BusConnects Cycling impact

Idioteque

Just reading through some info on the new BusConnects.ie site and they have a section about proposed improvement of bus lanes to better accommodate segregation of busses from cyclists...interesting if it ever comes to pass - link

buffalo

Idioteque wrote: »

Just reading through some info on the new BusConnects.ie site and they have a section about proposed improvement of bus lanes to better accommodate segregation of busses from cyclists...interesting if it ever comes to pass - link

Key phrase:

as far as is practicable.

I'd like to be an optimist, but...

http://irishcycle.com/2017/06/05/segregated-clontarf-to-city-centre-cycle-route-blocked-by-bus-project/

Chuchote

The one thing that would revolutionise cycling is taking away the right to park your private car outside your home on publicly-owned roads, and replacing this parking with separated cycle lanes protected with bollards or planters with flowers.

Without this, people on bikes are going to have to mix it with buses.

It's hard to remove a 'right' that's developed over a long time and is considered the norm, though; this will happen slowly.

magicbastarder

yeah, if people have bought properties and cars with the expectation of being able to park outside (especially for properties with no private parking), it's a non-runner to remove that parking from them, except very gradually.

Fian

magicbastarder wrote: »

yeah, if people have bought properties and cars with the expectation of being able to park outside (especially for properties with no private parking), it's a non-runner to remove that parking from them, except very gradually.

I think you will find cyclists in favour or against this proposal would divide pretty neatly between those who want to park their car outside their houses and those who have private parking or don't drive.

Well with driverless cars car ownership is likely to plummet over the next 15 years or so, though of course with driverless cars segregated bike lanes will probably be less important.

PaulieC

Chuchote wrote: »

The one thing that would revolutionise cycling is taking away the right to park your private car outside your home on publicly-owned roads

Where would you suggest people park ? Are you suggesting no parking on any public roads ?

Cookie_Monster

PaulieC wrote: »

Where would you suggest people park ? Are you suggesting no parking on any public roads ?

Certainly it should be reduced and removed in key areas where road space is required for other uses, it's about the least efficient use of public road space you can get.

PaulieC

Even attempting that is a fool's errand.

Weepsie

PaulieC wrote: »

Even attempting that is a fool's errand.

Why though. Why should public space but used to facilitate the storage of private property. It really doesn't make sense.

loyatemu

it has been done in the past to create bus lanes and clearways - you used to be able to park on pretty much any road, now main roads are largely restricted.

Chuchote

PaulieC wrote: »

Where would you suggest people park ? Are you suggesting no parking on any public roads ?

I am. Works well in Japan.

PaulieC

This isn't Japan though. If you think cyclists are unpopular now just wait til someone tries banning parking on roads to make way for cycle lanes. You can see from DCCs row back on the North Quays that something like this is a no no.

Chuchote

PaulieC wrote: »

This isn't Japan though. If you think cyclists are unpopular now just wait til someone tries banning parking on roads to make way for cycle lanes. You can see from DCCs row back on the North Quays that something like this is a no no.

It's nothing to do with whether it is or isn't Japan - storing people's private property in a way that clogs up the streets isn't feasible any more. We need to get away from the model where families have two and three and more cars that drive around with one person in each, and store them on roadways that should be for moving vehicles, it's insane.

Pinch Flat

It doesn't have to be all routes though. On key routes into the city, private parking is prohibited in order to improve the flow of traffic in certain places. So why not for bike lanes?

Large parts of Dublin city are given over to private road side parking. It's literally a waste of space. Someone parking a private car that's been used to ferry them into town is blocking a potential route for hundreds of cyclists.

the.red.baron

What works well in Japan?

You mean no parking on the sides of streets that are barely wide enough for 2 tiny cars to pass down in the first place?

I've seen cars parked on roads there, during the day, not at night, but who needs a car there in the first place when they have the best public transport system in the world that they nearly bankrupted the country building it

Some people need 2 cars, I'd say I use my car once a week, but for that day I need it

Chips Lovell

As far as I know, it's next to impossible to get planning permission for a driveway in older houses in Dublin, i.e. protected structures. So elimination of on-street parking in many areas within the canals or inner suburbs would be unfeasible.

HivemindXX

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

As far as I know, it's next to impossible to get planning permission for a driveway in older houses in Dublin, i.e. protected structures. So elimination of on-street parking in many areas within the canals or inner suburbs would be unfeasible.

How many people does that affect though? Some of the on road parking I see seems to be by people who have driveways and for some reason don't want to use them, most of it seems to be non-residents (I'm just in the Spar for a minute! Where else am I supposed to park for the match?) the remaining portion are terraced houses with no parking available but I think they are the minority.

Around my area for example virtually every house has a driveway, or a garden that could be used as a driveway, but yet the roads are packed with cars half up on the footpath and half in the road, meaning there is no enough space for two cars to pass each other in the road. The plus side of this is that it keeps speed but it does occasionally result in cars driving down the middle of the road right at me. Some of this is because a house has three or more cars and some of it is because the occupant doesn't seem to want to deal with the hassle of pulling in to their drive when parking up on the path is easier.

However I agree with those that trying to eliminate on street parking is politically impossible. New builds should be designed to limit or eliminate this and perhaps a small number of high demand corridors (eg: Ranelagh) are worth having the almighty huge fight over, but removing all on street parking does not give enough benefit for the amount of effort. I think those that would disagree SEVERELY underestimate the amount of effort that would be required. Water charges were reasonable too...

Chips Lovell

My road too. But I can think of plenty of roads in Ranelagh, Rathmines, Harolds Cross etc where the only houses with driveways are ones where they were built long before planning restrictions came in.

magicbastarder

don't forget the houses which have no front gardens, rendering planning issues moot.

cdaly_

the.red.baron wrote: »

What works well in Japan?

You mean no parking on the sides of streets that are barely wide enough for 2 tiny cars to pass down in the first place?

I've seen cars parked on roads there, during the day, not at night, but who needs a car there in the first place when they have the best public transport system in the world that they nearly bankrupted the country building it

Some people need 2 cars, I'd say I use my car once a week, but for that day I need it

GoCar.ie

schemingbohemia

Maybe people should actually read the documents, it's talking about the key radial next generation bus corridors and putting in proper fully segregated cycling infrastructure along there. Yes there will be parking removed, but it's not the side streets being talked about it's the main roads.

For cyclists BusConnects will:


•deliver a step-change in cycling facilities on the key radial routes into the city centre;
•provide safe cycling facilities, largely segregated from other traffic, along these corridors; and
•provide the opportunity for more people to cycle to work, school, college or for recreational purposes.

jimmycrackcorm

Jep Gambardella wrote:

As far as I know, it's next to impossible to get planning permission for a driveway in older houses in Dublin, i.e. protected structures. So elimination of on-street parking in many areas within the canals or inner suburbs would be unfeasible.

Allowing for driveway conversions would make it feasible.

magicbastarder wrote:

don't forget the houses which have no front gardens, rendering planning issues moot.

How many streets are there in this scenario that would need road parking removed for high capacity transport?

Chips Lovell

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Allowing for driveway conversions would make it feasible.

It would for houses with front gardens, but wouldn't fly with the conservationist lobby.

schemingbohemia wrote: »

?provide safe cycling facilities, largely segregated from other traffic, along these corridors

Bus lanes are far superior to cycle lanes. Taking bikes out of bus lanes and forcing them into cycle lanes would be a retrograde step. You'd be safer in the general traffic lane.

schemingbohemia

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

It would for houses with front gardens, but wouldn't fly with the conservationist lobby.



Bus lanes are far superior to cycle lanes. Taking bikes out of bus lanes and forcing them into cycle lanes would be a retrograde step. You'd be safer in the general traffic lane.

Any chance of reasoning behind this?

Moflojo

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Bus lanes are far superior to cycle lanes. Taking bikes out of bus lanes and forcing them into cycle lanes would be a retrograde step. You'd be safer in the general traffic lane.

Bus lanes are fine for 'vehicular' cyclists or people who can casually hit speeds of 25-30kph. For less athletic cyclists, such as kids or elderly people, bus lanes are useless as cycling infrastructure because they offer zero protection from motor vehicles and they put slow-moving people on bicycles in direct conflict with buses.

The logic of segregating the BRT lanes from standard bus lanes (and hence sacrificing potential space for cycle paths) is flawed in my opinion and gives priority to buses over people on bikes, which goes against the stated transport priorities of pedestrians>cyclists>public transport>service vehicles>private vehicles.

Chips Lovell

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Any chance of reasoning behind this?

Better surface, easier to change lanes to/from, more visible to other traffic, less likely to encounter hazards such as pedestrians, buggies, joggers.

I'd pick a bus lane over a bike lane any day.

Chips Lovell

Moflojo wrote: »

....they offer zero protection from motor vehicles and they put slow-moving people on bicycles in direct conflict with buses.

Bus lanes are for buses, bikes, and taxis. In other words, you've just as much right to be there as bus and aren't in "conflict" with them.

Moflojo

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Better surface, easier to change lanes to/from, more visible to other traffic, less likely to encounter hazards such as pedestrians, buggies, joggers.

I'd pick a bus lane over a bike lane any day.

Again, these benefits only apply to 'vehicular' cyclists. Bus lanes are simply not suitable for kids on bikes, or anyone incapable of cycling faster than 20km/h.

Chips Lovell

Moflojo wrote: »

Again, these benefits only apply to 'vehicular' cyclists. Bus lanes are simply not suitable for kids on bikes, or anyone incapable of cycling faster than 20km/h.

What is a "vehicular" cyclist?

And why is 20kph a magic number for some reason? I've ridden slower and faster than that speed in a bus lane with zero problems.

Moflojo

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

What is a "vehicular" cyclist?

And why is 20kph a magic number for some reason? I've ridden slower and faster than that speed in a bus lane with zero problems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_cycling

Forester's system of cycling has drawn criticism as being unsuitable for anyone but skilled, strong riders, with his assessment of skill being based upon speed. In a 1996 thesis entitled Listening to Bike Lanes: Moving Beyond the Feud, Jeffrey A. Hiles of the University of Montana claimed that, in a 1978 article, Forester required cyclists to sustain a speed of 18 miles per hour (29 km/h), a feat achievable by only 3% of Americans. The claim was subsequently refuted by Forester.

Chips Lovell

I'd query for a start the assessment of skill being based on speed. In fact, there's very little correlation. All you require for speed is some modicum of strength. Skill has little to do with it.