Cycling Infrastructure

oharach

dynamick wrote: »

The Japanese now have automated underground bike parking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK9C9VtCypE

This would be really excellent for new Dublin Bikes stations where there is limited space, or where the current station is oversubscribed.

monument

LaFlammeRouge started a thread over on the cycling board on Potential Segregated Cycleways in Dublin.

May be of interest to some here who have not seen it.

bigar

As a daily commuter and user of a bicycle to get through Dublin fast, it just baffles me how bad the infrastructure is and how drivers and pedestrians seem to be unable to deal with bicycles.

Dublin has a very confusing lay out for car traffic and as a cyclist you should not have to follow the completely illogical car flow. One way streets should be opened up for bicycles in both directions where possible. Parking spaces should be removed to make space for bicycles lanes. Pedestrian streets should be opened up for bicycles outside the busiest hours (bicycles would not use them anyway when they are packed as you would not get through). Finally, bicycles should be allowed to turn left on most crossings on red.

Sounds all very crazy, you may say? These changes were done years ago in many countries in Europe, including in the biggest cities (Brussels, Amsterdam, Berlin to name a few). They went hands in hand with a large awareness campaign for pedestrians and car users.

It is really time to make these changes here as well.

Aard

I've only recently begun cycling again (Dublin Bikes), and it's the first time I've ever cycled in the city centre. The #1 thing that prevents me from taking a bike over walking is the convoluted routing. Usually I'd have to walk 20 minutes plus, so going by bike would make sense. I don't know the one-way system well enough to 'wing it', and most of the time I stick with my trusty walking-route. There's just some glaring anomalies in routing that, if rectified (literally!) would help encourage cycling enormously.

First, it's nearly impossible to avoid O'Connell Bridge to travel north/south. This usually means O'Connell St too, which is ridiculous to cycle down: busses pulling in every few metres, parked vans, and weaving taxis. The only alternative is Eustace St in Temple Bar (cobblestones - good luck!) or Parliament/Capel which is southbound only.

Second, some major road intersections are useless. Parnell St eastbound > O'Connell St southbound is one. If you're to follow the roadmarkings, you have to go uphill around Parnell Sq. If you take a more direct route, you have to either cycle against traffic, or on the path, or down Moore/Henry. (Aside: for this I blame in part the ILAC monster-block. There used to be a street between Liffey St and Parnell St, but that's long gone unfortunately.)

Cianos

Another example of illogical cycle routing is the West edge of Stephen's Green, where cycling towards Grafton Street brings you by cycle lane straight in to the inside lane of oncoming one way traffic, with signage giving allowance for same!

gmaps street view link.

Ironically we see a cyclist here about to do just that.

HivemindXX

Cianos wrote: »

Another example of illogical cycle routing is the West edge of Stephen's Green, where cycling towards Grafton Street brings you by cycle lane straight in to the inside lane of oncoming one way traffic, with signage giving allowance for same!

gmaps street view link.

Ironically we see a cyclist here about to do just that.

That little bit of cycle lane is quite crazy alright. Not matter which end you join it from when you get to the far end you are facing the wrong way down a one way street.

However, I actually use it all the time. When heading South I come around Stephens Green, take that lane and then turn right at the end past RCS (all legal). When heading North I dismount at the end of the lane and walk to the nearby bike racks (I admit if I didn't want to stop there simply cycling down Georges Street would be better).

A lot of one way roads around the city are not suitable for cars and bicycles going the correct way and also bicycles going the other way. Often they are not wide enough for an additional cycle lane. Often the routing would be difficult and/or dangerous. For example think about how cyclists going South on Dawson street would join or leave the street. I can't see how it would be done without having to cross oncoming traffic in an awkward way.

I don't think a blanket change to allow cyclists to go both ways on all streets is a good idea. Certainly some roads would support this so starting to roll this idea out concentrating on the best candidates first would be good.

robd

bigar wrote: »

Parking spaces should be removed to make space for bicycles lanes.

You got to understand how Dublin Council is funded to understand why that won't happen under current system.

A huge amount of their revenue comes from on street parking so they'll fight tooth and nail for every space thats removed. Of course that's completely counter intuitive to the best needs of the city in terms of public transport and traffic free flow and bikes but there you go. Now you know why.

dowlingm

Toronto Bicycle Stations
http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/bicycle-station/#about

The railway station adjoining (Union Station) is getting a major rebuild and they will get showers at that bike station at that point.

bk

dowlingm wrote: »

The railway station adjoining (Union Station) is getting a major rebuild and they will get showers at that bike station at that point.

Great idea, you could almost introduce such bike parking at all DART stations and a few other key locations (car parks) around the city.

It wouldn't have to be anything fancy:

- Register with photo id and proof of address at one or two main stations.
- Access granted to all cycle parking stations via a registered Leap card.
- CCTV to monitor the parking stations.

One thing, the fees at the Toronto station are a bit step.

BTW Drury Street Car Park has free cycle parking.

robd

Would be nice to see some sections of the Sutton to Sandycove cycle track completed - www.s2s.ie. Prob a bit much to expect the whole thing to be completed to such a high standard but certainly relatively easy to fill in the missing sections one at a time year upon year rather than the current situation.

galwaycyclist

Just in my inbox - UK Department for Transport lit review on cycling infrastructure.

http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/to-increase-cyclist-safety-reduce-motor-vehicle-speeds/012278


http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/infrastructure-and-cyclist-safety/infrastructure-and-cyclist-safety.pdf



Main findings
Of all interventions to increase cycle safety, the greatest benefits come from reducing motor vehicle speeds. Interventions that achieve this are also likely to result in casualty reductions for all classes of road user. This may be achieved by a variety of methods, including physical traffic calming; urban design that changes the appearance and pedestrian use of a street; and, possibly, the wider use of 20 mph speed limits.

Most cyclist injuries in multi-vehicle collisions take place at junctions. Reducing the speed of traffic through junctions appears to be an effective approach to reducing cycle casualties, and physical calming methods are a reliable means of achieving such a reduction.

Providing segregated networks may reduce risks to cyclists, although evidence suggests that the points at which segregated networks intersect with highways can be relatively high-risk, sometimes of sufficient magnitude to offset any safety benefits of removing cyclists from the carriageway.

Sponge Bob

The intruduction of bike boxes at the front of newly designed junctions in Galway is the only good thing that has resulted from all the fannying around with roundabouts there in recent years.

The front car at a red light is separated from pedestrians crossing by a box reserved for Cyclists and cyclists get off first.

doopa

Sponge Bob wrote: »

The front car at a red light is separated from pedestrians crossing by a box reserved for Cyclists and cyclists get off first.

Which would be nice if anyone ever paid attention to them!

Pete_Cavan

http://www.etenders.gov.ie/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=NOV291855

A step in the right direction or more faffing about with no action?

galwaycyclist

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

http://www.etenders.gov.ie/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=NOV291855

A step in the right direction or more faffing about with no action?

Long story short it depends what the agenda is. Dun Laoighre Rathdown employed Transportation Initiatives and got a strategy that is largely exemplary. Galway city council employed Aecom, got a consultant who was not apparently au fait with cycling in traffic, and ended up with a draft strategy that tries to turn National Policy on its head and is not worth the paper it's written on.

Sponge Bob

doopa wrote: »

Which would be nice if anyone ever paid attention to them!

They do normally.

monument

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Just in my inbox - UK Department for Transport lit review on cycling infrastructure.

Problem with focusing on infrastructure is that you don't get the big picture. The most widespread way which have been proven to work in increasing cyclists' safety is increasing the amount of cyclists (ie safety in numbers).

Safety in numbers works on Netherlands scale, but it also works for places with comparably tiny percentages of cycling.

How you increase the amount of cyclists can be done in a huge amount of ways -- Dublin Bikes, bike to work, green schools cycling programmes, promoting cycling correctly and not allowing the safety agenda to take over (which can be counter-productive), or infrastructure from advance stop lines possibly combined with bike lights to give an extra advantage on major roads, to bike parking, to bike lanes.

Segregated infrastructure could even have a role to play -- not for safety reasons but to make routes more attractive to cyclists.

galwaycyclist

monument wrote: »

Problem with focusing on infrastructure is that you don't get the big picture. The most widespread way which have been proven to work in increasing cyclists' safety is increasing the amount of cyclists (ie safety in numbers).

Safety in numbers works on Netherlands scale, but it also works for places with comparably tiny percentages of cycling.

How you increase the amount of cyclists can be done in a huge amount of ways -- Dublin Bikes, bike to work, green schools cycling programmes, promoting cycling correctly and not allowing the safety agenda to take over (which can be counter-productive), or infrastructure from advance stop lines possibly combined with bike lights to give an extra advantage on major roads, to bike parking, to bike lanes.

Segregated infrastructure could even have a role to play -- not for safety reasons but to make routes more attractive to cyclists.

Agreed but where this falls down in Irish practice is the definition of "attractive". By "attractive" do we mean trying to increase the practical "level of service" for existing cyclists (reduce delay) or something that feels "safe" for novice cyclists who have no understanding of cycling in traffic?

And the problem with the latter is that subjective safety is used by the roads engineers as an excuse for designs that reduce the level of service for all cyclists.

My instinct is that, as an initial approach, we need to focus on level of service and address percieved safety issues by other means. When we have restored mass cycling, and embeded the requirements of cycling in the popular understanding, we can then go after Dutch style infrastructure.

galwaycyclist

Sponge Bob wrote: »

The intruduction of bike boxes at the front of newly designed junctions in Galway is the only good thing that has resulted from all the fannying around with roundabouts there in recent years.

The front car at a red light is separated from pedestrians crossing by a box reserved for Cyclists and cyclists get off first.

These are often termed Advance Stop Lines in the manuals and are very popular with cyclists. On the safety side there appear to be clear benefits for crossing pedestrians as they have greater separation from waiting vehicles For the cyclists, the safety arguments are less clear cut.

I am attaching an extract from the Danish Road Directorate's 1998 "Adonis" Compendium of different treatments.

This specifies that the reservoir at the junction is to be 5m deep to avoid putting waiting cyclists in a blind spot for HGV drivers.

@Spongebob this example is for a staggered stopline scenario with no right turn available - it might be useful to contrast the treatment in the attached with the recent changes to the Newcastle traffic signals in Galway (also has no right-turn).

In terms of national practice, if you look at the NTAs most recent draft of their cycle manual;

http://www.nationaltransport.ie/cycman.html

They appear to be specifying a 4m depth for ASLs which it would seem is going to put cyclists in a blind spot for some HGV drivers. Going under left- turning HGVs is a proportionately high source of fatal cyclist collisions.

G-Man

Kissing gates on Grand Canal are starting to change... Well this opening was made today at park west, western entry. You can just about straddle your bike through..

It probably stops the scooters, plays hell with a horses fetlocks though!

easpa_ciall

Has anyone got anymore information on these lockers already at trainstations? ie. What stations they're at ? How much they are ? What the name of the company organising it all is ?