Well at least they're honest about what cycle lanes are for.

[Red Light]

The Irish Government announced a 1 year €4m programme of cycle facility building which cyclists have asked them to stop. The Government's response was:

"This investment recognises the overriding need for employment generation given the current economic situation and it is not solely for cycling projects. Acting on cyclist.ie’s call in full would not only deny employment opportunities but also mean not progressing a large range of footpath and pedestrian-focused works"

So there we have it - cycle facilities are built to keep people employed, not because cyclists want them (or don't)

Irish Times: Cycling lobbies say €4m lanes a waste of money

 

[enas]

This is truly insane, I couldn't believe it when I read it (but then, much of Irish politics is at this level unfortunately). If you haven't read the details, most of those projects consist in converting hard shoulders into cycles lanes... Said otherwise, paint the hard shoulders of a national road in a different colour. I quite much agree there are better ways to be spending €4M (also, the proposed stretch of road that is to receive this treatment goes from nowhere to nowhere really).

 

[Tommi]

THE DEPARTMENT of Transport is pressing ahead with its plans to spend €4 million to create cycle lanes on national roads in rural areas.

What's the ratio between (latent potential) cycling mode share in rural areas and urban areas? Is relative amount of money being invested in cycle lanes and tracks in urban areas as well? If not, then it makes sense to spend the money where it's more needed instead.

Clueless UK business as usual. Nothing to do with cycle lanes as such.

 

[Norm]

Clueless UK business as usual. Nothing to do with cycle lanes as such.

It being a quote from the Irish government, the article being published in the Irish times and the lane in question running between Nenagh and Limerick, maybe you want to re-evaluate that one.

 

[Tommi]

It being a quote from the Irish government, the article being published in the Irish times and the lane in question running between Nenagh and Limerick, maybe you want to re-evaluate that one.

Well, "business as usual" then. Apologies, even after watching the video about UK, British Isles, etc. in my mind the line between fantasy island(s) and UK is bit fuzzy at times

. Still nothing to do with cycle lanes as such.

 

[Red Light]

[/color][/font]
Is relative amount of money being invested in cycle lanes and tracks in urban areas as well? If not, then it makes sense to spend the money where it's more needed instead.

They spent a lot of money* putting in 320km of cycle network in Dublin but it resulted in a fall in cycling. On the other hand the investment in the DublinBikes share bike scheme led to a big increase in cycling and there are plans to expand that scheme from 500 to 5,000 bikes

* Presumably about €400m based on this article

 

[Tommi]

They spent a lot of money* putting in 320km of cycle network in Dublin but it resulted in a fall in cycling. On the other hand the investment in the DublinBikes share bike scheme led to a big increase in cycling and there are plans to expand that scheme from 500 to 5,000 bikes

* Presumably about €400m based on this article

sources?

 

[classic33]

It being a quote from the Irish government, the article being published in the Irish times and the lane in question running between Nenagh and Limerick, maybe you want to re-evaluate that one.

The road in question already has a "crawler/slow lane" on either side in many places. This was made possible by the widening of the road a number of years ago. IF they intend to use the "crawler" lanes were will the traffic that these lanes were made for go?

They made that part of road faster by making it wider. But in doing so for most of the traffic that uses it its fine, however for those that live & work alongside it, it simply made a bad problem worse. Tractors & HGV's don't always move at the same speed as cars. You don't see many cars making turns out of fields(oft times muddy) onto what is effectivley a dual carriage A-road.

If they are going to be painting the road surface a different colour, then at least you stand a better chance of seeing & possibly avoiding what the cows have left behind.

 

[Red Light]

sources?

Dublin Transport Initiative 1995
Dublin City Council Cordon Traffic Counts

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

They spent a lot of money* putting in 320km of cycle network in Dublin but it resulted in a fall in cycling. On the other hand the investment in the DublinBikes share bike scheme led to a big increase in cycling and there are plans to expand that scheme from 500 to 5,000 bikes

* Presumably about €400m based on this article

You make it sound as if Dublin has been turned into some Dutch-style cycling nirvana, but conveniently ignore the fact that the "320km" claim is fantastical, and what little 'infrastructure' that has been 'constructed' is utter shite.

Photos here. http://www.geocities...h2001/Page1.htm

And the crap that has been put in has not been cleaned, maintained, or had any attempts to stop obstructions. Here's an example from Streetview, Upper Churchtown Road.

These 'tracks' are poorly designed, provide no level of subjective safety, no convenience, and are unpleasant to cycle on. Plenty more photo 'highlights' here - http://www.flickr.com/photos/cianginty/sets/72157623778399212/with/2481537436/

You say that a 'cycle network' has been 'put in', and that it has apparently resulted in a fall in cycling - but I think you need to look a little harder at what that 'network' actually consists of before you start drawing universal lessons about the efficacy of infrastructure in boosting cycling levels.

 

[dellzeqq]

You make it sound as if Dublin has been turned into some Dutch-style cycling nirvana, but conveniently ignore the fact that the "320km" claim is fantastical, and what little 'infrastructure' that has been 'constructed' is utter shite.

Photos here. http://www.geocities...h2001/Page1.htm

And the crap that has been put in has not been cleaned, maintained, or had any attempts to stop obstructions. Here's an example from Streetview, Upper Churchtown Road.

These 'tracks' are poorly designed, provide no level of subjective safety, no convenience, and are unpleasant to cycle on. Plenty more photo 'highlights' here - http://www.flickr.co...ith/2481537436/

You say that a 'cycle network' has been 'put in', and that it has apparently resulted in a fall in cycling - but I think you need to look a little harder at what that 'network' actually consists of before you start drawing universal lessons about the efficacy of infrastructure in boosting cycling levels.

well, once again, show us the drawing

 

[stowie]

well, once again, show us the drawing

I think the cycle lane is actually present in the picture. Except that the tarmac surface has worn away and cars are parked on it.

Looking at the picture, what a horrible environment for anyone not in a car. What a nasty environment to have your house backing onto. Clearly the cycle path has been formed by carving out the pavement to leave a thin strip for pedestrians. And then it appears drivers use it as a parking area anyway.

It is impossible to say what would make this road better without understanding the road and environment. But I would say that there is four lanes there with dividing strip - huge amounts of space devoted to getting cars through this area. The whole setup at the moment has no consideration for people walking or cycling, or indeed doing pretty much anything other than passing through in a car.

 

[cycleruk]

A cycle lane that will become a parking space for a car or something in the future (expensive one at that!). Lines on the road does not guarantee safety for a cyclist, but raising driver awareness on courses would help, just think, cyclist would be safer because of the raised awareness and you would need to employ people to teach these as well, two birds with one stone, far better use of the money.