Advertisement
Where is Report Post on mobile? We've made a slight change, see here
Have your say on the future of the 'Save Draft' feature in this poll
MODs please see this information notice in the mod's forum. Thanks!
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards

New traffic calming at junction King's Inns Street with Bolton Street

2

Comments



  • Any time I've used that junction its mainly only cars using it. Maybe theres a lot of pedestrian traffic at certain times of the day but I've never seen it.




  • BostonB wrote: »
    Any time I've used that junction its mainly only cars using it. Maybe theres a lot of pedestrian traffic at certain times of the day but I've never seen it.

    What are you trying to say here? And before you do say anything remember:
    • It's beside a school (as well as part of a third level college).
    • It's an entry treatment for a 30km/h zone.
    • It's in one the most densely populated areas in the county.
    • Within the city centre / within the canals (as defined by an NTA breakdown of census data), where 50% of residents walk or cycle to work (more walk).
    • It borders on the electoral divisions Rotunda A, where 49.73% of residents just walk, and Inns Quay C, where 47.57% of residents do the same. The other surrounding electoral divisions are in the range of 40% to 50% of residents who walk.

    To be honest, I should have stopped typing at the first point there.




  • Seems to there no metrics on what its achieved. But much like carpet bombing, it must be hitting something.

    You see a lot of these kinda things all over, usually on quiet streets, often cycling "themed". Most of the time I'd seriously question if there was any need for them. I wonder what collectively they cost though. Its a bit like the bus lane in my area, they widened the road through the estate, put in oodles of lights, and road markings, moved pavements, kerbs, etc at it for months. I assume at great expense. Cycle thingies (on one side of the road only). Only to bottle neck it making it merge to one lane (for buses and cars) in two locations where previously it was two. TBH if they used all this money to get one garda to enforce the existing laws at a different problem junction every day, it would have more effect.

    30km/h zone exists in name only its not enforced. As such I don't see the value for money spending money on it. If there was a coherent plan maybe. But I so far I've seen no sign of that.




  • monument wrote: »

    Does somebody need to get a truck down there?

    Is there any street that does not need to get large vehicles through on occasions?

    Refuse collection would be one obvious requirement, another much more serious concern would be the inability of fire tenders being able to get close to certain buildings in the event of an emergency call.

    The total ignorance shown by the city's road engineers to accomodating large vehicles is a disgrace, from full with speed humps on major corridors that have frequent bus routes to pointless traffic calming constructions.

    Just look at the ridiculous concrete islands that have popped up on North Frederick St. This road is supposedly Bus/Cycle/Taxi only southbound, has relatively low traffic levels and is the main bus artery from the north of the city. It is now an extremely tight turn in a regular bus from Dorset St and the likes of Aircoach with longer coaches now need to swing well across into the northbound lane to get the correct angle to align the coach with the new islands and even then only have milimetres to spare.

    Northbound now it is impossible to get a large vehicle past the islands if there is a car LEGALLY parked in the last space. It is only a matter of time before somebody misjudges the angles and hits either another vehicle, part of the street furniture or a parked car. And of course when that happens it will be entirely the drivers' fault and not that of the cretins who waste public money installing pointless street constructions turning an already difficult city to manouvere through into an obstacle course.




  • BostonB wrote: »
    30km/h zone exists in name only its not enforced. As such I don't see the value for money spending money on it.

    Perhaps they're trying to enforce it through physical means instead of legal ones? In the same way that narrowing a road or making it appear narrower can encourage road users to slow down.


  • Advertisement


  • If there are problems they should be sorted, but the council can never win if people complain that they put in the 30km/h zone without any street changes and people also complain when they put in some street changes...
    BostonB wrote: »
    Seems to there no metrics on what its achieved. But much like carpet bombing, it must be hitting something....

    30km/h zone exists in name only its not enforced. As such I don't see the value for money spending money on it. If there was a coherent plan maybe. But I so far I've seen no sign of that.

    It seems there are no metrics and there's no coherent plan, or is it that you're just guessing that there's none? :confused:

    This isn't cycling "themed" -- cyclists were just included. It is very much so pedestrian focused. It does seems to be coherent given different treatments have been recently installed at at least two other entry points to the 30km/h zone (Fredreick Street North and Sean McDermott St) and traffic calming was already in place at smaller streets close to here (Green Street, Anne Street etc etc).

    BostonB wrote: »
    You see a lot of these kinda things all over, usually on quiet streets, often cycling "themed". Most of the time I'd seriously question if there was any need for them. I wonder what collectively they cost though. Its a bit like the bus lane in my area, they widened the road through the estate, put in oodles of lights, and road markings, moved pavements, kerbs, etc at it for months. I assume at great expense. Cycle thingies (on one side of the road only). Only to bottle neck it making it merge to one lane (for buses and cars) in two locations where previously it was two. TBH if they used all this money to get one garda to enforce the existing laws at a different problem junction every day, it would have more effect.

    Bar trying to apply sweeping generalisations across what different councils do, I'm not sure you have a solid point here. And how much would your one garda cost and how well could he or she be spread around Dublin in the one day?
    BostonB wrote: »

    One min you do not support 30km/h, but the next you want 30km/h? :pac:

    Also: Do you want all streets in the 30km/h zone to be done like the Exhibition Road project? And you mention the cost of the Dublin traffic calming, but you see the £28m price tag on the London project as ok? And do you know that Exhibition Road has traffic calming at entry points, or at least most entry points? And the whole road is traffic calming really! :)

    Vic_08 wrote: »
    Is there any street that does not need to get large vehicles through on occasions?

    Refuse collection would be one obvious requirement, another much more serious concern would be the inability of fire tenders being able to get close to certain buildings in the event of an emergency call.

    The total ignorance shown by the city's road engineers to accomodating large vehicles is a disgrace, from full with speed humps on major corridors that have frequent bus routes to pointless traffic calming constructions.

    You give out that traffic calming slows things down but you try to claim that its "pointless" -- you might find that that's a contradiction. You may disagree with traffic calming, but it is far from pointless and your post claims that it fulfills one of its main aims (ie slow traffic).

    The example of traffic calming pictured in the opening post has been in place for more than a few weeks now, it seems refuse collection trucks are somehow managing. As for fire tenders -- it does not seem like they would have any problems getting pass.

    Vic_08 wrote: »
    Just look at the ridiculous concrete islands that have popped up on North Frederick St. This road is supposedly Bus/Cycle/Taxi only southbound, has relatively low traffic levels and is the main bus artery from the north of the city. It is now an extremely tight turn in a regular bus from Dorset St and the likes of Aircoach with longer coaches now need to swing well across into the northbound lane to get the correct angle to align the coach with the new islands and even then only have milimetres to spare.

    Northbound now it is impossible to get a large vehicle past the islands if there is a car LEGALLY parked in the last space. It is only a matter of time before somebody misjudges the angles and hits either another vehicle, part of the street furniture or a parked car. And of course when that happens it will be entirely the drivers' fault and not that of the cretins who waste public money installing pointless street constructions turning an already difficult city to manouvere through into an obstacle course.

    Again: You're contradicting your self! Something can't fulfill a primary aim of slowing traffic and also be pointless! :)

    North Frederick St has high levels of traffic with buses and taxis alone, but fair enough if there are major flaws they should be fixed.




  • monument wrote: »
    ....It seems there are no metrics and there's no coherent plan, or is it that you're just guessing that there's none? :confused:
    monument wrote: »
    This isn't cycling "themed" -- cyclists were just included. It is very much so pedestrian focused. It does seems to be coherent given different treatments have been recently installed at at least two other entry points to the 30km/h zone (Fredreick Street North and Sean McDermott St) and traffic calming was already in place at smaller streets close to here (Green Street, Anne Street etc etc).


    If theres a point (or plan) in having a 30 zone thats not enforced I fail to see it. Or if there's a measurable problem that these "treatments" resolve I've yet to hear what it is.




  • monument wrote: »
    Bar trying to apply sweeping generalisations across what different councils do, I'm not sure you have a solid point here. And how much would your one garda cost and how well could he or she be spread around Dublin in the one day?

    I assume their regular salary. They don't need to be everywhere in one day. Most traffic goes through choke points. People who disregard the traffic laws are habitual. As such pick a choke point twice a month and theres a good chance you'll catch the same drivers repeatedly. Its like fish in a barrel tbh. They get used to one spot simply move to the next choke point on the route.




  • monument wrote: »
    One min you do not support 30km/h, but the next you want 30km/h? :pac:

    I would like to know if all this money is achieving anything. its that simple.
    monument wrote: »
    Also: Do you want all streets in the 30km/h zone to be done like the Exhibition Road project? And you mention the cost of the Dublin traffic calming, but you see the £28m price tag on the London project as ok? And do you know that Exhibition Road has traffic calming at entry points, or at least most entry points? And the whole road is traffic calming really! :)

    My point is these "treatments" seems to very dated idea's. Considering how long ideas like woonerven have been around. I get the feeling a lot of money is going to be thrown away to learn lessons already learnt, elsewhere and without any metrics on if they achieve anything relative to the money spent on them.

    In D.15 huge sums have been spent on unusable cycle lanes, and treatments. I dread to think at what cost.


  • Advertisement


  • If it looks like a speed ramp and acts like a speed ramp then it is a speed ramp. To have it on the turn for cyclists is more dangerous than the two options of no ramp or to extend the raised portion well beyond the turn.

    The bike racks are very close to the junction, so a cyclist will not have much time to react if someone wheels a bike from the rack towards the cycle lane. If the racks were sited further from the lane or further from the junction, there would be less risk of a collision




  • BostonB wrote: »
    If theres a point (or plan) in having a 30 zone thats not enforced I fail to see it. Or if there's a measurable problem that these "treatments" resolve I've yet to hear what it is.

    The point would be that it is enforced by a mix of traffic measures like these, and police enforcement, including speed camera enforcement (which does happen in the zone).

    And here you are in one sentence saying there's no point to the 30km/h zone because it is not enforced and in the next sentence saying that the traffic treatments are not solving any measurable problem! Surely part of the measurable problem they are solving is the lack of enforcement of the 30km/h zone?

    BostonB wrote: »
    I assume their regular salary. They don't need to be everywhere in one day. Most traffic goes through choke points. People who disregard the traffic laws are habitual. As such pick a choke point twice a month and theres a good chance you'll catch the same drivers repeatedly. Its like fish in a barrel tbh. They get used to one spot simply move to the next choke point on the route.

    Your point was that the money spent on traffic calming would be better spent on policing -- so how far do you think the once-off spend on traffic calming at King's Inn Street would go if it was spent instead on policing? The traffic calming should last tens of years with the exception of the car ramp which will have min extra maintenance costs.

    BostonB wrote: »
    I would like to know if all this money is achieving anything. its that simple.

    Yes, it is clear slowing down traffic at key points and the one at King's Inns Street is giving pedestrians a far easier, safer and nicer way of crossing the road.

    BostonB wrote: »
    My point is these "treatments" seems to very dated idea's. Considering how long ideas like woonerven have been around. I get the feeling a lot of money is going to be thrown away to learn lessons already learnt, elsewhere and without any metrics on if they achieve anything relative to the money spent on them.

    In D.15 huge sums have been spent on unusable cycle lanes, and treatments. I dread to think at what cost.

    Agreed with the poor standard of cycling lanes, but these treatments, as you call them, all use the basics of traffic calming -- like pedestrian tables, raised table junctions, chicanes and pinch point. These are tried and tested methods.

    I could cost millions to redo streets as woonerven / shared use / pedestrian priority and and bring the the woonerven principles to streets with as much parking as King's Inn Street is problematic and usually never done. Shared use works best with streets which have little or no parking.

    If it looks like a speed ramp and acts like a speed ramp then it is a speed ramp. To have it on the turn for cyclists is more dangerous than the two options of no ramp or to extend the raised portion well beyond the turn.

    The bike racks are very close to the junction, so a cyclist will not have much time to react if someone wheels a bike from the rack towards the cycle lane. If the racks were sited further from the lane or further from the junction, there would be less risk of a collision

    The risks in both cases seem small to tiny -- the photographs may not show it but from the rack to the kerb is over the distance of a wheel. I'll take a pick if I'm not in a hurry next time I'm passing and have a bike or there's a bike parked there.... if I have the time I'll even test it out from a few directions!

    It might be semantics -- but it is not just a speed bump it's a pedestrian table or even a speed table. Tables don't slow traffic as much as speed bumps -- the chicane and narrower are likely to be doing that more here.




  • monument wrote: »
    ... It does seems to be coherent given different treatments have been recently installed at at least two other entry points to the 30km/h zone (Fredreick Street North and Sean McDermott St) and traffic calming was already in place at smaller streets close to here (Green Street, Anne Street etc etc)....

    All said and done if it makes the roads nicer to use for all, I can't really complain about it. I just see so many of these improvements that don't make sense.




  • monument wrote: »
    The point would be that it is enforced by a mix of traffic measures like these, and police enforcement, including speed camera enforcement (which does happen in the zone).

    And here you are in one sentence saying there's no point to the 30km/h zone because it is not enforced and in the next sentence saying that the traffic treatments are not solving any measurable problem! Surely part of the measurable problem they are solving is the lack of enforcement of the 30km/h zone?


    Your point was that the money spent on traffic calming would be better spent on policing -- so how far do you think the once-off spend on traffic calming at King's Inn Street would go if it was spent instead on policing? The traffic calming should last tens of years with the exception of the car ramp which will have min extra maintenance costs.




    Yes, it is clear slowing down traffic at key points and the one at King's Inns Street is giving pedestrians a far easier, safer and nicer way of crossing the road.

    ....

    I go through the zone many times a day, 5 days a week and speed enforcement is so little its none existent. I doubt I've seen more then 2 or 3 checks in a year. Every year for as long as I've been doing it. Which is most of my working life. Its not even the speeding. It people just ignoring all laws. Everywhere, constantly. I would be very surprised if other people experience is that all the rules, laws, signals and signs are enforced.

    Let be specific here. This feature, is to control speeding on this road, and make it easier to cross the road. I find that hard to believe either is a problem on this road, or even more specifically this junction. So its solving a problem on this road that I don't think exists. On this road. I don't use it a lot but I use it enough as a driver and as pedestrian, so say it seems unlikely to me.

    The second issue the wider zone. I don't really know what you point is. But perhaps you'er suggesting this will raise awareness and thus change driver behaviour over the zone. I'm very sceptical of that. But I am saying random enforcement over the whole zone in problem area's would be far more efficient to archive that aim.




  • BostonB wrote: »
    I go through the zone many times a day, 5 days a week and speed enforcement is so little its none existent. I doubt I've seen more then 2 or 3 checks in a year. Every year for as long as I've been doing it. Which is most of my working life. Its not even the speeding. It people just ignoring all laws. Everywhere, constantly. I would be very surprised if other people experience is that all the rules, laws, signals and signs are enforced.

    Let be specific here. This feature, is to control speeding on this road, and make it easier to cross the road. I find that hard to believe either is a problem on this road, or even more specifically this junction. So its solving a problem on this road that I don't think exists. On this road. I don't use it a lot but I use it enough as a driver and as pedestrian, so say it seems unlikely to me.

    The second issue the wider zone. I don't really know what you point is. But perhaps you'er suggesting this will raise awareness and thus change driver behaviour over the zone. I'm very sceptical of that. But I am saying random enforcement over the whole zone in problem area's would be far more efficient to archive that aim.

    Could there be more enforcement? Yes. Did I say all laws are enforced? No.

    Random speed checks are done -- I know of a case where at least one person has lost their licence for passing one speed van in the zone a few times on the one Saturday. But dual random and fixed enforcement is important, and traffic calming is fixed, passive enforcement which is well documented to work. With this specific treatment: It clearly works at slowing cars down and making it easier for pedestrians to seamlessly cross the road.

    Changing the layout of roads is also apart of it. One of the largest criticism of the 30km/h limit was that they were putting in a lower limit without changing the road and that the zone was not clearly marked, now they are changing at least some key parts of some of the road and making the zone entry points as clear as a bright day. It's a good start.

    On this specific treatment: Put its this way, I find it very hard to believe that your actually believe that reducing the distance pedestrians have to cross by half and slowing cars down does not make it easier and safer for pedestrians. It's about giving a bit of priority back to pedestrians.

    It's worth repeating:
    • It's beside a school (as well as part of a third level college).
    • It's an entry treatment for a 30km/h zone.
    • It's in one the most densely populated areas in the county.
    • Within the city centre / within the canals (as defined by an NTA breakdown of census data), where 50% of residents walk or cycle to work (more walk).
    • It borders on the electoral divisions Rotunda A, where 49.73% of residents just walk, and Inns Quay C, where 47.57% of residents do the same. The other surrounding electoral divisions are in the range of 40% to 50% of residents who walk.




  • You're still not saying there IS a problem at this junction. Just that there maybe all things considered. I'm just saying in my anecdotal experience (flawed as that is) I've never had a problem there. Its either empty or so busy traffic is reduced to a crawl.

    Or that making drivers aware of the zone will reduce speeds. (Considering the media coverage of it previously.)




  • Vic_08 wrote: »
    Is there any street that does not need to get large vehicles through on occasions?

    Refuse collection would be one obvious requirement, another much more serious concern would be the inability of fire tenders being able to get close to certain buildings in the event of an emergency call.

    The total ignorance shown by the city's road engineers to accomodating large vehicles is a disgrace, from full with speed humps on major corridors that have frequent bus routes to pointless traffic calming constructions.

    I disagree, the flagrant and unsupportable use of excessively large corner radii is one of the more embarrassing aspects of Irish roads engineering practice.

    If you design for the convenience of large vehicles, you are also designing for inappropriate turning speeds by most other vehicles (including cyclists :D)

    The curious Irish practice of using excessive visibility envelopes also has the same effect - encouraging drivers to try and keep moving rather than stopping to assess the traffic conditions, or yield to crossing pedestrians, first.

    The end result is an inherently more hostile roads environment for both pedestrians and cyclists. These engineering problems are then compounded by the apparent absence of an effective national police service - as already averted to by BostonB.




  • BostonB wrote: »
    You're still not saying there IS a problem at this junction. Just that there maybe all things considered. I'm just saying in my anecdotal experience (flawed as that is) I've never had a problem there. Its either empty or so busy traffic is reduced to a crawl.

    Not sure what you mean by a 'problem'.

    With your example in London of Exhibition Road, I'm sure many people would say the same thing: "There was no problem to start with." Same with Henry Street, Grafton Street, and O'Connell Street before those streets were updated, and the many streets around King's Inns Street which had older treatments -- some of people would have said that there was no problem and that the traffic calming was 'pointless'

    BostonB wrote: »
    Or that making drivers aware of the zone will reduce speeds. (Considering the media coverage of it previously.)

    The media coverage was all over the place -- there were people highly confused because of it. For example, may commenting on radio stations and on boards too understood wrongly the the full length of the quays were included!




  • I don't there's any value in a comparison of any sort to be made between the 3 busiest shopping streets in the country vs this street.




  • BostonB wrote: »
    I don't there's any value in a comparison of any sort to be made between the 3 busiest shopping streets in the country vs this street.

    The value isn't in comparing the streets, it's in comparing the type of claim you are making that 'there is no problem' and claims by others that these other projects were not needed and the idea that there was no problem before they were built.

    It's more about address a balance than it is about fixing any one problem.

    The fact you're trying to lower the value of King's Inns Street is fine because pedestrians walking along Bolton Street are the real winners here.


  • Advertisement


  • Could you be more vague. They are the winner of what exactly. Address the balance of what.




  • BostonB wrote: »
    Could you be more vague. They are the winner of what exactly. Address the balance of what.

    The balance of who gets priority and space in the built environment.

    And pedestrians 'win':
    • A flat surface without dips across the junction which is at the same level of the footpaths at both ends -- which is good and great for prams, older people, wheelchair users and other disabled people.
    • About a 50% reduction in the crossing distance which is shared with other traffic
    • Traffic slowed down at the junction and a bit also along Bolton Street.




  • Will they be doing that at every similar junction in the 30 zone.




  • BostonB wrote: »
    Will they be doing that at every similar junction in the 30 zone.

    Why don't you ask the council?

    But it's worth noting that there is already some type of calming and/or traffic lights at many of the junctions when entering the zone.




  • From experience I'll get a vague answer that not backed up with any metrics to determine if something is needed, or achieved its aimed.

    For example a junction locally after spending months to widen the road, where they bottleneck a bus route down to one lane, and installed two sets of lights, the reason given was to allow traffic to turn left. Not that was ever a problem before with it.

    Another is why some roundabouts have cycle lanes, some have none, all on the same road. Or why some have a raised and off road cycle path on one side of the road but not the other. Or on one side of a roundabout but not the other.

    Or creating traffic islands reducing through put, creating traffic jams where none existed before. Often for pedestrian access where pedestrian traffic is negligible as there's nothing to walk to.

    Or in this case to give flat surface for one junction, and pinching. But there's none on the junction opposite. But maybe no body walks that side.




  • Sweet bike racks though. Like to have them at work.




  • BostonB wrote: »
    From experience I'll get a vague answer that not backed up with any metrics to determine if something is needed, or achieved its aimed.

    For example a junction locally after spending months to widen the road, where they bottleneck a bus route down to one lane, and installed two sets of lights, the reason given was to allow traffic to turn left. Not that was ever a problem before with it.

    Another is why some roundabouts have cycle lanes, some have none, all on the same road. Or why some have a raised and off road cycle path on one side of the road but not the other. Or on one side of a roundabout but not the other.

    Or creating traffic islands reducing through put, creating traffic jams where none existed before. Often for pedestrian access where pedestrian traffic is negligible as there's nothing to walk to.

    Or in this case to give flat surface for one junction, and pinching. But there's none on the junction opposite. But maybe no body walks that side.

    Yes there is a crying need for some form of oversight body on these matters. Unfortunately at the moment there is a "you scratch my back and we'll scratch yours" relationship between the Department of Transport and the local authority roads engineers.

    It is difficult to know how to address this since they are both part of the problem along with the NTA who produce the guidance that allows all kinds of things to happen.

    This is a wider problem than road design and goes back to an "output based model" of civil service career advancement rather than an "outcome based" model. The people who implement these schemes get promoted for spending budgets within budgetary cycles. The idea of any cost-benefit analysis is alien to the system - indeed it fundamentally threatens it.




  • BostonB wrote: »
    From experience I'll get a vague answer that not backed up with any metrics to determine if something is needed, or achieved its aimed.

    They might end up like me going around in circles making some of the same points over and over. :o:D
    BostonB wrote: »
    For example a junction locally after spending months to widen the road, where they bottleneck a bus route down to one lane, and installed two sets of lights, the reason given was to allow traffic to turn left. Not that was ever a problem before with it.

    Another is why some roundabouts have cycle anes, some have none, all on the same road. Or why some have a raised and off road cycle path on one side of the road but not the other. Or n one side of a roundabout but not the other.

    I agree that councils can do things which seem strange and sometimes which are strange.

    Sometimes I think they need to work directly with the public more -- not just via councillors, but directly with the public in more public ways. It would not be without problems, it might be worth spending a little more of their limited time engaging with people directly and it could end up saving time (not having to answering questions, explaining things and making things clearer so there's less chances of things blowing up in their face -- 30km/h, bus gate)

    BostonB wrote: »
    Or creating traffic islands reducing through put, creating traffic jams where none existed before. Often for pedestrian access where pedestrian traffic is negligible as there's nothing to walk to.

    To be blunt: Because of your views on the main subject at hand, and even if I know nothing about this example but can't really trust you here (on things like negligible pedestrian traffic).

    BostonB wrote: »
    Or in this case to give flat surface for one junction, and pinching. But there's none on the junction opposite. But maybe no body walks that side.

    The other side is mainly only dead end, isn't an entry to the 30km/h zone, isn't at a school, and you can't do everything at once.

    Also as a wider point -- on strategy -- the city council is looking theirs for the "public realm" -- http://www.dublincity.ie/Planning/Documents/Draft_PRS_291111_web.pdf




  • Lapin wrote: »
    It looks hideous.
    Indeed it is.

    Why do they call it "traffic-calming" when it's traffic-creating rather? Every new bottleneck costs Dublin millions and perhaps billions of euros per day by backing up the traffic further into the Wicklow Mountains or other hinterlands and creating more and more delays getting to/from work (for commuters) and to/from the shops (for those retail businesses that are still in the city)...as well as increasing vehicle emissions for those concerned with such things (NOx, sulphur compounds and carbon monoxide being the most serious). And as for public transport, there's no hurry to convert bus operations to trolleybus or even street-bound tram, so no reduction in fossil fuel consumption on that end either; and no proper metro to be built that may have a chance of bypassing the street and motorway backups. It'll end up wrecking Dublin's economy further than it's been wrecked.


  • Advertisement


  • I asked a simple question are their any metrics for the placement of these things. The answer seems to be no. It done on best guess. Personally thats too woolly for the money being spent.

    Then there that PR wet dream of a document like that. Which is very short on data, and long on blather. There seems to be a disconnect between the aspirational objectives, and the execution of them.

    Classic example is the dire cycle lane infrastructure which seems to have no input from anyone with any experience of cycling requirements or common sense for that matter. Or how awkward it can be to cycle the main routes through and around the city. With bus only and tram only lanes forcing circular routes on cyclists.


Advertisement