Car park wins. Car ban on Bachelors Walk reversed. Bikes on Benburb st too.

cgcsb

Roadhawk wrote: »

I would be very surprised if it goes completely. if anything it could be re-routed. Im sure the current cycle re-route through Benburb St could be extented past Church St on Chancery St - Marys Abbey - Abbey St - Etc basically follow the Luas lines?

Too narrow at the four courts stop and at the Jervis stop.

MJohnston

Roadhawk wrote: »

I would be very surprised if it goes completely. if anything it could be re-routed. Im sure the current cycle re-route through Benburb St could be extented past Church St on Chancery St - Marys Abbey - Abbey St - Etc basically follow the Luas lines?

Putting a cycle path on Luas tracks is insane.

Roadhawk

MJohnston wrote: »

Putting a cycle path on Luas tracks is insane.

I didnt mean on the actual tracks. Despite those who choose to cycle on the tracks i know its a death trap.

trellheim

In the same vein I can't see putting a cycle track through the plaza either being a runner ( the amount of people who just stare on their phones !!!)

MJohnston

Roadhawk wrote: »

I didnt mean on the actual tracks. Despite those who choose to cycle on the tracks i know its a death trap.

Except, as pointed out by cgcsb, there's no way to follow the North Quays Luas path (as you suggested) without actually cycling on the tracks for most of the route.

Roadhawk

MJohnston wrote: »

Except, as pointed out by cgcsb, there's no way to follow the North Quays Luas path (as you suggested) without actually cycling on the tracks for most of the route.

I saw that - hence the "thanks"

MJohnston

I'd love to know what the thinking is in DCC about sending the cycle path through Benburb Street. How did they ever think that'd be a good idea?

LXFlyer

MJohnston wrote: »

I'd love to know what the thinking is in DCC about sending the cycle path through Benburb Street. How did they ever think that'd be a good idea?

Space presumably - the alternative was putting the buses that way and that simply wouldn't work due to the apartment (and indeed the right/left turn that would have increased journey times for far more bus users).

LXFlyer

cgcsb wrote: »

Me too, currently we have 3 lanes on Bachelor's walk with some very tight spaces for pedestirans, They are proposing 2 bus lanes, a general lane and a double bike lane= 1 traffic lane.

2+1+1=4 lanes on our current 3 lanes, can't wait to see what the Hudinis at DCC put out, no doubt the liffey cycle route will be gone.

The footpath on the southside could be removed (very few people use it) and people could use the boardwalk instead, but then what would happen to the trees?

They've said clearly that the cycle route will be there.

Roadhawk

Surely it is safer for cyclists to be further from moving buses, car, motorbikes, etc. At least the luas is stuck an a track so unpredictable sideways movement is not something to stress about.

Carawaystick

lxflyer wrote: »

The footpath on the southside could be removed (very few people use it) and people could use the boardwalk instead, but then what would happen to the trees?

They've said clearly that the cycle route will be there.

The boardwalk puts people back on the footpath at the bridges/junctions.
It was pretty daft doing this for the Rosie Hackett bridge, the boardwalk should have been integrated into it.


Regarding the trees, I'm pretty sure someone somewhere would a) tell Joe Duffy that it's a disgrace
b) set up a petition to save the trees, despite never travelling along the quays,

MJohnston

lxflyer wrote: »

Space presumably - the alternative was putting the buses that way and that simply wouldn't work due to the apartment (and indeed the right/left turn that would have increased journey times for far more bus users).

I mean, my point is I think having no cycle path at all is better than putting cyclists on a Luas track.

Roadhawk wrote: »

Surely it is safer for cyclists to be further from moving buses, car, motorbikes, etc. At least the luas is stuck an a track so unpredictable sideways movement is not something to stress about.

It's not the Luas trams that are the danger, it is the tracks themselves (and then the Luas trams suddenly become a whole lot more worrisome)

LXFlyer

Carawaystick wrote: »

The boardwalk puts people back on the footpath at the bridges/junctions.
It was pretty daft doing this for the Rosie Hackett bridge, the boardwalk should have been integrated into it.


Regarding the trees, I'm pretty sure someone somewhere would a) tell Joe Duffy that it's a disgrace
b) set up a petition to save the trees, despite never travelling along the quays,

You may not need the double bus lane at those points - remember it's only needed where there are bus stops.

LXFlyer

MJohnston wrote: »

I mean, my point is I think having no cycle path at all is better than putting cyclists on a Luas track.



It's not the Luas trams that are the danger, it is the tracks themselves (and then the Luas trams suddenly become a whole lot more worrisome)

Well it's a segregated route beside a LUAS track - it won't be on it.

It also removes cyclists from the shared bus lane.

Granolite

lxflyer wrote: »

Well it's a segregated route beside a LUAS track - it won't be on it.

It also removes cyclists from the shared bus lane.

But will cyclist's not still use the bus lane along the quay regardless, it being the more direct (and faster) route to O'Connell bridge intersection and beyond if traveling to east side of the city (Samuel Beckett bridge and beyond) or traveling out to Clontarf/Sutton/Howth (via Amien Street/North Strand)?

LXFlyer

Granolite wrote: »

But will cyclist's not still use the bus lane along the quay regardless, it being the more direct (and faster) route to O'Connell bridge intersection and beyond if traveling to east side of the city (Samuel Beckett bridge and beyond) or traveling out to Clontarf/Sutton/Howth (via Amien Street/North Strand)?

Well that's up to them!

Granolite

lxflyer wrote: »

Well that's up to them!

Well if this Benburb Street cycle lane concept doesn't deliver as a quicker, means of accessing onward destination's /journey's for the average cyclist then it will fail in its purpose and so you will not in effect remove said cyclist's from the quay's, as per the status quo, like you have stated.

Roadhawk

Granolite wrote: »

Well if this Benburb Street cycle lane concept doesn't deliver as a quicker, means of accessing onward destination's /journey's for the average cyclist then it will fail in its purpose and so you will not in effect remove said cyclist's from the quay's, as per the status quo, like you have stated.

And a cost has been lost in creating a cycle track that becomes obsolete by choice.

LXFlyer

Granolite wrote: »

Well if this Benburb Street cycle lane concept doesn't deliver as a quicker, means of accessing onward destination's /journey's for the average cyclist then it will fail in its purpose and so you will not in effect remove said cyclist's from the quay's, as per the status quo, like you have stated.

And yet people who were extolling the cycle lanes along the river were telling me here that you could put the buses in there and make no difference to journey times!!

Kinda proves my original point!

Granolite

Well buses have established stop's/passenger pick ups to make en route so the net overall saving in journey times between either of the bus corridor option's would probably be marginal I'd have assumed, and the bus route proposed would still have exited back unto the quay's further on in any case.

I'm just pointing out that I wouldn't be surprised if all this fancy ''dedicated'' bike corridor engineering on Benburb St proves to be more disruptive than it is worth both in term's of its benefit to its intended user and of other transport modes. The likelihood for this happening is particularly high in this case where the optimal strategy for directing cyclist traffic has already been demoted in favor of other vested interest's already referred to at the beginning of the thread.

So in essence a fudge that serves' everyone badly in the long run and another scandalous waste of taxpayer's money as the status quo is effectively preserved with added cost and upheaval associated with more engineering work along the Benburb Luas corridor that may go the way of plenty other ''dedicated'' cycling infrastructure by being not fit for purpose where it is accommodated around the other transport modes.

LXFlyer

Granolite wrote: »

Well buses have established stop's/passenger pick ups to make en route so the net overall saving in journey times between either of the bus corridor option's would probably be marginal I'd have assumed, and the bus route proposed would still have exited back unto the quay's further on in any case.

I'm just pointing out that I wouldn't be surprised if all this fancy ''dedicated'' bike corridor engineering on Benburb St proves to be more disruptive than it is worth both in term's of its benefit to its intended user and of other transport modes. The likelihood for this happening is particularly high in this case where the optimal strategy for directing cyclist traffic has already been demoted in favor of other vested interest's already referred to at the beginning of the thread.

So in essence a fudge that serves' everyone badly in the long run and another scandalous waste of taxpayer's money as the status quo is effectively preserved with added cost and upheaval associated with more engineering work along the Benburb Luas corridor that may go the way of plenty other ''dedicated'' cycling infrastructure by being not fit for purpose where it is accommodated around the other transport modes.

The notion that buses having to make a right turn onto either Church St or Queen St and then left onto the Quays could possibly be faster than the current route along dedicated bus lanes directly along the Quays was farcical from the time it was first proposed.

I'm just rather amused that you're using the same argument now against putting the cycle lane in there.

The notion that it was acceptable to delay a far greater number of bus passengers to facilitate a much smaller number of cyclists, in the absence of high capacity and high frequency rail alternatives is what annoyed me about this from the outset.

cgcsb

lxflyer wrote: »

The footpath on the southside could be removed (very few people use it) and people could use the boardwalk instead, but then what would happen to the trees?

They've said clearly that the cycle route will be there.

There's no way to get on the boardwalk without the riverside path. Besides it wouldn't yield enough space anyway.

LXFlyer

cgcsb wrote: »

There's no way to get on the boardwalk without the riverside path. Besides it would't yield enough space anyway.

The riverside path could still be there at the bridges allowing access to the boardwalk - remember that the double bus lane is only needed where there are bus stops. Its purpose is to enable buses to overtake other buses that are at bus stops.

cgcsb

Basically the liffey cycle route is gone, DCC need the double bus lane to make the whole thing work and they're not willing to tackle Arnott's car park.

cgcsb

lxflyer wrote: »

The riverside path could still be there at the bridges allowing access to the boardwalk - remember that the double bus lane is only needed where there are bus stops. Its purpose is to enable buses to overtake other buses that are at bus stops.

regardless, the path isn't wide enough now to accommodate a double bike lane.

LXFlyer

cgcsb wrote: »

Basically the liffey cycle route is gone, DCC need the double bus lane to make the whole thing work and they're not willing to tackle Arnott's car park.

They were quite clear at the presentation last week that this was not the case and that the Liffey Cycle Route would be installed between O'Connell Bridge and Church Street.

Without seeing the plans I can't comment on how that will be done (as a double bus lane will be needed as far back as the Millennium bridge by my reckoning to cater for all of the bus stops), but coming along and posting statements as the above as fact is somewhat ill advised until we see the detailed plans.

trellheim

Houdini may well be on the planning team so, I just can't see it

MJohnston

lxflyer wrote: »

Well it's a segregated route beside a LUAS track - it won't be on it.

It also removes cyclists from the shared bus lane.

How do you get a (two way?) segregated cycle route through some of the pinch points along Benburb Street? If the answer is mixing pedestrians and cyclists, they've lost most cyclists.

monument

lxflyer wrote: »

And yet people who were extolling the cycle lanes along the river were telling me here that you could put the buses in there and make no difference to journey times!!

Kinda proves my original point!

Err the bus detour would be from the building side of the quays straight into its detour and out again on the building side.

Big difference to that and using the cycling detour to/from the southside and with the link back on Church Street crossing am the traffic lanes to get to the quay side!

The cycle route is supposed to be providing a route for two-ways serving locations north and south of the quays -- the bus rerouting would only be serving one-way and building side traffic.

lxflyer wrote: »

The notion that buses having to make a right turn onto either Church St or Queen St and then left onto the Quays could possibly be faster than the current route along dedicated bus lanes directly along the Quays was farcical from the time it was first proposed.

Could be faster not just out of luck but with combined Luas and bus traffic light priority, avoiding messed up bus stops, less buses stops, less turning conflicts with general traffic, not having to content with the many cyclists in the current shared sections along the quays etc.

lxflyer wrote: »

The notion that it was acceptable to delay a far greater number of bus passengers to facilitate a much smaller number of cyclists, in the absence of high capacity and high frequency rail alternatives is what annoyed me about this from the outset.

The absence of high capacity and high frequency rail alternatives is exactly why capacity increases on routes into the city have to happen and the extra capacity high-quality cycling provision provides is key to that.

lxflyer wrote: »

They were quite clear at the presentation last week that this was not the case and that the Liffey Cycle Route would be installed between O'Connell Bridge and Church Street.

Without seeing the plans I can't comment on how that will be done (as a double bus lane will be needed as far back as the Millennium bridge by my reckoning to cater for all of the bus stops), but coming along and posting statements as the above as fact is somewhat ill advised until we see the detailed plans.

They can be a bit slow to join the dots... Or do we need to mention apartment blocks again?

LXFlyer

Monument - the bus is already faster than the tram. The "messed up bus stop" has been removed from use. There were no fewer bus stops on the proposed diversion.

Please stop wasting your time trying to tell me that pushing the buses away from the Quays and into an eventual right/left turn combination that involved massive potential for cars blocking the route would be faster. You are never going to convince me otherwise.

That battle is over now.

Move on.