Limerick Transport

geotrig

zulutango wrote: »

Cost would be the main argument. You're talking a few million euro versus less than 100k for that intervention alone.

would it cost a few million euro ? id be surprised if it did , but who is going to pay for it anyway it sits on l cc and clare cc boundries !

LeoD

Cookiemunster wrote: »

To 'de-prioritise car traffic', stake holders other than the council, such as Bus Eireann, need to get involved and provide other options to the car. Looking at the piss poor state of the bus service in Limerick, I wouldn't be holding my breath that Bus Eireann would step up any time soon. There's no point building bus lanes when there're few if any buses to use them .

Absolutely, and not just Bus Eireann, but Irish Rail, bike share providers, Limerick Chamber & businesses, taxis, parking providers, residents, etc. Now trying to co-ordinate all these different stakeholders could well be nightmarish at times and some will offer more resistance to change than others but the council need to try their best to explain the benefits and sell the idea to everyone.

From what I've heard about how Bus Eireann works though, they are a serious problem to progress. Any change to service requires approval from unions which means 2 things - glacial pace of change and more moola.

geotrig

Cookiemunster wrote: »

To 'de-prioritise car traffic', stake holders other than the council, such as Bus Eireann, need to get involved and provide other options to the car. Looking at the piss poor state of the bus service in Limerick, I wouldn't be holding my breath that Bus Eireann would step up any time soon. There's no point building bus lanes when there're few if any buses to use them .

I live slight further out the road and as far as i know there is 2 buses a day at time that are not usable for me too late leaving and too early home . not that i can use it to get to work anyway but thats not the point here.

LeoD wrote: »

What do people here think of the bus lane on Ballinacurra Road? I've heard people complain about it but I'd like to know what the issues are (I don't use buses).

for traffic its ok cars dont need more space, lack of cyclespace is an issue and like all buslanes a bit of a mess when it gets to junctions. its not the worst implemented and its already in place for any future improvements in the area.

source

Public Transport

• Increase bus lane network around the city on streets that can accommodate them, this won’t allow for full journeys in bus lanes but will significantly improve travel times none the less. There is no need for the massive public realm works that were done alongside the Ballinacurra Road bus lane, simply remark the roads where they are wide enough to allow for bus lanes – improves reliability and journey times leading to increased usage.
• Install Leap card readers at the right side of the bus door, it works in Dublin no reason it wouldn’t work here, if I have a leap card I shouldn’t have to wait in the queue of people counting out change to get to the driver to tap on and be given a ticket – reduces dwell times at stops.
• Increase the number of busses so that timetables are viable and accurate – better reliability and higher frequency will improve usage. (I have a friend living in Westbury, nearly every time we arrange to meet in town for drinks, his bus is either late or doesn’t turn up at all, and that’s at 9pm when there is very little traffic).
• Reduce fares to entice people out of their cars and onto the busses, the current bus fare is too high for the distances being travelled in Limerick. This reduces the incentive to travel by bus which creates a vicious circle of decreasing usage and increasing fares – lower fares along with the other improvements noted above will see greater use of the service leading to greater profits for Bus Eireann.
• Lack of bus routes between suburbs, or lack of routes that link the suburbs via the city is also an issue, increase the routes to allow people commute from one suburb to another without having to change in the city, the 304a route shows this is a viable option – these routes will have long commute times, but if the other points I have raised are implemented it will help.

Cycling

• Increased bike lane network around the city, again on streets that can handle it.
• Improve the network of the limerick bike scheme to include The Crescent, ULH , Grove Island, The Parkway, Thomond Park, LIT, The Jetland – others may follow in time but greater access to the network will improve usage – If I’m living in Dooradoyle, to cycle I either need to own my own bike or walk to Mary I to take a bike. Only other options are infrequent busses or driving which currently is the most reliable

There are lots of things that can be done to improve the usage and reliability of public transport and cycling around the city without the need to hamper the free movement of other modes of transport. Hampering the use of cars without changing the above (as an initial example) first will not lead to increased use of the above, rather it will lead to greater traffic jams as people will still be reliant on cars but find it more difficult to use them.

Concentrating on the simple fixes, which will improve the public transport and cycling offerings around the city will produce better results. Then once the situation has improved and the number of people using public transport has increased begin to make the changes to the roads and foot paths as necessary to give a greater share of the space available over to public transport and cycling/walking.

Re Ballinacurra road, I live in the area and have never had an issue with the width of the new lanes. Most cyclists I’ve seen use the foot path which is far too wide for the volume of pedestrians it sees. It has definitely improved the commute time from Raheen to the city for those travelling by bus. Pretty much bus lane from the Industrial estate to Childer’s Road.

The Specialist

source wrote: »

Re Ballinacurra road, I live in the area and have never had an issue with the width of the new lanes. Most cyclists I’ve seen use the foot path which is far too wide for the volume of pedestrians it sees. It has definitely improved the commute time from Raheen to the city for those travelling by bus. Pretty much bus lane from the Industrial estate to Childer’s Road.

I've never seen a cyclist using the path but have been stuck many times behind them using the traffic lane - it is literally impossible to get around them at times due to traffic coming from Dooradoyle (there is simply not enough width to overtake them).

source

The Specialist wrote: »

I've never seen a cyclist using the path but have been stuck many times behind them using the traffic lane - it is literally impossible to get around them at times due to traffic coming from Dooradoyle (there is simply not enough width to overtake them).

I reckon I've had that experience maybe 3 or 4 times since the work was completed. Either I'm very lucky or you're very unlucky.

73hdkgo

source wrote: »

There are lots of things that can be done to improve the usage and reliability of public transport and cycling around the city without the need to hamper the free movement of other modes of transport. Hampering the use of cars without changing the above (as an initial example) first will not lead to increased use of the above, rather it will lead to greater traffic jams as people will still be reliant on cars but find it more difficult to use them.

Concentrating on the simple fixes, which will improve the public transport and cycling offerings around the city will produce better results. Then once the situation has improved and the number of people using public transport has increased begin to make the changes to the roads and foot paths as necessary to give a greater share of the space available over to public transport and cycling/walking.

I don't think there are many simple and inexpensive fixes available to Corbally specifically, but I do that think that this rational makes a lot of sense for the city as a whole.

The Specialist

source wrote: »

I reckon I've had that experience maybe 3 or 4 times since the work was completed. Either I'm very lucky or you're very unlucky.

At peak hours? I come across that maybe twice a week - and to make it worse the cyclists are completely oblivious/ignorant to the traffic building behind them. It's infuriating.

zulutango

The Specialist wrote: »

At peak hours? I come across that maybe twice a week - and to make it worse the cyclists are completely oblivious/ignorant to the traffic building behind them. It's infuriating.

What do you expect the cyclists to do? Chances are the cyclists are well aware that there's traffic behind them and are just hoping that the motorist doesn't take a chance and end up killing him.

source

The Specialist wrote: »

At peak hours? I come across that maybe twice a week - and to make it worse the cyclists are completely oblivious/ignorant to the traffic building behind them. It's infuriating.

Yup, used to work in Shannon and picked a colleague up in Dooradoyle every morning. Travelled that road daily and while i won't say i never had that issue. It happened, in my experience, rarely.

geotrig

The Specialist wrote: »

At peak hours? I come across that maybe twice a week - and to make it worse the cyclists are completely oblivious/ignorant to the traffic building behind them. It's infuriating.

but why do they need to be tuned into the traffic building behind,they are cycling where they are required too (Im taking it as single cyclist in single file and not two abreast which drives me nuts ).

The Specialist

zulutango wrote: »

What do you expect the cyclists to do? Chances are the cyclists are well aware that there's traffic behind them and are just hoping that the motorist doesn't take a chance and end up killing him.

Get off the road for a start, the already mentioned path is wide enough to get out of the way of the traffic.

geotrig wrote: »

but why do they need to be tuned into the traffic building behind,they are cycling where they are required too (Im taking it as single cyclist in single file and not two abreast which drives me nuts ).

There is no cycle lane there. With the addition of the bus lane on the opposite side, both inbound and outbound lanes of traffic are squeezed together. Add a cyclist in and there is no way any motorist outbound can get around them (it's impossible to get 1m of space to pass them because you will go head first in to oncoming traffic). That is not right and with the volume of traffic using that road, cyclists should be 2nd priority behind free flowing traffic from city.

zulutango

geotrig wrote: »

but why do they need to be tuned into the traffic building behind,they are cycling where they are required too (Im taking it as single cyclist in single file and not two abreast which drives me nuts ).

Cyclists tend to be very aware of the safety risks because they know how vulnerable they are. Cyclists have better field of vision than motorists generally and are also able to hear the sounds of traffic. So, they can't help but be aware of vehicles near them. As regards cycling two abreast, it's often the safer way to cycle because it can prevent motorists from dangerous overtaking on narrow roads.

johnnyryan89

The Specialist wrote: »

Get off the road for a start, the already mentioned path is wide enough to get out of the way of the traffic.



There is no cycle lane there. With the addition of the bus lane on the opposite side, both inbound and outbound lanes of traffic are squeezed together. Add a cyclist in and there is no way any motorist outbound can get around them (it's impossible to get 1m of space to pass them because you will go head first in to oncoming traffic). That is not right and with the volume of traffic using that road, cyclists should be 2nd priority behind free flowing traffic from city.

But it's illegal for bikes to use the path isn't, just cause it's wide enough doesn't mean they should use it when they are entitled to use the road.

If you think the path is too wide then why not lobby to a local councillor about allocating some of the path to make a designated cycle lane .

The Specialist

johnnyryan89 wrote: »

But it's illegal for bikes to use the path isn't, just cause it's wide enough doesn't mean they should use it when they are entitled to use the road.

If you think the path is too wide then why not lobby to a local councillor about allocating some of the path to make a designated cycle lane .

Yes and that is why it is such an infuriating position to be in - there should be a cycle path using the massive footpath there because the traffic lane is not big enough for both cars and cyclists to be in.

zulutango

The Specialist wrote: »

Yes and that is why it is such an infuriating position to be in - there should be a cycle path using the massive footpath there because the traffic lane is not big enough for both cars and cyclists to be in.

What's wrong with driving slowly for that particular stretch? If you work it out you're not actually losing a whole lot of time.

geotrig

zulutango wrote: »

Cyclists tend to be very aware of the safety risks because they know how vulnerable they are. Cyclists have better field of vision than motorists generally and are also able to hear the sounds of traffic. So, they can't help but be aware of vehicles near them. As regards cycling two abreast, it's often the safer way to cycle because it can prevent motorists from dangerous overtaking on narrow roads.

I agree and a cyclist has every right to continue on the journey without feeling like they are holding up traffic or have to stop or pull onto the path.

aggressive driving and bad overtaking is a problem for sure and some due to the bad roads designs /paths, narrow roads obstacles etc, but lets be honest two abreast cycling which i pass quite a bit can add to the above problems and create more issue and isnt always needed.A lot is just people on a cycle and are pretty much having a chat , a responsible cyclist needs to be aware of the narrow roads and take appropriate care to not hinder other road users within reason.

johnnyryan89

The Specialist wrote: »

Yes and that is why it is such an infuriating position to be in - there should be a cycle path using the massive footpath there because the traffic lane is not big enough for both cars and cyclists to be in.

And for the time being that's called tough titties and will just have to wait to pass them out. It's hardly the end of the world getting stuck behind a cyclist (whose just as entitled to use the road) on that tiny stretch of road, it's hardly the clondel road like.

The Specialist

zulutango wrote: »

What's wrong with driving slowly for that particular stretch? If you work it out you're not actually losing a whole lot of time.

It's a main route in to and out of city with large volumes of traffic at times of the day. There is simply no excuse for being reduced to a crawl with no way around it for the sake of someone on a bike, a ridiculous scenario caused entirely by the bus lane, lack of cycle path and reduced width of the traffic lanes.

source

The Specialist wrote: »

It's a main route in to and out of city with large volumes of traffic at times of the day. There is simply no excuse for being reduced to a crawl with no way around it for the sake of someone on a bike, a ridiculous scenario caused entirely by the bus lane, lack of cycle path and reduced width of the traffic lanes.

I would argue that the lack of cycle lane is the only thing to blame here. They made a sufficiently wide path to allow for one, but didn't include it in the design. Every other part of the road works perfectly and I'm willing to submit to the idea that while i haven't seen it personally didn't mean that others haven't been affected.

Continuing with my idea of easy fixes, it would be very easy for the council to put down markings to make a cycle lane.

LeoD

source wrote: »

Public Transport
• Increase bus lane network around the city on streets that can accommodate them

source wrote: »

Cycling
• Increased bike lane network around the city, again on streets that can handle it.

Those sound like reasonable proposals so would you consider these streets capable of handling bike lanes or should every inch of carriageway be given over to cars?

zulutango

The Specialist wrote: »

It's a main route in to and out of city with large volumes of traffic at times of the day. There is simply no excuse for being reduced to a crawl with no way around it for the sake of someone on a bike, a ridiculous scenario caused entirely by the bus lane, lack of cycle path and reduced width of the traffic lanes.

Not sure you could really reduce the footpath width very much. The obvious thing to remove is the on-street parking.

LeoD

The Specialist wrote: »

It's a main route in to and out of city with large volumes of traffic at times of the day. There is simply no excuse for being reduced to a crawl with no way around it for the sake of someone on a bike, a ridiculous scenario caused entirely by the bus lane, lack of cycle path and reduced width of the traffic lanes.

That road incl. footpaths is nearly 15m wide (if the app on my phone is accurate). Each carriageway for moving traffic requires 3m and footpaths a minimum of
1.8m so that leaves nearly 5.4m for everything else. So do you want:

1. 1 bus lane and 1 on-street parking lane
2. 1 bus lane and 1 bike lane
3. 1 on-street parking lane and 1 bike lane
4. 2 bike lanes

73hdkgo

LeoD wrote: »

That road incl. footpaths is nearly 15m wide (if the app on my phone is accurate). Each carriageway for moving traffic requires 3m and footpaths a minimum of
1.8m so that leaves nearly 5.4m for everything else. So do you want:

1. 1 bus lane and 1 on-street parking lane
2. 1 bus lane and 1 bike lane
3. 1 on-street parking lane and 1 bike lane
4. 2 bike lanes

To be fair on-street parking is required on this road as some residents have nowhere else to park their cars. Whatever about people expecting rockstar parking in the city center, parking in front of your own home is fair enough. I'd say option 1 is most viable, if alternative parking isn't made available for residents.

The Specialist

LeoD wrote: »

That road incl. footpaths is nearly 15m wide (if the app on my phone is accurate). Each carriageway for moving traffic requires 3m and footpaths a minimum of
1.8m so that leaves nearly 5.4m for everything else. So do you want:

1. 1 bus lane and 1 on-street parking lane
2. 1 bus lane and 1 bike lane
3. 1 on-street parking lane and 1 bike lane
4. 2 bike lanes

Those lanes are most certainly not 3m in width - I drive a Kia which is 1.7 m wide and there is no room to move around a cyclist without entering the opposite lane of the road.

zulutango

73hdkgo wrote: »

To be fair on-street parking is required on this road as some residents have nowhere else to park their cars. Whatever about people expecting rockstar parking in the city center, parking in front of your own home is fair enough. I'd say option 1 is most viable, if alternative parking isn't made available for residents.

It's a debate that needs to be had anyway. At the end of the day there is no right to park on the street outside one's home, and when it's being done at the expense of good transport systems then we should really consider whether we should concede this public space to private home owners.

LeoD

The Specialist wrote: »

Those lanes are most certainly not 3m in width - I drive a Kia which is 1.7 m wide and there is no room to move around a cyclist without entering the opposite lane of the road.

You could well be right but that's what they should be. If I get a chance I'll try to measure the carriage width just to see.

LeoD

73hdkgo wrote: »

To be fair on-street parking is required on this road as some residents have nowhere else to park their cars. Whatever about people expecting rockstar parking in the city center, parking in front of your own home is fair enough. I'd say option 1 is most viable, if alternative parking isn't made available for residents.

Why should people be allowed to store their private property on a public road if it is preventing the free movement of traffic?

OfTheMarsWongs

zulutango wrote: »

It's a debate that needs to be had anyway. At the end of the day there is no right to park on the street outside one's home, and when it's being done at the expense of good transport systems then we should really consider whether we should concede this public space to private home owners.

If I remember correctly, the leverage the residents used at the time to keep the on street parking, was that the council wouldn’t grant planning permission for driveways.

johnnyryan89

OfTheMarsWongs wrote: »

If I remember correctly, the leverage the residents used at the time to keep the on street parking, was that the council wouldn’t grant planning permission for driveways.

I thought that myself, same with possibly O'Connell Ave. If you removed the on street parking along O'Connell Ave you'd have a good stretch of road to put in bus lane but might be hard for all the residents to get planning permission, they all be old houses and might not be able to knock garden walls to make drive ways.