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...
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: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.
So who installed all the public parking? Majority of road space is taken up by private cars....
Do you have many examples of extra road space allocated to private cars
Perhaps once upon a time what you say was true and infrastructure was built for private cars.
Can you point where I said that?
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.There is no evidence whatsoever the people currently in charge hate these other modes of transport more than they hate cars. Quite the contrary.
There's a canal around Ormond Quay?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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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?"
That 2% is very misleading. Perhaps 2% of new infrastructure is new dedicated cycle path.
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....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.
Excellent; the plan is working.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.
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.No, that whole section still has significantly more space dedicated to general traffic and parking.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.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?
That's why I prefixed it with "Suppose..."!Tell me where that has ever happened?
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.
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!If you're Trump maybe. If you're just making stuff up there's little point debating!
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.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.
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!
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.