Seamus Quirke roadworks merge

what_traffic

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I know Green-bashing is a favourite pastime in these parts, even post their predictable electoral wipeout, but AFAIK such bus lanes have been local and national policy for quite some time.

The SQR modifications were also approved by a statutory body, An Bord Pleanala, as was a portion of the GCOB.

IIRC the Bus lanes where added after An Bord Pleanala recommendations.
The City Cllr's in 2004/2005 had bus lanes added in the City Dev Plan 2005 -> 2011.

galwaycyclist

what_traffic wrote: »

IIRC the Bus lanes where added after An Bord Pleanala recommendations.
The City Cllr's in 2004/2005 had bus lanes added in the City Dev Plan 2005 -> 2011.

Yeah in 2004 the elected council at the time voted to put in the SQR bus lanes against the strenuous opposition of Joe Tansey.

Bear in mind it was not the councillors fault that there is no direct bus service accross the bridge to Ballybrit/Parkmore etc.

KevR

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It's a typically slow Irish start, but a start nonetheless.

The highly successful #9 Parkmore route is what, 2.3 buses per hour (averaged over 24 hours)?

I would just like to reiterate the following. Some people overstate the role that the Dublin Road bus lane plays in the success enjoyed by the Number 9 bus route.

(Don't get me wrong, I do think the Dublin Road bus lane is important. I just don't want anyone to wrongly over-estimate the impact that the SQR bus lane will have based on the Number 9 which is somewhat unique).

Sponge Bob

Did the city council explicitly intend them to be 24 hour bus lanes in 2004/5 or is a 24 bus lane a condition of DoT funding ??

what_traffic

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Cycled this today. No cone blocking it. Its dangerous cycling around these bus stop chicane. Can see cycling accidents being commonplace here especially if pedestrians are walking the other side of the bus stop sign. Plus there is a 2/3cm lip between the cycle path and footpath. SQR can be a like a wind tunnel the best of times, but today had a slight breeze on my back and was travelling 25kph on this slight downhill stretch.

antoobrien

what_traffic wrote: »

Cycled this today. No cone blocking it. Its dangerous cycling around these bus stop chicane. Can see cycling accidents being commonplace here especially if pedestrians are walking the other side of the bus stop sign. Plus there is a 2/3cm lip between the cycle path and footpath. SQR can be a like a wind tunnel the best of times, but today had a slight breeze on my back and was travelling 25kph on this slight downhill stretch.

I'd much rather all cycle lanes to be road level, incorporated into the bus lanes (like many of the ones in Dublin).

Out of curiosity, which is preferred - road level, off road split level like in the picture or current QB style setup?

what_traffic

antoobrien wrote: »

I'd much rather all cycle lanes to be road level, incorporated into the bus lanes (like many of the ones in Dublin).

Out of curiosity, which is preferred - road level, off road split level like in the picture or current QB style setup?

Would be 100% in agreement with you here antoobrien.
Road level. The Cycle path width on the new SQR section should be incorporated into the Bus lane, it should not be marked as a cycle lane - just a wide bus lane. It will be safer to cycle in the Bus Lane when this scheme is finished.

Sponge Bob

The cyclists will use the (generally empty) buslanes on this road anyway and can easily go into the cycle lane after every junction if taxis appear behind them.

ciotog

antoobrien wrote: »

I'd much rather all cycle lanes to be road level, incorporated into the bus lanes (like many of the ones in Dublin).

Out of curiosity, which is preferred - road level, off road split level like in the picture or current QB style setup?

Preferred by the cycling campaign - road level as what_traffic mentions below. Preferred by the city council - Doughiska style now tending to off-road split level as in picture. Although, in fairness, they will have cycle tracks i.e. road level for part of the new road layouts after the Font and Morris roundabouts are removed.

antoobrien

what_traffic wrote: »

Would be 100% in agreement with you here antoobrien.
Road level. The Cycle path width on the new SQR section should be incorporated into the Bus lane, it should not be marked as a cycle lane - just a wide bus lane. It will be safer to cycle in the Bus Lane when this scheme is finished.

Having cycled for several years for Dublin I can vouch for that, the bus drivers see you on front of them and are generally (there's always one or two who aren't) careful about pulling off from a stop.

Some of the bus & cycle lanes in Dublin are a tad on the narrow side, so I would rather see them marked as cycle lanes beside/inside the bus lane.

Iwannahurl

I used the next section of cycle path after the one pictured above, since it didn't have a sign & traffic cone blocking the on-ramp.

I got a beep plus a thumbs up from the motorist behind as he passed.

Parse and analyse that as you see fit!



.

what_traffic

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I used the next section of cycle path after the one pictured above, since it didn't have a sign & traffic cone blocking the on-ramp.

What ya make of the chicane at the bus stop?

Sponge Bob

Bus users will shelter on east side of shelter ...not in shelter.

Feckin things are wide open to the south west in GALWAY of ALL PLACES!!

what_traffic

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Bus users will shelter on east side of shelter ...not in shelter.

Feckin things are wide open to the south west in GALWAY of ALL PLACES!!

Good observation.

Iwannahurl

what_traffic wrote: »

What ya make of the chicane at the bus stop?

Perfectly fine with nobody else there! Only glitch was a cyclist wandering on the footpath, then turning onto the bike path without looking as I approached. I expect he was just having a look around.

TBH, I don't really know how the chicane and bus stop arrangements will work out.

In Copenhagen, for example, cycle paths are often situated between bus stops/shelters and the bus lane.

Watch the video below from 1:58 on and you will see how the Copenhageners do it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_8dGodhGtI

The video claims that "the city buses block auto traffic but do not interrupt bicycle traffic".

The latter point is incorrect, in that bus passengers interrupt bicycle traffic. In Copenhagen cyclists are required to yield to passengers boarding or alighting from the bus.

I used to be of the opinion that such arrangements were a very bad idea, and that segregated cycle paths of this type were an inherently flawed concept, especially where conflict is created with other road users. I can't find the original source just now, but here's an excerpt from a blog which expresses this point of view:

It's bad public policy to enhance safety for one road user while degrading it for another. That's especially true for those pedestrians entering or exiting buses in Copenhagen who have cyclists riding between them and the sidewalk. Their accident rates increased by 1951% and injuries increased by 1762%.

All I can say with certainty was that in my necessarily limited experience of cycling and using buses in Copenhagen (two week's holiday in 2010) their system worked fine. My impression was that the cyclists generally respected this rule and I witnessed no collisions or other adverse incidents. The photos below are intended to give a wee flavour of the experience.

Iwannahurl

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Bus users will shelter on east side of shelter ...not in shelter.

Feckin things are wide open to the south west in GALWAY of ALL PLACES!!

Designed to maximise visibility of advertising for the benefit of passing traffic, perhaps?

I'd be interested in enquiring about this one. The primary purpose of bus shelters is to shelter bus users, or so you'd think.

Sponge Bob

Iwannahurl wrote: »

. The primary purpose of bus shelters is to shelter bus users, or so you'd think.

That is what I do think and that is why I said so. Do you have a problem with that as well as with pretty much everything else from what I can see. ???

Iwannahurl

Keep your hair on. I'm agreeing with your original observation.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Bus users will shelter on east side of shelter ...not in shelter.

Feckin things are wide open to the south west in GALWAY of ALL PLACES!!

Bus shelters should be for the benefit of bus users, not advertisers. That's all I'm saying, and that concurs with the point you made.

I'd be interested in getting details of their design criteria.

ciotog

Iwannahurl wrote: »

My impression was that the cyclists generally respected this rule and I witnessed no collisions or other adverse incidents.

This is a key point; respect between road users goes along way to a less stressful journey for everyone. It's just not happening at the level it should do, today.

Iwannahurl

There are probably big cultural differences at play here.

I'm inclined to agree with the view that in Ireland we have a lax attitude to legality.

One area in which that is evident is our general level of compliance with traffic and parking regulations, for example.

Paying heed to the RoTR is one form of respect, as is sharing the road with courtesy, tolerance and attention to safety.

what_traffic

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Designed to maximise visibility of advertising for the benefit of passing traffic, perhaps?
I'd be interested in getting details of their design criteria.

Wont have this issue on the other side of the road with the shelters

Advertising is not the issue here - they are reducing the overall advertising space that a typical shelter would have.
Reason they have one side open is that they want all pedestrians who wish to use the bus shelter to enter the shelter from the side that cyclists will be approaching from. A Social Engineering experiment that will fail.

@Galwaycyclist - can you confirm this is the intention here?

galwaycyclist

what_traffic wrote: »

Wont have this issue on the other side of the road with the shelters

Advertising is not the issue here - they are reducing the overall advertising space that a typical shelter would have.
Reason they have one side open is that they want all pedestrians who wish to use the bus shelter to enter the shelter from the side that cyclists will be approaching from. A Social Engineering experiment that will fail.

@Galwaycyclist - can you confirm this is the intention here?

Yep this is also my understanding I believe there will be pedestrian guard rails at the back of the shelters to force prospective passengers in and out on one side.

With regard to the Copenhagen model referenced above and also the model here I would point out the following. At the moment the city council are considering a draft walking and cycling strategy for the city and environs.

One of the proposed amendments to the draft is to develop a "Code of Conduct" for spaces shared between cyclists and pedestrians. The city council officials are resisting/rejecting this as they say this is a matter for the RSA and the "Rules of the Road". It is likely that this will have to be forced to a vote by the elected city council to get this included.

At one and the same time they are rejecting attempts to recognise and preserve roadside footpaths as a pedestrian space and to favour on-road solutions for cyclists.

Somewhat bizarrely certain city officials are even trying to argue that it is not illegal in this country to cycle on roadside footpaths.

Now we might see interesting things in other countries but we have to remember who will be building them here, managing them and will be responsible for their use. Hint: It won't be Copenhagen City Council

Sponge Bob

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Somewhat bizarrely certain city officials are even trying to argue that it is not illegal in this country to cycle on roadside footpaths.

Yes, I believe a ministerial order must be made under Section 60 of the Road Traffic Act 1968 whereby a minister Designates a cycle path or footpath or mixture. As far as I know each designation is a ministerial power only and the ministers told the councils years ago to fcuk off and not annoy them about these pissant matters.

As far as I know a council cannot unilaterally declare a cycle path but I do wish the corpo would send an omnibus map of every footpath and cycle path in Galway to Varadkar and get him to sign the whole lot just the once every 10 years or so. Then the separation would be legal and enforceable.

Th eproblem is that there is no register /map of what was designated since 1968 so the real answer is a maybe it is illegal but the lads in the corpo haven't a clue and don't care to check coz it is too much work.

The corpo DO have the power to control cycling and designate cycle lanes on every beach in the City....whatever about paths and roads... anyone care to tell me how/why???

galwaycyclist

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Yes, I believe a ministerial order must be made under Section 60 of the Road Traffic Act 1968 whereby a minister Designates a cycle path or footpath or mixture. As far as I know each designation is a ministerial power only and the ministers told the councils years ago to fcuk off and not annoy them about these pissant matters.

As far as I know a council cannot unilaterally declare a cycle path but I do wish the corpo would send an omnibus map of every footpath and cycle path in Galway to Varadkar and get him to sign the whole lot just the once every 10 years or so. Then the separation would be legal and enforceable.

Th eproblem is that there is no register /map of what was designated since 1968 so the real answer is a maybe it is illegal but the lads in the corpo haven't a clue and don't care to check coz it is too much work.

Only had time for a quick scan - this seems to pertain mostly to giving the minister the power to make regulations. Replacing IIRC the road traffic and general by laws. This has been done under SI 182/1997 Traffic and Parking Regulations - Article 13 of which prohibits driving on the footway (= footpath to Joe public). It appears that the boys in city hall are trying to argue that this doesn't apply to cyclists or possibly that because part of a footway "may" be marked as a cycle track it cannot then be generally illegal to cycle on a footway.

Bottom line is that they appear to just make things up as they go along.

I was sitting at the Bike share symposium on Tuesday with a city council engineer beside me arguing with me that it is not illegal to cycle on the footpath (footway). Five minutes later the Dublin engineer is putting up a slide for a publicity campaign targeted at stopping cyclists from using footpaths because "footpaths are for pedestrians".

Sponge Bob

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I was sitting at the Bike share symposium on Tuesday with a city council engineer beside me arguing with me that it is not illegal to cycle on the footpath (footway). Five minutes later the Dublin engineer is putting up a slide for a publicity campaign targeted at stopping cyclists from using footpaths because "footpaths are for pedestrians".

Sound like a down home version of what Old Brian Lenihan once called "the futility of consistency"

Thanks for confirming that these 1968 ministerial only powers were delegated to councils in 1997.

They probably lost all their maps since the poor dears. A friendly councillor could get you a full list of every usage/designation of these 1997 powers by the officials ( if indeed any) if they laid down a motion. If they were brave they could ask for all the 1968-1997 era stuff too.

galwaycyclist

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Sound like a down home version of what Old Brian Lenihan once called "the futility of consistency"

Thanks for confirming that these 1968 ministerial only powers were delegated to councils in 1997.

They probably lost all their maps since the poor dears. A friendly councillor could get you a full list of every usage/designation of these 1997 powers by the officials ( if indeed any) if they laid down a motion. If they were brave they could ask for all the 1968-1997 era stuff too.

Ooops sorry that was not meant to be taken as a legal opinion. Also my reading is that the section did not provide for any delegation of powers to any local authorities to make regulations. The minister makes the regulations and the local authorities are supposed to understand and work to those regulations in designing and signing roads. The public are expected to use the same roads according to those regulations.

galwaycyclist

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Ooops sorry that was not meant to be taken as a legal opinion. Also my reading is that the section did not provide for any delegation of powers to any local authorities to make regulations. The minister makes the regulations and the local authorities are supposed to understand and work to those regulations in designing and signing roads. The public are expected to use the same roads according to those regulations.

So to give one example. The blue signs just erected on BNT and the QB do not - to my knowledge - have any basis in the exisiting Traffic Signs Regulations 181/1997 or 273/1998

www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/si/0273.html

Sponge Bob

galwaycyclist wrote: »

So to give one example. The blue signs just erected on BNT and the QB do not - to my knowledge
www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/si/0273.html

Are they in the 2010 Traffic Signs Manual ....not that the manual is guaranteed to be legal mind

Because if they are not then......

galwaycyclist

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Are they in the 2010 Traffic Signs Manual ....not that the manual is guaranteed to be legal mind

Because if they are not then......

Far as I know the Traffic Sign Manual is irrelevant it is the manual that is supposed to reflect the law not the other way around.

Iwannahurl

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Only had time for a quick scan - this seems to pertain mostly to giving the minister the power to make regulations. Replacing IIRC the road traffic and general by laws. This has been done under SI 182/1997 Traffic and Parking Regulations - Article 13 of which prohibits driving on the footway (= footpath to Joe public). It appears that the boys in city hall are trying to argue that this doesn't apply to cyclists or possibly that because part of a footway "may" be marked as a cycle track it cannot then be generally illegal to cycle on a footway.

Bottom line is that they appear to just make things up as they go along.

I was sitting at the Bike share symposium on Tuesday with a city council engineer beside me arguing with me that it is not illegal to cycle on the footpath (footway). Five minutes later the Dublin engineer is putting up a slide for a publicity campaign targeted at stopping cyclists from using footpaths because "footpaths are for pedestrians".

At the moment those green hire bikes are the most consistently obvious on the footpaths. Mostly visitors to these shores, is my guess, and often to be seen on the SQR footpaths.

If a bike share scheme is introduced it will very quickly become obvious whether they are being used the new SQR facilities as intended.

IMO the fact that the SQR modifications are 'bookended' by roundabouts may well lead to the usual practice of wrongway cycling on foot/bike paths.