Will Dublin's quays cycle route get same support as London's?

monument

The two-way cycle route planned for the north quays is progressing to public consultation, but will it get the same kind of support as the planned segregated routes in London?

http://cyclingworks.wordpress.com/2014/10/30/extraordinary-coalition/

Aard

People seem to be getting behind the "Crossrail for bikes" idea. When you have hugely expensive tube fares plus the congestion charge there's not many other options than bike. The Boris Bikes have been extended to cover a wide area too. I think it's only a matter of time before Dublin follows suit in having people clamouring for top class bike infrastructure. Driving and parking in town is still attractive and affordable for many. The Canal Cordon counts show that despite a significant increase in cyclists, this has been to the detriment of public transport users -- car users remain relatively static.

cgcsb

Lets hope so,although weren't we 'assured'that this wasn't going to happen while bxd was under construction. So London may well beet us to it.

Aard

Interestingly the NTA BRT plans indicate a north quays bidirectional bike route. So it mightn't be completely on the back burner.

monument

Aard wrote: »

People seem to be getting behind the "Crossrail for bikes" idea. When you have hugely expensive tube fares plus the congestion charge there's not many other options than bike.

Over here Luas, bus and rail prices keep going up and traffic is getting worse.

Aard wrote: »

The Boris Bikes have been extended to cover a wide area too.

Maybe DublinBikes have not extended comparably as far but they have been extended further west than the quays and nearly as far as possible eastwards unless a station is put in the port!

Aard wrote: »

I think it's only a matter of time before Dublin follows suit in having people clamouring for top class bike infrastructure

It will need to be soon... the first Part 8 for the quays projects is due in the new year....

Aard wrote: »

Driving and parking in town is still attractive and affordable for many. The Canal Cordon counts show that despite a significant increase in cyclists, this has been to the detriment of public transport users -- car users remain relatively static.

It's worth noting the following from the last count: "the mode share for bus travel across the canal cordon in 2013 is 29.38%, down 0.87% from the peak 30.25% mode share for bus in 2008."

All public transport stands at close to 50% of people crossing the canals (48%). Car travel is at 35.6%.

But the canal counts don't look at the 1,000s of people inside the canals and how public transport users travel inside the canals. Cycling is underestimated (DublinBikes and other trips starting inside the canal not counted etc) and walking is vastly underestimated because of this. The city has done limited counts along the quays and 2-3 other locations inside the canals, see the bottom of this link: http://irishcycle.com/dublin-traffic-counts/

cgcsb wrote: »

Lets hope so,although weren't we 'assured'that this wasn't going to happen while bxd was under construction. So London may well beet us to it.

Aard wrote: »

Interestingly the NTA BRT plans indicate a north quays bidirectional bike route. So it mightn't be completely on the back burner.

London may well hit completion first but the quays is still in planning and progressing -- it's slower than first planned but not exactly on the backburner.

Dublin City traffic committee was told that Part 8 planning on the first section would start “probably in the new year”.

The first part of the current plan is to extend Croppies Acre memorial park to the quayside, and then put in a bus lane and two traffic lanes between the park and the footpath beside the Luas tracks -- the traffic lanes would then go out onto the quays after the park but the bus lane would continue along the Luas line until Church Street:



This means buses are taken off the worst pinch points on the north quays.

More details here: http://irishcycle.com/2014/10/24/motor-traffic-to-be-moved-away-from-quays-near-heuston-station/

cgcsb

Then buses have to turn left onto church St and right onto the quays in a very short space of time, adding more delay to bus passengers. Currently I find buses quite fast up until the four courts where you encounter many left turners and illegally parked cars. The part between Heuston and the 4 courts moves very fast in my experience

Pete_Cavan

Church Street will be a nightmare for the buses. Surely they would be better letting the buses go past the Four Courts and contraflow down Chancery Place to turn onto the quays?

Spanish Eyes

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Church Street will be a nightmare for the buses. Surely they would be better letting the buses go past the Four Courts and contraflow down Chancery Place to turn onto the quays?

Good idea. But if there is room beside the Luas, why not direct buses ALL the way down to O'Connell Street?

I'm just not sure if the roads can take the bus parallel to the LUAS all the way down. If there is room, seems like a no brainer to me. But no doubt there is some reason for the routing. I'd like to know!!

All this weaving in and out via Church Street will be a disaster. As a previous poster said, the trip down the Quays on the buslane is a whizzer until just after the Four Courts. So turning out of Church Street on the Quays won't be any advantage whatsoever for the buses.

monument

cgcsb wrote: »

Then buses have to turn left onto church St and right onto the quays in a very short space of time, adding more delay to bus passengers.

Right into Church Street and then left onto the quays?

Yes, there's likely to be some delay at least some of the time, but priority measures COULD include:

-- more traffic light time for Luas going straight because you're also giving that time to buses turning right

-- a bus lane on the small bit of Church Street between the Luas and the quays

-- a segregated turn from Church Street to the quays out of the normal junction cycle is possible (we'll see what DCC and the NTA come up with).

There's also the upside of getting away from the crazy layout, including the bus stop, on the quays before Church Street.

For buses coming from Blackhall Place the new arrangement may be faster than the current way, as Church Street seems to get more time/priority over the quays than Blackhall Place does.

For buses crossing over the bridge at Church Street, the new arrangement is likely an improvement over crossing lanes of traffic near the junction or getting stuck in traffic moving out before the junction.

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Good idea. But if there is room beside the Luas, why not direct buses ALL the way down to O'Connell Street?

I'm just not sure if the roads can take the bus parallel to the LUAS all the way down. If there is room, seems like a no brainer to me. But no doubt there is some reason for the routing. I'd like to know!!

It looks like there's just about room for a bus lane on the south side of the tracks up to Church Street (use of current streets, removal of parking, some CPOing of waste land required?), beyond there there's no room for such.

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

So turning out of Church Street on the Quays won't be any advantage whatsoever for the buses.

It will as outline above and it will over the other options. It's less disruptive than the other options:

It's far less disruptive than reverting traffic to two-way on the south quays and only having city-bound buses on the north quays.

It's less disruptive than sending city-bound general motor traffic down along the Luas -- where such traffic would have to cross the bus lane twice to get in and out of the back streets.

It's far less disruptive than sending the walking and cycling route down the along the Luas -- where the route would have to cross the bus lane and two lanes of traffic twice to get in and out of the back streets.

It's less disruptive, far less historically/visually less disruptive, and likely far less costly than building expensive boardwalks to fit buses, general motor traffic, and a walking and cycling route at the pinch points on the north quays.

Pete_Cavan

monument wrote: »

It looks like there's just about room for a bus lane on the south side of the tracks up to Church Street (use of current streets, removal of parking, some CPOing of waste land required?), beyond there there's no room for such.

The waste land is owned by the OPW so no need for CPO. It has been earmarked for a family courts building and the building could be positioned to create an extra lane if necessary.

There is no space for another lane along side Luas in front of Bridewell garda station but this would not be an issue if the Luas stop wasnt there. The stop could be moved down to in front of the Land Registry office at the bottom of Greek Street where there is more space. Buses could travel in the same lane as Luas in front of the garda station before they turn right down Chancery Place. The Luas would stop just after that so it does not hold up the buses.

Not saying that is perfect but it would be interesting if the engineers had a look at it and see what they can come up with. There is quite a bit of space at the Chancery Street / Chancery Place / Greek Street junction and it would be interesting to see what the options are in terms of reallocating that space.

Spanish Eyes

@ Monument,

Thanks, I had a feeling that there wouldn't be enough room beside the Luas tracks all the way down.

There is plenty of room for a bus lane on Church Street alright, and once the left turn on to the quays is sorted it should work fine.

Anyway, it's a great idea, leaving room for pedestrians and cyclists on the quays, whilst integrating bus and Luas side by side.

I will keep an eye on the thread. I'm interested in this for a lot of reasons. We need to get our city back. It's absolutely choked with traffic.

Worst I've ever seen is the highway and four lanes around Christchurch. I know it's straying a bit off topic, but that is an abomination in one of the most historical parts of town.

cgcsb

The pedestrian environment needs a drastic improvement, the junction at the bottom of bridge st near the brazen head is a nightmare and takes up to 5 mins to navigate. Also the bridge at the bottom of queen st has no pedestrian crossing on the east side, so you have to wing it across and risk getting hit. Also the sidewalk by the quays is too narrow to walk on safely in parts. Even walking in single file

monument

cgcsb wrote: »

The pedestrian environment needs a drastic improvement, the junction at the bottom of bridge st near the brazen head is a nightmare and takes up to 5 mins to navigate. Also the bridge at the bottom of queen st has no pedestrian crossing on the east side, so you have to wing it across and risk getting hit. Also the sidewalk by the quays is too narrow to walk on safely in parts. Even walking in single file

The walking and cycling route should address this issue at least on the north quays -- if the south quays are not addressed they'll need to be in follow up works afterwards.

At minimum there's a fairly shocking 34 crossings missing on different legs of junctions and that does not include fixing issues with other issues:

bk

You know it is a real pity that the Luas wasn't cut and covered along it's existing route between Hueston and Connolly.

The road above it could have been used as a general traffic lane, with the quays used as a bus, pedestrian and cycling lanes instead.

Would have made the Luas faster, more reliable and less dangerous (been a few fatal accidents along this busy route), while making it much easier to have high quality bus, cycling and pedestrian routes.

Aard

As far as I know, underground utilities/services had to be diverted anyway for laying tracks at-grade. Could've killed two birds with one stone. The northside stretch of the Red Line also benefits from being more or less a perfectly straight line.

monument

Aard wrote: »

As far as I know, underground utilities/services had to be diverted anyway for laying tracks at-grade. Could've killed two birds with one stone. The northside stretch of the Red Line also benefits from being more or less a perfectly straight line.

Cut and cover causes a lot more disruption and requires utilities to be diverted further away to allow for the space required by tracks + escape space + cut and cover retaining/support walls.

Aard

I see. Squeezing in stations may have been a problem too.

bk

monument wrote: »

Cut and cover causes a lot more disruption and requires utilities to be diverted further away to allow for the space required by tracks + escape space + cut and cover retaining/support walls.

Aard wrote: »

I see. Squeezing in stations may have been a problem too.

Yes, both would have been issues, but solvable issues, but would have been well worth it IMO to have a much faster, more reliable and safer Luas. Along with a vastly improved bus, cycle and pedestrian network.

It really was a once in a lifetime opportunity for a vast improvement to public transport in our city. But of course we ended up going with the cheap and in the end insufficient solution!

corktina

Underground red line LUAS with the foot tunnels and sub-level tunnels that implies? Is there not enough scum bags on it as it is!

cgcsb

With an underground station it'd be practical to install ticket barriers

Pete_Cavan

bk wrote: »

You know it is a real pity that the Luas wasn't cut and covered along it's existing route between Hueston and Connolly.

The road above it could have been used as a general traffic lane, with the quays used as a bus, pedestrian and cycling lanes instead.

The quays can still be given over to buses, pedestrians and cycling lanes but it means removing general traffic. As they are at present, the quays is a bit like a motorway with the river as the central barrier. It is an awful waste of a great natural amenity and the current set up encourages people to drive which is clogging up the city. Not sure where else the general traffic can go but if the public transport alternatives were better, that is not something I would worry too much about. Public transport, walking and cycling need to be prioritised and the quays could be so much more.

A cut and cover tunnel through the city centre would be hugely expensive. I doubt cut and cover is even possible along the red line route because the streets are quite narrow and underground stations would have to extend underneath the buildings on either side. This means they would need to be at a depth far enough below the foundations of these buildings so as not to undermine them. This would be a serious depth and the temporary supports for such an excavation would require a lot of space, probably more than is available. There are also limited locations with sufficient space for escalators, lifts and ventilation shatfs. There is also limited space for tunnel portals, certainly there isnt around Connolly anyway.

It really isnt viable. Even if it was, there is no way we could afford two underground links to Hueston so if this happened then DU would be dead for sure. Assuming DU is built in the next 10 years, it and the surface Red Line are better than just an underground Red Line.

cgcsb

Re underground stations, no problem at all:

Museum has ample green space to the south of the existing stop

Smithfield and fourcourts stops could be merged and placed in the existing hole in the ground between church street and the existing stop.

The Jervis stop could moved westwards and take in the existing open space opposite D7 restaurant

The abbey at stop would require abbey at to be closed for some time, but not an impossible task.

Busaras/Connolly stops could use either the open plaza outside store st station or the space where the existing Connolly stop is, or indeed both.

There would even be scope for cut and cover all the way to the point and all the way to saint james's

To do this now would be massively difficult but the opportunity was there 15 years ago

Tunnelising the red line wouldn't affect dart u totally different projects

Aard

True - if it's a case of what to spend the money on now, undergrounding the Red Line would have a lesser return than say DU. As said above, it was a once in a lifetime opportunity. It should have been done 10/15 years ago is what people are saying. I can't see this being looked at until 2050 or later.

cgcsb

Agreed it wouldn't be a priority even in the long term. However the current infrastructure will eventually require renewal, at that point it should be considered. Overcrowding on the red line is concerning but I'd expect Dartu to provide significant relief and drastically reduce the amount of people boarding at Heuston

Pete_Cavan

Having the Red Line run underground would have cost multiples of the actual construction cost and would not have been approved. Had that level of funds been given to the Luas it certainly would affect DU, DU cant even get funding now nevermind had Dublin already got a tunnel which links Hueston with the IFSC/docklands area (and thats before Cormac Rabbitt starts on about the Phoenix Park Tunnel).

I dont know of any open space west of the Jervis Street stop but bare in mind that foundations of the buildings there will extend under the street which would require huge underpinning works, same for Abbey Street Lower but you also have basements to contend with.

If undergrounding the Red Line was ever seen as necessary a bored tunnel would probably be the way to go given the scale of excavation needed for cut and cover and the need to maintain access to premises along the route.

monument

If people want me to separate out the cut and cover the red line posts to new thread -- thank this post.

bk

monument wrote: »

If people want me to separate out the cut and cover the red line posts to new thread -- thank this post.

Thanks monument, sorry for taking the thread OT! I didn't mean for my post to blow up like that, I just meant it as an offhand observation.

I believe it could and should have been done 10 years ago when the Red Line was being built. It is clearly too late now. Dart Underground is far more important now and should take the strain off the Red Luas Line.

Much more important to focus on how we can make the most of what we have now and I personally welcome the reduction of general traffic on the quays, the building of quality segregated, bus, cycle and pedestrian infrastructure.

trellheim

Look folks underground LUAS crayoning aside, this kind of cycle track will not be possible without a very large reduction in private motor transport. the only possible way I can think of doing this is via very very large congestion charge of the order of a 20 euro a day type of thing.

cgcsb

trellheim wrote: »

Look folks underground LUAS crayoning aside, this kind of cycle track will not be possible without a very large reduction in private motor transport. the only possible way I can think of doing this is via very very large congestion charge of the order of a 20 euro a day type of thing.

Why would congestion charging be required? having more segregated cycling infrastructure means that congestion has less/no impact on cyclists.

Aard

Repurposing roadspace is the exact same as a congestion charge. Both limit roadsupply and temper demand. Repurposing is also less controversial and more incrementally implementable.

AlekSmart

Aard wrote: »

Repurposing roadspace is the exact same as a congestion charge. Both limit roadsupply and temper demand. Repurposing is also less controversial and more incrementally implementable.

If you're a betting person,keep your eyes on Swiftway Line One.

The reality of redefining the boundaries of Private Car usage have always been the defining element of Dublin City's Public Transport initiatives.

However,with Luas BXD and Swiftway both scheduled for startup in 2017,it is obvious that the landscape WILL change.

Currently,no politician will go anywhere near the box marked Private Motoring Access,as it will reveal a substantial amount of pure grief for Motorists,all of which will require spirited defence on the media.

There may even be an appetite for finally challenging the dominance of City Centre Multi-Story Car Park operators in Traffic Policy matters,this may well entail buying out some of them via a West-Link style arrangement,but their location as honey-pots attracting the Motorized Bees has to be addressed at some point.

trellheim

Repurposing roadspace is the exact same as a congestion charge. Both limit roadsupply and temper demand. Repurposing is also less controversial and more incrementally implementable.

Not exactly the same. They do both limit roadsupply and temper demand but in different ways.

hfallada

AlekSmart wrote: »

Currently,no politician will go anywhere near the box marked Private Motoring Access,as it will reveal a substantial amount of pure grief for Motorists,all of which will require spirited defence on the media.

But motorist dont have a lobby group. The resistant from any changes wouuld be a few phone calls to liveline at most. But any changes in say farming grants would result in backlash from the IFA. Thats a powerful lobby group, that could influence policy

Aard

AlekSmart wrote: »

There may even be an appetite for finally challenging the dominance of City Centre Multi-Story Car Park operators in Traffic Policy matters,this may well entail buying out some of them via a West-Link style arrangement,but their location as honey-pots attracting the Motorized Bees has to be addressed at some point.

I wouldn't bet on it Alek. Look at the proposal for Moore St / Carlton site. Multistorey parking access off Moore St. Bye bye traders, hello cars cars cars

Would be great if the council could incetivise redevelopment of the multistoreys, in particular Brown Thomas and Arnotts.

Aard

hfallada wrote: »

But motorist dont have a lobby group.

The AA / Conor Faughnan

cgcsb

Aard wrote: »

I wouldn't bet on it Alek. Look at the proposal for Moore St / Carlton site. Multistorey parking access off Moore St. Bye bye traders, hello cars cars cars

Would be great if the council could incetivise redevelopment of the multistoreys, in particular Brown Thomas and Arnotts.

Multi storey? Its a basement car park, nowhere near the scale of bt or even jervis

Aard

The Arnotts one? Whoops. Either way, access off O'Connell Street proves problematic, for example with the recent BRT plans.

Pete_Cavan

Motorists dont need a lobby group, they have general public opinion on their side. It is so engrained in peoples minds here that anything that restricts cars is met with opposition, even those who never set foot in Dublin would have sympathy for their car dependent brethren were road space be given over to the enemy (aka buses and cyclists).

Of course, continuing to accommodate drivers is a self defeating policy, the more space available the more cars that will fill it. I would be in favour of redesignating road space over congestion charges. Congestion charges may reduce traffic but it wont necessarily improve things for cyclists or public transport users. Looking after public transport and cyclists would be beneficial to the majority of those who live in and around the city and also actually gives drivers a more attractive alternative. Those who choose not to take it can crawl through the chaos on streets still open to general traffic. I would see congestion charges as only punishing drivers with limited residual benefits but repurposing road space also rewards those not driving.

Buying out car parks would be too expensive and will never happen. The only option is to inconvenience their customers so much that occupancy rates drop to the point that the space is more valuable in other uses. Access to the car parks can remain but closing the quays to general traffic would cause such delays around the city that many would stop driving. The car park can continue to operate and those drivers who decide to wade through the traffic can still use them but revenue for the owners would be way down.

monument

trellheim wrote: »

...this kind of cycle track will not be possible without a very large reduction in private motor transport. the only possible way I can think of doing this is via very very large congestion charge of the order of a 20 euro a day type of thing.

Why?

The main pinch points on the north quays are between Blackhall Place and Church Street and that's solved by moving buses as already outlined.

The Luas/BRT plans which will come before the cycle route, will remove some major flows on and off the north quays:



That'll reduce a lot of the current demand which uses the quayside general traffic lane from Jervis Street or even Capel Street.

Aard wrote: »

The Arnotts one? Whoops. Either way, access off O'Connell Street proves problematic, for example with the recent BRT plans.

Access to Arnotts car park to be maintained.

cgcsb

monument wrote: »

The main pinch points on the north quays are between Blackhall Place and Church Street and that's solved by moving buses as already outlined.

Where is that coming from? I've used buses along that route for years and find it only slows down when you get to the four courts. The part between Blackhall and Church st is slower for general traffic, as it's only one lane, but buses and cyclists fly through that section.

monument

cgcsb wrote: »

Where is that coming from? I've used buses along that route for years and find it only slows down when you get to the four courts. The part between Blackhall and Church st is slower for general traffic, as it's only one lane, but buses and cyclists fly through that section.

I'm talking about the main pinch point in trying to fit in a high-qualty walking and cycling route, including the two-way cycle path on the quay side.

Pete_Cavan

monument wrote: »

I'm talking about the main pinch point in trying to fit in a high-qualty walking and cycling route, including the two-way cycle path on the quay side.

This is just one pinch point, the other would be Eden Quay with its contra flow bus lane, it will be interesting to see how they deal with it.

monument

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

This is just one pinch point, the other would be Eden Quay with its contra flow bus lane, it will be interesting to see how they deal with it.

Take out a traffic lane. Not only is it the only practical, only cost-effective solution, but there will be less need for that extra traffic lane because of the BRT/Luas plans and the related restrictions of motor traffic flows on and off the quays.