Dublin - BusConnects

Brian CivilEng

Last Stop wrote: »

I have asked time and again why their is a gap between the road and the cycle lane.

Sorry new to this discussion, and there are a lot of posts to wade through, but are you asking about the protection strip between the cycle lane and the road? The kerb and 30cm or so of pavement?

If so, it is there to prevent motor vehicles from taking the corner too quickly by cutting through the cycle lane. Also prevents side swiping, makes it safer for a cyclist waiting to go straight ahead while there are turning vehicles.

The junction design is a lot safer for less confident cyclists than a normal Irish junction, but would probably be slower for experienced cyclists to traverse. Personally, I'd take the additional wait time for a safer journey but accept that others would not. There is one particular left turn on my commute, where the cyclist has to wait at a red light if they want to go straight ahead, but they are to the left of a left tun lane with a green light. Motorists famously complain about cyclists breaking red lights, well in my experience they also complain about cyclists obeying red lights, if it means they have to slow down to turn left!

is_that_so

monument wrote: »

Are you sure about that?

Recent modal share (I think 2017/8) on the left with modal change over one year on the right. btm = bus, tram, metro





Modal share change in Eindhoven:

We are none of those places and we're not Dutch. We genuinely don't have the public infrastructure for this to happen. Average journey times are 25m and way way above and most people do not live close enough to be able to jump on a bike. Without fixing the public transport options first, all of these thousands will remain in their cars and the pans then looks a whole like we really don't care where cars go just as long as we can ban them.

Last Stop

abitofacomedian wrote: »

Sorry new to this discussion, and there are a lot of posts to wade through, but are you asking about the protection strip between the cycle lane and the road? The kerb and 30cm or so of pavement?

If so, it is there to prevent motor vehicles from taking the corner too quickly by cutting through the cycle lane. Also prevents side swiping, makes it safer for a cyclist waiting to go straight ahead while there are turning vehicles.

The junction design is a lot safer for less confident cyclists than a normal Irish junction, but would probably be slower for experienced cyclists to traverse. Personally, I'd take the additional wait time for a safer journey but accept that others would not. There is one particular left turn on my commute, where the cyclist has to wait at a red light if they want to go straight ahead, but they are to the left of a left tun lane with a green light. Motorists famously complain about cyclists breaking red lights, well in my experience they also complain about cyclists obeying red lights, if it means they have to slow down to turn left!

Nope. I get the one at the corner. I’m referring to the one further back near the pedestrian crossing. There’s a gap between the road and the cycle lane which splits the pedestrian crossing into 3. From my view of it, there’s no reason why the cycle lane can’t start to curve after the pedestrian crossing.

Brian CivilEng

Last Stop wrote: »

Nope. I get the one at the corner. I’m referring to the one further back near the pedestrian crossing. There’s a gap between the road and the cycle lane which splits the pedestrian crossing into 3. From my view of it, there’s no reason why the cycle lane can’t start to curve after the pedestrian crossing.

Ah, I was looking at a different drawing (the typical dutch design rather than the Bus connects design). So for a pedestrian to cross the road they have to cross the cycle lane to an island, wait at the lights and then cross the main road to another island, cross the cycle lane and then they can continue.

It does look like that junction type might encourage the left turning cyclist to take the corner very quickly, I'd definitely highlight that as a flaw and tighten up the curve. However if it is a busy crossing for pedestrians it provides a waiting area for crossing peds, and still allows cyclists to turn left even when there is a pedestrian green.

monument

is_that_so wrote: »

We are none of those places and we're not Dutch. We genuinely don't have the public infrastructure for this to happen. Average journey times are 25m and way way above and most people do not live close enough to be able to jump on a bike. Without fixing the public transport options first, all of these thousands will remain in their cars and the pans then looks a whole like we really don't care where cars go just as long as we can ban them.

Look back at what you said — those examples prove you wrong. Even Amsterdam with a number of metro lines, a load of tram lines, and a massive regional/national rail network still has 50% cycling modal share. When do you think Dublin will be matching Amsterdam’s public transport?

We can built the infrastructure for cycling.

Most people in Dublin live within cycling distances from work, school, college and play, and shopping. Average time by is irrelevant given cycling is already quicker for most journeys at peak.

Dublin has slightly higher population density than Amsterdam— so, it’s not true to say people live too far away to get 50% cycling to work. It might be hard to get to that point and to be clear: I think heavy investment in public transport is part of the solution.

monument

Last Stop wrote: »

Nope. I get the one at the corner. I’m referring to the one further back near the pedestrian crossing. There’s a gap between the road and the cycle lane which splits the pedestrian crossing into 3. From my view of it, there’s no reason why the cycle lane can’t start to curve after the pedestrian crossing.

Given your views about cycling expressed in the last few pages, why would anybody take you seriously about the design of cycle paths?

Last Stop

monument wrote: »

Given your views about cycling expressed in the last few pages, why would anybody take you seriously about the design of cycle paths?

Well I’m still waiting for you to explain why the gap is there so do you want to answer the question instead of taking pot shots with absolutely nothing to back it up?

Last Stop

monument wrote: »

We can built the infrastructure.

Most people in Dublin live within cycling distances from work, school, college and play, and shopping. Average time by is irrelevant given cycling is already quicker for most journeys at peak.

Dublin has slightly higher population density than Amsterdam— so, it’s not true to say people live too far away to get 50% cycling to work. It might be hard to get to that point and to be clear: I think heavy investment in public transport is part of the solution.

Yet again you are suggesting that by simply building the infrastructure cycling numbers will increase. There are a number of other factors which you have continually dismissed yet are the reasons why people won’t cycle.

Brian CivilEng

What I like about the Bus Connects project, unlike a light rail project, is that there can be incremental benefits. Every junction upgraded, every section of bus lanes added to a street, every new shelter makes things slightly better for the passenger. Even if you only save 30 seconds on a journey that could be the difference between making your connection, or seeing the back of a bus and waiting 15 mins for the next one. Of course the network effect of the completed project would enhance this to a huge degree, but you don't have to wait years until things start to improve. The Luas is brilliant where done, but if a new line broke ground tomorrow there would be no benefits for five years or so. They could have it 80% built in two years, but its worthless until trams start to run.

Saying that, I still believe that railways are the only civilised way to travel, and that is a hill I will gladly die upon!

monument wrote: »

Dublin has slightly higher population density than Amsterdam

This, 100% this. The amount of times I've had to correct people who claim that Dublin is a low density city.

monument

Last Stop wrote: »

Yet again you are suggesting that by simply building the infrastructure cycling numbers will increase. There are a number of other factors which you have continually dismissed yet are the reasons why people won’t cycle.

What “other factors” exactly are you talking about?

I’ve addressed and in some cases debunked your points.

Last Stop

monument wrote: »

What “other factors” exactly are you talking about?

I’ve addressed and in some cases debunked your points.

You don’t get it do you? As I have clearly pointed it whether you have debunked them or not, they are still the reasons/factors etc that people will use when asked why they don’t cycle.
You keep implying that it’s just infrastructure when it’s clearly not but you’re unwilling to admit that after such a long debate in which you have thrown out some seriously defamatory comments that you’re wrong. I’m using the word implying because when I challenge you on what else is needed, you haven’t given any answers.

monument

Last Stop wrote: »

Well I’m still waiting for you to explain why the gap is there so do you want to answer the question instead of taking pot shots with absolutely nothing to back it up?

There’s not a gap, there’s an area for pedestrians between the roadway and the footpath.

I find it hard to believe that you don’t know well what it is and you know it’s that way because the cycle path at that point is outside the control of the traffic lights.

At this point you’re going to go back to saying this isn’t pedestrian friendly — yet when it was pointed out to you that pedestrians would likely get longer Green time and non-staggered crossings, you dismissed this out of hand. You have clearly used pedestrian priority when it suits you.

CatInABox

Last Stop wrote: »

Yet again you are suggesting that by simply building the infrastructure cycling numbers will increase. There are a number of other factors which you have continually dismissed yet are the reasons why people won’t cycle.

Do you think the Dutch always had a high percentage of cyclists?

Still haven't answered why you thought that cyclists had priority either, and indeed, it seems that every point that is put to you is ignored or dismissed.

Anyway, by using pedestrian safety islands, it decreases the distance between paths, and it's aimed at getting people across the road in one cycle of the lights.

monument

Last Stop wrote: »

You don’t get it do you? As I have clearly pointed it whether you have debunked them or not, they are still the reasons/factors etc that people will use when asked why they don’t cycle.

You might want to look up the meaning of debunk.

In most surveys, the main reasons people relate to lack of infrastructure and danger from motorists. These issues combined overshadow other things.

Last Stop wrote: »

You keep implying that it’s just infrastructure when it’s clearly not but you’re unwilling to admit after such a long debate in which you have thrown out some seriously defamatory comments that you’re wrong. I’m using the word implying because when I challenge you on what else is needed, you haven’t given any answers.

I’ve never said or implied it’s just infrastructure but without infrastructure you cannot address the secondary issues.

If you think any of my posts are defamatory, you probably should report it to boards.ie.

Last Stop

monument wrote: »

There’s not a gap, there’s an area for pedestrians between the roadway and the footpath.

I find it hard to believe that you don’t know well what it is and you know it’s that way because the cycle path at that point is outside the control of the traffic lights.

At this point you’re going to go back to saying this isn’t pedestrian friendly — yet when it was pointed out to you that pedestrians would likely get longer Green time and non-staggered crossings, you dismissed this out of hand. You have clearly used pedestrian priority when it suits you.

Now you’re using fallacies instead of admitting that the gap is to give cyclists priority which is in contradiction to DMURS... as I said from the very beginning. Glad we got there several pages later.
Of course it isn’t pedestrian friendly ad I pointed out but that’s ok to you because cyclists get priority.
I’ve never for a second dismissed non-staggered crossings so don’t know where you’re getting that from in fact in this situation I’m arguing for a non-staggered crossing which you are trying to justify.

Last Stop

CatInABox wrote: »

Do you think the Dutch always had a high percentage of cyclists?

Still haven't answered why you thought that cyclists had priority either, and indeed, it seems that every point that is put to you is ignored or dismissed.

Anyway, by using pedestrian safety islands, it decreases the distance between paths, and it's aimed at getting people across the road in one cycle of the lights.

Cyclists do have priority over pedestrians at that point as monument has in a round about way just admitted.
Now you’re contradicting monument by suggesting this option offers shorter green time for pedestrians. Which is it guys

Last Stop

monument wrote: »

You might want to look up the meaning of debunk.

In most surveys, the main reasons people relate to lack of infrastructure and danger from motorists. These issues combined overshadow other things.

I’ve never said or implied it’s just infrastructure but without infrastructure you cannot address the secondary issues.

If you think any of my posts are defamatory, you probably should report it to boards.ie.

And I have told you time and time again that even if we built the infrastructure, the NTA in the GDA strategy envisage 10% modal share which we are in agreement is roughly what it is today. The GDA strategy includes 2000km of a cycle lane network so even when the infrastructure is built people won’t use it. And of course the reason for this is that currently the infrastructure is an easy fallacy/excuse etc which is hard to argue with. When that is removed the majority of people will simply move on to the next reason on the list.

If you continue to refuse to apologise for challenging my professional qualifications even though your argument was proven to be completely false then yes I will have to take it up with the mods and in turn boards.ie.
I will give you the opportunity to issue an apology before that though. Do you wish to acknowledge your mistake?

CatInABox

Last Stop wrote: »

Cyclists do have priority over pedestrians at that point as monument has in a round about way just admitted.
Now you’re contradicting monument by suggesting this option offers shorter green time for pedestrians. Which is it guys

Perhaps, Last Stop, there's more than one reason? Also, I didn't say shorter green time, I said shorter distance. Two very different things.

I still don't see how cyclists have priority here either? I mean, Dublin is covered with shared space between pedestrians and cyclists, so do you believe that there is cyclist priority in those areas?

Last Stop

CatInABox wrote: »

Perhaps, Last Stop, there's more than one reason? Also, I didn't say shorter green time, I said shorter distance. Two very different things.

I still don't see how cyclists have priority here either? I mean, Dublin is covered with shared space between pedestrians and cyclists, so do you believe that there is cyclist priority in those areas?

In other responses, monument has accused me of not wanting longer green time for pedestrians. If you remove the gap, the distance to cross the road becomes longer and requires longer green time.
In shared space, pedestrians have priority! This isn’t shared space by the way, the cyclist has priority. The pedestrian has to cross the cycle lane and there is tactile paving who is used to indicate to those with visual impairments the presence of a crossing. If the pedestrian had priority, their would be a line beside the crossing.
It is now quite clear that the design is intended to allow cyclists skip the lights and take priority over pedestrians. Therefore it does not conform with DMURS. Remove the gap, make cyclists stop and it does. But of course that would require cyclists to stop which clearly the designer and those who support the idea don’t like even though it is a safer design for all road users

Qrt

I’ve had to unfollow this thread, because, well...

Christ on a bike (pun not [initially] intended).

CatInABox

In other BusConnects news, as predicted by many here, the legal opposition to BusConnects has started.

Griffith Avenue District and Residents Association have stepped up their game. They've hired solicitors, and are requesting the NTA go back to the drawing board, as they feel that the Public Consultation didn't consult people early enough, nor considered the "zero-option" of doing nothing, especially in light of the Metrolink route being essentially the same, and is thus in breach of the Aarhus Directive on public consultations.

See their slightly weird website here. As you might guess from all the press releases today, they're also going after Metrolink for much the reason. I'll throw a post into the Metrolink thread too.

alentejo

At this stage, I recon Busconnects is dead!

Qrt

CatInABox wrote: »

In other BusConnects news, as predicted by many here, the legal opposition to BusConnects has started.

Griffith Avenue District and Residents Association have stepped up their game. They've hired solicitors, and are requesting the NTA go back to the drawing board, as they feel that the Public Consultation didn't consult people early enough, nor considered the "zero-option" of doing nothing, especially in light of the Metrolink route being essentially the same, and is thus in breach of the Aarhus Directive on public consultations.

See their slightly weird website here. As you might guess from all the press releases today, they're also going after Metrolink for much the reason. I'll throw a post into the Metrolink thread too.

This is Mobhi Road and the like yeah? I assume they know Griffith Avenue isn’t on a CRC... (unless I’m greatly mistaken?)

LeinsterDub

alentejo wrote: »

At this stage, I recon Busconnects is dead!

BusConnects is 16 corridors which are mostly not controversial. Even if they have to leave some parts undone it will still go ahead.

LXFlyer

Qrt wrote: »

This is Mobhi Road and the like yeah? I assume they know Griffith Avenue isn’t on a CRC... (unless I’m greatly mistaken?)

It’s a district residents association - it would cover all of that area I’d imagine, rather than specifically Griffith Avenue.

Qrt

LeinsterDub wrote: »

BusConnects is 16 corridors which are mostly not controversial. Even if they have a leave some parts undone it will still go ahead.

Exactly. One example is the stretch between the walkinstown roundabout and tallaght. It’s vitually all commercial premises with little to no opposition imagined.

LXFlyer

LeinsterDub wrote: »

BusConnects is 16 corridors which are mostly not controversial. Even if they have to leave some parts undone it will still go ahead.

I think that’s probably true - the less contentious corridors will get a head start.

Last Stop

It’s hard to argue with them on the overall point that Busconnects and Metrolink should not be going up the same corridor.
However from reading the letter, they haven’t got a leg to stand on.
They make reference to preferred route when Busconnects is at emerging preferred route stage.
They make reference to Natura 2000 sites with no specific reference to a particular site... to the best of my knowledge there isn’t one along that corridor.
It’s far too early in the process to bemoan the lack of consultation when in there is a consultation on the preferred route due shortly and there’s another round as part of the application to ABP which will likely involve an oral hearing.
What they’re doing is nonsense and merely lining the pockets of their solicitor.

Notwithstanding the above, this effectively kills the Ballymun corridor and rightly so. The fact that the network redesign did not consider Metrolink is inexplicable and shows how much faith the NTA have in Metrolink.
There are some who will argue that you need both but in reality you really don’t. If you did need both then why haven’t they put corridors along the DART or the Luas green line? A capacity of 20,000 passengers per hour is more than sufficient for any corridor in Dublin.

CatInABox

Qrt wrote: »

This is Mobhi Road and the like yeah? I assume they know Griffith Avenue isn’t on a CRC... (unless I’m greatly mistaken?)

Yeah, it's Core Corridor 3, Ballymun to City centre, straight down Mobhi Road. These guys have already rejected all options like road widening, one way system, bus gates, etc.

These guys are detestable on their "I'm alright, Jack" attitude to everything.

monument

Note to mods: Last Stop has made legal threats twice in the thread already.

Last Stop wrote: »

If you continue to refuse to apologise for challenging my professional qualifications even though your argument was proven to be completely false then yes I will have to take it up with the mods and in turn boards.ie.
I will give you the opportunity to issue an apology before that though. Do you wish to acknowledge your mistake?

I’ll save you the time by reporting this post.

I would like to make it clear that I never intended to undermine your professional qualifications and that I don’t think I did so. I think you’ll have a hard time explaining it to the mods what exactly you think I said which amounts to undermining your professional qualifications.