Arguments for cycle lanes

crosstownk

I'm familiar with the road in question and I honestly can't see where there is room for a separated 2 way cycle track. It would encroach onto the road too much and leave little room for two way traffic especially considering that it's a Dublin Bus route. While there's a slim chance that removing parking by marking with double yellow lines may allow the necessary space, I fear that most residents won't hear of it, especially those at the eastern end that do not have driveways. As someone stated earlier, an advisory cycle lane is probably the optimal solution for all parties - except the school children.

Incidently, there are no shops on that road - they are at the junction to the west on different roads.

godtabh

cdaly_ wrote: »

Footpath | Car Parking | buffer zone | cycle lane | Car lane | centre of road

Thus...

exactly

monument

Chuchote wrote: »

Ah. No, it's the car parking or the bike lane; there isn't room for both.

Yes, that's basically it. Car parking or cycle lane, not both. You would need strong support from residents. As for other justification, there's also the fact that the route is part of the SO2 orbital route in the Greater Dublin Area cycle network: http://i2.wp.com/irishcycle.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/GDA-Cycle-Network-3.jpg

The street is generally around 14 to 16 metres wall to wall. The footpaths varys, but are around 2 to 3 metres.

Because of trees, utilities etc and the cost of moving/removing such, cutting into the footpaths would not be recommended and is not needed (except for where the road wall-to-wall width goes down to 13 metres for a very small bit).

Anyway, you could fit the following on the street -- these are basically the same but showing it works at different widths:

http://streetmix.net/cianginty/63/16m-3m-footpaths
http://streetmix.net/cianginty/64/15m-32m-footpaths-remix
http://streetmix.net/cianginty/62/14m-2m-footpaths
http://streetmix.net/cianginty/66/13m-2m-footpaths-remix

The cycle lanes are 1.7m with a 0.3m buffers I've included a buffer, if the buffer is excluded for some reason the cycle lane should be increased to at least 1.75. I've included a buffer -- there are other options like light segregation with a flat kerb (like the Braemor Road etc) but that would cost a lot here or it could be a higher kerb but there'd be some added cost or you could have kerbs and/or bollards at ramps and other key points.

Regardless of what anybody says, 3m is fine for buses. There's Dutch examples of busways with just 2.9m lanes and buses meet each other on that. This isn't a main arterial road or a large orbital road.

Chuchote

monument wrote: »

As for other justification, there's also the fact that the route is part of the SO2 orbital route in the Greater Dublin Area cycle network: http://i2.wp.com/irishcycle.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/GDA-Cycle-Network-3.jpg

What is this Greater Dublin Area cycle network, and what official status does it have? What's SO2? On the map it says "Proposed Cycle Network Dublin City Centre Sheet N1" There are three logos - National Transport Authority, AECOM, and Roughan & O'Donovan. Does this mean that the plan is proposed by the National Transport Authority? Proposed to whom, when, how? (Sorry to be so ignorant, but I've never heard of this.)

And the four drawings linked, of possible road use, seem to show only one room for a bus going one way - is that right? I don't think that would be acceptable; lots of old people who need their buses.

godtabh

Chuchote wrote: »

What is this Greater Dublin Area cycle network, and what official status does it have? What's SO2? On the map it says "Proposed Cycle Network Dublin City Centre Sheet N1" There are three logos - National Transport Authority, AECOM, and Roughan & O'Donovan. Does this mean that the plan is proposed by the National Transport Authority? Proposed to whom, when, how? (Sorry to be so ignorant, but I've never heard of this.)

And the four drawings linked, of possible road use, seem to show only one room for a bus going one way - is that right? I don't think that would be acceptable; lots of old people who need their buses.

All these questions suggest you need to speak to a p professional.

buffalo

godtabh wrote: »

All these questions suggest you need to speak to a p professional.

Are you suggesting Churchote needs professional help? :pac:

godtabh

buffalo wrote: »

Are you suggesting Churchote needs professional help? :pac:

Yes. What type is up to Churchote!

Wishbone Ash

godtabh wrote: »

Yes. What type is up to him!

Her!

godtabh

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Her!

Apologies.

I assumed wrong.

Just as an FYI I've dealt with about 4/5 of these types of projects in the last year. The furthest I've gotten is meetings with the council who politely nod as I talk through the design and then say they have no plans for the area i.e. no money to do anything.

monument

Chuchote wrote: »

What is this Greater Dublin Area cycle network, and what official status does it have?

The National Transport Authority's cycle network plan for the five Greater Dublin Area council areas.

It's back by law which gives the NTA their status to make transport plans and also via the law which makes the DMURS (and the National Cycle Manual) mandatory to follow or have regard to. It's also linked into the city development plan's legal backing.

The report and maps are here:

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/publications/transport-planning/gda-cycle-network-plan/

Chuchote wrote: »

What's SO2?

SO2 is an orbital cycle route in the GDA cycle network. It's detailed in the maps and in the main report.

Chuchote wrote: »

On the map it says "Proposed Cycle Network Dublin City Centre Sheet N1" There are three logos - National Transport Authority, AECOM, and Roughan & O'Donovan. Does this mean that the plan is proposed by the National Transport Authority?

Yes, the NTA, but council also have to have regard for it.

Chuchote wrote: »

Proposed to whom, when, how? (Sorry to be so ignorant, but I've never heard of this.)

Proposed to everyone, over years, by upgrading roads or in some cases just putting in little more than signed routes.

No problem.

Chuchote wrote: »

And the four drawings linked, of possible road use, seem to show only one room for a bus going one way - is that right? I don't think that would be acceptable; lots of old people who need their buses.

No, buses could use it both ways, the general lanes are the same widths in both directions.

3 metres is enough for buses and 3 metres plus buffer space is more than enough.

godtabh wrote: »

All these questions suggest you need to speak to a p professional.

No need.

Chuchote

Warm thanks, Monument. I've passed the maps and National Transport Authority cycle plan on to the chairman of the residents' association, who is seconding the proposal.

Will we get anywhere? Probably not immediately. But when the four orbital cycleways - the two greenways along the canals and the Mountains-to-Sea greenway along the Dodder, and the Liffeyside Cycleway (can't remember the actual name, which is less memorable) on the quays are up and running (/cycling), the councils will begin to see the usefulness of cycle lanes generally and I think there'll be quite a rapid change.

At the moment, the councils appear to be in a housewifely panic about money. I've been trying to get various dreadfully dangerous-for-cyclists roads fixed for around five years now, and none have been done; they have potholes that would throw you (for instance the one on the Grosvenor Road roundabout that jarred every filling in my teeth last night when i went into it), long seams that grab wheels (Kenilworth Park, Leinster Road), patches that have worn away at the sides (Leinster Road), concrete slabs that have rocked out of place (many side roads) and slippery or sunken manhole covers (junction by St Patrick's Cathedral, junction near the Hospice at the park, junction outside the Hospice, junction by Christ Church cathedral, etc).

Once the councils cop on that making proper cycleways - wide, protected, well surfaced, safe - gets people out of cars and on to bikes and is therefore cheaper for them to maintain; once that happens, there's going to be a radical and speedy change. Councils love saving money.

godtabh

Chuchote wrote: »

Once the councils cop on that making proper cycleways - wide, protected, well surfaced, safe - gets people out of cars and on to bikes and is therefore cheaper for them to maintain; once that happens, there's going to be a radical and speedy change. Councils love saving money.

They know that already but when you (and hundreds of other residents association) are looking for money they will priorities what they think is more urgent. Schemes like this fall way own in the over all scheme of things.

Chuchote

godtabh wrote: »

They know that already but when you (and hundreds of other residents association) are looking for money they will priorities what they think is more urgent. Schemes like this fall way own in the over all scheme of things.

Doubt it. Three schools and several creches on one road and parents and children routinely cycling along the pavements to and from them suggest that a cycleway would be a good fit.

godtabh

Chuchote wrote: »

Doubt it. Three schools and several creches on one road and parents and children routinely cycling along the pavements to and from them suggest that a cycleway would be a good fit.

Just because its a good fit doenst mean it will be done. Its great they you are trying but you need to be realistic in your expectations.

I was dealing with a similar project in north county dublin last year. A primary and secondary school on a road similar to yours. Lots of parking either side but wide enough for a cycle lane in each direction.

Speed was a problem. The introduction of the cycle lane would help reduce speed.

Did up a scheme design.

Took 6 months to meet the right person in the council to discuss it.

Took 2 months for a place holder reply.

Took another 6 weeks for any additional feedback which basically stated great plan but no funding available, when funding is available it will be considered with other schemes.

The schools and residents involved fund raised to try and do it them selves even through they were advised on to because only the LA has the right to do the work.

Nearly 18 months later all they have is a drawing that looks pretty but is unlikely ever to see the light of day. They still have speed issues.

That what you are likely to deal with.

Chuchote

Thanks, godtabh. I don't believe in being realistic in my expectations; I will always default to idealistic :cool:

We actually saw off a plan to make the road a Q Corridor or some such name a few years ago. The council had paid an English company €2 million to decide what road should have this; the company failed to notice that the road ends in a T junction, and that there were disabled parking spots on the road the many buses would be turning into :eek:

I don't know if it was pointing this out or the fact that the residents of the series of roads pledged to block the road with demonstrations, etc, if the plan was activated, but they changed their minds and put it down a wider, clearer, more sensible route without T junctions.

godtabh

Chuchote wrote: »

Thanks, godtabh. I don't believe in being realistic in my expectations; I will always default to idealistic :cool:

We actually saw off a plan to make the road a Q Corridor or some such name a few years ago. The council had paid an English company €2 million to decide what road should have this; the company failed to notice that the road ends in a T junction, and that there were disabled parking spots on the road the many buses would be turning into :eek:

I don't know if it was pointing this out or the fact that the residents of the series of roads pledged to block the road with demonstrations, etc, if the plan was activated, but they changed their minds and put it down a wider, clearer, more sensible route without T junctions.

Do you have a link to that design?

A QBC could be good for you as it shows there is scope for something.

Chuchote

godtabh wrote: »

Do you have a link to that design?

A QBC could be good for you as it shows there is scope for something.

I don't; twas a few years ago.

josip

Chuchote wrote: »

Thanks, godtabh. I don't believe in being realistic in my expectations; I will always default to idealistic :cool:

We actually saw off a plan to make the road a Q Corridor or some such name a few years ago. The council had paid an English company €2 million to decide what road should have this; the company failed to notice that the road ends in a T junction, and that there were disabled parking spots on the road the many buses would be turning into :eek:

I don't know if it was pointing this out or the fact that the residents of the series of roads pledged to block the road with demonstrations, etc, if the plan was activated, but they changed their minds and put it down a wider, clearer, more sensible route without T junctions.

It's always easier to stop something being done than to get something done with the council in my experience.
Same problem in DLR getting potholes fixed.
One particularly bad stretch that forces cyclists out into the middle of the road has been waiting for 3 years for repairs.
Last year a car hit my arm as I signalled I was moving out to avoid the bad surface. (Drivers response was "You've a very long arm")
Council is aware of all this but nothing done yet.
The councilor who lives 50m past this stretch can't even get them fixed.

tomasrojo

josip wrote: »

Last year a car hit my arm as I signalled I was moving out to avoid the bad surface. (Drivers response was "You've a very long arm")

I don't know you personally, but I don't think you are a Roger Hargreaves illustration, so that is a remarkable re-framing of a dangerously close pass.

Chuchote

One particularly bad local pothole was unmended for something like two years despite the council being sent many photographs and requests. Finally someone broke her ankle falling into it and sued, and was photographed coming out of court, and it was mended immediately and permanently with the road being resurfaced.

godtabh

Chuchote wrote: »

One particularly bad local pothole was unmended for something like two years despite the council being sent many photographs and requests. Finally someone broke her ankle falling into it and sued, and was photographed coming out of court, and it was mended immediately and permanently with the road being resurfaced.

That's the only way things get done in LA