Dublin - BusConnects

TCM

Dubwat wrote:

My GP gives the impression that he's upset about this development and so am I am. As of today, he can't give me any alternatives. He said the Eye & Ear doesn't cover the Northside? Is it legal for a public hospital to refuse to even put me on the list for an appointment? Can I appeal? What are my 'public' options (forgetting about private for the moment).

LXFlyer wrote:

The PSO bus service between the city and Swords will drop from the current 6-8 per hour between the 33, 41 group and 43 in the off-peak to 4 under this plan.

LXFlyer wrote:

Similarly the airport PSO bus service from the city will drop from 8-9 per hour to 4.

LXFlyer wrote:

Not quite an improvement.

Thanks for the clarification. The essential point that I'm making is that presently 41 group busses (particular off peak) don't turn up on a regular basis. I believe this will simply continue when the new system comes into operation.

bk

LeinsterDub wrote: »

This is a once in a lifetime chance to get cycling infrastructure right on these routes , there won't be a second round of CPO's if we do it wrong now we are stuck with it for decades. So no I'll not welcome a polished turd thanks very much.

I just looked at the Swords route in detail and it looks really quiet good from a cycling perspective.

There are a few shared sections, but when I looked at them on Google Maps, I went, aha, I know that section of road and I'd be shocked if more then one or two people walked down it per hour. Cyclists would almost certainly have it to themselves, I suspect a cyclist would have less interactions with the public on this section, compared to the official cycle paths closer into the city.

I don't know, I haven't looked at the other routes in detail yet, but perhaps those shared sections are similar?

LXFlyer

TCM wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification. The essential point that I'm making is that presently 41 group busses (particular off peak) don't turn up on a regular basis. I believe this will simply continue when the new system comes into operation.

That’s either a resource issue - not enough drivers, or the bus has been caught in traffic and has to be curtailed to get back to where it ought to be.

Carawaystick

bk wrote: »

I just looked at the Swords route in detail and it looks really quiet good from a cycling perspective.

There are a few shared sections, but when I looked at them on Google Maps, I went, aha, I know that section of road and I'd be shocked if more then one or two people walked down it per hour. Cyclists would almost certainly have it to themselves, I suspect a cyclist would have less interactions with the public on this section, compared to the official cycle paths closer into the city.

I don't know, I haven't looked at the other routes in detail yet, but perhaps those shared sections are similar?

I just looked at the first map at Pinnock Hill and I'm not impressed,
There's a filter lane for cars crossing the cycle lane on the dublin road coming from Lidl.
People cycling and turning right from Dublin road towards Dublin, will have to deal with straight on motor traffic coming from behind them on their right.
No cycle infrastructure towards Holywell by the Travellodge, but an extra car lane.
Staggered pedestrian crossings not on the desire lines.
No cycle infrastructure on the Swords bypass

Same issue with right turning cycling mixing with straight on cars coming from Boroimhe and then no cycle lane from that cross roads towards Dublin.

tobsey

Carawaystick wrote: »

I just looked at the first map at Pinnock Hill and I'm not impressed,
There's a filter lane for cars crossing the cycle lane on the dublin road coming from Lidl.
People cycling and turning right from Dublin road towards Dublin, will have to deal with straight on motor traffic coming from behind them on their right.
No cycle infrastructure towards Holywell by the Travellodge, but an extra car lane.
Staggered pedestrian crossings not on the desire lines.
No cycle infrastructure on the Swords bypass

Same issue with right turning cycling mixing with straight on cars coming from Boroimhe and then no cycle lane from that cross roads towards Dublin.

I think you’re being overly critical there. The swords bypass has plenty of room for cyclists as is. There are much better gains to be made close to Dublin. Cars and cyclists coming from Lidl will generally have to stop as the bypass will take priority. That gives cyclists the opportunity to get into position.

The link road towards Holywell would see very little bicycle traffic. Similarly it would be very unusual for a cyclist to be coming from boroimhe looking to turn right. They’d have just cut across airside.

LeinsterDub

bk wrote: »

I just looked at the Swords route in detail and it looks really quiet good from a cycling perspective.

There are a few shared sections, but when I looked at them on Google Maps, I went, aha, I know that section of road and I'd be shocked if more then one or two people walked down it per hour. Cyclists would almost certainly have it to themselves, I suspect a cyclist would have less interactions with the public on this section, compared to the official cycle paths closer into the city.

I don't know, I haven't looked at the other routes in detail yet, but perhaps those shared sections are similar?

Map 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19, 20, 21 , 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 36, 38, 40, 41, 42, : No cycle lanes on some sections or shared section .

Quite good really? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

RayCun

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Map 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19, 20, 21 , 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 36, 38, 40, 41, 42, : No cycle lanes on some sections or shared section .

Quite good really? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Seriously?
There are huge amounts of new, separated cycle lanes on that route, and you are complaining because some sections are shared use?
There are no cycle lanes on some sections, sections where car traffic is changing to one-way because of lack of road space?

What makes you think there is any chance of getting a road design that is substantially better than this for cycling?

LeinsterDub

RayCun wrote: »

Seriously?
There are huge amounts of new, separated cycle lanes on that route, and you are complaining because some sections are shared use?

You try going 30 KPH while dodging dogs , children and others. Serious cyclist will not use these sections as they are not safe. So we will be back to cyclist "holding up" buses. New cyclist won't use these sections because they'll constantly be thrown back out into general traffic. Shared use is the least of my concerns. Often the cycle lane just disappears and that's without offering comment on the quality of the junctions or the cycle lanes themselves .

I mean just look at map 9 on road ,off road , shared use , cycle track , shared use , double cycle track . That's just a hodgepodge

RayCun wrote: »

What makes you think there is any chance of getting a road design that is substantially better than this for cycling?

We are either serious about cycling , public health and climate change or we aren't. If their isn't enough room for cycling , buses and cars then car should go.

CatInABox

LeinsterDub wrote: »

We are either serious about cycling , public health and climate change or we aren't. If their isn't enough room for cycling , buses and cars then car should go.

You kind of answered your own question there, we're not serious about it. If we removed more car lanes, then this project wouldn't get approval from the public, wouldn't get approval politically, and it wouldn't get approval from ABP.

I get that these could be better, but could they be better and actually get built? I don't think so.

RayCun

LeinsterDub wrote: »

You try going 30 KPH while dodging dogs , children and others.

The point of segregated cycle lanes is to get people cycling who wouldn't otherwise. You try going 30kph on the grand canal cycleway. Most of the time you can't - because it is full of cyclists. Most of them people who would have no problem with the concept of slowing down sometimes.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

New cyclist won't use these sections because they'll constantly be thrown back out into general traffic....I mean just look at map 9 on road ,off road , shared use , cycle track , shared use , double cycle track . That's just a hodgepodge

Map 9?
Going south is shared use, cycle track, shared use, cycle track.
Going north is cycle track, shared use, cycle track, shared use, cycle track.
I don't see where you are getting "thrown back out into general traffic".

LeinsterDub wrote: »

We are either serious about cycling , public health and climate change or we aren't. If their isn't enough room for cycling , buses and cars then car should go.

Yes, all the roads should be turned into cycle tracks, and everyone should be given a bike. Not one of those clunky Dublin bikes either - if we're really serious about this, it's carbon frames and disc brakes for everyone!

riddlinrussell

CatInABox wrote: »

You kind of answered your own question there, we're not serious about it. If we removed more car lanes, then this project wouldn't get approval from the public, wouldn't get approval politically, and it wouldn't get approval from ABP.

I get that these could be better, but could they be better and actually get built? I don't think so.

This is kinda my point on this, wrap this big swathe of 'decent, but not perfect' cycling infra into busconnects and you get a huge chunk of the network built and can whittle down the weaker sections as time goes on. This is Ireland, you've got to boil the frog slowly. At least we haven't had shopkeepers hiring people to dig up cycleways like they did when the first ones were put in in the Netherlands!

LeinsterDub

RayCun wrote: »

The point of segregated cycle lanes is to get people cycling who wouldn't otherwise. You try going 30kph on the grand canal cycleway. Most of the time you can't - because it is full of cyclists. Most of them people who would have no problem with the concept of slowing down sometimes.

These are suburban cycle lanes. Commuters have a reasonable expectation or maintaining a decent pace .

RayCun wrote: »

Map 9?
Going south is shared use, cycle track, shared use, cycle track.
Going north is cycle track, shared use, cycle track, shared use, cycle track.
I don't see where you are getting "thrown back out into general traffic".

Swords Rd and South Corballis Road junction

RayCun wrote: »

Yes, all the roads should be turned into cycle tracks, and everyone should be given a bike. Not one of those clunky Dublin bikes either - if we're really serious about this, it's carbon frames and disc brakes for everyone!

Yeah because that's what I said . What I said was we where promised high quality cycling infrastructure , what we are getting isn't much better than the current crap

LeinsterDub

riddlinrussell wrote: »

This is kinda my point on this, wrap this big swathe of 'decent, but not perfect' cycling infra into busconnects and you get a huge chunk of the network built and can whittle down the weaker sections as time goes on. This is Ireland, you've got to boil the frog slowly. At least we haven't had shopkeepers hiring people to dig up cycleways like they did when the first ones were put in in the Netherlands!

We won't be able to whittle down the weaker sections as it will either require CPO'ing more land or dedicating a carriageway to cycling . There is literally no more space without doing one of these 2 . Dedicating a carriageway would require making large sections of road Bus and Cycle only and that just isn't going to happen.

RayCun

LeinsterDub wrote: »

These are suburban cycle lanes. Commuters have a reasonable expectation or maintaining a decent pace .

If the cycle paths are widely used, then you could be stuck behind kids cycling to school, slow commuters, bikes with trailers... the horror

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Swords Rd and South Corballis Road junction

That's not "thrown into traffic". That's reaching a junction. What do you propose happens there, the road traffic is sent down an underpass?

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Yeah because that's what I said . What I said was we where promised high quality cycling infrastructure , what we are getting isn't much better than the current crap

Ah, your mistake is in thinking that the government was going to spend a billion euro on improving cycling infrastructure. I'd like to say it was an understandable mistake, but to be honest I don't know where you got the idea.

The driver for all of this is the bus routes.

tobsey

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Map 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19, 20, 21 , 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 36, 38, 40, 41, 42, : No cycle lanes on some sections or shared section .

Quite good really? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

LeinsterDub wrote: »

You try going 30 KPH while dodging dogs , children and others. Serious cyclist will not use these sections as they are not safe. So we will be back to cyclist "holding up" buses. New cyclist won't use these sections because they'll constantly be thrown back out into general traffic. Shared use is the least of my concerns. Often the cycle lane just disappears and that's without offering comment on the quality of the junctions or the cycle lanes themselves .

I mean just look at map 9 on road ,off road , shared use , cycle track , shared use , double cycle track . That's just a hodgepodge



We are either serious about cycling , public health and climate change or we aren't. If their isn't enough room for cycling , buses and cars then car should go.

Maps 7-12 are dealing with the airport, including passing the airport roundabout. Vehicular traffic is the priority along there give the small number of cyclists that will use it. Furthermore there would be very few pedestrians in that area so shared use shouldn't be an issue.

Maps 19-26 include Santry village. They've removed one car lane, which you say should be the first to go, and there still isn't enough room for cycle lanes. Instead they designed a completely segrated cycle lane bypass around the village. You mentioned map 24, all that contains is a segregated 2 lane cycle path. What's your problem with that?

LeinsterDub

RayCun wrote: »

If the cycle paths are widely used, then you could be stuck behind kids cycling to school, slow commuters, bikes with trailers... the horror

Cycle lanes , decent one should allow for over taking . I understand that some lane can and will be congested

RayCun wrote: »

That's not "thrown into traffic". That's reaching a junction. What do you propose happens there, the road traffic is sent down an underpass?

As a cyclist I can tell you that it is being thrown into traffic. What should happen is the cycle lane should be grade separated on the road. So when you reach a junction you don't have to look over your shoulder to merge on to the road

RayCun wrote: »

Ah, your mistake is in thinking that the government was going to spend a billion euro on improving cycling infrastructure. I'd like to say it was an understandable mistake, but to be honest I don't know where you got the idea.

The driver for all of this is the bus routes.

I understand the drive for this , I never thought the government was going to spend 1 billion on this. However when the government talks about how much money it's going to spend on cycling infrastructure if constantly references Bus Connects

schemingbohemia

30 km/h isn't the speed that everyday cyclists should be going at, go check out the Dutch and Danes and you'll see that they're generally going at 20km/h - that's an acceptable speed that should mean people won't need showers when they get to work or school.

LeinsterDub

tobsey wrote: »

What's your problem with that?

If you are cycling North bound you have to use the road or follow a large detour. It's not the biggest deal for sure but that's kind of the the whole problem with this there a just so many substandard sections. Death by a thousand cuts.

LeinsterDub

schemingbohemia wrote: »

30 km/h isn't the speed that everyday cyclists should be going at, go check out the Dutch and Danes and you'll see that they're generally going at 20km/h - that's an acceptable speed that should mean people won't need showers when they get to work or school.

Same point , replace 30 with 20 so.

bk

LeinsterDub wrote: »

These are suburban cycle lanes. Commuters have a reasonable expectation or maintaining a decent pace .

I disagree completely with you on this. No one is going to be bombing along at 30KPH on cycle lanes!! You will never see people cycling at 30KPH in Amsterdam or Copenhagen, every one just cruises along at a steady 15KPH or so. Most of them on Dutch bikes that couldn't even go faster if you wanted too.

I've often cycled in these cities and it is a completely different cycling culture. Slow and steady, why the rush?!

Remember cycle lane are mostly aimed at people who feel nervous about cycling in traffic. They will be full of children, elderly, etc. You might get decent speed in the outskirts, but closer to the city you will have to slow right down using such lanes.

RayCun

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Cycle lanes , decent one should allow for over taking . I understand that some lane can and will be congested

So you probably also understand that sometimes a shared use lane will have pedestrians, and know how to adjust for that. Though as another poster pointed out, these shared use lanes are not in areas of high pedestrian traffic and most of the time will contain only cyclists.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

As a cyclist I can tell you that it is being thrown into traffic. What should happen is the cycle lane should be grade separated on the road. So when you reach a junction you don't have to look over your shoulder to merge on to the road

As a cyclist, I wouldn't describe that as being thrown into traffic. The canal cycle lanes have lots of junctions, are not grade separated, and do not require a shoulder check to cross. You don't 'merge onto the road' at all. You wait for a green light then continue in a straight line across the road to the continuation of the cycle track. I can only presume the junctions in this plan will also have traffic lights.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I understand the drive for this , I never thought the government was going to spend 1 billion on this. However when the government talks about how much money it's going to spend on cycling infrastructure if constantly references Bus Connects

So surely you understand that this plan was never going to give cyclists top priority on every road?

LeinsterDub

RayCun wrote: »

As a cyclist, I wouldn't describe that as being thrown into traffic. The canal cycle lanes have lots of junctions, are not grade separated, and do not require a shoulder check to cross. You don't 'merge onto the road' at all. You wait for a green light then continue in a straight line across the road to the continuation of the cycle track. I can only presume the junctions in this plan will also have traffic lights.

The canal is on the carriage way like I suggested . Looking at the maps and I could be wrong this appears to be the cycle on the footpath and we'll dump you out on the road style like the Finglas Rd

RayCun wrote: »

So surely you understand that this plan was never going to give cyclists top priority on every road?

Of course , I just expected more , I'm a realist but I though the days of the disjointed mess might just be over . It's not . There are too many breaks

LeinsterDub

bk wrote: »

I disagree completely with you on this. No one is going to be bombing along at 30KPH on cycle lanes!! You will never see people cycling at 30KPH in Amsterdam or Copenhagen, every one just cruises along at a steady 15KPH or so. Most of them on Dutch bikes that couldn't even go faster if you wanted too.

I've often cycled in these cities and it is a completely different cycling culture. Slow and steady, why the rush?!

Remember cycle lane are mostly aimed at people who feel nervous about cycling in traffic. They will be full of children, elderly, etc. You might get decent speed in the outskirts, but closer to the city you will have to slow right down using such lanes.

So the fast cyclist will cycle on the normal roadway?

schemingbohemia

LeinsterDub wrote: »

So the fast cyclist will cycle on the normal roadway?

This already happens parallel to the Grand Canal Cycle Track - the faster cyclists have stayed on the road.

bk

LeinsterDub, was that list of maps the Swords route!!!!

I didn't realise that post, I thought you were on about your route. Then that shows me you are just blindly looking at the maps, seeing a shared section and not liking it without actually understanding the routes or areas!

As tobsey says, the large shared section by the airport is the section where you'd be shocked to see one or two people walking down that section per hour. A cyclist would probably be able to go 30kph there easily without issue, unlike more official cycle path sections closer to the city.

Same with the bypass of Santry, unless you are heading to Omni, not an issue at all.

The rest just seem to be you picking out very small shared sections and Toucan crossings at junctions. Living near some of these junctions myself, there are seldom very few pedestrians crossing at the same and I don't see any major issue with most of them.

It certainly isn't perfect, but even a Copenhagen style would be a VAST improvement over what we currently have and a relief for nervous cyclists.

Qrt

Once there's separate lights for cyclists, and an early green for them, I feel most of the junctions would be okay, with some major ones needing a lot more segregation. We're not going full Dutch by the looks of it, more like full Danish, where if you want turn turn left (or right for us) you have to dismount and walk across, similar to the many hook turn boxes that are proposed.

Will I advocate for full Dutch? absolutely! But the current proposals, especially if some of the messy junctions are sorted out, would still get me cycling around, and maybe into college (14km e/w).

RayCun

LeinsterDub wrote: »

There are too many breaks

That really depends on what you consider a break.

If you reach a junction and have to stop, but the cars and buses and pedestrians have to stop at the same place, I don't consider that a break.

If you're on a dedicated cycle lane and it becomes a shared use lane, it could be a break, but really depends on how much pedestrian traffic there is.

If you're on a cycle lane and it ends so you go back onto the road, that's a break. (like the crazy cycle lanes on the north docklands, except all the bikes just continue on the path until the cycle lane restarts)

bk

CatInABox wrote: »

You kind of answered your own question there, we're not serious about it. If we removed more car lanes, then this project wouldn't get approval from the public, wouldn't get approval politically, and it wouldn't get approval from ABP.

I get that these could be better, but could they be better and actually get built? I don't think so.

Voltaire: "The best is the enemy of the good."

Confucius: "Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without."

The only way I can see of doing better, would be to remove cars from the entire city, including suburbs. While I'm in favour of removing cars from the core city center, trying to do so in the suburbs would be suicide and kill the project dead.

It already has some pretty controversial sections like one way in Santry that will be hard to push through. Banning cars in these areas completely is totally unrealistic. Hell even Amsterdam doesn't do that!

LeinsterDub

bk wrote: »

LeinsterDub, was that list of maps the Swords route!!!!

I didn't realise that post, I thought you were on about your route. Then that shows me you are just blindly looking at the maps, seeing a shared section and not liking it without actually understanding the routes or areas!
improvement over what we currently have and a relief for nervous cyclists.

I'm not dismissing shared sections out of hand . I'm just saying it sub optimal. I will concede as you've pointed out some of these shared sections will be see very little conflict but others will . Yes I have just looked at the maps and highlighted where the cycle lane disappears or becomes shared with out further drilling down . If that was 1 sections perhaps that would be acceptable but it's 50% of the maps . This won't be a cycle lane network it will be disjointed.

LeinsterDub

RayCun wrote: »

That really depends on what you consider a break.

If you reach a junction and have to stop, but the cars and buses and pedestrians have to stop at the same place, I don't consider that a break.

If you're on a dedicated cycle lane and it becomes a shared use lane, it could be a break, but really depends on how much pedestrian traffic there is.

If you're on a cycle lane and it ends so you go back onto the road, that's a break. (like the crazy cycle lanes on the north docklands, except all the bikes just continue on the path until the cycle lane restarts)

Option 3 for me.