Comment & Analysis: Sure, there is a clear element of people out there who are that bit more enraged because it’s a “bike shed”, but a TheJournal.ie article yesterday arguing that “the bike shed controversy shows us we don’t condone investment in sustainable transport” is just a leap too far.
The writer of the TheJournal.ie article, Simon Tierney, a journalist, is right about that general point that all things are not even when it comes to outrage.
Before I go any further, I should say that I’m well aware that this article might be disliked even more than Tierney’s article. I’m probably going to lose anybody who has already agreed with him, and I’ll also lose anybody who thinks there’s no way a bike shelter could cost anything more than a few grand at most.
Yes, there is a huge problem with a large percentage of people being far too accepting of the cost of car infrastructure and being overly concerned about sustainable transport. Spending on anything from a pedestrian crossing to a railway line is questioned far more than a car park or a road.
It’s also not just financial cost. Environmental and other external costs are often dismissed when it comes to car infrastructure and any environmental downsides of sustainable transport infrastructure are usually amplified.
With cycling infrastructure, there are especially issues when full street redesigns are classed as just “bike lanes”, and many people show their true colours when they won’t listen to facts.
The most infamous example is the Clontarf to City Centre Cycle and Bus Project. For many, there’s no point explaining that the price tag includes full footpath replacement, new crossings, improved public spaces, bus stop upgrades, strengthening and replacement of the carriageway (which is 4-7 traffic lanes wide), water main replacement, new greenery, and more.
But even accounting for the response from the anti-cycling elements and a chunk of people who are cycling sceptic, the €336,000 bicycle shelter is still a scandal because it’s an outrageous price for what it is.
And we need to stop calling it a shed. It’s a shelter that cannot even keep the bikes dry.
One source told IrishCycle that he counted 17 stands, not the 18 that the OPW mentions and which has been often repeated. Looking at the many photographs of the bike stands, it seems like this is the case. Each stand can be used to lock two bicycles, so, the capacity is double the number of stands.
In any case, 3 of the bicycle stands aren’t even under the shelter — that means the total capacity of 34 (or 36) bicycles includes 6 bicycles outside of even the ineffective shelter.
Given there’s been so much focus on the shelter, we have seen mainly wide-camera views of it. It’s not just the number of stands that is unclear from the photos. In terms of materials and workmanship, most of the photos don’t do the bicycle shelter justice. From the close-up photos I’ve seen, it looks like high-class work and bespoke materials.
But even with fancy granite (which extends beyond the shelter) and shiny bollards (with fancy down lighting), there are few people who would think it is value for money at a third of the €336,000 price tag.
This is where it gets difficult to talk about costs. People are quick to do a quick Google and find off-the-shelf costs of shelters without talking about the costs of planning around a protected structure, labour, groundworks, drainage, expensive granite slabs, bollards, electric works (including lighting and ebike charging points), repaving part of the car park or taking any other factors into account.
But the bespoke structure and surrounds should have cost closer to half the cost — around €150,000 — with all of the work involved.
In some cases, people looked at much smaller shelters, and companies used the whole thing as marketing opportunity. However, where such companies are selling shelters and even installing them, they are not doing the work around it to the level which was done around Leinster House. It is great PR, but not so great for giving the public a realistic idea of the cost.
But then, if you’re trying to look at comparable shelters reasonably, it’s also worth keeping in mind that parliamentary staff and politicians have said that the shelter doesn’t even keep the rain off the bicycles. So, while the shelter is bespoke, there’s a huge question about its effectiveness alone.
Then there’s also the wider question of why granite paving was used when it is an isolated section of the surface surrounded by a sea of asphalt used for car parking. Many people say a black top surface isn’t suitable for outside our parliament buildings, but a patchwork of projects may look worse.
Of course, the location (“outside the Dail”) is going to grab more national media attention than a car park in a town down the country. Especially just before the new political season kicked off. Tierney isn’t being realistic by claiming otherwise.
As said, there’s also no doubt that more than a few eejits out there were extra animated because it was a bike shed. Just as there’s no doubt that there’s a cohort of people who will not accept the cost of things today (those people are always annoyed at public spending and doubly grieved when it’s something they don’t like or aren’t interested in).
But it’s a massive oversimplification to claim that the outrage is because people overall “don’t respect green infrastructure in the same way that we fetishise car parks.”
We don’t need a bike shelter to find out that a significant percentage of people have a troubling reluctance to prioritise the sustainable transport infrastructure which we need.
It’s also just not true to claim that we “rarely want” such sustainable transport infrastructure — survey after survey and even most public consultations show that a significant majority of people support such investment.
Some of the media, lobbyists, and politicians focus on a vocal minority and often pretend that they are the majority when they are not.
We collectively still have “car brain”. Or, if you want, we can call it the more academic-sounding “motonormativity”.
The well-proven and repeatable effects of motonormativity include being more accepting of driving-related risks and being more accepting of storing our cars in public spaces over anything else. So, it doesn’t take a leap to say it will include spending or wasting money on car infrastructure.
There’s a huge amount of research which outlines that car-centric planning is not just environmentally unsustainable but also economically unsustainable. Or that more roads and traffic lanes can only “solve” congestion for a very short time in busy areas.
But nothing changes that a bicycle shelter costing €336,000 should have cost something closer to €150,000 and most people think it should have cost less (even if they are wrong).
There’s still no doubt it being a bike shelter helped aggravate some people’s annoyance but the security shed reaction shows it’s far from the main factor.
The outrage relates to the above-mentioned highly inflated cost, that it was outside our parliament buildings (and seen as something for politicians), and that it was news (politicians getting free lifetime parking isn’t new). And the story was likely helped by factors such as the timing just before the Dáil got up and running again.
MORE: OPW Review of the Covered Bicycle Parking Project (PDF)
Nicely put Cian.
“The well-proven and repeatable effects of motonormativity include being more accepting of driving-related risks and being more accepting of storing our cars in public spaces over anything else. So, it doesn’t take a leap to say it will include spending or wasting money on car infrastructure.”