Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Dublin - BusConnects
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
The addition of the gap between the road and the footpath increasing the number of crossing for pedestrians is not in the Dutch model.
The curves in the Dutch model are far less severe than those proposed in this example.
You also missed my last point?
You're the only one here that thinks you know anything about the Dutch model -- you probably should just give up trying to claim you do.Is agree the current road is substandard as it was designed before DMURS was published but why as part of an upgrade should be not design the road to DMURS completely rather than just bring it “more in line”. DMURS was developed in the interest of ensuring all road users are safe. If we are not using to full effect which it looks like here then it’s unsafe.
Your signalling proposal ignores the nucleus of my point in that the n11 mainline gets more green time that the side roads. How long do your propose to hold the filter lanes for? On a number of the n11 junctions the traffic back up past the filter lanes (hence their presence). If you hold them longer you hold the mainline causing gridlock.
I’m not too fussed about extra green time for pedestrians as I am of the opinion that it is adequate currently and if it needs changing it is a relatively simple measure.
There is a significant number of people on here who jump at those who criticise Busconnects. I don’t agree with NIMBYISM but I have raised some serious issues here which no one has been able to address and even point here is effectively a defence of the NTA who got in wrong in the first phase and are now playing catch up.
"I’m not too fussed about extra green time for pedestrians" ...That's more of what you are saying which is clearly showing you're just using pedestrians to fight against decent cycling infrastructure. Do you think you're fooling many people here?
It's strange also that in one post you're worried about reducing car traffic and in the next post you're worrying about
Buses are more efficient than cyclists and trams more than buses
On routes, but not city-wide. City-wide see below...7-10 is low? If I got 10% in an exam I wouldn’t be happy and thinking great room for improvement. The modal share is the same despite their being only 2 tram lines. Everyone can access a bike?
Really?
Spend 1.5 billion euro on two tram lines vs a tiny fraction of that on cycling infrastructure.
The final bit of Dublin's first continuously segregated cycle route from city centre to suburbs is only set to start construction next year.Define a “little bit more mixed”? As in similar to the hill at Christchurch or a gentle incline? How does cycling modal split fare in the more mixed areas as all the evidence presented in Amsterdam and Utrecht is based on areas in Holland itself correct? So based on that my point is valid. Throwing in ebikes as a solution is a token gesture.
You can't even get that Holland is a province and Utrecht isn't in Holland. I don't expect everybody to know this but I've already said at least once that Holland isn't the name of the country we're talking about.
I don't really know what the rest of what you are on about here and it's not at all clear why you think e-bicycles are a token gesture -- they flatten out hills for people who are not able for them.But the point is you can’t build half a tram line but you can build half a cycle lane... therefore it is easier to stop funding despite only certain parts being build which leads to the whole network collapsing. Adding a tram line now and another in 20 years still helps significantly where as adding 1km of cycle lane now and another in 20 years won’t encourage people to cycle.
The link between the red and green lines left for years shows very clearly that you can build half a tram line. The city really can't wait for decades for tram lines to built. And the Government built Luas Cross City without fully having traffic management in the plan, leaving the blame to others.Again point me to figures on the return on investment in particular passenger numbers or reduction in traffic when a cycle lane is provided. Surely that’s available for some schemes?
These are just small routes and results already:
The Irish Independent reported: “This particular in-depth local data also showed a sharp rise in cyclists in Dublin city centre. The statistics revealed the number of cyclists making their way to work rose by some 43pc between 2011 and 2016.”
The newspaper added: “The largest increase came around the Harold’s Cross and Kimmage areas of Dublin. CSO officials believe this is particularly down to a cycle route that was opened along the Grand Canal in Dublin.”
+
"electronic cycle counter on the Rock Road approaching Booterstown Avenue has shown that cycling numbers have increased by 49% in the first 6 months of 2016 when compared to 2014"
https://irishcycle.com/2017/07/22/census-shows-segregated-cycle-path-helps-drive-switch-to-cycling-in-areas-around-route/It’s a reason people use. An excuse yes but it’s a reason why people don’t cycle. I’m not denying the main issue but my point was a list reasons why we won’t be like the Dutch and this is a valid reason.
I've actually debunked your points on why -- lack of adequate facilities in a number of work places is laughable and the weather excuse quickly falls away when safe and attractive infrastructure is provided.
Sure, some people might never cycle because they might get wet the odd time. Those people also exist in The Netherlands.I have not suggested closing access to any streets etc. Or reducing the width of a significant amount of roads which would be required to install cycle lanes. This comes down to catchment areas. A tram serves an area 1km around the stop. To be served by a cycle network you effectively need a cycle lane on every street.
This gets funnier the more you go on -- you want a tram network without taking space from car? Is it going to be elevated like a monorail?Don’t care where it ranks, it’s a reason. If you’re suggesting adapting then your adding to the cost of cycling infrastructure. I know the vast majority of places will definitely not pay for such facilities out of their own pocket unless it becomes law.
I think you'll find offices are already being adapted with more parking space etc being given over to cycling.
https://dublin.cyclingworks.org/ has something around 100 companies signed up. You're really not getting that city centre-based companies are already seeing the benefits of cycling and making their employees happier and attracting new ones when needed.My point is some people can’t drive or cycle and therefore rely on public transport. Investment in trams accommodates everyone equally.
The catchment area of a tram is significant (around 1km) so I don’t see your point here. Developing a tram network would serve a significant proportion of the city.
More people on trams is also a bento the country?
With investment in a tram network and redesigned bus network, there would be a significant increase in public transport use. 50% is ambitious but there is far better chance of getting 50% of using public transport than using bikes even if just based on the fact that there is a percentage of people who physically can’t cycle.
A 50% modal split on cycling would be extremely difficult. The GDA plans 2000km of cycle lanes to maintain 10%. How many more would be required to reach 50%. At this stage the costs are surely favouring trams. Even a doubling of modal share to 20% would put a massive strain on even the best parts the cycling infrastructure such as the grand canal cycleway and the Drury st bike park. 50% public transport on the other hand could be achieved
As I've said -- I'm a big fan of trams for their people moving capacity on routes. But on a city-wide bases, Luas-like trams cannot accommodate everyone equally and more so not in the short term. Your tram and to hell with BusConnects idea is really toxic stuff -- nitpicking with BusConnects and trying to claim it's fundamentally flawed just does not stand up.
City-wide public transport alone usually fails to provide a majority share.
Look at the amount of public transport on offer in Copenhagen -- the very high-frequency of both the Metro and the S-train and buses filling in some gaps. Yet, cycling amounts to 50% of commuters. Copenhagen has a similar population level and density to Dublin -- how many tram lines are you going to build before it comes close to the capacity of Copenhagen's system?
Stockholm is another example of a larger system, yet, the public transport modal share in Stockholm is listed as between 24-40%. The https://civitas.eu/eccentric/stockholm page includes the following as part of the city's public transport network:- Regional Train: 1 hour commuting one train every 30 min 5.00 to 24.00 Green electricity only
- Commuter Train: 5-30min traffic, 5.00 to 24.00 Green electricity only
- Metro: 110 km, 100 stations Green electricity only
- Boats: 40 boat lines, 4 million passengers/year, 6.00-20.00. 300 bridges.
- Buses: 2,200 in the whole region. 85 % of them use only renewable fuel.
Yes, that's the page which lists public transport's modal share in Stockholm as at just 24%. Seem a bit low, but, regardless, my point is few cities around Dublin's size punches nearly 50%
More people on bicycles is a greater benefit, that's all I was saying. And transport people focus on transport. The Government needs to also
include health and human movement options in our built environment.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 10190
Was it this video by any chance?
Because this video shows multiple examples of the type of junction that the NTA has designed in use, and it's hard to believe that you've actually watched the video at all, or took anything from it on board , to be honest.
It makes it look like you wanted the screenshot to prove your point, but didn't like the what the rest of the video was saying because it completely and utterly undermines your point, so you didn't include the link to the video.0 -
Was it this video by any chance?
Because this video shows multiple examples of the type of junction that the NTA has designed in use, and it's hard to believe that you've actually watched the video at all, or took anything from it on board , to be honest.
It makes it look like you wanted the screenshot to prove your point, but didn't like the what the rest of the video was saying because it completely and utterly undermines your point, so you didn't include the link to the video.
Funnily enough no it wasn’t that one but this one
https://youtu.be/FlApbxLz6pA
But your argument and defence still doesn’t address my point. Of course I used the screenshot to prove my point. My point being there isn’t a need for the gap. No one has explained why the gap is needed.
And for the record, showing examples with a gap in the Netherlands doesn’t address another point I made which is that in the Netherlands, cyclists have priority whereas here in Ireland where the junction is planned for under DMURS the pedestrian has priority.
Remove the gap and this issue goes away. I’d still have reservations about it actually slowing cyclists down but since none of the cycling experts on here have an issue with that I’ll let it go.
It is incredible that pages and pages later, some people still fail to see the issue with this and are praising the design. Maybe it’s because cyclists only see cyclists and don’t want to acknowledge anyone else on the road.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 10190
Funnily enough no it wasn’t that one but this one
Haha, even in that video, they literally say this is standard design for dutch junctions, and change the image to a design that includes pedestrian traffic islands.
It's at the two minute mark.
Here's an image of it, it's the one on the right:
To be honest, I'm willing to take the Dutch at their word on these designs, and I'm not much of a cyclist at all, so I'm open to correction on these by anyone with more authority on it, but this design would allow cyclists to turn left without waiting for the lights, and would also reduce conflict between pedestrians, cars, and cyclists.
I know that you keep banging on about the fact that pedestrians will have to cross a cycleway to get to the traffic island, but surely you can see that it's easier for pedestrians to cross a cycleway than it is to cross a road? It's not the same level of danger at all. It's why the Dutch also use floating bus stops all over the place as well.
The Dutch have 50 years worth of knowledge and data that shows this is the safest way, so as I said, I'm content to take their word on it.
Also, the Dutch cyclists don't have priority over pedestrians, so I don't know where you're getting that from?0 -
Advertisement
-
Haha, even in that video, they literally say this is standard design for dutch junctions, and change the image to a design that includes pedestrian traffic islands.
It's at the two minute mark.
Here's an image of it, it's the one on the right:
To be honest, I'm willing to take the Dutch at their word on these designs, and I'm not much of a cyclist at all, so I'm open to correction on these by anyone with more authority on it, but this design would allow cyclists to turn left without waiting for the lights, and would also reduce conflict between pedestrians, cars, and cyclists.
I know that you keep banging on about the fact that pedestrians will have to cross a cycleway to get to the traffic island, but surely you can see that it's easier for pedestrians to cross a cycleway than it is to cross a road? It's not the same level of danger at all. It's why the Dutch also use floating bus stops all over the place as well.
The Dutch have 50 years worth of knowledge and data that shows this is the safest way, so as I said, I'm content to take their word on it.
Also, the Dutch cyclists don't have priority over pedestrians, so I don't know where you're getting that from?
Once again, showing examples where the Dutch have included a gap doesn’t prove your point.
I have asked time and again why their is a gap between the road and the cycle lane. The best response I’ve got so far (asides from the fact that it’s my problem) is that the Dutch do it so we shouldn’t challenge it.
Again saying it’s easier for pedestrians to cross a cycle lane than a road is missing the point. Removing the gap means pedestrians can cross the road and cycle lanes in one go. What part of that don’t you get?
And crossing a road at a signalled junction is not same level of danger as crossing a non signalised cycle lane. The level of danger is greater because the pedestrian has to judge the speed of the cyclist etc.
The addition of the gap also increases the risk that at peak times pedestrians spill into the cycle lane.
At this stage I have given you multiple reasons why the gap is not a good design and not a single person has justified why it is required.
From my reading of the design, it wouldn’t even allow a cyclist to go straight ahead without waiting at the lights. Any vehicle turning left would have priority over cyclists going straight surely like they do over pedestrians going straight in this situation I.e. a signalised junction)? How would a cyclist have priority? Unless we change the rules of the road which means you’re now opening a whole new can of worms.
Turning right it’s even worse as they would have to stop at the top of the junction before making the turn.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HDN9fUlqU8Advertisement