Walking & cycling route on Dublin's north quays "inevitable" (you must read post #1)

Jawgap

MODERATOR WARNING TO ALL:

Cut out the trolling and/or off topic posting or you be infracted.

Off-topic /trolling includes:

• Cyclist behavior (this is no more on topic here than it would be on topic to complain about motorists in a motorway project thread)
  
• Talking about banning cyclists from city streets such as the south quays which are not even national roads never mind not being motorways and having homes and businesses all the way along then
  
• Talking about a need to have cyclists trained, taxed, insured, or licensed is off-topic. There's a general cycling thread for such general discussion.

This does not apply to discussing what public figures have said about the above. But only if kept related to the topic.

Asking about why or how the project is funded is different and on-topic.

ENDS MODERATOR NOTE



Cycle route to cut Dublin Quays to one motor lane

Plans are being drawn up for a major change in traffic arrangements on Dublin’s north quays which would introduce a new two-way cycle lane and restrict private motorists to one lane instead of two.

City council chief executive Owen Keegan acknowledged the proposal would slow up traffic on the busy north quays, but said restricting the road space available to cars was essential as part of a sustainable transport system in the city.

Spook_ie

Jawgap wrote: »

Cycle route to cut Dublin Quays to one motor lane

And GUARANTEED that cyclists will still insist on using the south quays all the way rather than crossing a bridge and adding 100m to the journey

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Its a terrible idea. City center traffic is already diabolical on the North Quays. That plan would make the place impassable. Some people do still need to drive in and out of town. And I say that as a cyclist and a motorist.

ThisRegard

Spook_ie wrote: »

And GUARANTEED that cyclists will still insist on using the south quays all the way rather than crossing a bridge and adding 100m to the journey

You also have a crystal ball ?

People are people, some will always do something stupid. Same as to how taxis use unofficial ranks in the city centre, and block up Aston Quay by leaving the ass of their car sticking out into the traffic lane when they can't fit their car into the rank there.

No Pants

What's the benefit to having a two-way cycle lane on the North Quays and (presumably) no cycle lane on the South Quays?

It's highly unlikely that I will ever use either, I'm just curious.

Jawgap

Spook_ie wrote: »

And GUARANTEED that pedestrians will still walk in the new cycle lane, vehicles will still park in it and taxis will still pull across it to pick up / drop off farescyclists will still insist on using the south quays all the way rather than crossing a bridge and adding 100m to the journey

FYP

Jawgap

No Pants wrote: »

What's the benefit to having a two-way cycle lane on the North Quays and (presumably) no cycle lane on the South Quays?

It's highly unlikely that I will ever use either, I'm just curious.

South Quays (generally) takes traffic out of the city centre, north quays (generally) brings it in - I'm guessing the logic is that it's more beneficial to reduce the flow of inbound traffic, without compromising the flow of traffic away from the city centre.

ThisRegard

No Pants wrote: »

What's the benefit to having a two-way cycle lane on the North Quays and (presumably) no cycle lane on the South Quays?

It's highly unlikely that I will ever use either, I'm just curious.

Also probably because it's better to lose one lane in total rather than two.

Pinch Flat

ThisRegard wrote: »

You also have a crystal ball ?

Let's wait and see. Dublin is already choked with cars and people are seeking alternatives to the daily grind.

People coming from the west And north of the city that want to cycle find the quays the most intimidating part. A chance was lost with the Luas in that cycling could have been accommodated alongside.

The quays are already a bottle neck and a lot if drivers insist in coming this way even though there's viable alternatives to avoid it. And it's restricted to one lane anyway at the croppy acre.

Not sure if losing the parking is in this proposal - perhaps restrict to weekends. Having cars trying to reverse park on the quays adds to the mayhem

Jawgap

I presume the North Quays were selected because it would be easy enough to link up a cycle lane there with the Phoenix Park and the Chapelizod / Islandbridge riverside cycle path?

CramCycle

Spook_ie wrote: »

And GUARANTEED that cyclists will still insist on using the south quays all the way rather than crossing a bridge and adding 100m to the journey

Definitely, I think I might just go contra flow up the south quays just to be an ass if its brought in :rolleyes:

Jawgap wrote: »

South Quays (generally) takes traffic out of the city centre, north quays (generally) brings it in - I'm guessing the logic is that it's more beneficial to reduce the flow of inbound traffic, without compromising the flow of traffic away from the city centre.

That's exactly it, they had a guy talking on Newstalk breakfast this morning who quoted the DCC traffic manager and the aim, other than to promote cycling, was to encourage people to not drive in, use public transport, PSVs, or cycle and walk.

Spook_ie

Jawgap wrote: »

FYP

There is no need to continually try for quick jibes by posting FYP's.

If you disagree with my prediction that cyclists won't cross a bridge to access a dedicated lane on the opposite side of the quays thus rendering the idea as idiotic and wasteful, then please feel free to contribute.

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

You also have a crystal ball ?

People are people, some will always do something stupid. Same as to how taxis use unofficial ranks in the city centre, and block up Aston Quay by leaving the ass of their car sticking out into the traffic lane when they can't fit their car into the rank there.

Doesn't need a crystal ball, just an observation of people and their laziness, similar to taxi drivers being too lazy to ensure their arse isn't jutting out.

Pinch Flat

Spook_ie wrote: »

There is no need to continually try for quick jibes by posting FYP's.

If you disagree with my prediction that cyclists won't cross a bridge to access a dedicated lane on the opposite side of the quays thus rendering the idea as idiotic and wasteful, then please feel free to contribute.

Well the question will be if there are not dedicated cycling facilities on the south quays, will they be out of bounds to cyclists? I don't think so as it will limit people who wish to cycle from the south side of the city

Spook_ie

CramCycle wrote: »

Definitely, I think I might just go contra flow up the south quays just to be an ass if its brought in :rolleyes:


That's exactly it, they had a guy talking on Newstalk breakfast this morning who quoted the DCC traffic manager and the aim, other than to promote cycling, was to encourage people to not drive in, use public transport, PSVs, or cycle and walk.

Yeah well I would assume that you realised I was talking about people heading West on the North quay, rather than East on the South Quay :rolleyes:

Spook_ie

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Well the question will be if there are not dedicated cycling facilities on the south quays, will they be out of bounds to cyclists? I don't think so as it will limit people who wish to cycle from the south side of the city

Exactly, there are bus lanes on the South Quays, why would cyclists want to travel an extra 100 meters to head West?

Pinch Flat

Spook_ie wrote: »

Exactly, there are bus lanes on the South Quays, why would cyclists want to travel an extra 100 meters to head West?

I haven't see any if the plans or proposals. So it's difficult to visualise how this will be realised.

Plans like these usually go to public consultation. Why don't you raise these concerns there?

Spook_ie

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I haven't see any if the plans or proposals. So it's difficult to visualise how this will be realised.

Plans like these usually go to public consultation. Why don't you raise these concerns there?

You mean like here

https://consultation.dublincity.ie/

Pinch Flat

Spook_ie wrote: »

You mean like here

https://consultation.dublincity.ie/

Got it in one. Have you raised your concerns there?

Jawgap

Spook_ie wrote: »

Exactly, there are bus lanes on the South Quays, why would cyclists want to travel an extra 100 meters to head West?

That's thinking like a motorist or a pedestrian........


If the one thing the miles and miles of crap cycle lanes have proved, it's that if you build decent, well thought out, cycling infra-structure people on bikes will deviate towards it - varying their routes to use it, even if it means slightly extending the journey.

If you follow some of the discussions on routes (when people post asking for recommendations / suggestions to get from A to most of the responses tend to focus on the 'best' route in terms of safety, 'enjoyability,' etc rather than the shortest route.

Unlike a car journeys, sometimes on a bike there's more enjoyment to be had by extending one's commute.

CramCycle

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yeah well I would assume that you realised I was talking about people heading West on the North quay, rather than East on the South Quay :rolleyes:

I realised that but I was being slightly facetious. Why would I go over to the north quays if I am for example going to the Modern art museum and am already on the Southside? It creates more conflicts as I now must navigate extra junctions for a pointless 100metres. Whereas if I was going to Pheonix park or the four courts, then yes I would use it.

CramCycle

Jawgap wrote: »

Unlike a car journeys, sometimes on a bike there's more enjoyment to be had by extending one's commute.

If I felt that the south quays were uncomfortable or dangerous then I definitely would but I have cycled them many a time without issue.

Spook_ie

CramCycle wrote: »

I realised that but I was being slightly facetious. Why would I go over to the north quays if I am for example going to the Modern art museum and am already on the Southside? It creates more conflicts as I now must navigate extra junctions for a pointless 100metres. Whereas if I was going to Pheonix park or the four courts, then yes I would use it.

So it's a pointless exercise, most cyclists will go where they want to go NOT where DCC want them to, save the money and spend it on something more worthwhile, like extra traffic enforcement cameras and council enforcement officers

EDIT: FFS They could even spend it on bringing in a congestion charge enforced by traffic cams, less traffic no need for spending money on 2 way cycle lanes

CramCycle

Spook_ie wrote: »

So it's a pointless exercise, most cyclists will go where they want to go NOT where DCC want them to, save the money and spend it on something more worthwhile, like extra traffic enforcement cameras and council enforcement officers

Not at all, it serves many purposes, reduces traffic flow into the city, encouraging the use of public transport and cycling which will be hugely beneficial to pedestrians, the air quality, transport times for emergency vehicles etc.

Spook_ie

CramCycle wrote: »

Not at all, it serves many purposes, reduces traffic flow into the city, encouraging the use of public transport and cycling which will be hugely beneficial to pedestrians, the air quality, transport times for emergency vehicles etc.

Check the edit

ThisRegard

Spook_ie wrote: »

Exactly, there are bus lanes on the South Quays, why would cyclists want to travel an extra 100 meters to head West?

Less stress and hassle. I never cycled down the south quays any further than the Dublin Castle turn off, and even at that it was years ago.

When cycling, the Phoenix Park was on my route home and I'd take the canal and Kilmainham for a hassle free journey rather than the quays.

CramCycle

Spook_ie wrote: »

Check the edit

If petrol prices and the congestion charge in London have proved anything, its that people will pay, therefore achieving nothing. Dublin by its general layout also has a very small centre, so where does the congestion charge extend too? to small and you create traffic mayhem as people avoid it, too large and you will have so many exemptions for householders and businesses that it becomes pointless. If there is a congestion charge it still has to be affordable. The bottle necking of traffic like this also serves the purpose of hopefully keeping speed down and encouraging public transport as a viable option not just an affordable one.

No Pants

If DCC want to really promote cycling as a commuting option, they should put pressure on the Gardai to do something, anything, about bike thefts. The stolen bike thread is still going strong. I'd certainly be reluctant to bring my bike into the city centre.

Spook_ie

CramCycle wrote: »

If petrol prices and the congestion charge in London have proved anything, its that people will pay, therefore achieving nothing. Dublin by its general layout also has a very small centre, so where does the congestion charge extend too? to small and you create traffic mayhem as people avoid it, too large and you will have so many exemptions for householders and businesses that it becomes pointless. If there is a congestion charge it still has to be affordable. The bottle necking of traffic like this also serves the purpose of hopefully keeping speed down and encouraging public transport as a viable option not just an affordable one.

Like most traffic issues you'll never get 2 people to agree

According to TfL figures, traffic levels over the past 10 years have gone down by 10.2% but journey times for drivers have remained flat since 2007.

Barry Neil, whose east London-based company Ambient Computer Services travels into central London daily delivering computer equipment, claims this is evidence the congestion charge has failed.

He said: "We said when it launched it wasn't going to make any difference and unfortunately it hasn't.

"If it made it easier to drive through London, then great. But it doesn't. The jams are just as bad and it costs us £5,000 a year."

However, Elliot Jacobs, managing director of office supplies firm UOE, disagrees.

"Getting deliveries on time is really important and the congestion charge means we have a consistency of traffic flow and a reliability that we know where the traffic's going to be, and that's important.

"It means we can get there on time and that's worth £10 every day."

from http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-21451245

SeanW

CramCycle wrote: »

If petrol prices and the congestion charge in London have proved anything, its that people will pay, therefore achieving nothing.

Taxing necessities would have that effect alright :rolleyes:

No Pants

Spook_ie wrote: »

Like most traffic issues you'll never get 2 people to agree

from http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-21451245

That is interesting. Two people in fairly similar fields from what I can see (deliveries) and their experiences differ greatly. One even considers the £5k a year charge as value. Maybe they serve different areas of London, or one visits the city centre more often.

seamus

Spook_ie wrote: »

So it's a pointless exercise, most cyclists will go where they want to go NOT where DCC want them to, save the money and spend it on something more worthwhile, like extra traffic enforcement cameras and council enforcement officers

Some people will go where they want to go. Most will cycle on dedicated cycle lanes.
The grand canal is the best example of this; it's not necessarily the most convenient way of getting around, but you will notice that there are virtually zero cyclists using the roads alongside it, they almost all opt for the grand canal cycle lane. This effect extends out to other roads; I use the grand canal even though I know it's not necessarily the fastest way to get to my destination, but it is basically a cycling corridor which makes my life a little easier.

This scheme does need a little more thought - i.e. if I'm going from somewhere on the Southside to somewhere else on the southside via the quays, then I'm not going to cross the liffey and back again unless that's the easier option. It might make more sense to have a two-way cycle land on both sides of the liffey.

There are also other big traffic difficulties with this; at busy crossing points like the millenium bridge and Ha'penny bridge, crossing pedestrians are not going to yield to cyclists under any circumstances, because that's just what pedestrians do.

So I doubt this proposal is definite and ready to go at this stage. It has the potential to be done exceptionally badly.

CramCycle

SeanW wrote: »

Taxing necessities would have that effect alright :rolleyes:

But driving in the city centre is not and has not been a necessity for some time. You can park and ride for the LUAS, you can get DB and BE right into and out of the centre. With the exception of those who cannot use public transport for some valid reason eg a wheelchair user (and this is a flaw with some substandard buses that can be fixed) its rarely a necessity and for the few cases it is, you could have exceptions. You can drive around it if you want to get to the other side.

SeanW

CramCycle wrote: »

But driving in the city centre is not and has not been a necessity for some time. You can park and ride for the LUAS, you can get DB and BE right into and out of the centre.

Driving is a necessity, or at least a very radical improvement in ones quality of life, for many journeys, e.g. carrying lots of stuff or going somewhere that public transport is skimpy, indirect, inconvenient or non-existent, or at unusual times.

Specifically, driving through the City Centre is a necessity if you live in or near the CC and have to drive somewhere.

Tenzor07

Looks like the "Lord Mayor" Christy Burke is against more cycling infrastructure, just as well he has no real power!

http://jrnl.ie/1520537

SeanW

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Looks like the "Lord Mayor" Christy Burke is against more cycling infrastructure, just as well he has no real power!

http://jrnl.ie/1520537

Considering that the North Quays only has one lane for motorised traffic in places anyway, I would find it difficult not to agree that caution is required.

seamus

SeanW wrote: »

Specifically, driving through the City Centre is a necessity if you live in or near the CC and have to drive somewhere where there is no viable public transport option.

FYP.

I'm not sure why you chose the city centre for your example, as it's the worst you can give. If you live in the city centre you have the largest array of options for transport and the vast majority of people living in the city centre have no need for full time use of a vehicle. I know several city centre dwellers who have no car and take trains to go on holidays and use GoHop cars for stuff like going to Liffey Valley.

"Necessity" is not something which makes your life easier. A necessity is something without which your quality of life and access to everyday services drops drastically. Electricity is a necessity. A TV is not.
If you said that cars were a necessity for people living in very rural areas, I'd tend to agree. But in Dublin city centre people can and do function perfectly well (arguably better than rural dwellers) without cars all the time.

Tenzor07

SeanW wrote: »

Considering that the North Quays only has one lane for motorised traffic in places anyway, I would find it difficult not to agree that caution is required.

Do you mean one lane for Private motorised vehicles?

No Pants

SeanW wrote: »

Driving is a necessity, or at least a very radical improvement in ones quality of life, for many journeys, e.g. carrying lots of stuff or going somewhere that public transport is skimpy, indirect, inconvenient or non-existent, or at unusual times.

Hmm, I agree and disagree. I don't make many car journeys really, so please take this with a rather large pinch of salt, but it is my experience.

I avoid driving into or through the City Centre. I live in Swords and work in Blanch (sometimes). Only if I have to bring someone to a hospital appointment or something where they're going to be incapacitated in some way after, of buses not running, will I consider driving in. I was in the city centre last week and once the week before. Both times on the bus. Once the Swords Express, DB the second time.

For work, if I have to go into the office, I just cycle in. This requires a bit of planning earlier in the year, to drop in a lock, a towel and a can of deodorant. The missus works in the city centre. She stopped driving late last year and now just takes the bus. We even got rid of one car recently; we barely use the car enough to justify one, never mind two.

For shopping, I might use the bike during the week as I just need one or two things. If it's more, I walk. On a Saturday morning, I would probably use the car to save time. Last weekend I went camping, so I had to take a bunch of stuff along. That required the car.

SeanW wrote: »

Specifically, driving through the City Centre is a necessity if you live in or near the CC and have to drive somewhere.

True. I don't live there anymore, but I remember it well from '06/'07.

Tar.Aldarion

I would consider a car a waster of money as I live in the city.It would be gathering dust apart from the odd time I want it and even then you can get public transport or rent a car. I think i'll hold off until google are doing the driving for me

Tenzor07

SeanW wrote: »

Driving is a necessity, or at least a very radical improvement in ones quality of life, for many journeys, e.g. carrying lots of stuff or going somewhere that public transport is skimpy, indirect, inconvenient or non-existent, or at unusual times.
Specifically, driving through the City Centre is a necessity if you live in or near the CC and have to drive somewhere.

I find that statement bizarre! And in fact is quite the opposite!

if you live within the Dublin Canal borders then a car is just a luxury, not a necessity!
Between the Luas/Dart/Bus/Taxi options you also have Dublin bikes and your own two feet..

beauf

People will not move out of their cars unless there is a better option.

So you have to make cars a worse option, or make the other options better.

But at the same time still allowing people to use their cars who need to.

Tenzor07

Interesting!

“DUBLIN IS SEEN as an unsafe city for cycling – and that perception comes with an under reporting of incidents.

While the number of Dublin residents cycling to work has increased over the past six years, new research finds that the perceived lack of safety is holding people back from jumping on that bike.Cycling in Dublin may not be as safe as we thought,” he said, adding that there is a real turf war taking place between the different modes of transport in the city."

http://jrnl.ie/1520594

_Kaiser_

Saw this proposal this morning and I agree with some commentators that it's a very badly thought out idea.

Like it or not, most people travelling through the city centre by car are doing so because they HAVE to - because public transport is unreliable, irregular or unsuitable.. or even non-existent the further you go out.

Cutting the Quays down to effectively 1 traffic lane will only make a bad situation worse, and it won't lead to everyone joining the Bike to Work scheme despite what some people think. It'll only make the traffic jams worse than they are.

If we must have a(nother) ignored cycle lane, why not run it alongside the LUAS line from Hueston to O'Connell Street for example? Far less disruptive and safer as car traffic on this alignment is minimal/non-existent

Just because someone drives a car rather than enduring the trial that is public transport (unless you live along the leafy South Dublin suburbs with LUAS, DART and 46As aplenty) it does not mean that choice is any less valid, and if you want to encourage change then a better option needs to presented - not simply pricing cars out of the city and removing road space.

But the way some of the threads progress here you'd be forgiven for thinking someone had renamed this forum the PT/Cycling Forum rather than C&T

howiya

Spook_ie wrote: »

And GUARANTEED that cyclists will still insist on using the south quays all the way rather than crossing a bridge and adding 100m to the journey

People will always take the shortest route possible, not just cyclists.

If their journey is all the way along the south quays they would then have to cross two bridges, having to complete two right turns to get off and back onto the south quays.

Much easier to continue in a straight line.

LXFlyer

SeanW wrote: »

Driving is a necessity, or at least a very radical improvement in ones quality of life, for many journeys, e.g. carrying lots of stuff or going somewhere that public transport is skimpy, indirect, inconvenient or non-existent, or at unusual times.

Specifically, driving through the City Centre is a necessity if you live in or near the CC and have to drive somewhere.

Driving is certainly not a necessity.

I don't have a car, have never had one, and can certainly get around without one. I either walk or use public transport.

Yes there are times when it would be handy, but it is certainly not a necessity by any stretch of the imagination.

CramCycle

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Like it or not, most people travelling through the city centre by car are doing so because they HAVE to - because public transport is unreliable, irregular or unsuitable.. or even non-existent the further you go out.

Cutting the Quays down to effectively 1 traffic lane will only make a bad situation worse, and it won't lead to everyone joining the Bike to Work scheme despite what some people think. It'll only make the traffic jams worse than they are.

Just because someone drives a car rather than enduring the trial that is public transport (unless you live along the leafy South Dublin suburbs with LUAS, DART and 46As aplenty) it does not mean that choice is any less valid, and if you want to encourage change then a better option needs to presented - not simply pricing cars out of the city and removing road space.

Surely the LUAS running adjacent to the Quays could be used? Out of city car parking for those travelling from outside the M50?

It would be an interesting study to track motorised traffic at rush hour along the keys to see where most of it ends up going. Planners then have time to push public transport to facilitate the majority of users or even to step up the existing. available public transport to a useable level with the expected increase in users.

monument

Note: posts split from general cycling thread because there's a lot of interist in this project.

Spook_ie

howiya wrote: »

People will always take the shortest route possible, not just cyclists.

If their journey is all the way along the south quays they would then have to cross two bridges, having to complete two right turns to get off and back onto the south quays.

Much easier to continue in a straight line.

In general motorised traffic will follow the routes prescribed by signage, guess which 2 classes of non motorised traffic tend to ignore that?

Is there some mental blockage that prevents cyclists from accomplishing two right turns, given that there are traffic lights at the junctions anyway?

seamus

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Like it or not, most people travelling through the city centre by car are doing so because they HAVE to - because public transport is unreliable, irregular or unsuitable.. or even non-existent the further you go out.

Monument can probably post the stats here, but the fact is that the majority of people who commute into the city centre by all modes, are making short journeys of 10km or less. There is nobody living in a 10km radius of the city that does not have ample public transport options. Granted, some links are underserviced - try to get from Lucan to Tallaght, for example, but in most cases the transport is there, it's just more convenient to drive, so that's why people do it.

Cutting the Quays down to effectively 1 traffic lane will only make a bad situation worse, and it won't lead to everyone joining the Bike to Work scheme despite what some people think. It'll only make the traffic jams worse than they are.

Have you a better option? We know from past experience, that making it easier to drive, encourages driving. You literally cannot build roads wide enough, as the volume of traffic increases to fill the space made available.
A bus service that runs on time, all the time, is good, but a car is still more convenient because it takes you from point A to point B.

You need a carrot and a stick approach - the carrot is feasible transport options, the stick is making it difficult, expensive and frustrating to drive into the city. You need to do both. Too much stick and people will just endure the poor commute and traffic will kill the city. Too much carrot and you're way overspending on public transport that people aren't using because they still want their cars.

If we must have a(nother) ignored cycle lane, why not run it alongside the LUAS line from Hueston to O'Connell Street for example? Far less disruptive and safer as car traffic on this alignment is minimal/non-existent

There's not enough room there for such a thing. It also disconnects cycling as a primary form of transport by effectively relegating it off the main streets. The hassle involved into getting onto the cycle lane and back off it again will discourage people from using it and negate the point of the whole thing.

Anyone who drives their commute should in reality be cheering these kinds of things on. Every cyclist, pedestrian and bus user on the road is one less car on the road, making the whole road experience better for everyone.

In general motorised traffic will follow the routes prescribed by signage

Only because they have to. If it was feasible for drivers to get out of their vehicles and legally push them across a path to avoid a detour, you can be damn sure they'd do it all the time.

Spook_ie

seamus wrote: »

Monument can probably post the stats here, but the fact is that the majority of people who commute into the city centre by all modes, are making short journeys of 10km or less. There is nobody living in a 10km radius of the city that does not have ample public transport options. Granted, some links are underserviced - try to get from Lucan to Tallaght, for example, but in most cases the transport is there, it's just more convenient to drive, so that's why people do it.

Have you a better option? We know from past experience, that making it easier to drive, encourages driving. You literally cannot build roads wide enough, as the volume of traffic increases to fill the space made available.
A bus service that runs on time, all the time, is good, but a car is still more convenient because it takes you from point A to point B.

You need a carrot and a stick approach - the carrot is feasible transport options, the stick is making it difficult, expensive and frustrating to drive into the city. You need to do both. Too much stick and people will just endure the poor commute and traffic will kill the city. Too much carrot and you're way overspending on public transport that people aren't using because they still want their cars.

There's not enough room there for such a thing. It also disconnects cycling as a primary form of transport by effectively relegating it off the main streets. The hassle involved into getting onto the cycle lane and back off it again will discourage people from using it and negate the point of the whole thing.

Anyone who drives their commute should in reality be cheering these kinds of things on. Every cyclist, pedestrian and bus user on the road is one less car on the road, making the whole road experience better for everyone.

Only because they have to. If it was feasible for drivers to get out of their vehicles push them across a path to avoid a detour, you can be damn sure they'd do it all the time.

Every extra cyclist on the bus lanes is detrimental to running a bus service, maybe we should just speed limit cyclists to 5-10 kph and put them on the footpath