycle lanes even outside the period when they're operating.  For example, the N1 from Whitehall to Druncondra has a bus/cycle lane that ceases between 10:00 and 12:00 yet I've seen countless motorists backed up in the other lane during this period when it would be perfectly legal for them to nip in and use the bus lane.  

Equally,  anyone who drives around Dublin on an average day will witness hundreds of cyclists committing offences, few if any being penalised.  But cyclists are all-virtuous so that's ok.



Leo said:


> We don't!


So, if dedicated cycling infrastructure gets 2 % of spending AND there's also non-dedicated cycle infrastructure, then it must follow that the total spend on cycling infrastructure (dedicated and non-dedicated) must exceed 2%.  QED.


----------



## Leo (1 May 2020)

Baby boomer said:


> There are spots where Gardai are on "bus lane duty" pretty regularly, eg M3 inbound during morning rush hour. And they DO penalise offenders.



I very rarely see them around south Dublin on my commute, but I do see dozens of motorists in bus lanes. There are only around 4,000 fines issued for driving in bus lanes pa, so enforcement rates are minuscule. 



Baby boomer said:


> Equally, anyone who drives around Dublin on an average day will witness hundreds of cyclists committing offences, few if any being penalised. But cyclists are all-virtuous so that's ok.



There isn't that many cyclists for you to witness hundreds of them, let alone hundreds of offences on a daily basis. I didn't see anyone here suggest cyclists were virtuous, in my experience there are very similar ratios of all classes of road users who believe the laws are for everyone else. On the bright side, when a cyclist is an idiot, it is they who come off worst.


----------



## Baby boomer (1 May 2020)

Leo said:


> I very rarely see them around south Dublin on my commute, but I do see dozens of motorists in bus lanes. There are only around 4,000 fines issued for driving in bus lanes pa, so enforcement rates are minuscule.
> 
> 
> 
> There isn't that many cyclists for you to witness hundreds of them, let alone hundreds of offences on a daily basis. I didn't see anyone here suggest cyclists were virtuous, in my experience there are very similar ratios of all classes of road users who believe the laws are for everyone else. On the bright side, when a cyclist is an idiot, it is they who come off worst.


Obviously, the Gardai realise that you Southsiders are an inherently lawful lot and they therefore concentrate enforcement on us recalcitrant Northsiders!  

Isn't riding on the footpath an offence?  You'd have no problem clocking up hundreds of incidences of that on a day!  Then there's breaking traffic lights - a lot of cyclists don't think that applies to them.


----------



## Leo (1 May 2020)

Baby boomer said:


> Obviously, the Gardai realise that you Southsiders are an inherently lawful lot and they therefore concentrate enforcement on us recalcitrant Northsiders!



I'm not even a Dub, so I'm not sure whether I can take that as a compiment or an insult   



Baby boomer said:


> Isn't riding on the footpath an offence? You'd have no problem clocking up hundreds of incidences of that on a day! Then there's breaking traffic lights - a lot of cyclists don't think that applies to them.



Of course it is, and for the hundreds of incidences of that offence, you have thousands of drivers parking partially or fully on footpaths which is also an offence. Again, with breaking the lights, I see more cars than cyclists do that, it'd be nice if all offenders were penalised. Anyway, the "everyone else is worse than my mode of transport" has been done to death in the motoring forum, it never really gets to any conclusion. It's a function of having the most congested city in Europe, everyone is frustrated it takes so long to get anywhere, and we're all blind to our own transgressions.


----------

