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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

N31 Blackrock Bypass Downgrade Proposal

2»

Comments

  • #32
    patrickbrophy18
    Registered Users Posts: 1,303 ✭✭✭patrickbrophy18


    I was walking along Mount Merrion Avenue beside where it meets Frascati Road and I noticed that they have done away with the north-west bound slip lane altogether. This wasn't in the initial plans. It has now become a slip lane for cyclists alright. Buses such as the 17 will now have to swing wide and squeeze between the footpath and median.

    Another criticism which I will make on closer inspection of the original plans is that the bus stop on the opposite side of the road before the entrance to Rock Hill is also placed inside the cycle lane. Again, this is an accident waiting to happen. As is the case with the proposed arrangement in front of Frascati Shopping Center, in order for the bus to pull into the stop safely, they will need to cross the cycle lane. This inherently flawed road design will give rise to a mandatory blind spot check by the bus driver at a crucial point in the road where the driver should only be looking ahead. In this case, the crucial point of the road is a busy section where people might cross ahead of the designated crossing.

    To better demonstrate my concern, here is a picture of a bus stop where this type of crisscross pattern is likely:

    brighton-bus-stop-old-design.jpg

    On the other hand, here is a picture of a minor adjustment whereby the cyclist and bus driver don't even need to look out for one another:

    lewes_road-6.jpg


  • #33
    ardmacha
    Registered Users Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

    On the other hand, here is a picture of a minor adjustment whereby the cyclist and bus driver don't even need to look out for one another:

    lewes_road-6.jpg


    This latter arrangement is nonsense as it means that pedestrians having to run a gauntlet of cyclists when they get off the bus.

    Traffic, cyclists included, should give way to buses stopping and leaving bus stops.


  • #34
    Aard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    The "bus stop island" arrangement above is quite common elsewhere, eg in the Netherlands. It takes a bit of getting used to, but after a day it becomes second nature to watch out for bikes.


  • #35
    ardmacha
    Registered Users Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    Aard wrote: »
    The "bus stop island" arrangement above is quite common elsewhere, eg in the Netherlands. It takes a bit of getting used to, but after a day it becomes second nature to watch out for bikes.

    Why should you have to "get used to it". People should be delivered to a safe place. Pedestrians are the most vulnerable road users, elderly people, young children, disabled, they should not be compromised to that others can emulate Chris Fromme.


  • #36
    markpb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,238 ✭✭✭markpb


    ardmacha wrote: »
    Why should you have to "get used to it". People should be delivered to a safe place. Pedestrians are the most vulnerable road users, elderly people, young children, disabled, they should not be compromised to that others can emulate Chris Fromme.

    They are delivered to a safe place, the bus stop. They then can cross a cycle lane to get to the footpath. It's not like they were parachuted into a land mine zone.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    patrickbrophy18
    Registered Users Posts: 1,303 ✭✭✭patrickbrophy18


    markpb wrote: »
    They are delivered to a safe place, the bus stop.

    The passengers of the bus are but not the cyclist.
    markpb wrote: »
    They then can cross a cycle lane to get to the footpath.

    Having two paths (i.e. a cycle lane and bus lane) crossing is a design flaw which has plagued many of our roads to date. In my opinion, it is an accident waiting to happen. Thankfully, some of these flaws were rectified along the N11 by having the cycle lane/track going around the bus stops. Plus, space isn't an issue for the Blackrock Bypass which can well afford more cycle friendly bus stops. Sadly, the old approach of the bus stop inside the cycle lane is the design of choice for the Blackrock Bypass. Unless this is another form of leverage to create unnecessary additional levels of caution among bus drivers. Either-way, I don't see any benefit to this whatsoever.
    markpb wrote: »
    It's not like they were parachuted into a land mine zone.

    By its very design, cyclists could easily be cut off by a stopping bus which can be fatal. So, whether or not the cause of death is by a land mine or a road accident, the result is ultimately the same.


  • #38
    ardmacha
    Registered Users Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    markpb wrote: »
    They are delivered to a safe place, the bus stop. They then can cross a cycle lane to get to the footpath. It's not like they were parachuted into a land mine zone.

    Why should they have to cross anything? The cyclists should be on the road the the bus should stop at the footpath at the side of the road, not one in the middle of the road. Note in the above there is no pedestrian crossing.

    The proposed arrangement is only dangerous if cyclists try to undertake the bus.


  • #39
    Aard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    ardmacha wrote: »
    The proposed arrangement is only dangerous if cyclists try to undertake the bus.
    AKA cycling straight ahead. In the example above, the cyclist wouldn't be undertaking the bus -- the bus should wait for the cyclist to pass before crossing the cycle lane. If the bus-stop was arranged in an island pattern, however, there'd be no conflict between bus and bike. Yes, passengers alighting the bus would be required to cross a 1.5m cycle track in that instance.

    What you describe about undertaking is only relevant if there is no cycle lane, and bikes/busses/cars ostensibly share the one lane.


  • #40
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    ardmacha wrote: »
    This latter arrangement is nonsense as it means that pedestrians having to run a gauntlet of cyclists when they get off the bus.

    Traffic, cyclists included, should give way to buses stopping and leaving bus stops.

    You're somehow thinking that pedestrians can't cross a 2 meter cycle path? But yet they have to cross 8+ meter roads unaided with two-way traffic of buses, cars, bicycles and trucks.
    ardmacha wrote: »
    Why should you have to "get used to it". People should be delivered to a safe place. Pedestrians are the most vulnerable road users, elderly people, young children, disabled, they should not be compromised to that others can emulate Chris Fromme.

    Elderly people, young children, people who have disabilities -- all of those people cycle and the plan is to get more of them on bikes.

    They should not be compromised because you like stereotypes. It's likely Blackrock now has a cycling modal share of ~10% and growing.


  • #41
    donvito99
    Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    That type of island arrangement is used a lot on the N11. Cyclists are expected to yield at some of them, it works quite well. So long as there is line of sight for both cyclists and pedestrians, and that the cycle lane is properly distinguished so that it is not mindlessly trespassed upon, there shouldn't be a problem.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Middle Man
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Middle Man


    monument wrote: »
    You're somehow thinking that pedestrians can't cross a 2 meter cycle path? But yet they have to cross 8+ meter roads unaided with two-way traffic of buses, cars, bicycles and trucks.



    Elderly people, young children, people who have disabilities -- all of those people cycle and the plan is to get more of them on bikes.

    They should not be compromised because you like stereotypes. It's likely Blackrock now has a cycling modal share of ~10% and growing.

    500- Cyclists
    = 10%??? :rolleyes:
    30,000+ PCUs

    ...I'm being generous, and that's not even counting pedestrians!!!


  • #43
    Aard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    According to Census 2011, the Electoral Divisions in Blackrock see a cycling modeshare (work/school/college) of around 8-9%.


  • #44
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Middle Man wrote: »
    500- Cyclists
    = 10%??? :rolleyes:
    30,000+ PCUs

    ...I'm being generous, and that's not even counting pedestrians!!!

    Blackrock had a cycling modal share of 7.53% in the 2011 Cencus, given the increases shown by counters it's now likely close to 10%.

    Given the state of the road, I'm surprised they even managed to count 500 bicycles movements on Blackrock bypass before the improvement works started.

    While there's still going to be some fairly poor shared bus/taxi/cycle lanes between Blackrock and the city centre, the Blackrock bypass was the worst section of one of the worst cycle routes into Dublin from the south side.


  • #45
    Sheldons Brain
    Registered Users Posts: 1,394 ✭✭✭Sheldons Brain


    donvito99 wrote: »
    That type of island arrangement is used a lot on the N11. Cyclists are expected to yield at some of them, it works quite well. So long as there is line of sight for both cyclists and pedestrians, and that the cycle lane is properly distinguished so that it is not mindlessly trespassed upon, there shouldn't be a problem.

    Cylists have no respect for laws because they are subject to no enforcement whatsoever. Get off our footpaths.


  • #46
    Aard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    ^He's talking about cycle tracks, not footpaths.


  • #47
    Deedsie
    Registered Users Posts: 5,272 ✭✭✭Deedsie


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    Cylists have no respect for laws because they are subject to no enforcement whatsoever. Get off our footpaths.

    I'm a cyclist, I obey all the rules of the road. Get off my cycle lane while you are texting or have headphones in. We all need to take care and carry our own share of responsibility for road safety. I am a pedestrian, a cyclist, a motorist... Every group has its faults and failings. We need to share commuting space


  • #48
    donvito99
    Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    Aard wrote: »
    ^He's talking about cycle tracks, not footpaths.

    What he said ^^^.
    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    Cylists have no respect for laws because they are subject to no enforcement whatsoever. Get off our footpaths.


  • #49
    Seaswimmer
    Registered Users Posts: 1,985 ✭✭✭Seaswimmer


    Well what do people think of it so far. As someone who cycles that route twice a day I am impressed by the width of the new lanes. I also like the line of cones just after the 2nd entrance to Frescati heading into town. This will stop cars cutting into the cycle lane too early and blocking it. I know its a continuous line which shouldn't be crossed anyway but the cones make it more obvious.

    Only bit I am a bit dissapointed by is after crossing the bottom of Merrion Avenue (towards town) the cycle lane veers fairly sharply in left close to the kerb. The natural line here is for cyclists to stay out and aim for the next bit of cycle lane after the bus stop.

    But overall so far so good..


  • #50
    Middle Man
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Middle Man


    Just had the pleasure of crossing the Frascati Road which now has de-facto hard shoulders - waste of road width that pedestrians are now forced to cross - not one cyclist while everyone else suffers - place crawling with pedestrians and motorists. Not one serious pedestrian improvement from the DART to Frascati Centre that I could see despite all the road downgrades. More slips being removed at the centre. What's needed is an open pedestian underpass at Frascati Road, direct path to the DART and restoration of Frascati Road to a reasonable standard - 7m carriageways with decent lane widths instead of wasteful 8m pavements that are pedestrian unfriendly.


  • #51
    Seaswimmer
    Registered Users Posts: 1,985 ✭✭✭Seaswimmer


    Middle Man wrote: »
    Just had the pleasure of crossing the Frascati Road which now has de-facto hard shoulders - waste of road width that pedestrians are now forced to cross - not one cyclist while everyone else suffers - place crawling with pedestrians and motorists. Not one serious pedestrian improvement from the DART to Frascati Centre that I could see despite all the road downgrades. More slips being removed at the centre. What's needed is an open pedestian underpass at Frascati Road, direct path to the DART and restoration of Frascati Road to a reasonable standard - 7m carriageways with decent lane widths instead of wasteful 8m pavements that are pedestrian unfriendly.

    not sure where you are coming from here?

    Dosent matter how the road is divided up, the pedestrians still have the same distance to go. As long as the green man sequence is adequate then there should be no issue.

    Also it looks to me like the cars are getting a right turning lane into Frascati coming from town. Surely this is an improvement and not a downgrade?

    There are 2 perfectly good direct pedestrian routes from the Dart.

    Up Georges Avenue which leads to a pedestrian crossing with a regular, long green man sequence straight across to the centre.

    Up Rock hill and through or beside the Blackrock shopping centre to another pedestrian crossing straight across to the centre.

    I actually cycle it twice a day and there has been a 30% increase of cycle traffic along this corridor, some of it due to the improvements at Frascati no doubt.


    I will admit it was fairly chaotic today as I cycled past with numerous cars containing 1 person queuing for long periods to enter the car park.

    but hey,

    its Christmas.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Middle Man
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Middle Man


    Seaswimmer wrote: »
    not sure where you are coming from here?

    Dosent matter how the road is divided up, the pedestrians still have the same distance to go. As long as the green man sequence is adequate then there should be no issue.

    Also it looks to me like the cars are getting a right turning lane into Frascati coming from town. Surely this is an improvement and not a downgrade?

    There are 2 perfectly good direct pedestrian routes from the Dart.

    Up Georges Avenue which leads to a pedestrian crossing with a regular, long green man sequence straight across to the centre.

    Up Rock hill and through or beside the Blackrock shopping centre to another pedestrian crossing straight across to the centre.

    I actually cycle it twice a day and there has been a 30% increase of cycle traffic along this corridor, some of it due to the improvements at Frascati no doubt.


    I will admit it was fairly chaotic today as I cycled past with numerous cars containing 1 person queuing for long periods to enter the car park.

    but hey,

    its Christmas.
    Ok, I'll admit that it's the first time I was in Blackrock as a pedestrian for years. However, it's a shopping district and the pedestrian should always be given first priority with car access and public transport second.

    Now you mention right turn lanes - sure it is those that I find the most problematic when walking - not left slips. There are two large car parks, one either side of Frascati Road - if there is a proper grade separated pedestrian link between the shopping centres, why should motorists need to turn right off the dual carriageway (for shopping) when there is a proper carpark available to the left - each carpark could serve traffic from the near carriageway only (via existing left lanes) thereby allowing more space and comfort for pedestrians in the median - that's 3m less of road width. Widening the existing 4 lanes to 7m each side (tram and bus compatible) and eliminating the cycle lanes yields another 2m for the pedestrian - 5m in all (elimination of right turn lane between the shopping centres (+3m) plus elimination of the cycle tracks (+4m) less lane widening (-2m)). For the record, traffic can be allowed to make right turns onto Frascati Road for return journeys - this shouldn't make any real difference in terms of required mainline road provision. Of course, the surplus 1m on either side of the dual carriageway would go to pedestrians (or landscaping if there's already ample pedestrian provision).


  • #53
    spacetweek
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 4,947 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    Middle Man, this thread is nothing more than an anti-cyclist rant concerning a busy cycling route for the city. The cycling lanes aren't really for the Frascati centre, they're for connecting the suburbs with the city centre.

    There's no point in having this thread anymore (which was started in 2014) unless there's more going on other than you ranting about cyclists.


  • #54
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,336 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Mod: I think it is time to close this thread as it has become an anti-cyclist thread with nothing good about it.

    Thread closed.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement