Massive upgrade of cycling facilities: Ballycullen Rd to Templeogue Bridge

seamus

I know a (relatively) large number of boardsies use all or part of this route for commuting or on weekend spins, so it's probably relevant here. The roadworks started a number of weeks ago, but I was never sure what they were doing till I saw this. From what I can tell, they're basically cleaning up almost everything that's wrong with bus & cycling facilities in the area. It's been coming for ages, no idea how I hadn't heard of it before (everyone else probably has). Link here. The roads covered are the Ballycullen Road from Hunter's Way down to Firhouse Road and the Firhouse Road to Templogue bridge (including the junction with Firhouse Road).

Main features generally are (for those who don't want to look at all the maps):
Widening of most of the roadways
Removal of the two-way cycle lane on the Firhouse Road and replaced with one lane on each side of the road.
Removal of zones of conflict - the cycle lane changes from off-road to on-road at every entrance to an estate/car park with priority for bikes.
Most of the worst pieces of cycle lane (such as on the small strech between Temp. Bridge and Knocklyon road) and being removed and replaced with on-road lanes.
Upgrade of the junction at Knocklyon Gate to light-controlled, four-lane junction.


It all look great on paper, but I'll withhold judgement until it's actually implemented. I can see the change from off-road lane to on-road lane being "altered" so that it turns into a "cyclists dismount" sign at the end of the off-road lane.

Chips Lovell

So, if I'm reading it right, a lot of the cycle lane will still be off-road?

seamus

Most of it, really. But only where you have a piece of long straight road with few or no junctions, such as the Firhouse Road. Though if it's a long, straight road, why bother with off-road track at all?

The idea that the lane joins the road about 50-100m before every junction, I like, but may end up painful in terms of left-turning vehicles.

FrankGrimes

Sounds a bit mad if the plan is to bring the cycle track back onto the road 50m before a junction - can see all sorts of issues with it due to the speed cyclists coming downhill on Ballycullen Rd will be going. Really does seem like taking a chunk out of the massive space at the side of that road and putting an on-road cycle track/lane (I forget the difference) would be the safest thing (again suggests that someone who doesn't actually cycle is designing it and mistakenly thinking that off-road is safest).

I was pleasantly surprised last week to find that they had redone bits of the cycle path on the way down to Templeogue - there used to be seriously bumpy bits due to the roots of trees coming through the tarmac but they've sorted that out now and it makes a big difference.

crazydingo

FrankGrimes wrote: »

I was pleasantly surprised last week to find that they had redone bits of the cycle path on the way down to Templeogue - there used to be seriously bumpy bits due to the roots of trees coming through the tarmac but they've sorted that out now and it makes a big difference.

Yeah that path was a pain in the hole (literally if you'd cycle it in the dark and not pay attention). The only thing I didn't like about that was that they cut down a tree there for no reason

markpb

FrankGrimes wrote: »

Sounds a bit mad if the plan is to bring the cycle track back onto the road 50m before a junction - can see all sorts of issues with it due to the speed cyclists coming downhill on Ballycullen Rd will be going.

Without having looked at the map, it sounds like the same type of cycle lane used between Sandyford estate and Goatstown. It's probably (in my opinion) the best type of cycle lane in Dublin at the moment - it's very well segregated most of the way but it puts you in view of motorists approaching junctions and allows you to assert your position on the road so people can't cut you up turning left.

seamus wrote: »

It all look great on paper, but I'll withhold judgement until it's actually implemented. I can see the change from off-road lane to on-road lane being "altered" so that it turns into a "cyclists dismount" sign at the end of the off-road lane.

I've become completely cynical about bus or cycle facilities in Dublin - they all look good on paper but small mistakes made by people who obviously have never driven a bus or rode a bike have a huge impact. I hope I'm wrong though.

Bunnyhopper

There's a public consultation open at the moment on plans for the QBC and associated cycle tracks along Huntstown Way in Dublin 15. It might be worth a look for any locals.

By the look of it there's a lot of quite dodgy design in the proposals so I might make a submission. I'm cynical about it all, too, so I wouldn't expect the submission to make any difference but at least I'd be able to say I did something.

The sooner they get shot of the mandatory use rule the sooner we can all just ignore the stupidly designed dangerous bits of "cycle facilities" (because, of course, we wouldn't dream of breaking the law and doing that now...).

http://www.dublincity.ie/RoadsandTraffic/QBNProjectOffice/Fingal/Pages/HuntstownWayBusPriorityMeasures.aspx

blorg

markpb wrote: »

Without having looked at the map, it sounds like the same type of cycle lane used between Sandyford estate and Goatstown. It's probably (in my opinion) the best type of cycle lane in Dublin at the moment - it's very well segregated most of the way but it puts you in view of motorists approaching junctions and allows you to assert your position on the road so people can't cut you up turning left.

Yes, this stretch of cycle track is good enough that I actually use it when I'm on my own, and that is really saying something. (Temporarily not using it right at the moment as they are constructing a new road in the middle of it but they seem to be remerging the cycle track onto the road well.)

NeilMcEoigheann

i live there, any yeah there have been a few improvements recently, i'll post if anything changes

monument

seamus wrote: »

...It all look great on paper....

No it does not. It may be better than some cycle tracks we currently have, but it's a mess in places and it looks like an experiment. They have different designs used on different parts of the road for no apparent reason.

The large junction designs look to be a mess (at least one is noted to be "DESIGNED BY OTHERS") -- including off-road cycle tracts which divert cyclists to the left only, which stops cyclists from turning right or even going straight on!!!

And it's not at all clear why bus stops are treated so diffrently in different places on the road.

Tracks also get narrower at some junctions but best design says tracks should get wider at junctions (DTO etc).

In some parts there is -- as normal -- cycle lanes put in traffic lanes where there is not enough room for both a car and a lane... why are lanes been keep put in there places? To rack up the amount of KM of cycle lanes???

monument

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

There's a public consultation open at the moment on plans for the QBC and associated cycle tracks along Huntstown Way in Dublin 15. It might be worth a look for any locals.

By the look of it there's a lot of quite dodgy design in the proposals so I might make a submission. I'm cynical about it all, too, so I wouldn't expect the submission to make any difference but at least I'd be able to say I did something.

The sooner they get shot of the mandatory use rule the sooner we can all just ignore the stupidly designed dangerous bits of "cycle facilities" (because, of course, we wouldn't dream of breaking the law and doing that now...).

http://www.dublincity.ie/RoadsandTraffic/QBNProjectOffice/Fingal/Pages/HuntstownWayBusPriorityMeasures.aspx

Oh, dear god!

It looks like somebody went to the Netherlands and smoked and/or drank too much while there.

Bunnyhopper

Any of the Dublin 15 cyclists on here will be delighted to hear that local councillors gave the Huntstown Road QBC the go-ahead.

The Dublin Cycling Campaign's submission is linked to here:

http://www.dublincycling.com/node/341

And the council minutes, including what I think are some pretty pathetic responses to the concerns raised, are here:

http://www.fingalcoco.ie/minutes/meeting_doc.aspx?id=36736

For example, their response to the Dublin Cycling Campaign's

Concerns over the shared cycle and footpath, especially at bus stops and at the school, including shared nature and inadequate width.

is to say

The proposed design, including widths of proposed cycle lanes and footpaths, comply with existing design standards and will accommodate existing pedestrian and cyclist flows. Lining and appropriate signage will indicate the divide between the footpath and the cycle lane. This shared cycle and pedestrian layout is widely used. Signs will indicate to cyclists and pedestrians that they are entering a shared area.

So that's basically, "Ah sure we do this all the time, it'll be grand." And the signs indicating the shared area will presumably be those circular blue-and-white bike-and-pedestrian ones that (afaik, and I think Civilian Target is of the same opinion and he knows about these things) have no statutory basis.

The nub of it for me is this:

it is felt that the provision of off-road cycle tracks will provide a safer cycling environment overall. Shared cycle and pedestrian layouts similar to the proposed scheme operate successfully throughout Fingal and Dublin City.

Which to me says that they either haven't read the National Cycling Policy Framework or just don't give a sh*te what it says.

I really hope the Minister does away with the mandatory use rule soon so that we can legally avoid this sort of shoddiness.

Lumen

With the DCC calling for 30kph limits on all urban routes I'm not surprised they're not taken seriously.

tomasrojo

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

So that's basically, "Ah sure we do this all the time, it'll be grand."

Or "Hiding Behind Standards".

http://www.labreform.org/blunders/b5.html

Hiding Behind Standards

Standards can not replace competence and knowledge by those who design bicycle facilities. This is especially critical when the standards have dangerous flaws [...] Engineers are expected to do professional work as experts in their field . However, we often see planners and engineers hide negligent bicycle facilities work behind weak standards.

Bunnyhopper

Lumen wrote: »

With the DCC calling for 30kph limits on all urban routes I'm not surprised they're not taken seriously.

That's a fair point, but it doesn't invalidate their other criticisms of the plans.

@tomasrojo Hiding behind standards is a good way to put it. It does make me wonder about the "vigorous implementation" of the National Cycle Policy Framework. Maybe they'll surprise me and build something decent, but their past record and the responses so far don't inspire confidence.

The aim here seems to be to build a QBC, and the point of the cycle facility is simply to get the bikes out of the way of the buses. If they keep this up then how long before we get another N11 and a bus driver with anger management issues deciding to teach a cyclist a lesson?

tomasrojo

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

The aim here seems to be to build a QBC, and the point of the cycle facility is simply to get the bikes out of the way of the buses. If they keep this up then how long before we get another N11 and a bus driver with anger management issues deciding to teach a cyclist a lesson?

Good point Bunnyhopper. That's a real downside of crappy facilities (and even some ok ones). Even without a mandatory use law, motorists and bus drivers expect you to use them. I know stretches of road where cyclists and motorists coexisted peacefully until off-road facilities were added; then cyclists were constantly harrassed to get off the road. This was before the 1998 SI that made them mandatory.

It's an effect that is well known and mentioned in the Vehicular Cycling books a lot. It should really have a catchy name.