Cyclists in bus lanes (cut from 'giving way to buses' thread)

bmaxi

The whole idea of bus lanes is to shorten bus journey times, so logically buses coming out of bus lanes should always have priority or any advantage
is lost. As usual in Ireland, these things are introduced in a ham fisted way, more for visual than practical effect, politicians showing how advanced in thinking they are without considering the full picture. It's easy to paint lines on roads when they mean fcuk all, for instance, I can never understand why bicycles are allowed to share bus lanes, they should have a dedicated lane to themselves although, having said that, they probably wouldn't use them. Just the other day I came across three buses stuck behind a bicycle in the bus lane on Stillorgan Road, even though there is a perfectly good cycle lane on the footpath. Proper penalties and a modicum of enforcement would solve a lot of our traffic congestion problems but apparently there are only two road traffic offences on the statute books, ironically the two which are most easily detected with the minimum of effort.

JayRoc

bmaxi wrote: »

Just the other day I came across three buses stuck behind a bicycle in the bus lane on Stillorgan Road, even though there is a perfectly good cycle lane on the footpath.

I know you mean well and I know it can be hard to understand, but do you think being chased by 3 buses, and taxi's and whatever else, many of whom beep or aggressively accelerate at you, come close to sideswipe you to "teach you a lesson" is fun? Do you think cyclists enjoy it?
Why, then, do you think we don't use the bicycle paths? Seriously?

bmaxi

JayRoc wrote: »

I know you mean well and I know it can be hard to understand, but do you think being chased by 3 buses, and taxi's and whatever else, many of whom beep or aggressively accelerate at you, come close to sideswipe you to "teach you a lesson" is fun? Do you think cyclists enjoy it?
Why, then, do you think we don't use the bicycle paths? Seriously?

Did you read my post before you replied? There was a perfectly good cycle lane not five feet away, where the nasty buses and taxis couldn't get you.

markpb

bmaxi wrote: »

Did you read my post before you replied? There was a perfectly good cycle lane not five feet away, where the nasty buses and taxis couldn't get you.

Maybe the cycle lane isn't as good as you think?

Cookie_Monster

bmaxi wrote: »

Did you read my post before you replied? There was a perfectly good cycle lane not five feet away, where the nasty buses and taxis couldn't get you.

his point was clearly that the bus lane under those conditions is still preferable to the awful cycle lane

bmaxi

markpb wrote: »

Maybe the cycle lane isn't as good as you think?

How good does it have to be? It's certainly in better condition than most of the roads in the city, given that it has no heavy vehicles using it and it's on a footpath that is at least 15ft. wide. Why don't you call out there and have a look?

bmaxi

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

his point was clearly that the bus lane under those conditions is still preferable to the awful cycle lane

http://goo.gl/maps/iTNHP

If you call this an awful cycle lane I really don't know what you want.

markpb

bmaxi wrote: »

http://goo.gl/maps/iTNHP If you call this an awful cycle lane I really don't know what you want.

It's an okay cycle lane but it's got some flaws that jump out at me. There's a bus stop behind the cycle lane which means embarking passengers will block the cycle lane and disembarking passengers will cross the cycle lane to get to the footpath.

There's the entrances to Beechwood court and the house after the bus stop. In both cases, the cycle lane drops to road height which means there's no visual or physical indication to drivers that they're crossing a cycle lane. You'd be surprised how many drivers dont realise a cycle lane is there and turn left without checking over their shoulder.

The same could be said for the slip left, there's not much visual indication and no physical indication that drivers should give way to cyclists continuing straight ahead. Gotta slow down for this one so you don't get t boned. Of course, if you slow down, you run the risk that a driver will think you're giving them priority to cross in front of you so now you've gotta stop completely.

Then there's the excellently located sign encroaching onto the cycle lane for a nice trip hazard. and of course at the start, the cycle lanes whose only segregation from the footpath is white paint which doesn't do much to deter pedestrians. Gotta take those fairly slowly, some one could walk out in front of you inadvertently.

None of them are awful by themselves but that's just 500m of road.

monument

bmaxi wrote: »

http://goo.gl/maps/iTNHP

If you call this an awful cycle lane I really don't know what you want.

I'd call it an awful cycle lane!

How about some basics like it being a decent width?

Scortho wrote: »

A bus should be in the bus lane. It's there for the bus. Keep out of the driving lane. He's slowing down the traffic of other road users.
At the end of the day I can't drive in the bus lane so why should he be in the driving lane.
In other cities the bus stays in the bus lane, regardless of traffic conditions.
Also if that's the case, since there's little traffic surely the bus lane should be open to cars as well?

The bus lane they are talking about are not fit for use when traffic is at full flow.

And you can take it that all lanes are lanes for buses -- just as all lanes are lanes for bicycles.

Scortho

monument wrote: »

I'd call it an awful cycle lane!

How about some basics like it being a decent width?



The bus lane they are talking about are not fit for use when traffic is at full flow.

And you can take it that all lanes are lanes for buses -- just as all lanes are lanes for bicycles.

I'm on about the bus lane on the chapelizod bypass. If a bus is going straight and there is a bus lane provided then they should be in the bus lane. End of.
Also if a cycle lane is provided when I'm cycling I cycle in it. If there's no cycle lane I cycle in the most safe part of the road for me to cycle on with as little inconvenience to drivers as possible.

steamengine

bmaxi wrote: »

http://goo.gl/maps/iTNHP

If you call this an awful cycle lane I really don't know what you want.

There seems to be varying opinions but I would agree with your sentiment. What I do think exists amongst a minority of cyclists is a common agenda which could be best described as a 'cycling rights movement', the aims of which are an infinite amount of road for themselves and zero other vehicles impinging on their space. It is really difficult for other road users to absorb why cyclists should be able to block buses in a bus lane when there is an adjacent cycle lane, or even out of common courtesy just pull in and let the bus pass.

markpb

steamengine wrote: »

There seems to be varying opinions but I would agree with your sentiment. What I do think exists amongst a minority of cyclists is a common agenda which could be best described as a 'cycling rights movement', the aims of which are an infinite amount of road for themselves and zero other vehicles impinging on their space. It is really difficult for other road users to absorb why cyclists should be able to block buses in a bus lane when there is an adjacent cycle lane, or even out of common courtesy just pull in and let the bus pass.

I agree that there are some ignorant cyclists out there who should know better but I've given a list of reasons why it would be unsafe to use that particular cycle lane. I've no problem with any cyclist using the road while substandard cycle facilities exist - to do otherwise just sends a message that the lane is acceptable. It means the LA will build the same rubbish again and means that other road users believe that any cyclist not using cycle lanes is being awkward.

I don't think most motorists understand that a bad cycle lane is not like a bad road - it could be lethal, not just uncomfortable.

monument

steamengine wrote: »

There seems to be varying opinions but I would agree with your sentiment. What I do think exists amongst a minority of cyclists is a common agenda which could be best described as a 'cycling rights movement', the aims of which are an infinite amount of road for themselves and zero other vehicles impinging on their space. It is really difficult for other road users to absorb why cyclists should be able to block buses in a bus lane when there is an adjacent cycle lane, or even out of common courtesy just pull in and let the bus pass.

Amazingly such problems don't arise in countries and cities where cycle paths are designed to a decent standard.

OR

What I do think exists amongst a minority of posters is a common agenda which could be best described as a 'not having a clue about cycling movement', the aims of which to keep cyclists out of their way at all costs and to even go as far as making out our crap cycle lanes are just dandy.

steamengine wrote: »

It is really difficult for other road users to absorb why cyclists should be able to block buses in a bus lane when there is an adjacent cycle lane, or even out of common courtesy just pull in and let the bus pass.

It's an indication of how poor the cycle lanes are. But why can't you see that?

ArmaniJeanss

bmaxi wrote: »

http://goo.gl/maps/iTNHP

If you call this an awful cycle lane I really don't know what you want.

Looking at the layout ahead I'd be doing the same as that cyclist, the bus stop lane situation looks a bit of a mess. And theres a few little traps and pitfalls in the cycle lane also, overhanging signs, change of level, steps to be negotiated.

I doubt he/she held up the buses much anyway, they are after all going to have to pull in the stop 150 metres later anyway.

Iwannahurl

bmaxi wrote: »

http://goo.gl/maps/iTNHP

If you call this an awful cycle lane I really don't know what you want.

Yes, it's a really magnificent free-flowing cycle highway, the likes of which would make even the Dutch envious.

JayRoc

monument wrote: »

It's an indication of how poor the cycle lanes are. But why can't you see that?

Exactly the point I attempted to make to someone earlier.
If I were a driver looking at a cyclist riding on the road, beside a "perfectly good" cycle path, I would wonder what was wrong with the cycle path.

This doesn't seem to occur to a lot of people behind the wheel.

I don't particularly enjoy inconveniencing other road users, even if it's only delaying them for a couple of seconds, because apart from anything else it makes them aggressive and as a cyclist I am automatically vulnerable.

But my point (as I thought I made clear) is that even taking that into consideration I will use an off-road cycle path about half the time if I'm commuting on my mountain bike.

If I'm on a road bike I will almost never use them, it simply isn't safe

SeanW

BenShermin wrote: »

Typical Irish attitude here, did you ever stop to consider that cars (not cyclists) are the reason the bus is blocked?

I didn't realise that the cars were blocking the bus in the bus lane. If only there had been lanes for the cars that they were using, legally and within their rights. :rolleyes:

If lanes two and three were not full of cars the bus could have easily crossed into lane two to overtake the cyclists.

Or *crazy idea* the cyclist could actually have used the cycle lane provided for them and not intentionally blocked the buses.

If all the drivers in lane two decided to cycle or take public transport instead there wouldn't be any problem, would there?

Because the world is full of countries were every single motorist has decided to pack in the car? :rolleyes:

SeanW

JayRoc wrote: »

If I were a driver looking at a cyclist riding on the road, beside a "perfectly good" cycle path, I would wonder what was wrong with the cycle path.

You obviously are never a pedestrian in any of Irelands main cities.

This doesn't seem to occur to a lot of people behind the wheel.

Probably because "a lot of people behind the wheel" either as motorists or in another context as pedestrians routinely observe cyclists disregarding the rules of the road. I've been in Dublin City Centre a lot the last two weeks and I've lost count of the number of times I've had to play "dodge the twat on the bike" while using the footpaths as a pedestrian. Reminds me of my time in Cork when I routinely encountered cyclists, but rarely on the road.

So yes, when I see a cyclist on the footpath or on the road ignoring a cycle lane, my first thought is "what's wrong with the cyclist?" because you can't even make cyclists to obey the law, it's only natural to expect them to take no notice of a good cycle lane.

BenShermin

steamengine wrote: »

What I do think exists amongst a minority of cyclists is a common agenda which could be best described as a 'cycling rights movement', the aims of which are an infinite amount of road for themselves and zero other vehicles impinging on their space.

Firstly, there's a huge difference between a critical mass* rally and just wanting clean, glass/debris free, safe cycle lane system in place.

It's amazing that in Netherlands cities where there is no space for cycle infrastructure, motorists and cyclists share the road in harmony in safe 30km/h zones. For some reason no road user needs an infinite amount of space for themselves.

Here in Ireland, motorists regularly break the speed limit in the pathetic small area of 30km/h zones that we have, putting cyclists and pedestrians in danger. Meanwhile cyclists are forced into the gutter by dangerous cycle lane markings and pedestrians are forced to wait stupidly long times behind red men at traffic lights because the flow of cars through our cities is more important. That's not sharing the road fairly, that's paving the way for the motor car! Until this unfair balance is resolved there'll never be harmony between all road users.

*for the record I can't stand these critical mass meetings. I don't see how severely delaying motorists and public transport users deliberately is supposed to help cyclists relationship with other road users at all. If anything it's seriously damaging to said relationship and imho they should be banned.

TheChizler

SeanW wrote: »

Or *crazy idea* the cyclist could actually have used the cycle lane provided for them and not intentionally blocked the buses.

If they were intentionally blocking the bus that's something else altogether. But it's more likely that they were there out of self preservation/getting to where they needed to go.

SeanW

BenShermin wrote: »

Here in Ireland, motorists regularly break the speed limit in the pathetic small area of 30km/h zones that we have, putting cyclists and pedestrians in danger.

There may be a good reason for 30kph speed limits in Dublin City Centre, but if you were a driver throughout our land you would know that many urban limits are mis applied, for example 50 and 60kph speed limits going way out into the countryside for no reason, and the supposed "danger" to pedestrians etc is only theoretical as there are some urban peripheral limits where you would have a better chance of being struck by lightening than meeting a pedestrian.

JayRoc

SeanW wrote: »

, it's only natural to expect them to take no notice of a good cycle lane.

I don't think you understand my point.
I am saying that it should, in theory, be more ATTRACTIVE for a cyclist to use an off-road cycle lane than to use a bus lane.
The fact that many of us don't should make drivers wonder why, no?

Chalking it up to a reluctance of cyclists to obey "rules" on principle is a bit silly.

(By the way, I spend at least an hour every working day walking across Dublin city centre and have done for years -
Dickheads on bikes cycling through pedestrian crossings against the lights aren't as common in my experience as other people's, but when it happens it's ridiculous and dangerous and no-one with any common sense would defend it)

BenShermin

SeanW wrote: »

I didn't realise that the cars were blocking the bus in the bus lane. If only there had been lanes for the cars that they were using, legally and within their rights. :rolleyes:

Legally and within rights the car drivers are doing nothing wrong, but in theory the cars are blocking the bus from overtaking the cyclists yes.

SeanW wrote: »

Or *crazy idea* the cyclist could actually have used the cycle lane provided for them and not intentionally blocked the buses.

Oh, so just because I decide not to use a dangerous, not fit for purpose cycle lane means I'm intentionally going out of my way to block buses:rolleyes:. Thankfully the majority of Dublin Bus drivers happen to be very understanding about this in my experience.

SeanW wrote: »

Because the world is full of countries were every single motorist has decided to pack in the car? :rolleyes:

I never said that, there's still plenty of room in lane three for cars:D!

SeanW

BenShermin wrote: »

I never said that, there's still plenty of room in lane three for cars:D!

You do realise that all the motorist would be breaking the law if they all travelled in lane 3?

BenShermin

SeanW wrote: »

There may be a good reason for 30kph speed limits in Dublin City Centre, but if you were a driver throughout our land you would know that many urban limits are mis applied, for example 50 and 60kph speed limits going way out into the countryside for no reason, and the supposed "danger" to pedestrians etc is only theoretical as there are some urban peripheral limits where you would have a better chance of being struck by lightening than meeting a pedestrian.

Completely agree, the speed limit system in this country is a joke. 50kph in parts of the city is just way too fast, but then 50kph on N and R roads in industrial areas and wide open country roads just leads to tailgating and dangerous overtaking. Don't get me started on some of the stupid 80kph and 100kph limits on narrow country L roads:mad:.

BenShermin

SeanW wrote: »

You do realise that all the motorist would be breaking the law if they all travelled in lane 3?

Well aware yes, but they don't seem to have a problem doing that all the time on the motorways...

Obviously the law would have to be changed.

Spook_ie

TheChizler wrote: »

If they were intentionally blocking the bus that's something else altogether. But it's more likely that they were there out of self preservation/getting to where they needed to go.

Or possibly that they didn't want to go to the extent of following the signs on the cycle path and actually yield to pedestrians, so they'd rather impede the bus full of passengers instead

monument

Spook_ie wrote: »

Or possibly that they didn't want to go to the extent of following the signs on the cycle path and actually yield to pedestrians, so they'd rather impede the bus full of passengers instead

While we're all going off topic...

Let's talk about taxis in bus lanes -- they clearly take up more space than cyclists and the volume of taxis slow buses down all around town.

...should we ban taxis from bus lanes?

SeanW

Taxis operate at the same speed as other road vehicles. They are also public transport.

steamengine

monument wrote: »

Amazingly such problems don't arise in countries and cities where cycle paths are designed to a decent standard.

OR

What I do think exists amongst a minority of posters is a common agenda which could be best described as a 'not having a clue about cycling movement', the aims of which to keep cyclists out of their way at all costs and to even go as far as making out our crap cycle lanes are just dandy.




It's an indication of how poor the cycle lanes are. But why can't you see that?

To answer your question, I've looked at the Google street view above posted by bmaxi, and I would have no bother cycling on it.

If I had to use a bus lane in lieu of a really poor cycle lane, then I would also be prepared to pull in to let a faster moving bus pass. Just common courtesy and an example of how cyclists can also play their part in giving way to buses. I have no agenda to keep this cyclist or any other out of the way.

monument

SeanW wrote: »

Taxis operate at the same speed as other road vehicles. They are also public transport.

Taxis are small public service vehicle, but they are not public transport. Taxi congestion is so bad in parts of Dublin that taxis are the main source of congestion.

At rush hour in places in central Dublin etc cyclists travel faster than most or all modes.

bmaxi

monument wrote: »

I'd call it an awful cycle lane!

How about some basics like it being a decent width?

What do you want, a dual carriageway for bikes? It's a single direction cycle lane, there's an identical one on the other side of the road. Why not go the whole hog and cover them in so little precious doesn't get wet or have to cope with a head wind, while we're at it we could level out all the hills. This could be paid for by ring fencing the contributions cyclists make to road tax, licence and excise duty pot.

bmaxi

monument wrote: »

Taxis are small public service vehicle, but they are not public transport. Taxi congestion is so bad in parts of Dublin that taxis are the main source of congestion.

At rush hour in places in central Dublin etc cyclists travel faster than most or all modes.

Of course they do, the don't have traffic lights, one way streets or pedestrians to slow them down, they just ignore them all.

GreeBo

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

(why for example would I take a bus to get from Sandyford to Blanch via the centre of town and 90 mins+ when I could just take the M50 and be there in 20 mins.

Because there probably arent too many people doing the same route that you want, so what time should that bus run at?
also, going via the CC means that that bus can also be used by people in both blanch and sandyford to get to town.

monument

bmaxi wrote: »

What do you want, a dual carriageway for bikes? It's a single direction cycle lane, there's an identical one on the other side of the road. Why not go the whole hog and cover them in so little precious doesn't get wet or have to cope with a head wind, while we're at it we could level out all the hills. This could be paid for by ring fencing the contributions cyclists make to road tax, licence and excise duty pot.

bmaxi wrote: »

Of course they do, the don't have traffic lights, one way streets or pedestrians to slow them down, they just ignore them all.

Exhibit a and exhibit b.

Reasons why your views on the quality of cycle paths should not be taken seriously.

BTW there's no such thing as road tax, and driver licence fees goes into the unneeded quango that is the RSA -- not something to boast too much about!

SeanW

monument wrote: »

Exhibit a and exhibit b.

Reasons why your views on the quality of cycle paths should not be taken seriously.

Whatever about "Exhibit a," the latter ("exhibit b") is most definitely true, as any pedestrian in our major cities can attest to.

BTW there's no such thing as road tax

It's a colloquial term. Maybe you should look it up :cool:

TheChizler

SeanW wrote: »

Whatever about "Exhibit a," the latter ("exhibit b") is most definitely true, as any pedestrian in our major cities can attest to.

It's a colloquial term. Maybe you should look it up :cool:

Is exhibit b not perhaps an exaggeration and generalisation?

Cookie_Monster

bmaxi wrote: »

Of course they do, the don't have traffic lights, one way streets or pedestrians to slow them down, they just ignore them all.

just like motorists ignore all speed limits, ambers, yellow boxes...
and while we're generalising pedestrians in the CC aren't angels either. Crossing without looking, plugged into their headphones etc?

bmaxi

monument wrote: »

Exhibit a and exhibit b.

Reasons why your views on the quality of cycle paths should not be taken seriously.

BTW there's no such thing as road tax, and driver licence fees goes into the unneeded quango that is the RSA -- not something to boast too much about!

Yet your views on providing superhighways for bikes are perfectly reasonable?
It's irrelevant what the taxes are called or where they eventually end up, the fact remains they have to be paid just for the privilege of being on the road. What do cyclists pay for the same privilege?

markpb

bmaxi wrote: »

It's irrelevant what the taxes are called or where they eventually end up, the fact remains they have to be paid just for the privilege of being on the road. What do cyclists pay for the same privilege?

Your problem is that some cyclists weren't using a cycle lane. I've pointed out why they weren't using it. Then you complained about cyclists not obeying the RTAs. Now you're talking about taxes. Is there an anti-cyclists thread somewhere that you got mixed up and thought you were replying to because the rest of us are talking about bus priority.

bmaxi

markpb wrote: »

Your problem is that some cyclists weren't using a cycle lane. I've pointed out why they weren't using it. Then you complained about cyclists not obeying the RTAs. Now you're talking about taxes. Is there an anti-cyclists thread somewhere that you got mixed up and thought you were replying to because the rest of us are talking about bus priority.

You're quite right, my original gripe was with cyclists not using the cycle lane, I don't believe cyclists should be using the bus lane the bus lane should be for buses and emergency vehicles only, thereby giving those vehicles priority. Later a poster said that the cyclist was probably using the bus lane because the cycle lane was in poor condition and I posted a picture of the cycle lane in question which I consider to be perfectly adequate. Following on that we had criticism of that particular cycle lane so I'm suggesting if cyclists want pristine conditions they should be prepared to pay for them, the normal way for other road users is through taxes.

LXFlyer

bmaxi wrote: »

You're quite right, my original gripe was with cyclists not using the cycle lane, I don't believe cyclists should be using the bus lane the bus lane should be for buses and emergency vehicles only, thereby giving those vehicles priority. Later a poster said that the cyclist was probably using the bus lane because the cycle lane was in poor condition and I posted a picture of the cycle lane in question which I consider to be perfectly adequate. Following on that we had criticism of that particular cycle lane so I'm suggesting if cyclists want pristine conditions they should be prepared to pay for them, the normal way for other road users is through taxes.

To be fair if you were to travel along the entire length of the N11 cycle lane on both sides of the road, you would find that much of it is nothing like that particular stretch and requires cyclists to constantly stop and start at every junction, irrespective of what the main traffic flow is doing, and is a constantly undulating surface.

bmaxi

lxflyer wrote: »

To be fair if you were to travel along the entire length of the N11 cycle lane on both sides of the road, you would find that much of it is nothing like that particular stretch and requires cyclists to constantly stop and start at every junction, irrespective of what the main traffic flow is doing, and is a constantly undulating surface.

That is the section to which I referred in my original post, it continues in much the same vein as far as Loughlinstown and from both perspectives, is infinitely preferable to cyclists being in the bus lane. As I said earlier, if cyclists want pristine conditions, let them pay for them.

Jack Kyle

I for one blast cyclists out of it with the horn if I see them on the road when they're a cycling lane off road.

I also blast cyclists out of it when they cycle two abreast.

Surveyor11

You sound like a right tw@t. There's a variety of cycling lanes and not all are mandatory. Cycling two abreast perfectly legal, but like everything consideration needs to be given. You don't sound like that type

Jack Kyle

Surveyor11 wrote: »

You sound like a right tw@t TBH

Sorry, I was blocked the other day by an inconsiderate cyclist on a road with an empty cycling path on the pavement.

Blasting him out of it for his stupidity was the right thing to do.

Jack Kyle

Surveyor11 wrote: »

You sound like a right tw@t. There's a variety of cycling lanes and not all are mandatory. Cycling two abreast perfectly legal, but like everything consideration needs to be given. You don't sound like that type

So your logic is as follows:

A cyclist ignores the cycling lane that has been provided for him and instead obstructs a motorist on the road. The motorist beeps his horn and he's an inconsiderate twat?

Two cyclists travel two abreast deliberately obstructing motorists instead of moving into single file and the motorist who asks them to switch to single file is an inconsiderate twat?

You need to learn the meaning of manners and giving due consideration to other people.

Surveyor11

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Sorry, I was blocked the other day by an inconsiderate cyclist on a road with an empty cycling path on the pavement.

Blasting him out of it for his stupidity was the right thing to do.

You need to chill out jack, Jesus what is it with some people?

Surveyor11

Jack Kyle wrote: »

You need to learn the meaning of manners and giving due consideration to other people.

I applaud your grasp of irony

No Pants

Jack Kyle wrote: »

I also blast cyclists out of it when they cycle two abreast.

Why? They're simply using the road that they paid for in a manner in which they're entitled to.

markpb

bmaxi wrote: »

I'm suggesting if cyclists want pristine conditions they should be prepared to pay for them, the normal way for other road users is through taxes.

That's a fair point and without mentioning that everyone pays taxes which, like motor tax, go into a general fund to pay for everything including roads, it's worth pointing out that I didn't ask for pristine cycle lanes, just ones that aren't stupid. Putting the bus stop in front of the cycle lane instead of behind it doesn't cost money. Keeping sigh posts off the cycle lane doesn't cost money. Not dishing kerbs so I don't feel like I'm cycling on a rollercoaster doesn't cost money. Most cyclists just want safety, not super highways.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

The amount of commuter traffic on the M50 going north-south or vice versa in the morning/evening would suggest that there are in fact a lot of people who are doing these orbital commutes to work so there's definitely a demand for say an orbital LUAS or express bus... certainly more so than a LUAS extension that'll disrupt most of the city centre and which terminates in a no-go area and with no real requirement for it given the areas it will serve are well covered by bus routes.

I think both are essential, it's not a battle between the two. The suburban industrial estates are huge areas of employment but aren't a fraction on the city centre.

Also the luas extension will end at a rail interchange and tram depot and pass by DITs new campus which will also be a huge trip generator. It's a relatively cheap and very useful train line of its own.