New Quays Cycling Lane Dublin

Muahahaha

Some excellent points Bambergbike, seems the choice of optimal cycle mode can be largely dependent on the environment in which it is in and the surrounding conditions. I had never thought before how a wider cycling lane for going up hills is preferable to two narrow ones in both directions, I think everyone has some sort of wobble when climbing hills, at least till they get into the correct gear that matches progress with keeping the line of cycling straight.

Just a question for others on the north quays contra flow proposal. How wide would people expect it to be ? Can we expect two cycle lanes in each direction, I.e one for regular progress and another for overtaking/faster cyclists.

If this cycle lane does go ahead I can see it becoming an extraordinarily popular way for commuters to match with Dublin Bikes to get from the city centre/IFSC to Hueston for trains onward. I'd imagine that commuting by bike on a dedicated cycle way from OConnell Bridge to Hueston would have a very similar journey time to taking the Luas or Dublin Bus and because cycling it won't cost you €2 or so then it becomes a no-brainer to cycle it provided it's not lashing rain.

If the lane is not designed well and wide enough for both the current cyclist capacity and an almost certain increase of people cycling to Hueston rather than taking the bus/Luas then the infrastructure could quickly find itself overused.

The other obstacles is how they would deal with traffic heading down the quays into the city but turning right onto one of the bridges to cross the river. If there is a wide contra flow bike lane running on the river side of the north quays then it would be insane to allow right turning traffic to drive across it. Better would be to divert that traffic to turn left, go around a block and do their river crossing in a north to south direction.

I think the proposed cycle way has the potential to be a remarkable success and I'm fully behind it. It will also be a marker that the city is finally serious about dedicated cycle ways. It's all very well planning g for green ways to Galway for tourism and all that but right now what we need is dedicated and well designed cycle infrastructure in high traffic areas inside the canals.

NeedMoreGears

I have to say I find this thread very interesting.

I initially would have been sceptical. I'd prefer not to upset/inconvenience a load of people on a major transport artery just to put in another piece of token infrastructure that I wouldn't use because I'm confident enough on the bike in the first place.

I think I'm changing my mind - if this is executed well (big if) then train/luas/dublin bike combination would be a real plus to the city and may help normalise bikes as a means of transport.

I would, however, like to be able to continue to use the bus lanes without too much aggro from others who think I should be in the new bike lane. (I hope that doesn't make me come across as a smug git!)

idiottje

I was thinking, as a trial period, instead of pulling up the road to be never seen, used again, current bus lane becomes the cycle lane, use a continuous row of planters to "segregate" the lane, then have the car lane repainted as a bus lane, and leave the outside lane for cars. PSV licence holders should all be informed from a central source that the cycle lane is not mandatory, and have the odd inspector along the route for some random days to record, and punish offenders, to enable VC's to use the bus lane and others can use the "planter" lane.
If it works, and cycle numbers are up, and car numbers are down, then invest in pulling up the road. If not, revert back ........ should be at least a 12 month trial. I know that there are issues with this idea when it comes to the bus stops along there, as a result of the gap between the footpath (footpad for those who prefer that term) and the bus lane. But well marked out road signage for the people that this segregation seems to be aimed at should assist (but not solve) that until a more well thought out design can be implemented.

*Just watched this video of Lord Mayor's from other countries talking about the problems in trying to implement change (no matter how positive) and looking to improve public spaces. http://youtu.be/wgDNZKvNuAg. Worth a look regarding a lot of the topics raised here, and how urban planners are thinking in other cites."

bambergbike

idiottje wrote: »

I was thinking, as a trial period, instead of pulling up the road to be never seen, used again, current bus lane becomes the cycle lane, use a continuous row of planters to "segregate" the lane, then have the car lane repainted as a bus lane, and leave the outside lane for cars.

Having my cake and eating it, I know, but I'd leave some gaps between the planters to let cyclists revise their choices half-way through their journeys. Many cyclists will choose between the cycle lane and the road on the basis of which will be less stressful and/or allow them to make better headway, not on the basis of fixed ideological preferences for VC or segregation. Usually people will know the answer to that question before starting their journeys, but often it will change at some point during the journey. For me that's usually when I realize I have an elderly cyclist in front of me who might fall off their bike out of sheer fright if I overtake before they know I'm there... but I can't let them know I'm there, because they're clearly unable to hear my bell and might also get a fright and fall off if I shout. At that point, being able to nip out between planters and use the bus lane to overtake would be really helpful.

idiottje wrote: »

I know that there are issues with this idea when it comes to the bus stops along there, as a result of the gap between the footpath (footpad for those who prefer that term) and the bus lane

Does legislation need revision to make it possible to run a zebra crossing across a cycle lane without a lot of expensive brimborium involving flashing amber thingies? (Traffic lights and/or Belisha beacons). I know they're looking at that in the UK at the moment, I don't know what our setup is.

Technically bus stop islands shouldn't take up all that much more space than the planters - not sure if there is a way to put in a temporary trial version of those on the cheap.

idiottje

bambergbike wrote: »

Technically bus stop islands shouldn't take up all that much more space than the planters - not sure if there is a way to put in a temporary trial version of those on the cheap.

Composite decking type structure skewerd into the road surface???

magicbastarder

is there any data (apologies if it's already been posted) in relation to what directions people cycle from into/out of town?
i.e. why are the quays being targeted first for a high profile scheme like this? this would obviously suit people coming from D15 or lucan, and the presence of the phoenix park obviously makes cycling a more attractive option than a lot of other areas would enjoy.

CramCycle

As someone who only cycles along the north quays intermittently, I never had a huge issue with it. The only problem I ever encountered was left turning traffic heading uptowards the Jervis not giving a **** about indicators or even warning signs like starting to merge early so people know where you are probably going but this is an issue for all bus lane users not just cyclists. One of the new guys in work comes in from Meath every day, he drives to Pheonix park and cycles the quays. His opinion is robustly that if you obey the lights, there is never any trouble. According to him he sees quite a few people doing this.

My opinon therefore is that the bike lane is not necessary based on anecdotal evidence* but that there should be a drive to reduce private motor traffic in the city centre for multiple reasons and this is one way to achieve that, other ways such as wider foot paths, double bus lane and greater traffic law enforcement would also achieve this, which ever of these is easiest and crucially most beneficial to pedestrians (foremost) and other PT/PSV/Bicycle users. The bike lane is equally a valid method to this end.

*not really evidence

beauf

magicbastarder wrote: »

is there any data (apologies if it's already been posted) in relation to what directions people cycle from into/out of town?
i.e. why are the quays being targeted first for a high profile scheme like this? this would obviously suit people coming from D15 or lucan, and the presence of the phoenix park obviously makes cycling a more attractive option than a lot of other areas would enjoy.

At peak morning and night its a car park. I would have thought that's reason enough. Luas hasn't even standing room. There is data though and reports, if you want to search for them.

http://dublinked.ie/datastore/datasets/dataset-097.php

beauf

CramCycle wrote: »

As someone who only cycles along the north quays intermittently, I never had a huge issue with it. The only problem I ever encountered was left turning traffic heading uptowards the Jervis not giving a **** about indicators or even warning signs like starting to merge early so people know where you are probably going but this is an issue for all bus lane users not just cyclists. One of the new guys in work comes in from Meath every day, he drives to Pheonix park and cycles the quays. His opinion is robustly that if you obey the lights, there is never any trouble. According to him he sees quite a few people doing this.

My opinon therefore is that the bike lane is not necessary based on anecdotal evidence* but that there should be a drive to reduce private motor traffic in the city centre for multiple reasons and this is one way to achieve that, other ways such as wider foot paths, double bus lane and greater traffic law enforcement would also achieve this, which ever of these is easiest and crucially most beneficial to pedestrians (foremost) and other PT/PSV/Bicycle users. The bike lane is equally a valid method to this end.

*not really evidence

I'm the same, intermittently cycle the north quays. Same opinion as yourself. But I don't think this is for us. Its to encourage others.

The south quays now, I tend to avoid.

dave_o_brien

magicbastarder wrote: »

why are the quays being targeted first for a high profile scheme like this?

Because the North Quays presents an opportunity to provide a pedestrian friendly environment that benefits most from aspect in the heart of the city on the banks of it's river. By rights, it should one of the most attractive parts of our city. Instead, it's a dual carriageway plus bus lane.

idiottje

beauf wrote: »

I'm the same, intermittently cycle the north quays. Same opinion as yourself. But I don't think this is for us. Its to encourage others.

The south quays now, I tend to avoid.

With the free abandon of someone courting controversy, not only to I agree with beauf, I would see that the segregation of the lane will encourage more women to cycle. If you look at the advertising strategies of the major bike companies (bikes and accessories) the vast majority of the advertising money is spent advertising to men. As a result, more men cycle, and are VC's. I think that for a majority (not all!) of women, they would feel safer in a segregated lane, and would chose the bike over the Luas. I did say feel safer, it may not actually be the case that they are. If they feel safer, they would feel safer letting their children cycle, which oddly enough, would lead to more sales if bikes, but cheaper kiddies stuff, than the high end machines we all appreciate.
I like this idea of this lane. I want to see more women cycling, because of the knock on effect of having more kids cycling. I would be interested in seeing it implements, and the results of it. In God we trust. Everyone else should bring data.

magicbastarder

beauf wrote: »

At peak morning and night its a car park. I would have thought that's reason enough. Luas hasn't even standing room. There is data though and reports, if you want to search for them.

http://dublinked.ie/datastore/datasets/dataset-097.php

I meant in the sense that which routes would be the most heavily travelled by cyclists, or which routes would be best served by improved cycling infrastructure.
the fact that the quays are a car park is not reason itself to reduce the lanes by one; the decision should be based on bang for buck, e.g. how many more people will take up cycling as a result of such a change.

Tenzor07

CramCycle wrote: »

As someone who only cycles along the north quays intermittently, I never had a huge issue with it. The only problem I ever encountered was left turning traffic heading uptowards the Jervis not giving a **** about indicators or even warning signs like starting to merge early

My opinion therefore is that the bike lane is not necessary based on anecdotal evidence*

I can't claim to be a regular North Quays user either, but it's very much needed.. from Ellis quay which is quite narrow, you have that messy left car lane for turning up towards Benburb st. Ellis to Arran is quite narrow if you have a lot of bike users and coach bus's mixing it can be quite hairy, not to mention that dodgy bus stop which brought up that famous incident with Dublin Bus Vs. Cyclist.
At the 4 courts it's not too bad, though i was beeped out of it and shouted at by a Taxi driver for daring to stray outside the painted cycle lane once!

Bachelors walk is the "Death quay", all coaches and bus's occupy the full lane on the left and pull out quickly, coming down towards Liberty hall you have 4 lanes to deal with and a busy bus stop(s) to deal with if you want to go straight.... After that it's not too bad, apart from a left hook taxi's take at the Jurys...

So is it needed? Based on my anecdotal evidence... yes!

buffalo

magicbastarder wrote: »

I meant in the sense that which routes would be the most heavily travelled by cyclists, or which routes would be best served by improved cycling infrastructure.
the fact that the quays are a car park is not reason itself to reduce the lanes by one; the decision should be based on bang for buck, e.g. how many more people will take up cycling as a result of such a change.

But if cyclists are heavily using a route already, there's probably not an issue with it, and therefore no need to upgrade it.

The quays are, in general, a primary artery for a lot of traffic from the north- (Phoenix Park) and south-west (N7), as well as due west (N4/6) of the city, and therefore it makes sense to put improvements there.

j0hn1

magicbastarder wrote: »

is there any data (apologies if it's already been posted) in relation to what directions people cycle from into/out of town?
i.e. why are the quays being targeted first for a high profile scheme like this? this would obviously suit people coming from D15 or lucan, and the presence of the phoenix park obviously makes cycling a more attractive option than a lot of other areas would enjoy.

It provides neither direction or quantitative data, nor is it representative of the wider cycling community, but it does provide a pretty nifty graphic:

http://labs.strava.com/heatmap/#14/-6.28273/53.34825/blue/bike

Is there anything Strava can't do??

magicbastarder

j0hn1 wrote: »

Is there anything Strava can't do??

can you limit it to journeys made monday-fri, 7-10am, 4-7pm? just to see more 'commuty' data.

j0hn1

magicbastarder wrote: »

can you limit it to journeys made monday-fri, 7-10am, 4-7pm? just to see more 'commuty' data.

http://metro.strava.com/

knock yourself out

beauf

buffalo wrote: »

But if cyclists are heavily using a route already, there's probably not an issue with it, and therefore no need to upgrade it.

The quays are, in general, a primary artery for a lot of traffic from the north- (Phoenix Park) and south-west (N7), as well as due west (N4/6) of the city, and therefore it makes sense to put improvements there.

Isn't the point that a lot more people would/could/should use it

beauf

magicbastarder wrote: »

is there any data (apologies if it's already been posted) in relation to what directions people cycle from into/out of town?
i.e. why are the quays being targeted first for a high profile scheme like this? t.....

I think your question is really was any research gone into picking this route.

The concept were drawn up at an Innovation Dublin workshop by engineers and planners from a number of state agencies and councils. The event was hosted by Dublin City Council and the Dutch Embassy, with help from Fietsberaad and the Dutch Cycling Embassy.

The council and others involved stressed that they have not committed to the concept plans and that even if one of the options were to go ahead it’s very early days — there would be a lot of work needed to look at and possibly develop these into workable plans. The council may even come up with other options.

http://irishcycle.com/2011/11/07/dutch-style-cycle-path-on-dublins-quays/

Dublin City Council, the National Transport Authority (NTA), and their consultants AECOM and Roughan O’Donovan, looked at 13 possible route options. For key stakeholder consultation, this was filtered down to five workable options and then a preferred option emerged from this.

Compared to the five short-list options, the one chosen has the least impact on public transport and traffic. It has a mixed impact on pedestrians — this, it seems, depends on the final design. Any project — to comply with the Manual for Urban Roads and Streets – will have to include additional pedestrians crossings on junctions which currently lack crossings on all four arms.

The key stakeholders included business groups, transport operators, and sections of the city council who had not been involved until this stage.

http://irishcycle.com/2014/01/28/liffey-cycle-route-construction-could-start-next-year/

National Cycling Policy
http://www.cyclemanual.ie/manual/legislation-and-policy/irish-cycling-policy/

http://www.nationaltransport.ie/planning-policy/gda-transport-strategy-and-guidelines/

http://www.nationaltransport.ie/planning-policy/data-analysis/modelling/census-2011-preliminary-analysis/

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/transport/2009/nattravel09.pdf

bambergbike

We seem to be mainly talking about roughly two kinds of cyclists so far:

1. "Pure" vehicular cyclists who travel at 30km/h+ and have nothing against the project but don't see it as very relevant to them personally and don't see it as needing to be designed to reflect their needs.

2. "Women" (I'm using the word not to refer to actual people who are female, but - I can court controversy, too! - as a very crude, unreliable and somewhat insulting shorthand used on Internet forums mostly populated by men (insulting even when qualified with "not all women, of course") for people who would be willing to cycle if it felt subjectively safer, or would be willing to cycle places with their children (at 15 km/h or less) if segregated routes existed.

I think it would be good to introduce a few more types of actual/potential cyclists into the discussion because I'd say there are an awful lot of middling-fast cyclists out there (who haven't swallowed a book on vehicular cycling and just want to get from A to who are a good bit slower than the first group and a good bit faster than the second group, so that they need a cycling facility which works well for them at speeds of around 25 km/h.

If we say that this plan is not for the fast people and denigrate overtakers as selfish or rude cyclists who should use the road instead, we risk building something which is not very suitable for middling-fast cyclists either. So it might be better to design for everybody and for a mix of different cyclist types; anybody who doesn't find the end result suitable can then opt out of using it.

idiottje

Feel the need to defend some of my statements. Bojun Bjorkman-Chiswell has some very interesting stuff up on the internet. She is a filmmaker, and a cyclist, and has some very interesting views on cycling in the Global context, relating to environment, economy, and social freedom. She is an advocate of not using helmets, for many reasons, including one of fashion. I would recomend looking her up, and see what she has to say about advancing the use of the bike in cities, and who one of the most effective target audiences, globally should be. I was considering the value in some group trying to engage with people who would like to cycle in Dublin, but don't and what exactly their concerns are, and what it would take to address them. I would consider Bojun has already identified them. Regarding the encouragement of families using the bike as transport, Janette Sadik-Khan, former NYC commissioner for transport, has some very interesting data available regarding the increase of family cycling in NYC as a result of the changes made there. Video here if you would like to see more. http://youtu.be/SMDhnoplRBg.

I see the point regarding the fast/medium/slow cyclist. My feeling is that this proposal has very little to do with current cyclists, but more to do with the city, and encouraging people out of cars, and into other methods of transport. With the growth of cities, the cheapest solution is the bike, in terms of infrastructure implementation and it's maintenance over it's lifetime, but the bike does not suit everyone. Never seen mention of disability and cycling in this context.

How do we create infrastructure for the slow/medium/fast cyclists? Do we create a slow medium and fast lane on cycle lanes similar to current motorways? Had not considered it. I presume the Quays' would be wide enough for this, but only if they made it a one direction lane.

beauf

If you look at the people using the quays vs Canal cycle route they are very different.

You don't really get slower cyclists on the quays much.

Perhaps because to cycle on the quays, especially to merge in lane or turn right, you have to cycle in line with the traffic, at the speed of the traffic.

beauf

idiottje wrote: »

...How do we create infrastructure for the slow/medium/fast cyclists? Do we create a slow medium and fast lane on cycle lanes similar to current motorways? Had not considered it. I presume the Quays' would be wide enough for this, but only if they made it a one direction lane.

Usually the faster cyclists use the road. Slower ones the cycle lane.

The cycle path is often not suitable for cycling at speed.

bambergbike

Specifically on disability:
Rachel Aldred has written about disabled cycling and designing for cycling as an inclusive mode.
See, for example:
http://rachelaldred.org/writing/lets-build-for-wobbly-casual-or-sociable-commuters
http://rachelaldred.org/writing/camdens-west-end-project-is-there-space-for-inclusive-cycling/

One point Aldred is missing (I think, I must check) is that lots of older cyclists and pedestrians may be physically quite fit but very hard of hearing (the high-pitched frequency of bicycle bells is one of the first frequences to be lost!). So they need to be given a lot of space when overtaking to avoid startling them.

More anecdotally: living in Germany, where electric bikes have really taken off already, and specifically in a town where about a quarter of all journeys are made by bike (the crap infrastructure notwithstanding) I see a lot of elderly and infirm cyclists out and about as well as some more obviously disabled ones (a man with a handcycle, a lady with an attachment for a crutch on the back of her quadricycle, a man with a back rest on his big electric trike etc.) The Dutch traffic planner I heard at a conference recently said her parents were 84, had electric motors on their bikes and were cycling further than ever before. She was a traffic planner with an interest in cycling from a cycling family rather than a typical Dutchwoman, but her words chimed with what I'm seeing here.

idiottje wrote: »

My feeling is that this proposal has very little to do with current cyclists, but more to do with the city, and encouraging people out of cars, and into other methods of transport.

To encourage people out of cars you have to show them that the journy by bike can compete on time with the car journey. People are frazzled enough in the mornings, nobody wants to get up even earlier so they can cycle to work and/or do the school run by bike.

Being able to make reasonable progress and get somewhere on time is important for almost all cyclists, be they disabled people heading into work, Dublin Bikes users, or parents dropping children off at playgroup or school and going on to work. Journey times will be more predictable by bike, but only if people don't all bunch up behind the slowest cyclists. That means Dutch widths will be needed (as per Dutch design manuals) to allow overtaking if segregated infra is the plan. It helps if people are encouraged to adopt basic etiquette, but we will see lot of complaints about "aggressive" cyclists if widths aren't adequate. Even if "pure" VC people use the road, there will still be a speed differential of 10 - 15 km/h between the slowest and fastest users path users (and with electric bikes, the fastest people won't necessarily be the fittest or the least vulnerable - they might be elderly people with impaired sight or hearing and less than lightening-sharp reflexes.

I really hate the phrase "this isn't about current cyclists." And it's absolutely not because I am a selfish vehicular cyclist with no interest in making cycling more accessible and inclusive: I am a cycling evangelist and all in favour of cycling being inclusive.

My problem with "this isn't about current cyclists" is that current cyclists are people with a vast pool of knowledge and experience that planners and engineers are often failing to tap into (either by talking to cyclists or by cycling routes themselves). When I'm out on my bike, I see an awful lot of rubbish that wouldn't have been built the way it has been if input from current cyclists had been sought and had flowed into it. My personal bugbear is the two-way segregated cycle path that "wrong-way" cyclists can only join by crossing the road exactly at a dangerous blind bend or just before the brow of a hill. I can usually manage this myself, but I get angry on behalf of cyclists who can't scramble across the road as fast as I can, or who aren't able to hear approaching traffic as well. Having the path start 15 metres earlier or later would usually solve the problem, but would require a cyclist's perspective. Or take kissing gates on cycle paths - any cyclist who has ever been confronted with these knows they spell trouble. I totally understand that it is important to take the concerns of novice cyclists seriously and to make sure that the voices of experienced/organized cyclists don't drown them out. But that idea has become such a Holy Grail of cycling policy making that often the perpectives of more experienced cyclists are now barely heard at all. The fiction that non-cyclists ("the interested but concerned") are the "real" cyclists who need to be listened to and taken seriously (because the VC crowd are just throwbacks from the 70s who will eventually die out, or selfish stakeholders only fighting their own corner) is not helpful.

Any old rubbish can be justified on the basis that it's intended for people who are currently non-cyclists and therefore can't be interviewed about their experiences cycling on similar schemes. That gives designers carte blance to just use their judgement, or to hold stakeholder constulations which might be democratic but leave nobody any the wiser.

idiottje

Thanks for the links. I will read with interest.

beauf

There are many kind of cyclists. So there going to be a wide range of requirements.

The current infrastructure doesn't seem to have any input of any kind of cyclist. Some of it make no sense to any rational being.

Simple example is the cycling lane ending in a high kerb.

ThisRegard

The Irish Times crusade and rhetoric continues today

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/dublin-on-the-wrong-track-with-cycle-route-along-north-quays-1.1843754

Tenzor07

ThisRegard wrote: »

The Irish Times crusade and rhetoric continues today

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/dublin-on-the-wrong-track-with-cycle-route-along-north-quays-1.1843754

Some of the comments are good though:

What a poorly argued article. Nobody put a gun to your head and forced you to live 24km from Dublin in an area with no public transport facilities; it was your choice to move there, presumably to avail of a larger house at lower cost. You still have options, such as using Park & Ride facilities. Our tolls are miniscule compared to those in most European cities (our motor tax is certainly relatively high). We (in general) all have choices when it comes to choosing where we live, and I have no sympathy for those who choose an excessively large house in the middle of nowhere and then complain about commuting when they could have chosen something smaller in a more convenient area better served by public transport. Cities are about people, not cars, and priority in terms of city road space management should be given to sustainable forms of transport such as cycling, walking and public transport.

Kav0777

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Some of the comments are good though:

I thought this one was supposed to be funny:

Hasn't anybody copped yet that cyclists are evil? That they are rotten to the core of their existence with selfishness? If not, there is a serious problem with IQ, Owen.

Until I read his next post and realised he was serious:

In theory, yes, in practice cyclists take up far more room wobbling around the road completely indifferent to all other traffic, refusing to adjust to in any degree prevailing conditions and expecting as of right that every other vehicle adjust around them. They are just pigs and it's time we started accepting that simple fact and treating them accordingly. It would cost little for a cyclist obstructing a bus lane with two or three buses stuck behind him, unable to overtake because of the line of traffic on the outside, to simply pull over for a moment and let the buses pass (each with forty or fifty passengers aboard), but when's the last time you saw one doing that? Never. It just doesn't happen. When's the last time you saw a cyclist wait for a heavy vehicle to complete a turn before forcing his way around the corner? Never. Doesn't happen. In the cyclist mentality, it's for the trucker to stop his vehicle mid-turn and allow the twit on the bike to corner. It's that mentality which has to be curbed.

Particularly liked the bit in bold, can't see any sort of problem down the line with that attitude .. :rolleyes:

Tenzor07

Kav0777 wrote: »

I thought this one was supposed to be funny:



Until I read his next post and realised he was serious:



Particularly liked the bit in bold, can't see any sort of problem down the line with that attitude .. :rolleyes:

All serving to make the bike user "Fair Game" on the roads...