how much money wasted at clonskeagh road "cycle lane"?

Plasid

These road works that seem to have been in place for months have now moved to the opposite side of the road, but any cyclist using the new "lane" like to comment of the appalling surface applied and the nice kerb? I just wonder will the next section be as poor quality and have a little edge to "hop" off while turning into UCD?

Any contact in DunL/R council to ask these questions re cost? Probably same person responsible to the cycle journey machine placed thereabouts that misses all the right hand turning bikes going into the college...

Bristolscale7

photos?

lamaq

Haven't seen the finished version yet but you would have to wonder why that section was chosen, there was nothing wrong with it before.

Plasid

I'll grab some photos 2moro if i get a chance, I just hate wasted money on poorly conceived and executed plans

Zen0

Been meaning to have a rant about that cycle journey counter notice machine thingy for some time. Where it's positioned it obscures the view by motorists coming out from the left of cyclists approaching the junction. Obviously not designed by a cyclist.

As for the new cycle path, I don't like it. The kerb on it makes it more dangerous to pass a slow cyclist.

Ninap

Haven't used it yet, but thought it looked reasonably decent; much better than the usual bike lanes (ie, continues through junctions without nonsensical 'Yield' signs etc)

Jovetic

Bugs me people that park in cycle lanes. It's not somewhere to pull over :mad:

Mr. Grieves

It has appalling drainage, after it rains it's covered in standing water.

Going in the opposite direction, they seem to have removed the left-turning lane onto Bird Avenue and widened the painted cycle lane, not really sure why.

reallyunique

I like the new bike lane at UCD, the little kerb isn't so big that I can't hop onto the road if I need to but it encourages cars to keep out. Drainage is a problem though and the surface isn't as smooth as it might be. It feels safer than before and it's wider too. I don't consider this type of cycling infrastructure to be a waste of money.
The removal of the left-turn lane to Bird Avenue is a great idea. The previous solution of having a cycle lane crossing the left-turn lane ending up in the middle of the road was ill advised. Again the lane is wider and feels like part of the design rather than something tacked on afterwards.

@Zen0: The lane is wide enough for me to pass slower traffic with a reasonable margin to spare, even if you get pushed toward the road the "drop" is only about 1cm. Most roads seem to have gouges deeper than that so it shouldn't be a problem.

@Iamaq: Agreed, it wasn't the area I would have chosen to fix but I guess they were re-surfacing near the Mosque and probably doing a few other bits in the area and thought "what the heck!".

DLR seem to be doing their best to improve things for cyclists on Churchtown Rd and even on parts of the N11 (still hate the UCD-Donnybrook bit). It's not exactly Dutch standard but it's a lot better than what was there before.

kenmc

you do know that you don't have to use it, don't you?

monument

It's part of the Luas-UCD-Dart cycle route.

Details here:
http://www.dlrcoco.ie/newsevents/latestnews/title,8755,en.html

Drawings here: http://www.dlrcoco.ie/media/media,8757,en.pdf

€250,000 has been recently earmarked for the UCD-Luas section: http://irishcycle.com/2014/01/20/cycling-ranks-high-in-e32m-funding-for-greater-dublin-area-transport-projects/

Tourman

you do know that you don't have to use it, don't you

As a cyclist it galls me to see cyclist using the road when a reasonable cycle lane exists. Its surly much safer in the lane than trying to share than busy road space with cars, lorries and buses. Its up to us as cyclist first and fore most to attend to our own safety.
Just because we can use the road space doesn't me we should.

omicron

monument wrote: »

It's part of the Luas-UCD-Dart cycle route.

Details here:
http://www.dlrcoco.ie/newsevents/latestnews/title,8755,en.html

Drawings here: http://www.dlrcoco.ie/media/media,8757,en.pdf

€250,000 has been recently earmarked for the UCD-Luas section: http://irishcycle.com/2014/01/20/cycling-ranks-high-in-e32m-funding-for-greater-dublin-area-transport-projects/

250000 for one section of cycle lane and some signs through mulvey park seems to be a bit of a waste.

greasepalm

and for all that money spent means longer qs for motorists in the morning with single lane traffic now at turning for bird ave,it still wont stop cyclists running through the red light there.

AltAccount

Tourman wrote: »

you do know that you don't have to use it, don't you

As a cyclist it galls me to see cyclist using the road when a reasonable cycle lane exists. Its surly much safer in the lane than trying to share than busy road space with cars, lorries and buses. Its up to us as cyclist first and fore most to attend to our own safety.
Just because we can use the road space doesn't me we should.

Define reasonable...

Nice rant though!

Brian?

Tourman wrote: »

you do know that you don't have to use it, don't you

As a cyclist it galls me to see cyclist using the road when a reasonable cycle lane exists. Its surly much safer in the lane than trying to share than busy road space with cars, lorries and buses. Its up to us as cyclist first and fore most to attend to our own safety.
Just because we can use the road space doesn't me we should.

Admittedly I live outside the city, but I have yet to encounter a cycle lane where I felt safer that cycling on the road parallel to it. I'd also gues I'm not in the minority in preferring to use the road for safety reasons.

Tourman

AltAccount wrote: »

Define reasonable...

Nice rant though!

Oxford pocket Dictionary defines it as Fair or moderate.

AltAccount

Tourman wrote: »

Oxford pocket Dictionary defines it as Fair or moderate.

Very clever.

How do you describe a fair or moderate bike Lane that cyclists are being unreasonable in avoiding it?

Tourman

Brian? wrote: »

Admittedly I live outside the city, but I have yet to encounter a cycle lane where I felt safer that cycling on the road parallel to it. I'd also gues I'm not in the minority in preferring to use the road for safety reasons.

Just because it feels its doesn't make it safer. You are less likely to be hit by a vehicle in a cycle lane. But you probably couldn't travel as quickly on a cycle lane. Well I can't any way

Tourman

AltAccount wrote: »

Very clever.

How do you describe a fair or moderate bike Lane that cyclists are being unreasonable in avoiding it?

My comments concern the cycle lanes I use along the N11 from Loughlinstown to Nutley lane. After that it does get a little erratic.
The cycle lane by the N11 going the other direction, from Donnybrook Church to Bray.

And for the most part the cycle lane along the road from Sandyford to the back gate at UCD where the new lay out this post concerns.

copacetic

monument wrote: »

It's part of the Luas-UCD-Dart cycle route.

Details here:
http://www.dlrcoco.ie/newsevents/latestnews/title,8755,en.html

Drawings here: http://www.dlrcoco.ie/media/media,8757,en.pdf

€250,000 has been recently earmarked for the UCD-Luas section: http://irishcycle.com/2014/01/20/cycling-ranks-high-in-e32m-funding-for-greater-dublin-area-transport-projects/

Wow, that's a crazy plan, I've never heard of anyone walking to booterstown dart from UCD, wonder why route doesn't go down greenfield park and nutley Lane.

Diarmuid

greasepalm wrote: »

and for all that money spent means longer qs for motorists in the morning with single lane traffic now at turning for bird ave,it still wont stop cyclists running through the red light there.

I cycle that route every morning. It's bumper to bumper for kilometers. The left turning lane was 30meters long (if that). The absence of the lane is going to make no practical difference to the journey times on that road.

I have no idea why you would think it would or should change the RLJ there. Maybe you felt the post was missing a logical fallacy

kenmc

Tourman wrote: »

you do know that you don't have to use it, don't you

As a cyclist it galls me to see cyclist using the road when a reasonable cycle lane exists. Its surly much safer in the lane than trying to share than busy road space with cars, lorries and buses. Its up to us as cyclist first and fore most to attend to our own safety.
Just because we can use the road space doesn't me we should.

good road > reasonable cycle lane.

Tourman

kenmc wrote: »

good road > reasonable cycle lane.

Safety and concern for other road users . The sections I mention surface on cycle path as good as road.

Tourman

Maybe going a little off topic with road versus cycle track. My fault .it might need a different thread.

buffalo

Tourman wrote: »

you do know that you don't have to use it, don't you

As a cyclist it galls me to see cyclist using the road when a reasonable cycle lane exists. Its surly much safer in the lane than trying to share than busy road space with cars, lorries and buses. Its up to us as cyclist first and fore most to attend to our own safety.
Just because we can use the road space doesn't me we should.

Yep, we should all get out of the way of the motor vehicles, lest their drivers be incompetent enough to hit us. Well said!

In fact, it's probably safer if we just don't cycle at all. We should all walk - but only on footpads of course, and the footpads should have five foot high concrete barriers separating them from the road. Just in case.

Oh wait, what about the houses with driveways? Those cars have to drive across the footpath... Tunnels - we'll put the footpaths underground, where the cars can't go. In fact, there's already a sewer system in place, we can just use that to walk in.

There we go, we should abandon our bikes and instead use the sewer to get from place to place. Sure we'll reek of human waste, but it's "much safer than trying to share than busy road space with cars, lorries and buses".

Tourman

buffalo wrote: »

Yep, we should all get out of the way of the motor vehicles, lest their drivers be incompetent enough to hit us. Well said!

In fact, it's probably safer if we just don't cycle at all. We should all walk - but only on footpads of course, and the footpads should have five foot high concrete barriers separating them fr

Oh wait, what about the houses with driveways? Those cars have to drive across the footpath... Tunnels - we'll put the footpaths underground, where the cars can't go. In fact, there's already a sewer system in place, we can just use that to walk in.

There we go, we should abandon our bikes and instead use the sewer to get from place to place. Sure we'll reek of human waste, but it's much safer than trying to share than busy road space with cars, lorries and buses.

A well balanced , reasoned and rational argument.

buffalo

Tourman wrote: »

A well balanced , reasoned and rational argument.

Thank you, sometimes I surprise even myself.

kenmc

Tourman wrote: »

Safety and concern for other road users . The sections I mention surface on cycle path as good as road.

so why are you commenting on something else then?

reallyunique

My kids "feel" safer on a dedicated cycle path. My wife, who commutes every day by bike but hates cycling (but less than taking the car, walking or bus) also feels safer. I like them too when I'm not in a hurry, which is not that often.
Thing is, I'm a looney. I cycle on the roads with traffic that can't/won't see me or consider my safety and I think that's fine, which is pretty daft behaviour as far as most people are concerned. The cycle paths make normal people feel that cycling is less of an adventure sport and more like something that they might do.
If it gets them out of their cars and has them clogging up all the cycle lanes then there'll be more space on the roads for looneys like me.
Dedicated cycling infrastructure good!

monument

omicron wrote: »

250000 for one section of cycle lane and some signs through mulvey park seems to be a bit of a waste.

I don't agree with a lot of the detail in the plan (mainly the shared use and shared crossings), but in fairness, there's more than just one section of cycle lane....

There's a few sections of cycle lanes and raised paths linked together on the UCD side; there's a section of new cycle path along a green area; there's a contra-flow lane/path on the Luas end; there's kerbs moved at a few sections throughout including footpath buildouts / junction turn tightening, there's new tocan crossings; there's signs throughout; there's likely a good deal of resurfacing and possablly some diversions of water or telecoms services.

Keep in mind: Normal pedestrian crossings start at at least €10,000 each.

copacetic wrote: »

Wow, that's a crazy plan, I've never heard of anyone walking to booterstown dart from UCD, wonder why route doesn't go down greenfield park and nutley Lane.

In my view the shared use sections lower the quality of the walking experance, but to be fair to those who planned the route, idea is to improve the walking environment along the route for people walking different parts of it (ie Luas-UCD or UCD-Dart and all the points in-between), it's not expected that many would walk from the full distance from the Luas line to the Dart.

A report suggests that the signs on both sides will direct people to UCD, not to the transport modes on the opposite sides of the college.