M50 - apalling gridlock

AndrewJRenko

Patww79 wrote: »

Cyclists need to realise that not everyone wants to be a cyclist.

Some people need to understand the subtle difference between encouraging and facilitating cycling and making cycling compulsory. It would be just heavenly if some people would realise that encouraging and facilitating cycling takes some car traffic of the roads, leaving more room for the remaining car traffic.

facehugger99

magicbastarder wrote: »

you're basically talking about upgrading the M50 using a process which would essentially shut it for several years. that would certainly cure the issue of congestion on the M50.

I don't believe it is a viable option, i'm just answering a question as to whether the impediment to the proposal is engineering-related.

MarkHenderson

Idbatterim wrote: »

The cost of that would be astronomical I.e another few lanes over the m50, far better off building the eastern bypass and the idiots should have put in an extra lane when upgrading it ... I think that could still be done, without massive disruption or cost ...

The eastern bypass is never going to happen. Developers are pushing hard for valuable land that has been reserved for it to be put out to tender for housing. The amount of objections from extremely well off people in the immediate area of the proposed road would tie the government up in knots for years. Again more roads isn't the answer anyway.

AndrewJRenko

Tazzimus wrote: »

This.
I have no intentions of becoming a cyclist as there is huge contempt between them and motorists, both sides being at blame here.

Maybe it's just me, but that seems like a crazy reason to choose not to cycle or indeed to cycle. If you want to cycle, cycle. If you don't, it's not compulsory.

Tazzimus wrote: »

This.
Some motorists tend to be oblivious to anything that's not a car (and even some are oblivious to that) while some cyclists think they own the road (countless times I've nearly been mowed down by a cyclist breaking a red light as I cross the road)

Cyclists own the road just as much as anyone owns the road.


And just to put your fear of being mowed down into context, motorists kill about one pedestrian each week on average, while it is more than 15 years since a cyclist killed a pedestrian. That might help you to work out the real source of danger on the roads.

Tazzimus wrote: »

Cycling is not the be all solution for everyone, due to various reasons.
Public transport would be a better option, but it is woefully inadequate for anybody outside the commuter belt who's not traveling directly into town currently.

Indeed, cycling is not the be all solution for everyone. But it is a great solution for many, many people. It is a great solution for many people who use cars for journeys of less than 2km.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/more-than-half-of-travellers-use-cars-for-journeys-under-2km-1.2303451


And every time you persuade a motorist to switch to cycling, you leave more space on the road for remaining motorists.

And the benefits go way beyond transport. Cycling has huge health benefits, which in turn reduces pressure on our healthcare systems. People who cycle to work are half as likely to get cancer than others. Imagine if we could reduce demand on our cancer units by 50%? Just imagine now much better service we could provide, or how much money we could save?


Public transport is indeed a great option, with some limitations as you point out.

Tazzimus wrote: »

All well and good saying take public transport, but until it's at such a point where it's almost as easy to get from point A to B as it is in your car, people won't use it.

You're partially right here, which is why we have to stop putting public resources into making things so easy for motorists. We have to stop dedicating huge amounts of infrastructure project to widening roads instead of public transport. We have to stop dedicating huge amounts of public space to storage of private property - parking spaces for private cars. Motorists have to start paying the full costs of motoring, including the costs of their share of the 1500 premature deaths each year due to air quality.

Perhaps then public transport will start looking more attractive.

NSAman

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Maybe it's just me, but that seems like a crazy reason to choose not to cycle or indeed to cycle. If you want to cycle, cycle. If you don't, it's not compulsory.





Cyclists own the road just as much as anyone owns the road.


And just to put your fear of being mowed down into context, motorists kill about one pedestrian each week on average, while it is more than 15 years since a cyclist killed a pedestrian. That might help you to work out the real source of danger on the roads.



Indeed, cycling is not the be all solution for everyone. But it is a great solution for many, many people. It is a great solution for many people who use cars for journeys of less than 2km.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/more-than-half-of-travellers-use-cars-for-journeys-under-2km-1.2303451


And every time you persuade a motorist to switch to cycling, you leave more space on the road for remaining motorists.


Public transport is indeed a great option, with some limitations as you point out.



You're partially right here, which is why we have to stop putting public resources into making things so easy for motorists. We have to stop dedicating huge amounts of infrastructure project to widening roads instead of public transport. We have to stop dedicating huge amounts of public space to storage of private property - parking spaces for private cars. Motorists have to start paying the full costs of motoring, including the costs of their share of the 1500 premature deaths each year due to air quality.

Perhaps then public transport will start looking more attractive.

Eamon.. is that you? Thought you gave up da bike shop?

con___manx1

Allinall wrote: »

I thought the carbon tax was to incentivise people out of cars.

Maybe it needs to be introduced quicker, rather than delayed.

Without cars alot of people cant get to work. Not everyone in the country lives in dublin. I hope there will be strike action similar to the water charges. We are already paying taxes out of our arse. In paris there was protests yesterday over that particular tax.

OldMrBrennan83

con___manx1 wrote: »

Without cars alot of people cant get to work. Not everyone in the country lives in dublin. I hope there will be strike action similar to the water charges. We are already paying taxes out of our arse. In paris there was protests yesterday over that particular tax.

We need to wreck the place soon over some of these. All just lip service money collections.

Tell me how

Patww79 wrote: »

We need to wreck the place soon over some of these. All just lip service money collections.

What will that achieve?

We have elections at local, national and EU level at least every 5 years.
We get who we vote for.

OldMrBrennan83

Tell me how wrote: »

What will that achieve?

We have elections at local, national and EU level at least every 5 years.
We get who we vote for.

To get a result instead of the pointless exercise that is the option you gave. You get incompetent crooks because they're all incompetent crooks, voting is pointless.

Tell me how

Patww79 wrote: »

To get a result instead of the pointless exercise that is the option you gave. You get incompetent crooks because they're all incompetent crooks, voting is pointless.

:D:D

So you run for election oh wise one.

OldMrBrennan83

Tell me how wrote: »

:D:D

So you run for election oh wise one.

There's not a word incorrect there so I don't know what the 's are about. Denial? There's no such thing as an honest politician - it may be an old saying but it doesn't make it wrong.

AndrewJRenko

Patww79 wrote: »

We need to wreck the place soon over some of these. All just lip service money collections.

So what would your policy platform be, in the light of the UN recent warning about 12 years left to save the planet.

Tell me how

Patww79 wrote: »

There's not a word incorrect there so I don't know what the 's are about. Denial? There's no such thing as an honest politician - it may be an old saying but it doesn't make it wrong.

The :D:D were because if you don't give people the opportunity to select representatives, how do you think public policy should be coordinated and governed?

If you think there are no honest politicians, then why don't you canvass for election so you can influence the world you live in. Start local. Doesn't have to be big or dramatic.

Tazzimus

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Maybe it's just me, but that seems like a crazy reason to choose not to cycle or indeed to cycle. If you want to cycle, cycle. If you don't, it's not compulsory.





Cyclists own the road just as much as anyone owns the road.


And just to put your fear of being mowed down into context, motorists kill about one pedestrian each week on average, while it is more than 15 years since a cyclist killed a pedestrian. That might help you to work out the real source of danger on the roads.



Indeed, cycling is not the be all solution for everyone. But it is a great solution for many, many people. It is a great solution for many people who use cars for journeys of less than 2km.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/more-than-half-of-travellers-use-cars-for-journeys-under-2km-1.2303451


And every time you persuade a motorist to switch to cycling, you leave more space on the road for remaining motorists.

And the benefits go way beyond transport. Cycling has huge health benefits, which in turn reduces pressure on our healthcare systems. People who cycle to work are half as likely to get cancer than others. Imagine if we could reduce demand on our cancer units by 50%? Just imagine now much better service we could provide, or how much money we could save?


Public transport is indeed a great option, with some limitations as you point out.



You're partially right here, which is why we have to stop putting public resources into making things so easy for motorists. We have to stop dedicating huge amounts of infrastructure project to widening roads instead of public transport. We have to stop dedicating huge amounts of public space to storage of private property - parking spaces for private cars. Motorists have to start paying the full costs of motoring, including the costs of their share of the 1500 premature deaths each year due to air quality.

Perhaps then public transport will start looking more attractive.

Kinda missed my point on a few bits.
Some cyclists act like they're a truck and will pull out in front of traffic without so much as a glance. Cars do this too, but they have slightly more protection if someone does clip them.

Cyclists not killing someone in 15 years doesn't make up for the fact a lot don't pay attention to traffic signals, usually the very ones that complain about not having the respect of other road users.
If I have a green light to cross the road, I'd prefer not to get a slap of some lycra superhero on his fancy bike that thinks red lights don't apply to him.
That's not a jab at all cyclists, just the idiots who give the others a bad name.

I'd much rather commute as it's cheaper in the long run if nothing else, less wear and tear for the car etc. But until the government actually take a serious interest in the system, it'll remain unfit for most people's needs.
Granted, there are some that'll drive regardless, but you can't please everyone

magicbastarder

but you drive, yeah?

CatInABox

swarlb wrote: »

Can you imagine what London would be like now if they tore up the complete underground system, replace it with buses and then try to rebuild it again.

Err, London ripped up it's extensive electric tram system around the same time as Dublin.....

LeinsterDub

Patww79 wrote: »

Cyclists need to realise that not everyone wants to be a cyclist.

Motorist need to realise that not everyone wants to be a motorist

OldMrBrennan83

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Motorist need to realise that not everyone wants to be a motorist

We don't, but motorists are always the villains.

Brock Turnpike

Simona1986 wrote: »

amcalester wrote:

What improvements can you suggest?

These are all short term measures that could be implemented in the near-term before the necessary public transport infrastructure could be developed:

The variable speed limits will improve flows somewhat, providing it's combined with proper enforcement.

Enforcement of existing rules would go some way to help also - I'm envisaging maybe four dedicated motorcycle gardai to pick up on tailgating, speeding, phones etc as well as average speed cameras in tandem with the variable speed limits.

Make it an offence to brake down on the M50 and start charging people with driving without due care and attention for rear-end incidents.

I agree with the suggestions you've made here.

I also think it would be an idea for the government, schools, businesses to look at variable start/end times to prevent everybody being on the road at the same time.

Carpooling initiatives

School buses instead of every parent dropping their kids to school in MPVs that are (in many cases) grossly oversized.

Variable speed limits properly enforced with cameras to deter people

Contra flows at peak times may be an option (although more difficult to implement based on the idiots on the roads every day)

Left turn on red. The most frustrating thing about many junctions is that every 3rd/4th change of lights is a pedestrian set which means all traffic at the junction comes to a stop. Copy what is done in Australia whereby you can turn left during the pedestrian set as long as no pedestrians are crossing the road.

Longer term we need to focus on proper rail infrastructure and connectivity over buses. There should be a city loop train developed. A combination of luas and rail connectivity for most areas to get to the city and then around/across the city should be there focus long term.

Tazzimus

magicbastarder wrote: »

but you drive, yeah?

Due to the nature of my current job, yes.
I commuted for years previously before I started in the current place though.

AndrewJRenko

Patww79 wrote: »

We don't, but motorists are always the villains.

Maybe that would be because motorists are killing 3 or 4 people each week on roads and maiming many more, over 4,000 people killed in the last 15 years? Or maybe it's because the emissions from cars are a major factor in killing our planet, never mind the 1,500 people who die prematurely from poor air quality? Or maybe it's because they insist on driving around usually with an empty armchair beside them and an empty couch behind them, complaining about other people who 'own the road?

Tazzimus wrote: »

Kinda missed my point on a few bits.
Some cyclists act like they're a truck and will pull out in front of traffic without so much as a glance. Cars do this too, but they have slightly more protection if someone does clip them.

Cyclists not killing someone in 15 years doesn't make up for the fact a lot don't pay attention to traffic signals, usually the very ones that complain about not having the respect of other road users.
If I have a green light to cross the road, I'd prefer not to get a slap of some lycra superhero on his fancy bike that thinks red lights don't apply to him.
That's not a jab at all cyclists, just the idiots who give the others a bad name.

You seem just slightly blinkered in your view. Do you notice that a lot of motorists don't pay attention to traffic signals, usually the very ones that complain about cyclists not having the respect of other road users?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc5VGuJvOVk

The Luas red light cameras noticed this phenomenon. They noticed that 88% of red light jumpers are motorists, not cyclists.


That's not a jab at all motorists, just the vast majority of them who give the compliant minority a bad name.

Tazzimus

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Maybe that would be because motorists are killing 3 or 4 people each week on roads and maiming many more, over 4,000 people killed in the last 15 years? Or maybe it's because the emissions from cars are a major factor in killing our planet, never mind the 1,500 people who die prematurely from poor air quality? Or maybe it's because they insist on driving around usually with an empty armchair beside them and an empty couch behind them, complaining about other people who 'own the road?



You seem just slightly blinkered in your view. Do you notice that a lot of motorists don't pay attention to traffic signals, usually the very ones that complain about cyclists not having the respect of other road users?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc5VGuJvOVk

The Luas red light cameras noticed this phenomenon. They noticed that 88% of red light jumpers are motorists, not cyclists.


That's not a jab at all motorists, just the vast majority of them who give the compliant minority a bad name.

My "blinkered" view is from personal experience of having several near misses with cyclists, compared to maybe one with a car who went through a red light just as it changed, not when it's been red a while and people are already crossing the road.

I'm not saying motorists are angels, far from it going by the M50 standard, but either are cyclists

LeinsterDub

Patww79 wrote: »

We don't, but motorists are always the villains.

Motorist are the ones killing thousands, destroying the environment, ruining people's health and still getting the lion's share of funding.

LeinsterDub

Tazzimus wrote: »

My "blinkered" view is from personal experience of having several near misses with cyclists, compared to maybe one with a car who went through a red light just as it changed, not when it's been red a while and people are already crossing the road.

I'm not saying motorists are angels, far from it going by the M50 standard, but either are cyclists

What exactly is a near miss?

Tell me how

Patww79 wrote: »

We don't, but motorists are always the villains.

You have the same proportion of a**holes who walk, cycle and drive because it is human nature in some.

But the impact of the a**hole motorist is more detrimental to the others and primarily the cyclist because they share the road with them most often.

Dutch law, in the case on an incident, the more vulnerable is deemed to have been right.

pedestrian > cyclist > motorist

Not because of propensity to cause harm is greater in one group over the other but the severity is greater with the heavier and generally faster vehicle.

magicbastarder

and another thread turns into a motorists vs. cyclists debate when the topic is actually gridlock.

in the end, it boils down to the fact that a car travelling on the M50 at 100km/h takes up over 50m of roadway (and that's going for a slightly shorter gap than two seconds to the car in front). that's 150 square metres of land per vehicle (for a 3m wide lane), and that does not include the excess land motorways take up with hard shoulders, embankments, etc.
i'm not sure of the occupancy rate of cars on the M50, but on the quays i think it was found to be just under 1.2 people per car. works out at 125 square metres per person carried if applied to the M50.
in short, motorways are a horrifically inefficient way of carrying human cargo for commuting, certainly the way we currently use them anyway.

even with a double decker bus, you only need three passengers on one to make them a more efficient option for hauling people around in pretty much all scenarios.

Tazzimus

LeinsterDub wrote: »

What exactly is a near miss?

Couple of inches as they zip through a crowd of people crossing the road.

Anyway getting back to the topic, M50 is ****e and will remain ****e until people learn how to use it properly, and other roads in general.

TL;DR
People are assholes, regardless of their mode of transportation.
This is why I prefer animals...

magicbastarder

Tazzimus wrote: »

Anyway getting back to the topic, M50 is ****e and will remain ****e until people learn how to use it properly, and other roads in general.

the luas green line has a greater passenger capacity than the M50*. takes up a fraction as much land, and is far more environmentally friendly. and it's not related to driver behaviour.

*caveat is that the capacity is as is currently used. if every car on the M50 carried three people, it'd beat the luas in pure passenger numbers.

Tazzimus

magicbastarder wrote: »

the luas green line has a greater passenger capacity than the M50*. takes up a fraction as much land, and is far more environmentally friendly. and it's not related to driver behaviour.

*caveat is that the capacity is as is currently used. if every car on the M50 carried three people, it'd beat the luas in pure passenger numbers.

100% agree, and it's extension has been a step in the right direction for people commuting, they just need more of this kinda thing

tom1ie

Tazzimus wrote: »

100% agree, and it's extension has been a step in the right direction for people commuting, they just need more of this kinda thing

Yeah and people are objecting to upgrading it to a metro FFS! That's unbelievable. For a project like that I can't understand how we allow a long public consultation that just delays things and then the local politicians get involved. It's a disgrace, and all the while the environment is getting polluted, asthma rates are through the roof and people are spending 3+ hours in their cars commuting, yet we give out about cyclists instead of the politicians and nimby's that are delaying public infrastructure. Same goes for bus connects.

magicbastarder

tom1ie wrote: »

Yeah and people are objecting to upgrading it to a metro FFS! That's unbelievable.

there *is* an argument to be made that the money spent upgrading it to a metro could be used to provide a tram line to a different, currently unserviced area. not sure of the economics of this myself.

Kermit.de.frog

More lanes, better junctions.

Just do it please.

OldMrBrennan83

Tell me how wrote: »

Dutch law, in the case on an incident, the more vulnerable is deemed to have been right.

pedestrian > cyclist > motorist

Not because of propensity to cause harm is greater in one group over the other but the severity is greater with the heavier and generally faster vehicle.

Which is an absolute disgrace.

Tell me how

Patww79 wrote: »

Which is an absolute disgrace.

Yeah?

Why?

tuxy

Because might is right and has been for thousands of years!

Tell me how

tuxy wrote: »

Because might is right and has been for thousands of years!

Don't know if this is a serious point or not at this stage.....

P_1

....... wrote: »

The M50 is not fit for purpose - end of.

Morning rush hour seems to go from 6am til 10am and evening from 3pm til 7pm. Ive even been caught gridlocked on it at 8pm on a Sunday evening recently.

It cannot even be used as a proper motorway as there is far too much traffic on it. All lanes are used as driving lanes during whats become 8 hours of rush hour in recent years.

Its simply not big enough to cater for the volume of traffic on it. Add in poorly designed entrance/exit ramps with nonsensical decisions about traffic flow in the areas surrounding those exit ramps and its a disaster. What I mean by that is best illustrated by example. Recently some fool decided the North bound exit ramp at Firhouse should now be stop/go traffic light controlled rather than freeflow, the result is queues of traffic every evening that end up blocking the driving lane on the M50 before that exit. Another disasterous decision has been the appallingly bad redesign of the road system in Knocklyon leading to a queue of traffic that cant exit the M50 in a timely manner anymore both North and South so causes more congestion.

There is no joined up thinking for infrastructure in this country, decisions are made with no regard as to the effects on traffic flow up or downstream and roads are built like a firefighting exercise rather than a long term plan.

Add in the propensity for councils to grant planning for thousands of houses with no thought to the extra traffic they will bring and you get what we have - a crappy so called motorway.

Why not build another M50 on top of the M50? Remove the meridian and allow all lower deck traffic to travel South and all upper deck to travel North. In a stroke you would more than double the capacity of the road without having to use up more land for it. Elevated highways work fine in other countries.

If you're gonna do that why not put an orbital metro on the top deck? How many people are using the m50 to get to work in one of the industrial estates around it? Put stations at the interchanges linked to proper park and ride facilities. Would cut emissions and actually make it quicker for people to get into work

AndrewJRenko

Tazzimus wrote: »

I'm not saying motorists are angels, far from it going by the M50 standard, but either are cyclists

You're right, cyclists are not angels. They're also not the ones killing 3 or 4 people each week on the roads and maiming many more.

magicbastarder

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

More lanes, better junctions.

Just do it please.

the solution to the M50's issues?

MOAR CARS

swarlb

CatInABox wrote: »

Err, London ripped up it's extensive electric tram system around the same time as Dublin.....

Err Did they, I was not aware of that.
We only had an electric tram system, and we tore it up, replaced it with buses, and 100 years later tore up the streets to rebuild what we already had.

For fear of repeating myself, can you imagine if in London they tore up the underground system, and replaced it with buses, then 100 years later, decided to tunnel under the city and rebuild it.

My point was that we had the infrastructure already laid out 100 years ago and did not develop the city or it's environs.

We could have had our 'metro' already built, rail or tram servicing a wider area, which in turn would mean less 'car' traffic for journeys. 60 years ago many companies did deliveries using electric vehicles. Seems to me we always manage to take several expensive steps backwards followed by very few expensive steps forward

Pidae.m

From West cork but had to go to Dublin yesterday. Spent 55 minutes m50 going north joined at j13 getting off at j9.
How the christ do people do it every day is sum penence!!

tom1ie

magicbastarder wrote: »

there *is* an argument to be made that the money spent upgrading it to a metro could be used to provide a tram line to a different, currently unserviced area. not sure of the economics of this myself.

I live in that area that also needs a metro but it makes more sense economically to upgrade the green line to a metro first and then hopefully we will get metro2. Not holding my breath though!

Tazzimus

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You're right, cyclists are not angels. They're also not the ones killing 3 or 4 people each week on the roads and maiming many more.

Put the drum down, we've moved back on topic.
I get it, you don't like motorists, no need to keep on about it.

tuxy

Tazzimus wrote: »

Put the drum down, we've moved back on topic.
I get it, you don't like motorists, no need to keep on about it.

I don't like ill mannered people but I dislike the ones that kill and mame more.

OldMrBrennan83

Tell me how wrote: »

Yeah?

Why?

Because a cyclist or a pedestrian can cause an accident and be well gone within ten seconds of it happening. A blanket rule like that is preposterous.

Irish Steve

No one has suggested other alternatives.

There was an interesting programme on one of the sat channels earlier in the week, and one of the rail systems they mentioned was the Wuppertal monorail, built over 100 years ago, but very much still operational, it's a suspended track that runs for much of the journey over a river, and carries a significant number of passengers each day.

Technically, a Modern Luas style monorail could provide mass transit on a number of routes, it might be more expensive than BRT corridors, but it would also be a lot more effective than BRT, as well as being able to deliver higher capacity, and it would be immune from the inevitable "I'll only be parked for a minute" morons that screw the present system up every day.

A modern design monorail could probably be retrofitted to a number of road routes in and out of the city, much of the N1, N2, N3, and N11 would be relatively easy to upgrade, and some of the other routes would be technically possible but require some work to achieve a service. A high capacity high frequency monorail over the M50 would be very simple, albeit that arranging interlinking services that would serve the areas close by would be needed as well, and modular construction techniques should mean that there would be very little disruption to peak period traffic during construction.

The downside would be that there is then a need for a decent park and ride structure outside of the M50 to accommodate the people that would use the system, while feeder bus systems could provide coverage for the urban areas, there's a lot of rural users that have to commute into Dublin, and they have to be provided with a viable option to allow them to get to work without the car.

Having said that, have any of the people responding to this thread stopped to ask the question why is the government so slow to come up with alternatives?

I will suggest that the reason is that they desperately need the many millions of Euro in the various tax revenue streams that are contributed by motorists to enable balancing their budgets, and if there were to be a significant reduction in motor vehicle use, and the associated tax take, they would then have to find other areas to tax in order to keep their gravy train rolling, and we've seen how that works with things like water charges.

I don't expect to see any meaningful changes that will solve the M50 any time soon, the political will just doesn't exist to make it happen.

Kermit.de.frog

magicbastarder wrote: »

the solution to the M50's issues?

MOAR CARS

No, more lanes and bigger and better junctions.

If people want to buy more cars I don't have an issue, just make the roads bigger as required.

Most people want the privacy and comfort of their cars.

Not their fault we don't have adequate roads.

amcalester

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Not their fault we don't have adequate roads.

What makes the roads inadequate? The people in the cars, so it is their fault.

Kermit.de.frog

People have a right to buy and drive cars.

CatInABox

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

No, more lanes and bigger and better junctions.

If people want to buy more cars I don't have an issue, just make the roads bigger as required.

Most people want the privacy and comfort of their cars.

Not their fault we don't have adequate roads.

Here, have a read of this, it's the wiki entry for "Induced Demand".

Basically, if we added more lanes and better junctions to the M50, it wouldn't be too long before the same problems begin appearing, because more people would choose driving rather than any other option. There is no road in the world that is free from the scourge of traffic jams, mainly because of this principle.

An awful lot of people in Ireland don't seem to have any understanding of the data that underpins the current approach to traffic management in Dublin (I'll admit, I don't know what's happening elsewhere in the country, Dublin, Cork and Galway are all being improved under these guidelines). The current drive to provide more space for buses and cyclists is data driven, and is proven countless times over to improve commute times, including for those who drive.