BusConnects

RayCun

average_runner wrote: »

Are the bike lanes separate from the bus lanes, ie buses can't go into the cycle lanes? If we are going through all this trouble, lets do it right and not half arse

according to the diagram in the document, yes.

ED E

Why are we working on more bus lanes when the present ones are constantly blocked by goods vehicles. Fix that first.

LennoxR

RayCun wrote: »

Pushed off the main road, but onto a segregated cycle path. If it's kept in good condition, wouldn't it be safer than sharing the main Rathmines road, and more attractive to casual cyclists?

No, per the plan above pushed onto a side street which is a significant detour to nowhere. You have to be on a route going towards a bridge over the canal to get into the city centre.

It would make cycling much more difficult as a means of getting places.

I don't buy the segregated bike lanes thing as there is no space for them on the main routes. I don't believe they would happen, rather cyclists would be rerouted onto impractical routes.

magicbastarder

some more comment on the cycle routes being pushed to side streets:

A key example is an outline plan for the removal of cycle routes off the Rathmines Road, an entry point into the city where peak bicycle traffic outnumbers cars.

The draft details published on the NTA’s website confirmed what many cycling advocates have suspected for some time — the authority has shifted its focused from cycling to bus priority with car access maintained.

http://irishcycle.com/2018/06/12/nta-set-to-abandon-key-sections-of-dublin-cycle-network-plan/

RayCun

LennoxR wrote: »

It would make cycling much more difficult as a means of getting places.

Well, that's a question.

On one hand, the shortest route is the easiest, so anything longer is more difficult.

On the other, safe, segregated routes are used more, so even if they are a bit longer they make cycling easier.

People who are cycling now probably agree with the first one.

But what about the people who aren't cycling now because they don't feel safe?

LennoxR

magicbastarder wrote: »

some more comment on the cycle routes being pushed to side streets:

http://irishcycle.com/2018/06/12/nta-set-to-abandon-key-sections-of-dublin-cycle-network-plan/

Thank you. This:

National Transport Authority officials look set to abandon key sections of the Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network Plan in favour of bus priority with car lanes maintained.
A key example is an outline plan for the removal of cycle routes off the Rathmines Road, an entry point into the city where peak bicycle traffic outnumbers cars.

Sums up why this is not a good plan for cyclists.

Chips Lovell

Bikes are allowed use buslanes

LennoxR

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Bikes are allowed use buslanes

But we would not be under the new plan.


Just looking at my other regular route into town, through Harolds Cross. The plan wants cyclists to take a left off the main road, take a right turn onto the canal and then Clanbrassil street would now also be off limits to bikes. This plan would basically ban bikes from the main and most convenient routes into the city centre.

Chips Lovell

LennoxR wrote: »

But we would not be under the new plan.

Does it say that anywhere? They'd need to change the current law if they plan to do so.

buffalo

LennoxR wrote: »

But we would not be under the new plan.

Says who?

It's a simple dichotomy - comfortable sharing the roads with motor vehicles and keeping up with buses? Go direct. If you're not confident, there's a dedicated route just for you.

Or if the dedicated route is actually well designed and built, maybe everyone will just use it.

LennoxR

RayCun wrote: »

Well, that's a question.

On one hand, the shortest route is the easiest, so anything longer is more difficult.

On the other, safe, segregated routes are used more, so even if they are a bit longer they make cycling easier.

People who are cycling now probably agree with the first one.

But what about the people who aren't cycling now because they don't feel safe?

I respectfully disagree with the whole premise. First about 10% of journeys in Dublin are already made by bike. Two, there should be safe cycling infrastructure on the main routes. Three the proposed routes are not even segregated, they are side streets which will also be open to cars. ANd lastly they appear to require long delays and right turns as priority is given to other traffic.

LennoxR

buffalo wrote: »

Says who?

It's a simple dichotomy - comfortable sharing the roads with motor vehicles and keeping up with buses? Go direct. If you're not confident, there's a dedicated route just for you.

Or if the dedicated route is actually well designed and built, maybe everyone will just use it.

Yeah my understanding of what I'm reading is that bikes will not be allowed to use the new bus lanes. If I'm wrong then great. The new cycle routes they are proposing so far look very poor to me.

seamus

loyatemu wrote: »

the question is does "rerouting" cyclists mean they are barred from the new buslanes?

It's actually irrelevant.

Cyclists, like pedestrians, will take the fastest route. If the choice is a 350m diversion eastbound along the canal, or just taking a bus lane 100m directly towards your destination, they will take the latter.

Alternative routes for cyclists can't be designed like alternative route for vehicles.

If the alternative route can't be switched onto seamlessly (i.e. without needing to dismount or cross 4 lanes) or isn't taking the cyclist roughly in the direction they want to go, then they won't take it. They'll just use the bus lane.

The Kimmage map in buffalo's OP shows that the cyclist travelling towards the city centre will have to cross the road (either at a junction or a right-hand turn) at least seven times. If they just stay in the bus lane, they only have 4 junctions to deal with.

It's a clear illustration that the planners do not understanding cycling. At all.

Effects

seamus wrote: »

Cyclists, like pedestrians, will take the fastest route. If the choice is a 350m diversion eastbound along the canal, or just taking a bus lane 100m directly towards your destination, they will take the latter.

I don't think that's always the case. I'll take a route depending on a number of factors at the time. On my commute I sometimes leave earlier so I can cycle along the Liffey. Likewise I sometimes take the canal home which takes longer.

I know plenty of cyclists who take a longer route based on it being safer for them to do so.

loyatemu

the idea is that there will be continuous segregated(?) cycling routes along these corridors. So they have to do something to accommodate cyclists at the pinch points other than just dumping them into the bus lanes, hence the diversions. That doesn't necessarily mean that fast cyclists won't be allowed to just continue on the buslane, but we just don't know yet.

As mentioned above it would require a change of legislation to ban cyclists, and considering they don't really enforce people cycling on the Luas lines...

LennoxR

loyatemu wrote: »

the idea is that there will be continuous segregated(?) cycling routes along these corridors. So they have to do something to accommodate cyclists at the pinch points other than just dumping them into the bus lanes, hence the diversions. That doesn't necessarily mean that fast cyclists won't be allowed to just continue on the buslane, but we just don't know yet.

As mentioned above it would require a change of legislation to ban cyclists, and considering they don't really enforce people cycling on the Luas lines...

I suppose it's a case of wait and see at this point to be fair.

But what I'm imagining, maybe wrongly, is that whether there is an actual law change or not, buses would have the expectation that they would have a clear route where they could drive at relatively high speed and that if the bike lanes were removed from these main routes it would make cycling there significantly more dangerous.

And these detours they are proposing, as I've said, look very impractical to me. So it looks like this is bad for cycling in Dublin to me, but yes, maybe I'm wrong about that.

ED E

seamus wrote: »

It's actually irrelevant.

Cyclists, like pedestrians, will take the fastest route.

The dutch have found the opposite. Cyclists takes the most interesting route.

RayCun

LennoxR wrote: »

I respectfully disagree with the whole premise. First about 10% of journeys in Dublin are already made by bike.

That could be a lot higher

LennoxR wrote: »

Two, there should be safe cycling infrastructure on the main routes.

Why does the cycling infrastructure have to be on the current main routes?
Buses need to go on main roads, a bike route could go through a park, or a two lane sidestreet could be split into a bike route and a one-way street for cars.

LennoxR wrote: »

Three the proposed routes are not even segregated, they are side streets which will also be open to cars.

Are they? The only diagrams I see are for the routes with buses, cars, and bikes, and on those routes the bikes are segregated. Why assume that the side streets won't be?

LennoxR wrote: »

ANd lastly they appear to require long delays and right turns as priority is given to other traffic.

Kimmage and Portobello seem to be the only areas with significant diversions.
How do you know how traffic will be prioritized at junctions, or how long the delay will be?

LennoxR

RayCun wrote: »

That could be a lot higher


Why does the cycling infrastructure have to be on the current main routes?
Buses need to go on main roads, a bike route could go through a park, or a two lane sidestreet could be split into a bike route and a one-way street for cars.


Are they? The only diagrams I see are for the routes with buses, cars, and bikes, and on those routes the bikes are segregated. Why assume that the side streets won't be?


Kimmage and Portobello seem to be the only areas with significant diversions.
How do you know how traffic will be prioritized at junctions, or how long the delay will be?

You appear to be very committed to this plan for whatever reason, so you will not see its flaws. As it happens, Harolds Cross and Rathmines are the two main routes that concern me, so I'm speaking for myself. They also happen to be among the most heavily cycled routes in the city.

But in this thread alone people have also cited the Malahide Road and Shankill, so actually this problem of detours would appear to be quite widespread.
Certainly we should be trying to improve the figure of 10% of journeys by bike. But I think this plan will do the opposite. The advantage of cycling as it stands is that is much quicker, more direct and more convenient. As I and others have been trying to point out, by making long detours and more junctions, this will negate this advantage.

schemingbohemia

LennoxR wrote: »

You appear to be very committed to this plan for whatever reason, so you will not see its flaws. As it happens, Harolds Cross and Rathmines are the two main routes that concern me, so I'm speaking for myself. They also happen to the most heavily cycled routes in the city.

But in this thread alone people have also cited the Malahide Road and Shankill, so actually this problem of detours would appear to be quite widespread.
Certainly we should be trying to improve the figure of 10% of journeys by bike. But I think this plan will do the opposite. The advantage of cycling as it stands is that is much quicker, more direct and more convenient. As I and others have been trying to point out, by making long detours and more junctions, this will negate this advantage.

You're a confident, experienced cyclist. The increase in segregation and alternate routes on quietways aren't for you, they're for people who are afraid to cycle at the moment. Think of all the people who currently use the Grand Canal cycle track even though it has so many junctions, how many of those people were actually cycling at all before it was built? The CSO data shows a huge increase in numbers cycling in the areas around the canal. This is to ensure that the 10% gets to 20%, those who aren't afraid are cycling at the moment.

Maybe take time to look at this from an alternate viewpoint.

RayCun

I think road space in Dublin needs to be taken from cars, and given to buses and bikes, which this plan does.

I think segregated cycling routes are needed to make cycling more attractive. There are a lot of people who won't cycle if the only way to cycle involves competing for space with buses and cars.

I think it's okay to sacrifice some directness, sometimes, to get those safe, segregated routes.

The maps on the plan show where the cycle route diverges from the bus route, and most of the time they don't.

Cycling will always have the advantages of being more direct, convenient, and cheaper than buses or cars. Even if the route is not more direct, the fact that you don't have to go to a bus stop, wait for a bus, and get from a bus stop to where you are going, makes it more direct.

But at the moment it has the major disadvantage that people don't think it's safe. Some people will cycle anyway, and they don't see an advantage to a segregated route, just the disadvantage that it might be slower. But the point of a transport strategy is surely to get more people cycling, and cycling safely.

LennoxR

schemingbohemia wrote: »

You're a confident, experienced cyclist. The increase in segregation and alternate routes on quietways aren't for you, they're for people who are afraid to cycle at the moment. Think of all the people who currently use the Grand Canal cycle track even though it has so many junctions, how many of those people were actually cycling at all before it was built? The CSO data shows a huge increase in numbers cycling in the areas around the canal. This is to ensure that the 10% gets to 20%, those who aren't afraid are cycling at the moment.

Maybe take time to look at this from an alternate viewpoint.

If that were the case, then great. I accept that this is at an early stage. But I don't think that is what is happening here. I think cyclists are being squeezed out altogether and little thought has been given to alternatives.

Lets look at the proposed Rathmines diversion. The route they have proposed as it stands does not exist. They would have to commandeer (if that's the word) a route through Cathal Brugha military barracks. Then it assumes that a currently non existent bridge would be built over the canal to access Portobello.

Now assuming that neither of these things would happen, you would be left with a long detour through side streets and actually no access over the canal unless you came back onto the very main street they are trying to divert you from.

If this is indicative of the level of planning of alternative cycle routes then it looks to me as if the real intention is to get cyclists out of the way of the buses.

LennoxR

RayCun wrote: »

I think road space in Dublin needs to be taken from cars, and given to buses and bikes, which this plan does.

I think segregated cycling routes are needed to make cycling more attractive. There are a lot of people who won't cycle if the only way to cycle involves competing for space with buses and cars.

I think it's okay to sacrifice some directness, sometimes, to get those safe, segregated routes.

The maps on the plan show where the cycle route diverges from the bus route, and most of the time they don't.

Cycling will always have the advantages of being more direct, convenient, and cheaper than buses or cars. Even if the route is not more direct, the fact that you don't have to go to a bus stop, wait for a bus, and get from a bus stop to where you are going, makes it more direct.

But at the moment it has the major disadvantage that people don't think it's safe. Some people will cycle anyway, and they don't see an advantage to a segregated route, just the disadvantage that it might be slower. But the point of a transport strategy is surely to get more people cycling, and cycling safely.

As I've said above, I don't think that is the case. I don't think they will create practical segregated bike routes.

Macy0161

RayCun wrote: »

I think segregated cycling routes are needed to make cycling more attractive. There are a lot of people who won't cycle if the only way to cycle involves competing for space with buses and cars.

I think it's okay to sacrifice some directness, sometimes, to get those safe, segregated routes.

Somewhat reluctantly, I agree with this general approach. We're just back from France, and were staying close to one of the regional "velo routes". My better half, who doesn't really cycle, commented that next year we should all bring the bikes, she was so impressed with the segregated cycle paths. To the degree one of the stops was via decathlon to look at potential bike options and discuss off road trails at home.

However, the real issue here is the expectation on all cyclists to use all cycle paths. There didn't appear to be any conflict between vehicles and bikes with the training/ faster cyclists using the roads beside the segregated paths in France. (Didn't bring my own bike, and couldn't find a hire option to confirm that though)

I'd have zero faith that here we wouldn't be punishment passed for taking the road.

Also, I would say less direct already happens. When I was cycling the Rock Road as part of my commute, I'd go in the park and out at the station rather than along by the shopping centre. Following recommendations from here actually.

LennoxR

Macy0161 wrote: »

Somewhat reluctantly, I agree with this general approach. We're just back from France, and were staying close to one of the regional "velo routes". My better half, who doesn't really cycle, commented that next year we should all bring the bikes, she was so impressed with the segregated cycle paths. To the degree one of the stops was via decathlon to look at potential bike options and discuss off road trails at home.

However, the real issue here is the expectation on all cyclists to use all cycle paths. There didn't appear to be any conflict between vehicles and bikes with the training/ faster cyclists using the roads beside the segregated paths in France. (Didn't bring my own bike, and couldn't find a hire option to confirm that though)

I'd have zero faith that here we wouldn't be punishment passed for taking the road.

Also, I would say less direct already happens. When I was cycling the Rock Road as part of my commute, I'd go in the park and out at the station rather than along by the shopping centre. Following recommendations from here actually.

Ok I don't want to go on and on about this. But in theory, yes, segregated bike lanes are optimum, especially for inexperienced cyclists, where this is possible.

But in practice I fear that what we are seeing proposed is pushing cyclists off the roads and making token gestures at alternatives. The Rathmines case being prime example.

And the other thing to consider is that in town/village like Rathmines (also Phibsborough and Harolds Cross and elsewhere) bikes are very commonly used to access places on the main street. Eg the colleges there, the pubs, the cinemas, the library the shops. The point being cyclists need access to the main street to do everyday business.

And the last point I want to make on this is that I don't think this plan is actually about getting less cars on the road because while cyclists are being rerouted in all kinds of fanciful ways in the plans shown to date, cars are not.

magicbastarder

LennoxR wrote: »

And the other thing to consider is that in town/village like Rathmines (also Phibsborough and Harolds Cross and elsewhere) bikes are very commonly used to access places on the main street. Eg the colleges there, the pubs, the cinemas, the library the shops. The point being cyclists need access to the main street to do everyday business.

the devil is in the detail, and if the message being sent is that they're diverting bikes away from the main street because the new design will be hostile for cyclists, that would definitely be a retrograde step.

RayCun

LennoxR wrote: »

And the last point I want to make on this is that I don't think this plan is actually about getting less cars on the road because while cyclists are being rerouted in all kinds of fanciful ways in the plans shown to date, cars are not.

They are.
Route 1: Public transport only road between Clarehall and belmayne
Route 2: Swords road becomes one-way (outbound)
Route 3: Mobhi Road becomes one-way (southbound)
etc

The "Potential Impacts: Changes to traffic movements" are changes to car traffic

schemingbohemia

LennoxR wrote: »

Ok I don't want to go on and on about this. But in theory, yes, segregated bike lanes are optimum, especially for inexperienced cyclists, where this is possible.

But in practice I fear that what we are seeing proposed is pushing cyclists off the roads and making token gestures at alternatives. The Rathmines case being prime example.

And the other thing to consider is that in town/village like Rathmines (also Phibsborough and Harolds Cross and elsewhere) bikes are very commonly used to access places on the main street. Eg the colleges there, the pubs, the cinemas, the library the shops. The point being cyclists need access to the main street to do everyday business.

And the last point I want to make on this is that I don't think this plan is actually about getting less cars on the road because while cyclists are being rerouted in all kinds of fanciful ways in the plans shown to date, cars are not.

I'm sorry but that just shows how little attention you've paid to the document. There are 1 way proposals and re-routings all over the shop for cars.

You really think they'd talk about buying people's front gardens to not reduce the number of cars on the road? Spend €2bn on this to not reduce car numbers?

LennoxR

schemingbohemia wrote: »

I'm sorry but that just shows how little attention you've paid to the document. There are 1 way proposals and re-routings all over the shop for cars.

You really think they'd talk about buying people's front gardens to not reduce the number of cars on the road? Spend €2bn on this to not reduce car numbers?

I'm sorry too, that you can't reply civilly.

In the sections that concern me, which is what I've been posting about the plan proposes getting rid of cycle lanes and keeping the lanes for cars.

Because they are spending a lot of money does not imply anything about bike infrastructure or reducing cars. As I understand it, the goal is simply to improve commute times.

ted1

ED E wrote: »

Why are we working on more bus lanes when the present ones are constantly blocked by goods vehicles. Fix that first.

There’s clearly an issue. I’d imagine thus will fix it.