Cycling Numbers up substantially in DCC

MJohnston

This is great to see, a huge jump in the number of cyclists along the Quays:


Additionally, bicycles now outnumber cars along Arran Quay:



Those are fantastic figures considering the dangerous nature of that stretch of the Quays.

Hopefully this should light a fire under the Liffey Cycle route plans.

ED E

Now if only the stingy gits would fund the Dublin Bikes expansion.

Vic_08

MJohnston wrote: »

This is great to see, a huge jump in the number of cyclists along the Quays:


Additionally, bicycles now outnumber cars along Arran Quay:



Those are fantastic figures considering the dangerous nature of that stretch of the Quays.

Hopefully this should light a fire under the Liffey Cycle route plans.

Source?


If those figures are correct then assuming a middling average occupancy of 50 people/bus there are 10 times as many Dublin Bus commuters than cyclists or car users. Add in all the other bus operators it will be even higher.

How about the bicycle-centric focus is toned down and proper priority given to the sustainable transport option that the vast majority of those on Dublin roads use.

AngryLips

Vic_08 wrote: »

Source?


If those figures are correct then assuming a middling average occupancy of 50 people/bus there are 10 times as many Dublin Bus commuters than cyclists or car users. Add in all the other bus operators it will be even higher.

How about the bicycle-centric focus is toned down and proper priority given to the sustainable transport option that the vast majority of those on Dublin roads use.

Maybe because there is already a segregated bus lane along this stretch whereas there is no segregated cycle lane.

MJohnston

Vic_08 wrote: »

Source?


If those figures are correct then assuming a middling average occupancy of 50 people/bus there are 10 times as many Dublin Bus commuters than cyclists or car users. Add in all the other bus operators it will be even higher.

How about the bicycle-centric focus is toned down and proper priority given to the sustainable transport option that the vast majority of those on Dublin roads use.

Source is https://dublincity.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/262739 click on Agenda and then Liffey Cycle presentation.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with your latter point - most of the cycling proposals around at the minute only improve the road use for public transport. Public transport and cycling can easily coexist, its the private vehicles that need to be 'toned down' and deprioritised - reduce private vehicles and things will get better for *both* buses and bikes, I'm not sure why you're positioning them as opposing/conflicting modes.

Vic_08

MJohnston wrote: »

Source is https://dublincity.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/262739 click on Agenda and then Liffey Cycle presentation.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with your latter point - most of the cycling proposals around at the minute only improve the road use for public transport. Public transport and cycling can easily coexist, its the private vehicles that need to be 'toned down' and deprioritised - reduce private vehicles and things will get better for *both* buses and bikes, I'm not sure why you're positioning them as opposing/conflicting modes.

They are opposing/conflicting modes when they are fighting over limited roadspace. Shared bus/bike/taxi spaces are far less than ideal, particularly for bus efficiency and in a number of key locations a dedicated cycle lane will cut down the remainder of available roadspace so as to compromise proper bus priority measures.


The original proposals for the quays was to provide dedicated cycle space with buses shoved through a detour, this only failed due to the blockage with a building planned getting in the way. The alternative proposal to route cycles around the detour was quickly damned by cycle lobby as a terrible inconvenience and one that they wouldn't use.

I agree completely that both bike and PT should be prioritised over private car use. I am just pointing out that your figures neatly hide that a vast majority of people passing the measured point did so on buses and they ought to be the ones given the highest priority in planning which is not what is currently happening.

MJohnston

Vic_08 wrote: »

They are opposing/conflicting modes when they are fighting over limited roadspace. Shared bus/bike/taxi spaces are far less than ideal, particularly for bus efficiency and in a number of key locations a dedicated cycle lane will cut down the remainder of available roadspace so as to compromise proper bus priority measures.


The original proposals for the quays was to provide dedicated cycle space with buses shoved through a detour, this only failed due to the blockage with a building planned getting in the way. The alternative proposal to route cycles around the detour was quickly damned by cycle lobby as a terrible inconvenience and one that they wouldn't use.

I agree completely that both bike and PT should be prioritised over private car use. I am just pointing out that your figures neatly hide that a vast majority of people passing the measured point did so on buses and they ought to be the ones given the highest priority in planning which is not what is currently happening.

In fairness (a) they're not my figures (b) they don't hide anything - they're pretty clear about what they measure (and I don't know how you could accurately estimate the occupancy of each bus counted).

The original proposals for the quays are no longer proposed, and I think we were all fairly in agreement that the newest proposal is advantageous for both PT and cyclists, to the massive detriment of private car traffic.

You mentioned taxis, honestly I think they're far more of a conflict for buses than cycling infrastructure ever could be.

Personally I would prefer to improve circumstances for both buses and cyclists, and I think that's possible to do in tandem, but it'll come at the expense of being able to accommodate low-occupancy vehicles (and to be honest, I think taxis are in that category).

Roadhawk

Im not sure of the exact parameters around this test but it sounds like a few people were selected to stand at a point on Ellis Quay with a counter and record a mode of transport as it passes. With the 3 hour test window between 07.00 and 10.00 I can only presume that the rush hour traffic was effecting the flow of cars, and not buses in bus lanes or cyclists in cycle/bus lanes.

Feel free to correct me but as far as I understand so far, this is a flawed method counting of vehicles until they can free up the number of cars able to pass that point and not have them obstructed by traffic.

MJohnston

Roadhawk wrote: »

Im not sure of the exact parameters around this test but it sounds like a few people were selected to stand at a point on Ellis Quay with a counter and record a mode of transport as it passes. With the 3 hour test window between 07.00 and 10.00 I can only presume that the rush hour traffic was effecting the flow of cars, and not buses in bus lanes or cyclists in cycle/bus lanes.

Feel free to correct me but as far as I understand so far, this is a flawed method counting of vehicles until they can free up the number of cars able to pass that point and not have them obstructed by traffic.

You might have an argument if it wasn't a 3 hour period. Unless the measurement day was some gridlock that lasted the entire 3 hours, you'd still get an accurate measurement of rush hour traffic. DCC's roads are relatively quiet after 10am.

Roadhawk

MJohnston wrote: »

You might have an argument if it wasn't a 3 hour period. Unless the measurement day was some gridlock that lasted the entire 3 hours, you'd still get an accurate measurement of rush hour traffic. DCC's roads are relatively quiet after 10am.

Having a 3 hour period limits the results to only reflect a portion of the day which coincides with morning rush hour traffic entering the city. According to the link below, Dublin.info say that the Dublin City Rush Hour times are between 07.00 and 09.00. I would go as far as to say that these times are underestimated and another 30 mins could be added to both ends. Even if the there was an event causing unusual traffic on the day of testing there would still be a flawed count as there would be a restriction to a a particular mode of transport. Both buses and bicycles are relatively unrestricted during rush hour in comparison to cars and therefore can pass more numbers. Your initial post outlines that there are 32% less cars being used however that cannot be accurate as it may be 32% less cars can physically pass that point due to traffic. Im sure a portion of those motorists have resulted to other modes of transport but the measurement is still inaccurate.

http://www.dublin.info/getting-around/

magicbastarder

MJohnston wrote: »

it'll come at the expense of being able to accommodate low-occupancy vehicles (and to be honest, I think taxis are in that category).

i don't think there's a 'to be honest' about it at all - a taxi with two people in it has an effective occupancy of one. i would hope this is taken into account if counting of car occupancy is done.

Roadhawk

Deedsie wrote: »

They are traffic. The only way to free it up is to reduce the number of unnecessary single occupant private car.

Well not the only way...

If driver behavior was to improve (of course it wont) and they were to be more alert and react in a timely manner then traffic would move faster. Also if the number of junctions/stopping points were reduced then traffic would be significantly improved.

Tombo2001

Roadhawk wrote: »

Im not sure of the exact parameters around this test but it sounds like a few people were selected to stand at a point on Ellis Quay with a counter and record a mode of transport as it passes. With the 3 hour test window between 07.00 and 10.00 I can only presume that the rush hour traffic was effecting the flow of cars, and not buses in bus lanes or cyclists in cycle/bus lanes.

Feel free to correct me but as far as I understand so far, this is a flawed method counting of vehicles until they can free up the number of cars able to pass that point and not have them obstructed by traffic.

Cars are being obstructed by traffic........I like that.

Stats are stats; its interesting.

The thing is of course, to look at a typical street in a city you would assume that cars dominate the traffic, because in fact they do......they are large and fast and there are a lot of them.

However its interesting to see that while cars dominate the traffic, and are the major contributors in terms of road wear and tear, pollution and accidents; in terms of the space they take up; they have a significantly lower impact with regard to the amount of passengers they carry.

If you were a planner and were just looking at these raw stats, the very obvious conclusion would be to get all commuters out of cars and into either buses or bikes.

amcalester

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Cars are being obstructed by traffic........I like that.

Stats are stats; its interesting.

The thing is of course, to look at a typical street in a city you would assume that cars dominate the traffic, because in fact they do......they are large and fast and there are a lot of them.

However its interesting to see that while cars dominate the traffic, and are the major contributors in terms of road wear and tear, pollution and accidents; in terms of the space they take up; they have a significantly lower impact with regard to the amount of passengers they carry.

If you were a planner and were just looking at these raw stats, the very obvious conclusion would be to get all commuters out of cars and into either buses or bikes.

Maybe DCC should look at removing all traffic from the City Centre, that would allow cars travel through the city without any delays.

Roadhawk

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Cars are being obstructed by traffic........I like that.

That may have been misinterpreted. Im sure you understand what my point was but let me clarify...During the collection of data, at rush hour (07.00-10.00), private motor vehicles are restricted to movement and therefore less cars are counted.

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Stats are stats; its interesting.

I couldnt agree more, Stats are stats but if there is any sort of agenda associated with the collection of the data then its flawed. If there are any of the following cognitive bias' then the data is also flawed. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases)

Tombo2001 wrote: »

The thing is of course, to look at a typical street in a city you would assume that cars dominate the traffic, because in fact they do......they are large and fast and there are a lot of them.

However its interesting to see that while cars dominate the traffic, and are the major contributors in terms of road wear and tear, pollution and accidents; in terms of the space they take up; they have a significantly lower impact with regard to the amount of passengers they carry.

I would tend to agree but that is not what the stats from the OP in this thread state. According to the OP there has been a 32% reduction in private vehicle use recorded at Ellis Quay.

Tombo2001 wrote: »

If you were a planner and were just looking at these raw stats, the very obvious conclusion would be to get all commuters out of cars and into either buses or bikes.

City planners who "just looked at the raw stats" caused the M50 crises. There was no forward planning and they had just reacted to the data collected to achieve design capacity. In the end extra lanes had to be added which is still not sufficient.

If i was responsible for the planning of Dublin city there would be no LUAS. Instead there would be an underground network servicing the equivalent areas and more. This would also free up road space for additional bus lanes and correctly designed segregated cycle tracks. I would reduce the number of junctions for motorists by increasing the number of pedestrianised areas on both the north and south side of the city. I would erect roadside railings to force pedestrians to cross at pedestrian crossings only or better still build tunnels or walkovers for crossing roads to maintain the flow of traffic.

magicbastarder

Roadhawk wrote: »

If i was responsible for the planning of Dublin city there would be no LUAS. Instead there would be an underground network servicing the equivalent areas and more.

that's great, but where would you get the money?

Tombo2001

Roadhawk wrote: »

That may have been misinterpreted. Im sure you understand what my point was but let me clarify...During the collection of data, at rush hour (07.00-10.00), private motor vehicles are restricted to movement and therefore less cars are counted.



I couldnt agree more, Stats are stats but if there is any sort of agenda associated with the collection of the data then its flawed. If there are any of the following cognitive bias' then the data is also flawed. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases)



I would tend to agree but that is not what the stats from the OP in this thread state. According to the OP there has been a 32% reduction in private vehicle use recorded at Ellis Quay.



City planners who "just looked at the raw stats" caused the M50 crises. There was no forward planning and they had just reacted to the data collected to achieve design capacity. In the end extra lanes had to be added which is still not sufficient.

If i was responsible for the planning of Dublin city there would be no LUAS. Instead there would be an underground network servicing the equivalent areas and more. This would also free up road space for additional bus lanes and correctly designed segregated cycle tracks. I would reduce the number of junctions for motorists by increasing the number of pedestrianised areas on both the north and south side of the city. I would erect roadside railings to force pedestrians to cross at pedestrian crossings only or better still build tunnels or walkovers for crossing roads to maintain the flow of traffic.

Everything you've said there makes a huge amount of sense.

Two points
(I) I don't see how rush hour - the heaviest period for car traffic - can make it seem like there are proportionately less cars on the road.
Although looking at it from a different perspective - from midnight to 7.00am you would see close to zero buses and zero cyclists, so maybe you are right.

(II) Even with reduced car volumes, the 2015 stats still show 5 times more cars than buses.....i.e. standing on the footpath whilst waiting for a gap to jaywalk through, the main thing you are seeing is cars.....there might be as many bikes, but cars take up much more of the road.

magicbastarder

Roadhawk wrote: »

That may have been misinterpreted. Im sure you understand what my point was but let me clarify...During the collection of data, at rush hour (07.00-10.00), private motor vehicles are restricted to movement and therefore less cars are counted.

i'm not sure i understand - because there are too many cars at rush hour, this means there are not enough cars?

amcalester

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm not sure i understand - because there are too many cars at rush hour, this means there are not enough cars?

To be fair it is possible that with less cars on the road and less congestion the total number of cars past a point could increase.

However, saying that the sample is flawed because it was done at rush hour doesn't make sense as this is when most people want to use the road.

Roadhawk

magicbastarder wrote: »

that's great, but where would you get the money?

Didnt a Japanese firm offer to built and operate an underground system in Dublin back in the 1990's? Im sure these kind of deals still exist.

MJohnston

amcalester wrote: »

To be fair it is possible that with less cars on the road and less congestion the total number of cars past a point could increase.

No, no, sorry that's bonkers. I see what you're trying to say, but if there are less cars then the total number of cars will also be lower.

What I suppose you mean is that the measurement would only be precise if taken on a road with infinite capacity and zero congestion - ie. then you'd know exactly how many cars were *trying* to get through this stretch of road. I'm not sure what the value of that measurement is though, as it wouldn't reflect reality.

The very argument that the measurement can't be correct because there's too much traffic is part of the point of getting rid of private vehicle traffic!

Even if we take the measurement being incorrect as a given for the reason Roadhawk mentions - 2014 had more cars, therefore less capacity for even more cars to pass the measurement area. 2016's numbers are lower, so more capacity in comparison. In other words, if you're making this argument, then you have to assume that 2014's car numbers should be higher relative to 2016, and therefore you're actually arguing that the drop in private vehicle usage at this point is greater than the reported figures!

As it is, I don't agree that the measurement is wrong for two reasons:

1) It's compared against another reading taken 2 years ago using the exact same methodology. The absolute numbers aren't important, the trend directions are.
2) There is no place on Ellis or Arran Quay where you're likely to be stuck in traffic for more than 5-10 minutes. Most people would agree that quays traffic significantly lightens by 9:30am. So where did all these hypothetical unmeasured cars disappear to?

Del2005

Weepsie wrote: »

A congestion charge for inside the canals is what is needed. If someone has a genuine need to be in their car I'm sure there are viable solutions regards not charging. People should learn to ride share more often too. Driving cars over short distances should really be disincentivised.

Until they provide viable alternatives for the car they can't implement the congestion charge, so of course it'll be implemented. I don't see many public transport options we currently have where you can get extra capacity during rush hour. So if you introduce a charge for entering the canals then the current public transport user's will suffer, as the people currently driving will park at the terminus (causing chaos for the local residents) and the public transport will be full so no one else will be able to get on. Due to our parochial politics there will never be proper investment in Dublin's public transport.

magicbastarder

it's one of those chicken and egg things, i suspect. buses frequently run at a crawl in the city centre at rush hour, and won't speed up till the cars are gone. but many of the cars won't go until the bus service is faster.

LeinsterDub

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's one of those chicken and egg things, i suspect. buses frequently run at a crawl in the city centre at rush hour, and won't speed up till the cars are gone. but many of the cars won't go until the bus service is faster.

Dwell time is by far a bigger issue for most routes. I would think that most routes have 80% + bus lanes along their length in town. Yet when i cycle I can overtake dozens of buses as they crawl 200-300 meters up the road and stop again for 30 seconds to over 2 minutes. Drivers know these stops are so close and don't even bother getting out of second gear.

monument

Roadhawk wrote: »

Im not sure of the exact parameters around this test but it sounds like a few people were selected to stand at a point on Ellis Quay with a counter and record a mode of transport as it passes. With the 3 hour test window between 07.00 and 10.00 I can only presume that the rush hour traffic was effecting the flow of cars, and not buses in bus lanes or cyclists in cycle/bus lanes.

Feel free to correct me but as far as I understand so far, this is a flawed method counting of vehicles until they can free up the number of cars able to pass that point and not have them obstructed by traffic.

Peak-time traffic counts are counted in rush hour -- you're smarter than this, so, I take it you're engaged in some kind of trolling.

If you truly don't understand traffic counts or have any questions feel free to start another thread.

Don't post again on this thread.

-- moderator

Tombo2001

monument wrote: »

Peak-time traffic counts are counted in rush hour -- you're smarter than this, so, I take it you're engaged in some kind of trolling.

If you truly don't understand traffic counts or have any questions feel free to start another thread.

Don't post again on this thread.

-- moderator

As pointed out earlier
- Yes there are more cars in peak than in off peak.

However, there may be proportionately less cars in peak than off peak.

For example - cars might represent 40% of passenger traffic between 7.00am and 10.00am; but 95% of traffic between 10.00pm and 7.00am.

There is some logic in the point he/she made.

magicbastarder

the point of the survey is not to determine how many cars the road could hold if you removed all buses, it's to determine how many actually use it.
and it's clear that measures to allow more cars onto the quays would result in a net drop of people commuting into town along the quays, as it'd be at the expense of more efficient modes of transport.

Tombo2001

An obvious point here that hasn't been made is that the particular location of this survey is a kilometer away from the exit of the phoenix park......all of the bike traffic from blanch, castleknock, navan road and parts of cabra would go through the phoenix park.

That's not true of all the car traffic, a lot of that would go down through Cabra on to Church Street or further down through Dorset St.

A drop in car numbers at this particular location could be for a number of different reasons; e.g. road works, luas works etc.....it may just be that cars are going a different way.

I'm a cyclist myself, not a driver; and I'd love to see safer cycling routes.

It may be that this sort of data is not telling you that way more people are cycling; rather that cyclists/ drivers are naturally segregating.....cyclists will go the ways that cars cant go.....because its safer.

My ultimate point here, is that I'd like to see that played out in practice.....where its not possible to have decent, safe cycle lanes on commuter routes....then what we might get instead is routes that are cycle focused (e.g. Phoenix park/ Quays) and routes that are car focused (e.g. Navan Road/ NCR)......

Zebra3

amcalester wrote: »

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Cars are being obstructed by traffic........I like that.

Stats are stats; its interesting.

The thing is of course, to look at a typical street in a city you would assume that cars dominate the traffic, because in fact they do......they are large and fast and there are a lot of them.

However its interesting to see that while cars dominate the traffic, and are the major contributors in terms of road wear and tear, pollution and accidents; in terms of the space they take up; they have a significantly lower impact with regard to the amount of passengers they carry.

If you were a planner and were just looking at these raw stats, the very obvious conclusion would be to get all commuters out of cars and into either buses or bikes.

Maybe DCC should look at removing all traffic from the City Centre, that would allow cars travel through the city without any delays.

And traffic lights!!

Tombo2001

Zebra3 wrote: »

And traffic lights!!

Buildings also are an obstruction........if only there could be a giant circular road that was just for cars.....going all the way around the city......with no bikes or buses allowed..... Then all our problems would be solved.

ThisRegard

A lot would also exit the park and head up towards Kilmainham and into the city along the canal.

Tombo2001

Weepsie wrote: »

That's simply just not true. I'd say most of it does, but plenty goes down the Navan Road and onto the North Circular Road, more and more is going along the Royal Canal by now. Some even avoids the park and goes the other side via Palmerstown, Chapelizod, Ballyfermot etc and onto the Grand canal.

There are a a multitude of different route options by bike that are just not available by car so this is missing a hell of a lot more cyclists in its count than you think it is.

Cycle traffic from Blanch is most definitely not coming in along the motorway, or indeed the dual carriageway......and it has a round about route to get to Navan Road/ NCR .....

As for the Royal Canal......I wish that was the case. I think it could be fantastic cycle route.....except with security concerns in the dark, or even bright.....

I cycled the Royal Canal for about 3 years (not so long ago), and there were very very few other cyclists commuting.

Anyway......until we get the traffic stats for the other routes, then we just don't know if who is right and who is wrong on this one.

ThisRegard

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Cycle traffic from Blanch is most definitely not coming in along the motorway, or indeed the dual carriageway......and it has a round about route to get to Navan Road/ NCR

Straight through Blanch Village, past Bradys and the 12th Lock on the old Navan Road and over the pedestrian/cycle bridge that spans the M50. I would take that route and then up Auburn Avenue so as to avoid Castleknock Village which can be slow to get through due to the traffic and narrow road making it difficult to get past the stopped cars.

The bridge over the M50 is actually more direct than having to go the N3.

MJohnston

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Buildings also are an obstruction........if only there could be a giant circular road that was just for cars.....going all the way around the city......with no bikes or buses allowed..... Then all our problems would be solved.

Pretty sure Roadhawk made a genuine proposal for this in another thread once...

If you were cycling from Blanch, you'd absolutely use the Royal Canal Path - it's brilliant from Blanch all the way to Broombridge, where it turns okay but pebbly, and then once you reach Crossguns you've a multitude of options for getting further into the city. No idea why you'd head out to Phoenix Park other than for a scenic detour!

ThisRegard

MJohnston wrote: »

No idea why you'd head out to Phoenix Park other than for a scenic detour!

If you're based on the southside of the city near the canal it's better to go that way than to traverse through the city centre.

MJohnston

ThisRegard wrote: »

If you're based on the southside of the city near the canal it's better to go that way than to traverse through the city centre.

Southside to Phoenix Park you mean? Not sure I understand that!

ThisRegard

Sorry, I mean if your office or whatever is on the southside of the city.

MJohnston

Ah I see - though I think it was in the south-east, I'd still go via NCR.

monument

Tombo2001 wrote: »

As pointed out earlier
- Yes there are more cars in peak than in off peak.

However, there may be proportionately less cars in peak than off peak.

For example - cars might represent 40% of passenger traffic between 7.00am and 10.00am; but 95% of traffic between 10.00pm and 7.00am.

There is some logic in the point he/she made.

Please don't reply to posts where there's moderation (you should know already it's against the rules): but Roadhawk was making quite a different point.

-- moderator