Dublin - BusConnects

RayCun

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Option 3 for me.

then I don't know how you could say there are too many breaks on the Swords route

bk

LeinsterDub wrote: »

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.

The point is, I did drill down. I went through each of the maps and had Google Maps/Earth open and followed the bike route on Google Earth and for the most part I'm very happy with it.

Just saying their are shared sections definitely don't do it justice at all IMO.

I really have no concerns or relatively few for most of those shared sections. Shared sections aren't necessarily some boggy man. Most of them you will be able to bomb along IMO.

I've more concerns about seemingly dedicated sections closer into town, where the bike path is forced onto the road/bus lane and has to interact with bus stops. That is where you would have more issues IMO. Though unfortunately I'm not sure how you could realistically improve them given the available space.

Overall I feel it is a big improvement and would encourage me to cycle into town more.

LeinsterDub

RayCun wrote: »

then I don't know how you could say there are too many breaks on the Swords route

Because there is much shared usage there is bound to be issues. Perhaps I should just lower my exceptions and be happy with something rather than nothing . I'm just concerned the something is in large tracts going to be useless.

bk

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Because there is much shared usage there is bound to be issues. Perhaps I should just lower my exceptions and be happy with something rather than nothing . I'm just concerned the something is in large tracts going to be useless.

I think you aren't really familiar with the area or the route. Most of the area between Swords, past the Airport and in as far as Griffith Avenue is pretty much industrial. Pretty much mostly warehouses, car parks for rental cars and some playing fields. There are very few if any houses on this section of road and as a result, very few people walking on these footpaths.

That is why I'd have zero concerns about shared sections in these areas. The footfall is so low, you could easily mostly bomb along them.

I just followed the full route from Swords into the city and it actually looks really good. It looks pretty continuous to me, I'm not seeing the breaks that you are?

I do see two awkward places where you need to cross over, by the Airport Roundabout, which I definitely think they can improve and I'll be making a submission about that and by Collins Avenue. But it does look continuous all the way in from what I can see and as long as you had the lights at junctions in your favour, you could easily speed in without stopping.

If you mean areas where it goes from cycle path, to shared section, back to cycle path, as I said above those places are fine with such low footfall.

I'd be more concerned about interactions with buses at stops around Dorset Street end, but I'm not sure what you could do to avoid that.

tobsey

bk wrote: »

I'd be more concerned about interactions with buses at stops around Dorset Street end, but I'm not sure what you could do to avoid that.

I presume the maps are detailed to scale but it does look like there'll be a full width buslane beside the cycle lane. At least that would mean there's plenty of room to overtake a stopped bus without having to cross into the main traffic lane.

LeinsterDub

bk wrote: »

I think you aren't really familiar with the area or the route. Most of the area between Swords, past the Airport and in as far as Griffith Avenue is pretty much industrial..

I'm quite familiar

LeinsterDub

Within in detailed drawings, flaws which go against policy, guidance or best international practice include mixing walking and cycling at junctions, mixing walking and cycling on sections of paths, bus stops within cycle lanes, dangerous slip turns retained, parking inside cycle tracks, no segregation even at large junctions, staggered crossings in urban areas, and roundabouts with no crossings for people walking and cycling.

http://irishcycle.com/2018/11/15/busconnects-bus-lane-plans-leaves-cycling-behind/

cgcsb

The bus corridors aren't getting nearly as much traction (outrage) in the media as the network review did. Perhaps Brexit is dominating the headlines or may there's less rabble.

sharper

cgcsb wrote: »

The bus corridors aren't getting nearly as much traction (outrage) in the media as the network review did. Perhaps Brexit is dominating the headlines or may there's less rabble.

I think that's partially a function of most of the CPOs being very limited (and really a snafu on the part of the NTA to allow that to dominate the coverage back when it was announced) and partially a tendency amongst drivers to ignore these kinds of proposals until firm plans are announced and a date is set.

Consider how long the traffic measures on the quays were proposed and planned for only to be reversed at close to the last minute.

CatInABox

LeinsterDub wrote: »

http://irishcycle.com/2018/11/15/busconnects-bus-lane-plans-leaves-cycling-behind/

I get that Irish Cycle are complaining about this, but there entire raison d'être is to campaign for more and better cycle routes. If these plans contained forty cycle-highways that surpassed international standard, then they'd still be pushing for more! And if you told them that it's this plan or nothing, they'd be the first ones out there campaigning for it.

That's not a knock against them, or anything, fully respect them, it's just that we have to be realistic with what can be achieved in one go. I also fully expect that where possible, their complaints will be taken on board, as they're pretty much experts at this, and someone whose opinion I value.

riddlinrussell

CatInABox wrote: »

I get that Irish Cycle are complaining about this, but there entire raison d'être is to campaign for more and better cycle routes. If these plans contained forty cycle-highways that surpassed international standard, then they'd still be pushing for more! And if you told them that it's this plan or nothing, they'd be the first ones out there campaigning for it.

That's not a knock against them, or anything, fully respect them, it's just that we have to be realistic with what can be achieved in one go. I also fully expect that where possible, their complaints will be taken on board, as they're pretty much experts at this, and someone whose opinion I value.

The other point, and its made in the article there too, is that this is the public consultation. Get everyone you know to comment on the proposals, heap praise on the design team for the good bits of cycling they have put in, cleanly and clearly state the sections you think are in particular need of improvement, refer to the official guidelines and show how they have deviated from them.

RayCun

and don't dox the engineers who drew up the proposals :eek:

bk

LeinsterDub wrote: »

http://irishcycle.com/2018/11/15/busconnects-bus-lane-plans-leaves-cycling-behind/

Oh jezz! Honestly I feel the folks at Irish Cycle can be too much and can actually damage cycling in Dublin by being too nit picking.

Look at the headline, it is sensationalist like the crappy articles in the Newspapers that we are always complaining about.

Don't get me wrong, I actually agree with some of the nit pickings and yes they should be highlighted and corrected where possible. But the headline is complete nonsense IMO and the article if overall far too negative and is pretty poor IMO.

From what I've seen so far, this network is great news for cycling in Dublin and will build a great basis and foundation for cycling from here from which to grow from and the honestly believe that the planners at the NTA should be congratulated for this plan, while at the same encouraging them to do better and pointing out when they can improve.

Poor, sensationalist articles like this don't help IMO.

I can't speak for the whole article, but for example:

Existing — even if sub-standard — cycle lanes will be removed in some places to make way for continuous bus lanes, such as in Santry and Gardner Street.

The bike lane in Santry is useless and might as well not exist. It is just a line painted on the road, but the road is so narrow, you end up cycling in front of cars and buses directly behind you. This really doesn't change. A pity, for sure, but I don't see any alternative other then CPOing whole front gardens and maybe whole homes, which I'd say would kill the project dead.

On the Malahide Road drawings show a detour for cyclists with a note which states “cyclists required to use diversion route on Brian Road and Carleton Road”.

As long as the junction onto Fairview is well signalled, I see no issue with this.

Santry a segregated two-way cycle path is to be provided on the Santry bypass, but there is no note that this will be mandatory.

Why would it be? Those needing to cycle to Omni center from the south can still do so, but on the road. Not ideal, but definitely not a major deal, it isn't a major cycling route.

There is also little horizontal segregation between cycle paths and bus or general traffic lanes on higher-speed roads, even where there is ample green space. Horizontal segregation is seen as key to increase comfort and safety especially on larger roads where there is increased traffic speeds and volume.

I'd agree completely.

Tesco in Drumcondra, yep, the bike lane should go behind the stop, there is plenty of space there to do that.

Drumcondra Road Lower, yes, those are the inline bus stops that do worry me, more then your shared spaces. Though I'm not sure how you can avoid that, there is no gardens and limited space there.

The rest I won't comment on, as I don't know these areas.

But honestly I see no reason for such outsized criticisms. Feedback and adjustments, yes, but overall it is a good plan IMO.

And I'd say always attacking planners like this is not good for pushing forward the agenda of improving cycling and public transport in Dublin. If you always attack, they will just tune you out and always see you as the enemy, someone to be ignored. Much better to work with them and help drive things in a better direction IMO.

CatInABox

RayCun wrote: »

and don't dox the engineers who drew up the proposals :eek:

Jaysus. Didn't get what you were talking about until I went back and reread the Irish Cycle complaints. The comments under that are quite eye opening, close to militant opinions there!

cgcsb

Dublin Cycling Campaign, I do find them militant, but in fairness if you want to achieve 50 points, you have to aim for 100, and I think that's rational. You aim high to hit a slightly lower target.

Brian CivilEng

CatInABox wrote: »

Jaysus. Didn't get what you were talking about until I went back and reread the Irish Cycle complaints. The comments under that are quite eye opening, close to militant opinions there!

Hope you didn't think my comment was militant...

I was a little annoyed by the article, NTA are doing a great job of releasing preliminary designs for comment and are getting abused for it. In years gone past the first time the public would have seen bad design was after the infrastructure was constructed, now we have a chance to point out issues and potential mitigation to the people who can make a difference. Yet somehow the fact that this design isn't perfect straight away and needs feedback is a bad thing.

bk

cgcsb wrote: »

Dublin Cycling Campaign, I do find them militant, but in fairness if you want to achieve 50 points, you have to aim for 100, and I think that's rational. You aim high to hit a slightly lower target.

Yep, I totally see where they are coming from and fair play for all the effort they put in.

But I feel this approach doesn't work with Irish society. It doesn't look good and tends to close doors to you IME.

I found a much better approach is to keep the criticisms down a bit in public (not completely, but moderate it) and praise the good steps by the government. That I found to have a great effect, it opened the door to us having regular meetings with senior officials, government ministers, etc. and allowed us to push policy in certain directions (this was related to Broadband).

It is important to remember that the planners are just folks trying to do their job day in and day out and they tend to be quiet happy to hear constructive criticism IME, as long as you don't attack them.

It also has to be kept in mind that they are trying to balance the needs of cyclists, with the needs of pedestrians, bus users and motorists and all while trying to avoid too much resistance from locals which we all know can scupper a project. It is a delicate balancing act.

CatInABox

abitofacomedian wrote: »

Hope you didn't think my comment was militant...

I was a little annoyed by the article, NTA are doing a great job of releasing preliminary designs for comment and are getting abused for it. In years gone past the first time the public would have seen bad design was after the infrastructure was constructed, now we have a chance to point out issues and potential mitigation to the people who can make a difference. Yet somehow the fact that this design isn't perfect straight away and needs feedback is a bad thing.

In fairness, there's only one that's out there as militant, the one going on about Freedom of Infoing the engineers and "naming and shaming" them.

As bk has said, that kind of thing isn't acceptable in Irish society, doing that will result in the total opposite of what they want.

It reminds me of a case during the recession, student support was on the chopping block, so one of the students unions invited a labour TD along to a talk, and when he got there, the president of the union stood up, told everyone that in order to hear from as many people as possible, everyone (including the TD) would be limited to three minutes of speaking time. The TD spoke first, was then interrupted before his three minutes were up the president, who then spoke for 15 minutes, then called the meeting to a close and marched everyone down to the Dáil to protest. He'd basically humiliated the one person with power who was willing to reach out and fight for students.

Needless to say, student support was savagely cut afterwards.

Doxing the engineers on this would put cycling in Ireland back ten years in my opinion.

Qrt

As a point of information, the North Strand/Fairview cycle path designs were released to criticism, because it was pretty bad. Then after the consultation, they re-did it, and went as close to full Dutch as I can imagine

Just be clear in your submissions, and don’t be in any way polemic. The actual plan could turn out to be incredible.

dublinman1990

Some of the current Dublin Bus stops in the Ballinteer, Nutgrove & Rathfarnham areas have reportedly been repainted in blue with grey benches. Is this move part of BusConnects or JC Decaux?

bk

Qrt wrote: »

As a point of information, the North Strand/Fairview cycle path designs were released to criticism, because it was pretty bad. Then after the consultation, they re-did it, and went as close to full Dutch as I can imagine

Just be clear in your submissions, and don’t be in any way polemic. The actual plan could turn out to be incredible.

Is there a link to the plan for Fairview? I would love to check it out.

Qrt

bk wrote: »

Is there a link to the plan for Fairview? I would love to check it out.

http://irishcycle.com/2018/06/04/clontarf-to-city-centre-cycle-route-redesign-given-strong-welcomed/

LeinsterDub

dublinman1990 wrote: »

Some of the current Dublin Bus stops in the Ballinteer, Nutgrove & Rathfarnham areas have reportedly been repainted in blue with grey benches. Is this move part of BusConnects or JC Decaux?

I'd imagine it's to do with Go ahead and the eventual taking over of the stop infrastructure by the NTA.

Kevtherev1

dublinman1990 wrote: »

Some of the current Dublin Bus stops in the Ballinteer, Nutgrove & Rathfarnham areas have reportedly been repainted in blue with grey benches. Is this move part of BusConnects or JC Decaux?

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I'd imagine it's to do with Go ahead and the eventual taking over of the stop infrastructure by the NTA.

Correct those new blue stops are for the Route 75/75a that has switched to GoAhead Dublin.


Saw the same blue stops along santry avenue yesterday. For route 17a that switching to GoAhead the start of December 2nd.

bk

Qrt wrote: »

http://irishcycle.com/2018/06/04/clontarf-to-city-centre-cycle-route-redesign-given-strong-welcomed/

Cool, this looks very nice. Nicer then the previous proposal.

Well done to all involved.

Though it isn't perfect. I see some issues even with the new plan. I note one or two pedestrian hostile three way crossing junctions, instead of four way (e.g. by Annesley Bridge) and I do wonder how pedestrians will feel about being forced into Fairview Park. I wouldn't fancy a lady walking through there at night! I suspect most will ignore that and simply walk on the cycle path, not good, definitely going to be a place of conflict.

There is also a strange discount between this plan and the BusConnect plan. The Fairview Plan has a great junction design at the junction with the Malahide Road, but an only ok design at Marglann Marino. That makes sense at the moment, but under BusConnects design, there will be no bike paths on that section of the Malahide road and Marglann Marino becomes much more important as it is now a key junction with the Bus Connects route.

Ideally I'd like to see them keep the junction design at Malahide Road or with small tweaks and then duplicate that Marglann Marino too. It will need it.

One mistake I think they made with the BusConnects plan is they call a lot of the junctions "shared sections" and mark them as so. Which is partly what LeinsterDub was complaining about with his big list of maps. The Fairview plan has no marked shared sections, but when you look closely you realise that there are shared sections, pedestrians will have to cross and mix at those junctions, so actually exactly the same, but they were clever in not marking them as such, it looks better on the plans.

I don't think the BusConnects plan, at least on the Swords route that I looked at in detail, is that different from the new Fairview plan. I'd say it is closer to the new Fairview plan then the old one.

That isn't to say it is perfect and there aren't places that it can be improved, it certainly can, there are things that can be brought over. But I don't think it is anywhere near as bad as some seem to be making out, I think it is actually quiet good. Work to be done on these plans, but a good start.

What I will say, I'm very excited by all these plans, if they actually all go ahead, we will have a really good cycling infrastructure and I think we will see a big uptick in cycling. I'd certainly start cycling a lot more again. I can't wait for all of this to happen.

schemingbohemia

Important to note that Irish Cycle is just a website (a very interesting and good one) and is not associated with the Dublin Cycling Campaign though most of the comments on the site come from people associated with DCC.

cgcsb

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Important to note that Irish Cycle is just a website (a very interesting and good one) and is not associated with the Dublin Cycling Campaign though most of the comments on the site come from people associated with DCC.

It's the continuity DCC?

monument

Qrt wrote: »

As a point of information, the North Strand/Fairview cycle path designs were released to criticism, because it was pretty bad. Then after the consultation, they re-did it, and went as close to full Dutch as I can imagine

Just be clear in your submissions, and don’t be in any way polemic. The actual plan could turn out to be incredible.

Can somebody please remind me? Is that the plan which IrishCycle.com covered heavily critically in both news and analysis and the design was then improved?

cgcsb wrote: »

It's the continuity DCC?

It's independent of cycling campaign groups and officials, although in contact with all. There's an element of campaign journalism, but the journalism part comes first -- ie reporting, making things public is the first order and that's not the same as cycling campaigning.

CatInABox wrote: »

I get that Irish Cycle are complaining about this, but there entire raison d'e is to campaign for more and better cycle routes.

No. The raison d'e of IrishCycle.com is report on and analyse issues relating to cycling, including to highlight where policy is gone wrong.

CatInABox wrote: »

If these plans contained forty cycle-highways that surpassed international standard, then they'd still be pushing for more! And if you told them that it's this plan or nothing, they'd be the first ones out there campaigning for it.

Errr... IrishCycle.com fairly reports on issues and where campaigners etc welcome projects or improvements that's noted (as somebody else linked to such an article). As for "it's this plan or nothing" -- that would be a flagrant disregard for the law, so, a big no on that too.

bk wrote: »

Oh jezz! Honestly I feel the folks at Irish Cycle can be too much and can actually damage cycling in Dublin by being too nit picking.

Look at the headline, it is sensationalist like the crappy articles in the Newspapers that we are always complaining about.

Don't get me wrong, I actually agree with some of the nit pickings and yes they should be highlighted and corrected where possible. But the headline is complete nonsense IMO and the article if overall far too negative and is pretty poor IMO.

Maybe you're being too nit picking -- the headline is mild compared to the dead trap designs used by the NTA in these designs. The NTA are showing little respect for their own GDA transport policies, national policy and the Dublin City development plan.

It very much so looks like QBN office mark two.

bk wrote: »

From what I've seen so far, this network is great news for cycling in Dublin and will build a great basis and foundation for cycling from here from which to grow from and the honestly believe that the planners at the NTA should be congratulated for this plan, while at the same encouraging them to do better and pointing out when they can improve.

Poor, sensationalist articles like this don't help IMO.

Maybe the NTA could start by doing their jobs and at a very minimum design to avoid conflicts, provide for cycling in all directions at junctions and at least try to follow their own National Cycle Manual (which is highly flawed, but they can't even follow the half decent stuff) and follow the Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets?

bk wrote: »

I can't speak for the whole article, but for example:

The bike lane in Santry is useless and might as well not exist. It is just a line painted on the road, but the road is so narrow, you end up cycling in front of cars and buses directly behind you. This really doesn't change. A pity, for sure, but I don't see any alternative other then CPOing whole front gardens and maybe whole homes, which I'd say would kill the project dead.

It's a news article -- the next paragraph states: "In Santry a segregated two-way cycle path is to be provided on the Santry bypass"...

bk wrote: »

As long as the junction onto Fairview is well signalled, I see no issue with this.

Which isn't shown on the drawings and again -- it's a news article, if bicycles are expected to be banned of sections of roads then it's newsworthy for a cycling journalism website.

bk wrote: »

Why would it be? Those needing to cycle to Omni center from the south can still do so, but on the road. Not ideal, but definitely not a major deal, it isn't a major cycling route.

The paragraph in question was reporting how one detour was noted as mandtory and another has no such note.

In any case, it seems to be NTA policy to mark shared cycle and bus lanes with bicycle logos, so, there's none in Santry if those are shared.


But honestly I see no reason for such outsized criticisms. Feedback and adjustments, yes, but overall it is a good plan IMO.

Because the flaws in the designs are amazing -- far greater than I thought the NTA would be willing to publish... unless this is the reverse of what somebody else here mentioned re campaigners looking of more but aiming lower... maybe the NTA put out such rubbish so that they could make fewer improvements? I don't know, but I'm shocked at how bad these designs overall are and that was when I was expecting to be dispointed in some way, but not at this level.

bk wrote: »

And I'd say always attacking planners like this is not good for pushing forward the agenda of improving cycling and public transport in Dublin. If you always attack, they will just tune you out and always see you as the enemy, someone to be ignored. Much better to work with them and help drive things in a better direction IMO.

That's journalism vs campaigning again.

Journalism believes in the oppsite of what you are saying -- openness and transparency, holding those in power to account etc.

Qrt

monument wrote: »

Can somebody please remind me? Is that the plan which IrishCycle.com covered heavily critically in both news and analysis and the design was then improved?

http://irishcycle.com/2018/06/04/clontarf-to-city-centre-cycle-route-redesign-given-strong-welcomed/

Qrt

Is anybody else (pleasantly) surprised at just how mute the reaction has been to the Stoneybatter restrictions and the Santry Village thing? I'm amazed, and really I'm amazed at the mute reaction to it all. Even considering the only people to be negatively (theoretically) affected by this are the landowners, I was still expecting some of the less reputable politicians to express some sort of whacky statements.

Rathmines, Kimmage and Templeogue will probably be a whole different story but maybe we'll be pleasantly surprised there too.