11.1 introduction
There are no clear measures and objectives in place for this entire section, despite cycling being one of the main tools we have in cities to decarbonise transport.
"It is the intention of the NTA and the local authorities to deliver a safe, comprehensive, fully connected, attractive and legible cycle network in accordance with the updated Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network”.
If we look at the maps provided with the documents, it seems the connected aspect of the network is not taken seriously (see notes on maps below), as some parts of the same road start with being primary and end up being secondary (with no explanation of what is primary and secondary). If we want people to replace car trips with bicycle trips, the network needs to be connected and safe, i.e. cycle lanes that can be used by children, people with disabilities, elderly people and nervous cyclists. As it is, the ‘network’ is haphazard, and the cycle lanes are of different widths, meaning cyclists may have to get into general traffic during their trip.
“69% would find more cycle tracks along roads, physically separated from traffic and pedestrians useful to help them cycle more."
“84% of residents also support building more physically separated on-road cycle tracks, even when this would mean less space for other road traffic."
The difference between wanting to cycle and cycling is infrastructure - despite knowing this and having a vast majority of people expressing their desire to cycle, there is no commitment anywhere in the document to safe, fully segregated, fully connected cycling infrastructure in Dublin and no number attached to it. How many km? How many segregated? What width?
11.2
The draft strategy states: “It is the intention of the NTA and the local authorities to deliver a safe, comprehensive, attractive and legible cycle network in accordance with the updated
Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network”.
Again, there is no figure attached to any of this, nor any budget. The graph following the paragraph shows a 12% the projected total mode share for bicycles by 2042, or 14% in the metropolitan area - where are those 12% and 14% coming from? Why is it lower than the 20% modal shift dublin City Council had set for 2020 in its development plan? How do we measure success? Why is it so unambitious?
This is even more concerning that the legal objective is now to reduce GHG emissions by 51% across all sectors - we are not given any goal on transport, subdivided by mode. At European level, this has been understood and the mobility package in the TEN-T legislation considers cycling as the backbone of urban mobility - the NTA has not made cycling their priority yet.
11.3 GDA Cycle Network - comments on page 7 of the plan Mapset
Please note that we assume that primary road means this road will be considered as a main cycling route, secondary as a potential cycling route, as there is no explanation or clear legend on how to read the documents. With that in mind, we suggest a number of changes:
Capel Street and environs:
Remove the secondary cycle route from Capel Street. The overwhelming success of the summer pedestrianisation trials shows that Capel Street will be best used as a pedestrianised street, not as a through-route for motor vehicles or even bicycles. The high concentration of bars and restaurants leave outdoor space at a premium and using it as a through route is a poor use of the space. You shouldn’t run a cycle route down the street any more than you would on Grafton Street.
Instead, we suggest that you upgrade Jervis Street / Swift Row & Eustace Street (Temple Bar) to a primary route, and add a new walking & cycling bridge on the Liffey connecting the two. This is a better location for a bridge than the proposed bridge connecting Fishamble Street to Arran Street. There is a shortage of cycling crossing points in Dublin’s core, whereas there are several existing road bridges around the Dublin 7 and 8 area that the Fishamble St bridge is proposed for that can be retrofitted to include better cycling. A bridge at Jervis St / Eustace St (Eustace St would be need to be resurfaced and converted in bicycle-only street with widened footpaths) would be closer to key destinations such as Henry St and the new bicycle parking facility at Jervis St, and would connect to a dedicated cycle route on the north side rather than residential back streets, and would provides a direct route from a natural desire line between Parnell Street to the cycle route on College Green, and to the George’s St.
LUAS / Finglas area greenway
We suggest extending the greenway that currently ends at Fassaugh Road. It could continue alongside the LUAS track, all the way to connect up to the plaza at Broadstone / TU Dublin. This would be a complex project that requiring engineering works and land acquisitions, but would be an enormously beneficial amenity for the area and is worth pursuing as a long-term goal.
Other comments:
-
Discontinuous from Botanic avenue to Church st : if we want this to be a main artery, a continuous, straight, primary road from Finglas to the city centre would make sense. Coupled with Luas Finglas, this would reduce motorised traffic from that heavily congested artery. Going further, this could be continued past the Liffey and by making Usher's quay a primary route continuous to reach Patrick st (which is marked as primary), you could create a North to South route from Finglas to Portobello
-
The Royal Canal Bank cannot become a primary cycle route despite the ambition for BusConnects - there is not enough width to accommodate a large flow of people, and plans for bridges over the canal and underneath the Blacquiere bridge have not been published yet. This corner (Royal Canal Bank / NCR) is also going for redevelopment,
-
with 100 apartments and 450 cycle parking. For this new community to be able to cycle safely and straight into the city, the Phibsborough road needs to be the first choice. The Canal Greenway would be great for leisure cycling and family cycling but should not be considered as a main artery.
-
Unless Whitworth road is made into a one way road, there is simply not enough space to make it an orbital route
-
Instead, make the whole North Circular road into primary or orbital road - that would allow people living in Stoneybatter and Phibsborough to access the Phoenix Park by bicycle and could be connected to the Canal Greenway off North Strand, creating a continuous cycling route from Heuston to Grand Canal Dock with very little effort but reallocation of space. The Mater Hospital being one of the main employers in the Phibsborough area, this could encourage a lot of commuters to switch to bicycles or public transport
-
Upgrade the rest of George’s St/Aungier St/Camden St to primary to provide a continuous north-south primary route through the heart of the city
-
Upgrade Dorset Street to Primary and King St North to Primary orbital
-
Add a secondary route connecting Stoneybatter to the North Circular Road Phoenix Park gate. Suggested route via Arbour Hill, up through the residential streets and through O’Devaney Gardens
-
Upgrade East Wall Road to primary to connect the coastal routes north and south of the city
11.4 Cycle Infrastructure Design
"It is the intention of the NTA to ensure that cycle infrastructure in the GDA provides an appropriate quality of service to all users, through the implementation of the design guidance contained in the latest version of the National Cycle Manual." The National Cycle Manual contains guidelines that do not fit with international best practice, which is counter productive, a waste of money, and potentially dangerous. In revising the manual, the NTA must attend to the best international examples of cycle design, and not try to reinvent the wheel such as with junctions, which the NTA seems to be opposed to for no good reason: https://irishcycle.com/2021/03/09/dublin-style/
Dublin is also covered in substandard cycle lanes, which are not wide enough for cargo bikes, or for 2 people cycling alongside - if we want to make cycling attractive, we need to make it as comfortable and social as driving a car, where two people can talk while the vehicle moves. Some of them are too narrow for cargo bikes, trikes or for people to cycle beside their child - a minimum width needs to be respected throughout.
11.5 Cycle Parking
There is no mapping of secure cycle parking anywhere in the document, or any number identified (it just mentions ‘ more bike parking’). This is a very vague goal for something that could be crucial for the city, as a lot of people fear their bike will be stolen if they cycle. Identifying locations for safe cycle parking is necessary and should be included in the document, including adapted bikes, cargo bikes and electric bikes. On those, it would be essential to have protected, camera enforced safe parking so that longer bicycle trips (over 10km) can be encouraged.
11.7 Bikes on Public Transport
"As such, all Irish Rail services using newly procured fleet, including new DART fleet, will accommodate a minimum of 4 bicycles per train, in addition to an unlimited number of folding bikes." If we really want to encourage multi modal shift (i.e. train + bike for commuting or for greenways), we need to increase this and have 4 bicycles / carriage and not by train.
The NTA states the Luas is “unsuited for carriage of standard bicycles on board”. There is no explanation on why that is? These trams are the same design as the ones used in Strasbourg, and the city of Strasbourg has dedicated spaces in their trams for bikes.