Nearly 4 of 5 people who responded to a Dublin Chamber of Commerce poll on Twitter said that they think it would be a good idea for traffic to be removed from the quays for the Liffey Cycle Route.
The “snapshot poll” asked the question about “cars removed from north Quays altogether”, while Dublin City Council’s actual proposal is to divert through traffic off around just 450 metres of the quays between Blackhall Place and Church Street for the cycle route and bus priority.
A separate bus gate measure linked to Luas Cross City is also planned after O’Connell Bridge, affecting through traffic for around 270 metres. The quays are around 4.4km long and motoring access is to be maintained to other sections.
As reported by IrishCycle.com on Monday, an outline of the plan — is due to be presented to the city’s transport committe later today (Wednesday).
The Dublin Chamber tweet said: “Dublin City Council’s new proposals for a cycle lane along the Quays will see private cars removed from north Quays altogether. Your view?” Of those who responded, 73% indicated it would be a good idea, while only 27% said it would be a bad idea.
The poll results were deleted off Twitter for some time by Dublin Chamber, but after complaints, it was reposted with a Tweet which said: “Big response to our poll re proposed changes to Dublin’s north Quays. Thanks to all who replied. Here’s the final results…” (see image, right).
Dublin Chamber of Commerce account administrators, however, don’t seem to be persuaded by their own poll. While the poll was still open, they replied to feedback by tweeting: “Measures like this, without increased investment in public transport alternatives, simply won’t work.”
This prompted journalist Stephen Bourke to ask on Twitter: “The €368m Luas Cross City doesn’t count as public transport investment?” As well as Luas, direct trains are also due to operate from the Kildare line to the southeast business district for the first time and a bus rapid transport route between Blanchardstown and UCD is being planned.
MORE: Buses and bicycles to stay on quays in new plan which will divert cars
All of their twitter responses were quite telling of their attitude:
I wonder if they’ll change their outlook based on the responses…
Make more sense to survey the group most impacted I.e the motorists
they media are selling it purely as a cycle route and omitting the fact that it’ll improve conditions for public transport. they need to highlight this as without it, they anti cycle lobby will shoot this down.
@dalkeyprogress – Could job you’re not conducting the survey as you have clearly no idea to conduct a proper survey.
That should read ‘good job’ not ‘could job’.
That Dublin Chamber tweet appears to have been deleted. Does anyone know how to see a backup of it?
On The Last Word last night (5 Oct) the opportunity to clarify that the quays route was for public transport was missed!!
Motorists are clearly not the only ones impacted by this. I don’t why see the opinion of public transport users and cyclists should be ignored just because you think they will be positive. Anyway, when you ask the public in general are you not asking mostly motorists?
I detest this tactic of claiming that you are in favour of improving things but not until there is enough public transport. There is a TON of public transport on the quays. Every morning I see busses and taxis crawling along because the road is choked with cars. Removing cars from the quays would improve public transport without anyone spending a penny. This rationale, beloved by the Conor Faughnan as well, is really just a cars first policy. They just want to appear reasonable by claiming that they would be in favour of devoting space to non-car traffic but only when public transport is good enough, fully aware that opposing every measure to improve public transport ensures they will never have to.
Please remember guys 90% of people never cycle so not a sustainable option except for the lycra-clad elite.
Considering practically every kid under 18 has a bike and a significant proportion of the adult population own them, that is patently nonsense. Pulling statistics out of your ass does not make an argument, but since you started it; 90% of the Gucci-clad Merc-driving Dalkey elite may never cycle but they do not represent a remotely sustainable model for the future. Cyclists for all their occasional holier-than-thouness do. Intelligent planning and proper cycling infrastructure has allowed cycling to flourish in other European counties. A similar approach here will substantially increase the number of regular cyclists.
It’s an incontestable fact that 90% of commuter cyclists are in the age group 20-40 and even in this age cohort, cyclists are a small minority. In the suburbs where I live hardly anyone cycles but authorities persist in wasting my money on facilities that hardly anyone uses, even teenagers.
You should be wary of throwing around terms like “lycra-clad elite”. It makes you look like a someone who has no idea what they are talking about and gets their ‘facts’ from the likes of George Hook. I see 100s of cyclists every morning on my commute and 90% of them are not wearing lycra. THAT is an incontestable fact. I am pretty sure that you pulled your supposed facts out of your ass, but even if they were accurate so what? I see plenty of people over 40 on bikes, I am one myself. I see elderly people too. It is obviously possible for these people to use bicycles for transport so why not enable them.
You don’t want to cycle, that’s your prerogative. You don’t get to claim that you have to be some sort of young, fit elite to do so though. That’s patent rubbish. The vast majority of spending is to facilitate motorists, you have no right to complain about the tiny scraps that are spent on other modes. Your attitude reeks of greed and shortsightedness.
Interesting to observe the way bullies resort to abuse in preference to rational argument.
Dalkeyprogress **It’s an incontestable fact that 90% of commuter cyclists are … **
Here I’ll invoke Hitchen’s razor – That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
You do indeed pull ‘facts’ out of thin air.
**Please remember guys 90% of people never cycle so not a sustainable option except for the lycra-clad elite.**
You must just be a troll. Or an idiot. Or just tend to use really strong motivated reasoning to support your ideology. ……..Or all of the above. Have you ever been to the Netherlands? Are they all wearing lycra? Answer = no.
Also, the situation where people who take to the streets on fast bikes and who happen to be young fit males is in no way an indication of how a population would act when circumstances are different. Again, I point to the Netherlands. EVERYONE cycles there. Here in Ireland and in other environments where roads are often dangerous and hostile to cycling, those who are confident and fit, get out and cycle. Those who are less able, simply don’t cycle.
But, of course, you already know this. You just like to troll. Having fun?
Did you also know that studies have shown that internet trolls (like yourself, based on your history of comments on this blog) are much more likely to be egotistical and self-aggrandizing with psychopathic traits.
While a little more politeness might have been in order, you kicked it off by referring to cyclists as “the lycra-clad elite”. Furthermore, you have not offered anything even remotely approaching rational arguments; just glib made-up factoids and a recourse to victimhood when challenged. These are fairly standard strategies to attempt to manipulate a discussion without requiring the wit to present a cogent argument nor the willingness to actually research your facts. Were you to provide an actual rational argument to support your position, it would be treated with respect. Over to you.
While we are on the subject of incontestable facts, here are the stats from the canal cordon count for 2006 – 2015 (conducted each November counting all walkers cyclists or vehicle occupants):
So cycling is now hitting 20% of the numbers of drivers (with significantly less impact on roads, environment, and space) up from 8.2% 10 years earlier. Driver numbers are only going in one direction and it will accelerate.
I’m not aware of any general cycling survey in Ireland but the Sustrans survey for UK includes following facts re Belfast. I think the numbers speak for themselves:
66 % cyclists are male
77% under 44
70% of population never cycle
10% describe themselves as regular cyclists
A link would be nice, but at least you are getting the idea.
So, based on those figures, your original point “90% of people never cycle” was inaccurate and exaggerated, but not entirely wide of the mark, for Belfast at least, which has less cyclists than Dublin does. But in any case, most people do not currently cycle. OK. We know that. That is what we are trying to change.
So why do you think that most people don’t cycle? Is it because they don’t want to and they never will? Clearly that is your position, but is that really the case for that 70+%.
I would argue that not everyone has the same reasoning for not cycling that you do. Most people don’t cycle because the infrastructure is lousy and they perceive it as dangerous.
The stats from the canal cordon count clearly illustrate that cycling numbers have grown rapidly in the last decade. Cycling now carries 20% of the numbers of people into the city that cars do with far less attendant problems. We managed to get a 125% increase over a decade without improving infrastructure very much, but in order to continue this improvement into the future, increased investment is required.
Lastly, in an appeal to your self-interest, something you clearly care deeply about, I would ask you this. Imagine if every one of those 10893 cyclists got fed up of getting abuse from motorists and punctures from glass-strewn cycle paths and occasional dices with death with HGVs and decided to drive to work instead (and most of them have cars). What impact do you think a 20.5% increase in car traffic would have on the city? Do you somehow think this would make things better for drivers? Really? At the end of the day, though they fail to realize it, it is very much in the interest of the average intransigent reactionary motorist complaining on line about bloody cyclists that the “lycra-clad elite” and many others besides continue to choose to cycle.
Sorry I think you’re missing the point which is that for a long list of reasons cycling, as a commuter solution, isn’t sustainable in the Dublin context and thus shouldn’t be the target for public spending. I don’t want to see any more money spent on expensive and disruptive facilities for an elite minority it’s as simple as that.
Unfortunately the tablet I’m on won’t let me copy and paste a link. A Google search on Sustrans survey should lead to it.
That may be the point you are trying to make but you are failing miserably. None of the figures you posted support your assertion that the minority is an elite. Cyclists are certainly a minority, I doubt anyone will challenge that. You don’t come anywhere close to showing why money shouldn’t be spent to facilitate that minority. This is especially bizarre since the amount of money is a tiny minority of the money spent on all transport.
Nothing you have posted shows that the current level of cycling in Dublin isn’t sustainable. How on earth did you reach that conclusion? What do you imagine will happen to reduce it? Is this a circular argument where you claim the numbers are unsustainable so all spending must stop and then people stop cycling because there is no infrastructure? You have reverted to simply inventing ‘facts’ that back up what you want, which is for some reason none of ‘your’ money to be ‘wasted’ on those ‘elite’ cyclists.
Luckily we seem to be moving away from an environment where people like you are listened to.
I’m missing the point? Did you even read what I took the time to write?
I tried rational argument, and, you know, evidence, but clearly that cuts no mustard with you despite your claims to the contrary. You never had any intention of having a rational debate. You quoted a barely relevant sustrans report to try to give weight to your spurious opinion, which is essentially that cycling somehow impacts you financially with absolutely no benefit whatsoever to others and you will stick to that in the face of any and all evidence to the contrary.
Stating that cycling isn’t sustainable is the single most ridiculous assertion I have heard in a long long time. Think for just a second about what you are actually saying, and how foolish it is.
As I said previously, based on his posts on this blog over the last year, Dalkeyprogress is IMO either an idiot or a troll or both. He has no interest in actually having a rational fact based discussion. I certainly admire your attempts above, but with the sort of personality displayed by Dalkeyprogress, your attempts will be doomed to failure.
His assertions are absolutely bonkers. He asserts (without evidence of course) that cycling is unsustainable…!!!!???!!?!? This is so insane that it really should be a massive red flag that this person isn’t worth engaging.
Think about it: does he really think that getting all those cyclists off their bikes and into cars is sustainable? Even Jeremy Clarkson wouldn’t come out with that one. I genuinely don’t believe Dalkeyprogress holds this opinion either. It’s classic troll/psychopathic behavior.
**Sorry I think you’re missing the point**
I do chuckle when I hear this being said in day to day discussions, because 99% of the time that it’s said to me, I’m NOT missing the point; I do see their point, and they’re flat out wrong. Never more so than with our trolling friend.
OK so now I’m repeating myself but as the message obviously isn’t getting through I’ll elaborate a little. Enormous numbers of commuters in Dublin are victims of terrible planning and thus live in distant places badly served by public transport. They need cars to get to work. For the bulk of these people cycling isn’t available or sustainable as a solution. It’s only sustainable for an elite (privileged) minority who 1. Live in the inner suburbs or the city, 2. Are young, superfit, and largely male. If 80-90% of the population is excluded from a commute option, in what sense is it sustainable? Even more laughably the Council officials that dictate the misplaced priority cycle policy are themselves motorists, as demonstrated by the extensive car parking facilities at Wood Quay. I’d be farmore impressed by these hypocrites and their policies if they closed the car park but of course this is something they will never do. So ‘do as I say not do as I do’. The anthem of dictat planners everywhere. Finally can I ask for a little consideration for motoring commuters who will be forced to endure endless gridlock around Blackhall place in the name of facilitating the young smug lycra brigade along the Quays.
**OK so now I’m repeating myself**
Unfortunately for us all.
**as the message obviously isn’t getting through **
I’ll refer you to my comment above. We see what you’re saying, we just think you’re wrong.
**it’s only sustainable for an elite (privileged) minority**
Privileged? You mean people on buses and bikes who can’t afford cars, insurance and parking fees. You mean the down-trodden penniless owner of a Porche, Mercedes or BMW SUV?
**Live in the inner suburbs or the city**
I don’t. I commute 17km each way to work each day.
**Are young, superfit, and largely male**
I’m in my late 40s. Also, age or sex is no barrier to cycling when adequate safe cycling infrastructure is provided.
But of course you know all this. I’ve often wondered what it’s like to be a troll. What exactly goes on in their heads?
**80-90% of the population is excluded from a commute option, in what sense is it sustainable**
Haha, more red-flag stuff. Utter clap-trap. No one would ever be in a car if there were no roads, now would they. And what has what I just said got to do with anything? – Just about as much as what you said has got to do with anything.
**Finally can I ask for a little consideration for motoring commuters**
**who will be forced to endure endless gridlock**
Well, that doesn’t sound very sustainable, now does it….
Just so we’re clear:
1. The ability to be sustained, supported, upheld, or confirmed.
2. Environmental Science. the quality of not being harmful to the environment or depleting natural resources, and thereby supporting long-term ecological balance.
Your repeated description of cyclists as “smug” and an “elite” betrays an obvious prejudice. Ultimately you are saying that you don’t like cycling for purely selfish reasons and nothing we say will change that. Others on here are correct that I shouldn’t be engaging with you, but whatever, it passes the time.
You seem to think that we expect everyone to cycle no matter how far the distance or physically challenged they may be. That is not the case. Cycling is not for absolutely everyone, but it should be an option if people are willing to do it, and the evidence shows that when that option is available, the numbers of cyclists increase exponentially.
Also cycling is not just for commuting. Most daytime traffic in suburban areas is people taking a 2km or less trip to the shops or to pick up kids. I am constantly shocked when off work that my local area is a car park nearly all day long. Given better facilities and a bit of encouragement, maybe even a culture supportive of cycling, why shouldn’t they do those journeys on a bike? Many of them go jogging or to the gym in the evenings, why not get a little fitter while going about their daily lives?
Your understanding and usage of the word “sustainable” is laughable, and your assessment of the people for whom cycling is feasible is way wide of the mark. Consider the following:
1. 38% of car commutes in Dublin are less than 5km in distance (2006 Census)
2. 60% of car commutes in Dublin are less than 10km in distance (2006 Census)
3. 1 in 5 journeys are under 2km, and 51% use the car for these journeys, probably more in the suburbs.
4. Not everyone commutes into the city. Many commute cross-city.
5. People (maybe even you) are capable of far more than they realize.
Like many cyclists, I do not remotely fit your stereotyping; I am in my late forties, I travel from North Kildare to D15 (20km each way) 2 or 3 times a week. When I started, I wasn’t particularly fit and thought it would be well beyond me, but discovered to my pleasure that it wasn’t. It isn’t beyond most people if they actually try, and nearly anyone can manage a 5km cycle. You don’t need to be some kind of uber-fit sports freak, you just need to be motivated to get off your arse and give it a try.
The problem is that people are naturally disinclined to make the effort. They make excuses, and the best excuses out there are the lack of decent facilities and the danger. They are the very things we want to change and the government to make an effort to address. The very thing that will be improved by the proposed liffey cycle way you are so grumpy about. And in fairness to councillors, those that support cycling generally cycle; it is the old curmudgeons like Mannix Flynn who choose not to but then they tend to hold views not unlike your own.
Here are links to actually back up what I am saying:
% of car journeys under 5 and 10km:
aka, thanks for getting the actual statistics on commute distances. Saved me the trouble. I still think it is worthwhile arguing because for every completely intransigent ideologue there are lots of people who have heard the poorly understood or just made up information from those people who just need the actual facts to set them straight.