Bus and bicycles stay on quays, motorists diverted in new Liffey Cycle Route plan

monument

The discussion about the new Option 7 for the Liffey Cycle Route started up on the last thread referencing the route. That thread was covering an old option, so instead of confusing discussion there, this is a clean break...

The Liffey Cycle Route, which is planned to run from the Point Village to the Phoenix Park, is a segregated two-way cycle path planned for the north quays. The area between Blackhall Place and Church Street is a narrow section of the quays and has been an on-going issues to solve -- many options have been evaluated to get around this, but, as the report below explains, we're now left with diverting private motorists so that buses and bicycles are prioritised.

Somebody requested an official point of view and that can be found in the text quoted below, which is a copy of the report to the transport committee members. You can also watch a recording of the committee meeting discussing the route here.

Here's the report:

Report to the Chairperson and Members of the Transportation Strategic Policy Committee

Liffey Cycle Route : Emerging Preferred Option Update

The Liffey Cycle Route project sets out to provide continuous cycleway connecting the Phoenix Park and Heuston Station along the Quays to the Tom Clarke Bridge and Point roundabout. The study area for the project is the North and South Quays and this project is highly significant for cycling in Dublin, as it aims to provide commuter, tourist and leisure cycling linking employment centres, and providing direct linkages to the main tourist destination.

However, the key challenge of the project has been the availability of space on the Liffey Quays to allow for a high quality segregated cycle route. The non statutory public consultation conducted in 2015 showed that 94% of respondents favoured a cycle track on the Quays and that 80% of respondents saw that this should be two way on the North Quays.

The options then considered for more detailed examination were Options 1, 2 and 3:-

• Option 1: Two way North Quays with limited Board walk. Board walk was then ruled out due to the historic nature of the bridges particularly Liam Mellow’s Bridge at Queen Street.
  
• Option 2: Two way North Quays with buses rerouted via Benburb Street. This option could not be progressed further due to not having a continuous route at Arran Quay Terrace/ Smithfield, in addition there was considerable local opposition to this option.
  
• Option 3: As per option 2 but with Croppies Acre relocated to river edge. The issue of moving Croppies Acre to the river edge attracted a lot of negative comment regarding the historic nature of the site and the potential for disturbance of historic graves. In light of not being able to proceed with option 2, option 3 also would not be able to proceed to further examination.

At the Strategic Policy Committee meeting of 25th May 2016 a report recommending examination of an option 5 as the preferred route for the Liffey Cycle Route between Heuston and Church Street was adopted. In combination with the two-way cycle route on the North Quays between Church Street and Custom House Quay and the upgrading of the existing cycle route between Custom House Quay and the 3 Arena.

Option 5 essentially involves directing the Liffey Cycle Route to the north of Croppies Acre, along Benburb Street, via Smithfield, Phoenix Street North, Hammond Lane and rejoining the North Quays via Church Street.

This unfortunately moved away from the original project aims and so while adopting the report, the Strategic Policy Committee expressed concerns and general disappointment regarding the route and in particular the fact that the proposed route had been diverted from the Quays.

Members of the SPC asked that if this option was to proceed that it should no longer be called the Liffey cycle route as it no longer met the objective of the original proposal which was to provide the high quality segregated cycle route along the Liffey Quay. It was also felt that there was now a loss of an iconic route along the river in favour of a side route which would not provide full segregation and which the NCBI also felt may cause problems for visually impaired users of the Luas stop at Croppies Acre.

Subsequent to the meeting, one of the key stakeholders in the project, Dublin Cycling Campaign, also expressed their considerable disappointment with the proposed route and stated that they would not be able to support the scheme as proposed.

An option 6 was then suggested by the cycling campaign which was Option 3 but with the buses turning back on to the Quays at Queen Street rather than at Church Street. However this still had all the drawbacks for option 3 and major issues with the turn for buses at Queen Street on to the Quays and the inability of this option to provide a continuous cycle route.

Option 7

In light of the negative commentary received in relation to Option 5, it was decided to completely review all options for the Liffey Cycle Route from Church Street Bridge to Frank Sherwin Bridge in order to meet the requirements set out both in the original project brief and the clearly stated preference of the SPC Members.

An option 7 has been developed which makes use of the existing space from the Frank Sherwin Bridge to the James Joyce Bridge on the North Quays, and which allows for a segregated cycle track on the Liffey side alongside a Bus and a general Traffic lane. This then meant there was no requirement for any alteration to Croppies Acre.

At Ellis Quay it is proposed that there will be a Public Transport lane with the existing general traffic lane converted to a segregated cycle track from Ellis Quay as far as Church Street, where the road widths widen again to allow for Bus and General Traffic lanes as well as the segregated cycle track.



( Option 7 showing diversion route)

General traffic will be diverted at Blackhall Place via North King Street and North Brunswick Street to Church Street and can rejoin the Quays at Church Street /Inns Quay. This diversion will still allow access to all city centre car parks and also provides a easier route through to Bolton Street and the orbital routes around the city centre; it should also be borne in mind that at this point on the Quays there is only one lane of general traffic to be diverted.

Option 7 provides the following :-

•  Two way segregated cycle route along the Liffey the entire distance from Frank Sherwin Bridge to Church Street bridge.
•  Footpaths remain intact on the river side of the Quays.
•  Public Transport and Taxis remain on the Quays providing the most direct route.
•  No boardwalk is needed
•  No intervention at any of the historic Liffey bridges.
•  No changes required at any part of Croppies Acre.
•  Diversion of general traffic from a section of the North Quays.

At present work is in progress on the detailed examination of the traffic diversion, examination of road widths, lane capacity and junction analysis to determine if any improvements are needed on the proposed diversion route.
It is now proposed that for the SPC meeting on the 23rd of November, 2016, that the entire Liffey Cycle Route be presented to the SPC including detailed analysis of option 7.

It is hoped that after this meeting the SPC will agree that the entire Scheme can proceed to public consultation using the Part VIII procedure.

Brendan O’Brien
Head of Technical Services
Environment and Transportation Department
September 2016

monument

The following are replies to some of the most recent posts referring to Option 7 in the old thread. I don't want to move the posts over here as they would override the council's outline of the new plan as above.

IE 222 wrote: »

Could the boardwalk not be extended on both sides of the liffey from butt bridge to James joyce and run up to the mouth of each bridge allowing the footpath and trees to be removed along the river side, leaving a good sized cycle Lane.

Most of them paths are dangerous for pedestrians as they currently are. There either to thin or have massive tree roots coming out. Removing parking and taxi ranks will also help traffic flows as well.

There would be crazy costs extending the boardwalk that much.

As a compromise it was suggesting using a boardwalk to the mouth of each bridge at the pinch point area (Blackhall Place to Church Street) but that was not feasible because of the pinch point at Liam Mellows Bridge.

Then it was suggested to take out the footpath on the riverside and try the same thing but with buses still detoured up to Queen Street but with the shape of the road -- both the narrowness and the hump in the surface at the bridge -- it was also viewed as a non-runner and even if it worked it'd have been very compromised for buses, walking and cycling.

lxflyer wrote: »

It's a solution that keeps both public transport and cyclists on the Quays - a win for both.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/car-ban-on-parts-of-liffey-quays-mooted-in-cycle-path-plan-1.2816621

Yes, walking, cycling and public transport wins with this. Under past proposals all three suffered in different ways, so the new plan is not just a win for cycling and that needs to be stressed.

trellheim wrote: »

- South quays cyclists aren't well catered for, in particular Victoria quay is quite exciting for cyclists. For those who are saying "use the cycle lane" - how do you get there ? What are the high-safety modes you can cross from the south to the north to access it . O'Donovan Rossa Bridge and Father Matthew Bridge, and James Joyce Bridge all involve very hairy lane changes for cyclists ( the OH in particular will not cycle because of the last bridge lane changes, its a high speed approach )

The idea from the start of the Liffey Cycle Route is that the two-way route on the north quays is for people going to/from northside and southside locations. It may not suit some local trips but it should suit even people starting and finishing at some southside locations (ie core city centre southside to Heuston).

All of the links may not be there from day one because of cost, resources and planning issues, but I have and will be looking for improvements to the links at the Frank Sherwin Bridge, O'Connell Bridge, O'Donovan Rossa Bridge, Rory O'More Bridge, and Talbot Memorial Bridge.

I might be wrong, but the Father Matthew Bridge looks like it would be a battle for another day after the Liffey route proves itself and as a seprate Church Street -- Bridge Street -- High Street link route.

trellheim wrote: »

Routing public traffic up through the brunswick st/Nth King St is a red herring and is nearly a really demented approach . if you've seen a weekdays evening traffic there its terrible traffic at Blackhall Place/Nth King St , and usually massive conflicts with emerging Arbour Hill

I would say this was put up to be shot down

The council seem to be serious about this option.

Even without the Liffey Cycle Route, with Luas Cross City, BRT from UCD to Blanch, Luas and bus priority measures a O'Connell Bridge and along the north and south quays, there's going to be a lowering of traffic levels around the city centre.

Luas alone will do that but add in new bus lanes from Wood Quay to O'Connell Bridge on the southside and extra bus stop/ overtaking bus lane space on central north quays, and a bus gate at Eden quay and you have serious traffic reduction.

Add in BRT and then there's a large reduction of space along the route (Old Navan Road -- Stoneybatter -- Queen Street -- Bridgefoot Street etc) and that will also lower levels of traffic on Brunswick Street too.

That's the context the Liffey Cycle Route is being planned in, not current levels of traffic.

MJohnston

I'm curious how the cycle path is intended to terminate at both ends? Will it be an ambiguous, chaotic thing like the way the North Docklands cycle path just disappears in the middle of a footpath at Talbot bridge, or do they have a better plan? I appreciate what's in Option 7 as a great addition, but cyclists having to merge into traffic at the east end of the route will spell disaster for it, as that's leading into the most dangerous and unprotected stretch of the entire quays around OCS.

monument

MJohnston wrote: »

I'm curious how the cycle path is intended to terminate at both ends? Will it be an ambiguous, chaotic thing like the way the North Docklands cycle path just disappears in the middle of a footpath at Talbot bridge, or do they have a better plan? I appreciate what's in Option 7 as a great addition, but cyclists having to merge into traffic at the east end of the route will spell disaster for it, as that's leading into the most dangerous and unprotected stretch of the entire quays around OCS.

The full project includes a continuous Liffey Cycle Route from the Phoenix Park to the Point Depot.

Including around O'Connell Street and it will also include an upgrade of the north Docklands disjointed mess of cycle paths.

trellheim

Thank you for the officialdom link.

PS : do we have another thread for discussing Royal Canal towpath cycle link into Docklands . I find myself trying to bike across Dorset St at the canals there to go from one towpath to the other and its a right dangerous crossing with no decent crossing options.

trellheim

Just a point. Brunswick St is actually very quiet in comparative terms ( it will become a little more busy when George's Lane is altered to enable the turn up to Grangegorman Lower)

I would beg you to study the traffic at Here https://www.google.ie/maps/place/Brunswick+St+N,+Dublin+Northside,+Dublin/@53.3503492,-6.2819084,73m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x48670c2c19cde707:0x98fc910da535200a!8m2!3d53.3505181!4d-6.2781999

in the mornings

and here in the evenings

https://www.google.ie/maps/place/Brunswick+St+N,+Dublin+Northside,+Dublin/@53.3497602,-6.2820971,147m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x48670c2c19cde707:0x98fc910da535200a!8m2!3d53.3505181!4d-6.2781999

(about 50m south).

I appreciate what is being tried to do here, but I just can't see it as viable . Even in the simplest sense a reroute of 39 bus I can't see being avoided cos it's gotta cross that flow ..

For example I'd see installing a single private vehicle lane eastbound on Ushers Island as less crazy and making all private cars turn right over one of the bridges and then back again at the Four Courts

paddyland

trellheim wrote: »

...For example I'd see installing a single private vehicle lane eastbound on Ushers Island as less crazy and making all private cars turn right over one of the bridges and then back again at the Four Courts

GOD, no! *facepalm*

trellheim

Yes I am well aware of the relative facepalm nature of it. It is put up as a lesser evil to that proposed in Option 7.

Don't get me wrong; I see the benefit of the lane as the lane. I dont' think we're at a stage we have a runner as yet though that works.

beauf

monument wrote: »

The full project includes a continuous Liffey Cycle Route from the Phoenix Park to the Point Depot.

Including around O'Connell Street and it will also include an upgrade of the north Docklands disjointed mess of cycle paths.

I didn't realize this. that is good to know.

monument

trellheim wrote: »

Just a point. Brunswick St is actually very quiet in comparative terms ( it will become a little more busy when George's Lane is altered to enable the turn up to Grangegorman Lower)

I would beg you to study the traffic at Here https://www.google.ie/maps/place/Brunswick+St+N,+Dublin+Northside,+Dublin/@53.3503492,-6.2819084,73m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x48670c2c19cde707:0x98fc910da535200a!8m2!3d53.3505181!4d-6.2781999

in the mornings

and here in the evenings

https://www.google.ie/maps/place/Brunswick+St+N,+Dublin+Northside,+Dublin/@53.3497602,-6.2820971,147m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x48670c2c19cde707:0x98fc910da535200a!8m2!3d53.3505181!4d-6.2781999

(about 50m south).

I appreciate what is being tried to do here, but I just can't see it as viable . Even in the simplest sense a reroute of 39 bus I can't see being avoided cos it's gotta cross that flow ..

First link is not relevant to the detour, as it stands at least, and, in any case, the second issues is the traffic coming around from Queen Street via Blackhall Street and that won't last the BRT route. I am very well aware of the traffic in the area, I observed it up close and personal for year.

You're still looking at this from the perspective of the current traffic levels and the current traffic flows -- the city centre transport study plan will mean a dramatic drop in traffic. As per my last post:

Even without the Liffey Cycle Route, with Luas Cross City, BRT from UCD to Blanch, Luas and bus priority measures a O'Connell Bridge and along the north and south quays, there's going to be a lowering of traffic levels around the city centre.

Luas alone will do that but add in new bus lanes from Wood Quay to O'Connell Bridge on the southside and extra bus stop/ overtaking bus lane space on central north quays, and a bus gate at Eden quay and you have serious traffic reduction.

Add in BRT and then there's a large reduction of space along the route (Old Navan Road -- Stoneybatter -- Queen Street -- Bridgefoot Street etc) and that will also lower levels of traffic on Brunswick Street too.

That's the context the Liffey Cycle Route is being planned in, not current levels of traffic.

...

trellheim wrote: »

For example I'd see installing a single private vehicle lane eastbound on Ushers Island as less crazy and making all private cars turn right over one of the bridges and then back again at the Four Courts

No space for a right turn with a left turn, a straight ahead bus land and the cycle path and, even there was, the route over and back would include loads of conflicting movements with limited spaces (the bridges) and there's also no space on the south quays before the James Joyce Bridge (ie you'd have to removed the left turn or the bus lane).

trellheim wrote: »

Yes I am well aware of the relative facepalm nature of it. It is put up as a lesser evil to that proposed in Option 7.

Don't get me wrong; I see the benefit of the lane as the lane. I dont' think we're at a stage we have a runner as yet though that works.

We're at the take it or leave it stage. The council report in the OP gives a sample of but than a handful of options and variants have been looked at. Option 7 was not chosen lightly.

Zipppy

This option is complete bull****...Stoney batter and church Street cannot take this extra thousands of vehicles a day....no point in destroying residential areas just to have cycle route on the quays...a cycle route by all means but it doesn't HAVE to be on the quays....yes I know Paris did this and London did the other...but they have other transport mode options and much greater reroute options...

trellheim

We're at the take it or leave it stage. The council report in the OP gives a sample of but than a handful of options and variants have been looked at. Option 7 was not chosen lightly.

We were like that apparently back with the Croppy acre scheme ! I am well aware of the multitude of options but this one doesn't work either . My Ushers Island lane has less conflicts than Option 7 and keeps private traffic on the quays and away from smaller local areas like Stoneybatter ( its horrible - agreed - but its less horrible than option 7 ) .

And come on. BRT ? Seriously ? Where's the funding or did I miss something

monument

Zipppy wrote: »

This option is complete bull****...Stoney batter and church Street cannot take this extra thousands of vehicles a day....no point in destroying residential areas just to have cycle route on the quays...a cycle route by all means but it doesn't HAVE to be on the quays

Where are you putting the cycle route?

You know the quays are a residential area?

You know Luas, bus priority on the quays, the Liffey Cycle Route and BRT will reduce the level of traffic? We're talking about lower levels of traffic in the area.

Zipppy wrote: »

....yes I know Paris did this and London did the other...but they have other transport mode options and much greater reroute options...

Can you please outline where you think the traffic on the motorway in Paris went to? Lots of it just dissipated:

In Paris: If we look at the numbers another way, you’ll see that overall traffic has actually been reduced. Before the closure (measured in September 2015), 2,600 vehicles per hour passed on the low road (along the river). But after the closure, only 1,301 extra cars are being seen on the Boulevard Saint Germain and the high river road combined. That is, half of the cars that used to use the now-closed road have disappeared. [Note:In the case of the lower and upper roads, these are far higher capacity than in Dublin]

Some of these cars will have found alternate routes on other roads, but many of those passengers and drivers will now be using alternative forms of transport to get to and from work.

https://www.fastcoexist.com/3064157/when-paris-closed-a-major-road-to-cars-half-its-traffic-just-disappeared

In any case, the detour does not go into Stoneybatter and Church Street is a main traffic route in the city. All of the detour route is part of the inner orbital route:



We're not talking about quiet residential streets here and we are talking about a reduction in the level of traffic in the local area and across the city centre.

And for reference, here's the BRT route:

monument

trellheim wrote: »

We were like that apparently back with the Croppy acre scheme ! I am well aware of the multitude of options

Even more options and suboptions were evaluated and reevaluated since then.

trellheim wrote: »

but this one doesn't work either

It does not work for you, but it seems to work for the council executive, the NTA, at least some councillors (the main ones who have spoke clearly against are so-far mainly those who often object to cycle routes), bus advocates, cycling campaigners, those who (rightly or wrongly) want to protect Croppy Acer, those tasked with protecting the historic built heritage of the historic bridge... and it would be easy to see why the RPA and all the bus companies would be happier compared to previous options.

trellheim wrote: »

My Ushers Island lane has less conflicts than Option 7 and keeps private traffic on the quays and away from smaller local areas like Stoneybatter ( its horrible - agreed - but its less horrible than option 7 ) .

No, not at all. It has more conflicting tunes with buses and private traffic on both sides of the quays and the cycle route -- that's far more conflicting turns than Option 7.

But the main problem is that your option does not work at all -- there's not the space for the turning lanes needed and -- even if there was -- the conflicting turns would back up buses, the cycle route and private traffic on the north and south quays. Moving the cycle route to the south quays was rejected because it would have been too disruption, doing the same with private traffic would be a nightmare.

trellheim wrote: »

And come on. BRT ? Seriously ? Where's the funding or did I miss something

Yes, seriously, the BRT route is still in planning. I heard the same thing about Luas BXD before it was proceeded with -- contracts were signed for in the middle of the downturn, not the boom. My guess is that BRT (or what I still think will be BRT-lite) will come in much in the same way as a lot of the QBC network did -- not in one big bang and with conventional buses to start with while the full route is progressing. That's what Belfast is doing and what other cities have done.

But even without BRT, the local city centre context is a different world:

• Luas crossing Constitution Hill (this is good for bus flows)
• Luas crossing Bolton St
• Traffic capacity on Dominick Street Lower permanently gone
• Luas crossing Parnell Square West, and Parnell Street x2
• Two traffic lanes gone from nearly half of Parnell Street
• Luas crossing the quays, and apparently not being able to stop on the O'Connell Bridge!
• Bus gate on Eden Quay
• No right turn from north quays to O'Connell Bridge
• Extra bus lane on Bachelors Walk
• The last three points = generally traffic only on Bachelors Walk to access on O'Connell Street, which itself will be reduced with trams running in the central northbound lane up to the Spire.
• On O'Connell Bridge: Northbound right turn bus only and same for southbound right turn.
• Extra bus lane on south quays from O'Connell Bridge to Wood Quay
• College Green Plaza and 24 hour bus gate from College Street to Dawson St
• New bus lane on Tara Street
• Parliament Street with a bus gate
• Contra-flow bus lane on Winetavern St
• A general traffic for most of Liffey Cycle Route along the quays

There's going to be larger traffic reduction in all of this... or do you disagree?

beauf

I think some people are missing the point that there is a move to reduce car traffic in the city center. Not improve its throughput.

They had opportunity in the 70's and 80's to widen many streets, and instead they built right up to the existing narrow roads. Same thing with the LUAS track. I know they had limited space. But that was the opportunity to plan for cycle lanes again missed.

End result there just isn't the space, to increase the capacity for cars. Even if they wanted to. Which they don't. So you can assume anything that's done for any reason, will reduce capacity for cars.

Carlos Orange

monument wrote: »

Can you please outline where you think the traffic on the motorway in Paris went to? Lots of it just dissipated:

They don't seem to have studied very many roads and just assumed the missing traffic converted to public transport. It is to be expected that some of the traffic rerouted to other roads since on some of the roads studied travel time doubled.

bk

monument wrote: »

The full project includes a continuous Liffey Cycle Route from the Phoenix Park to the Point Depot.

I would hope that they would also continue it onto East Point Business Park and then onto the Clontarf cycle park.

Lots of young, smart, European professionals working there who love cycling and the companies there have put in place some fantastic cycling infrastructure. Would be a no brainer and of course would lead to a great continuous cycle path from the Phoenix Park to Howth.

beauf wrote: »

I think some people are missing the point that there is a move to reduce car traffic in the city center. Not improve its throughput.

They had opportunity in the 70's and 80's to widen many streets, and instead they built right up to the existing narrow roads. Same thing with the LUAS track. I know they had limited space. But that was the opportunity to plan for cycle lanes again missed.

End result there just isn't the space, to increase the capacity for cars. Even if they wanted to. Which they don't. So you can assume anything that's done for any reason, will reduce capacity for cars.

Well in fairness, LA and many other cities tried putting wide roads through cities in the 70's and it ended up a social disaster and environmental disaster that ended up with some of the worst traffic congestion and pollution in the world.

Amsterdam City tried doing the same in the 60's, they even proposed filling in the canals for more road space! Fortunately the people of Amsterdam were shocked by this and fought it on their streets with a massive community movement. As we all know, Amsterdam city is now one of the most beautiful and heathiest cities in the world.

Can you imagine how terrible Amsterdam would be with no canals, many of the old traditional buildings knocked and just cars everywhere!!!!

bk

psinno wrote: »

They don't seem to have studied very many roads and just assumed the missing traffic converted to public transport. It is to be expected that some of the traffic rerouted to other roads since on some of the roads studied travel time doubled.

Shrug, if you don't do anything that is going to happen anyway!

The reality is that the population of Dublin city is growing very quickly. Given the nature of the medieval streets of Dublin there simply is no space to put more roads and more cars that would otherwise result from this big increase in population.

The only realistic solution is to modify the street space to give more space over to higher density forms of transport including walking/cycling/buses and trams.

At this stage, we literally have no other solution to this problem. The thinking is that smart people will simply switch to the now much faster buses and bikes, rather then sit in traffic for twice as long.

beauf

bk wrote: »

...Well in fairness, LA and many other cities tried putting wide roads through cities in the 70's and it ended up a social disaster and environmental disaster that ended up with some of the worst traffic congestion and pollution in the world.

Amsterdam City tried doing the same in the 60's, they even proposed filling in the canals for more road space! Fortunately the people of Amsterdam were shocked by this and fought it on their streets with a massive community movement. As we all know, Amsterdam city is now one of the most beautiful and heathiest cities in the world.

Can you imagine how terrible Amsterdam would be with no canals, many of the old traditional buildings knocked and just cars everywhere!!!!

My point of widening the roads, and moving building backs, was not to create lanes/space for cars, but create space for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport, trams etc.

When we are looking at things like Luas, and cycle and bus lanes now we are running into problems with recently built buildings in the way due to poor planning and foresight.

bk

beauf wrote: »

My point of widening the roads, and moving building backs, was not to create lanes/space for cars, but create space for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport, trams etc.

When we are looking at things like Luas, and cycle and bus lanes now we are running into problems with recently built buildings in the way due to poor planning and foresight.

No we are running into problems because Irish politicians are afraid to do what is needed and has happened in pretty much every major city center in Europe. That is close car parks and ban the majority of cars from the core city center.

Totally the norm across Europe and we would have plenty of space for all the footpaths, cycle lanes and buses that we want then.

What you are suggesting is that we knock historic buildings to make more road space for lots of noisy, polluting cars, with a bit of space on the side for bikes and buses.

We already did enough damage to our city scape in the 70's and 80's knocking of beautiful old red brick houses to make way for terribly ugly office buildings. We luckily avoided the worst of the motorisation of city streets that went on in many cities in the 60's and 70's that did terrible damage to them.

Zipppy

How come, in this debate, there has been little mention of advocating that commuters take to scooters, mopeds or indeed motorbikes ( but especially scooters...)
Just have a look at most European cities...Paris Barcelona Madrid Rome etc etc scooters EVERYWHERE..

2RockMountain

psinno wrote: »

They don't seem to have studied very many roads and just assumed the missing traffic converted to public transport. It is to be expected that some of the traffic rerouted to other roads since on some of the roads studied travel time doubled.

Don't worry too much. Half of the traffic will disappear, based on international experience.

https://www.fastcoexist.com/3064157/when-paris-closed-a-major-road-to-cars-half-its-traffic-just-disappeared

beauf

bk wrote: »

No we are running into problems because Irish politicians are afraid to do what is needed and has happened in pretty much every major city center in Europe. That is close car parks and ban the majority of cars from the core city center.

Totally the norm across Europe and we would have plenty of space for all the footpaths, cycle lanes and buses that we want then.

What you are suggesting is that we knock historic buildings to make more road space for lots of noisy, polluting cars, with a bit of space on the side for bikes and buses.

We already did enough damage to our city scape in the 70's and 80's knocking of beautiful old red brick houses to make way for terribly ugly office buildings. We luckily avoided the worst of the motorisation of city streets that went on in many cities in the 60's and 70's that did terrible damage to them.

I never mentioned knocking anything down. Simply that we allowed NEW building where it now causes problems with current schemes. And I never said it was for cars.

But so go ahead demanding banning all cars and parking from Dublin and insisting everyone, should cycle everywhere. All it will achieve is a backlash that will put cycling interests back a decade.

Zipppy

2RockMountain wrote:

Don't worry too much. Half of the traffic will disappear, based on international experience.

Paris has a metro...we've got a crappy bus service....no comparison can be made...

2RockMountain

Zipppy wrote: »

Paris has a metro...we've got a crappy bus service....no comparison can be made...

You can't take cars on the Metro. People need to get out of their cars, and get on the Luas or the DART or their bike or a Dublin Bike or take the bus or walk a bit. It's not really that hard.

beauf

2RockMountain wrote: »

Don't worry too much. Half of the traffic will disappear, based on international experience.

https://www.fastcoexist.com/3064157/when-paris-closed-a-major-road-to-cars-half-its-traffic-just-disappeared

It didn't disappear, it moved to other roads...

traffic on these roads has jumped quite alarmingly during the morning rush-hour...

We had the same in Dublin (or any city) when they close certain roads. Like the phoenix park when they closed the main road to rebuild it.

Many people won't explore other options until they are forced to. Human nature it seems. Creatures of habit.

beauf

2RockMountain wrote: »

You can't take cars on the Metro. People need to get out of their cars, and get on the Luas or the DART or their bike or a Dublin Bike or take the bus or walk a bit. It's not really that hard.

It is when you can't physically get on it because its crammed.

beauf

Deedsie wrote: »

And a Luas, DART and Rail service and plans to upgrade them all. They way people go on you would swear no one commutes in Dublin by rail.

And it's actually a fairly good bus service. Would be even better if they didn't have to share the roads with so many private cars.

We have numbers for it

http://www.newstalk.com/Number-of-cyclists-on-Dublin-roads-has-more-than-doubled-in-past-decade

http://www.thejournal.ie/highest-number-of-cyclists-dublin-2783677-May2016/

bk

beauf wrote: »

It is when you can't physically get on it because its crammed.

Which would sort of indicate that it is highly successful and popular and that we should be doing more of it!

BTW I take Dublin Bus quiet a bit off peak and I find it extremely fast and efficient way to get around the city off peak. In fact I find it faster then Dart and Luas.

Yes, peak time the bus can be very slow. But that is due to congestion from traffic. Reduce the cars, give the buses more space and priority and it has the potential to be just as fast on peak.

Just one small example was the widening of the road outside the cat and cage pub in Drumcondra, to get rid of the bottleneck there. The bus now flys along the Drumcondra road and into town in no time at all IME. It has made a massive improvement. The bus never stops for traffic, just at bus stops. Almost free flow.

Do loads more of these type of improvements around the city and you could find Dublin Bus offering a seriously good service. It really does have the potential.

beauf

Zipppy wrote: »

Paris has a metro...we've got a crappy bus service....no comparison can be made...

Love the Paris double decker trains

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQUViHlk6ys

beauf

bk wrote: »

Which would sort of indicate that it is highly successful and popular and that we should be doing more of it!...

Kinda hard to move more people on it, if its full though. Same with Luas, and trains.

I rarely use a car to get to work. But that's because I'm lucky with my route. There are many places around Dublin, I would have no choice to drive. Thats the reality.