BusConnects

buffalo

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4501387/Bus-Connects-Report-June-2018.pdf

Interesting document, detailing not just (hopefully) future bus lanes but also potential cycle routes. There's a bold claim of 230km of bus lanes and 200km of cycle tracks, but it's unclear how much of those would be grade-separated or entirely segregated - or not.

The likes of this for alternate cycle routes (dotted line) are gas:


One of the long-term side-effects would be a lot less car traffic in the city centre, which can only be a good thing for cyclists.

Tenzor07

It's a bold plan, and the only way that public transport will work in Dublin..

However i'd say with the amount of objections to it, that this plan will never get fully off the ground..

Hurrache

Is this part of the proposals to be discussed today? I caught a bit of it on Morning Ireland and the obvious thorn in the side is the suggestion of CPOs of people's front gardens in order to implement them. They didn't obvious mention the scale of the CPOs though.

But leaving the issues around CPOs aside for the moment, immediate thoughts are that I don't like the idea of removing yet more green space to be replaced with road, concrete and tar. The document itself says that Dublin is a medieval city with the innner suburbs being Victorian, but yet they want to remove that and replace with road. It'll be heavily opposed I expect.


As an aside, looking at the map of what the proposed network will look like in 2017, there's still large swathes of the west/north west of the city untouched by this.

Grassey

Tenzor07 wrote:

However i'd say with the amount of objections to it, that this plan will never get fully off the ground..

It was all I heard on the radio this morning 1300 houses will lose their gardens*



*(didn't specify how much etc etc)

Hurrache

Grassey wrote: »

It was all I heard on the radio this morning 1300 houses will lose their gardens*



*(didn't specify how much etc etc)

Yes, it was what jumped out on me, and I imagine most people. I certainly see the benefits, but also the immediate challenges in getting people to come on board with this.

RayCun

CPO of gardens is going to be a big issue all right, because it means there are a number of people who are very directly affected, and so very motivated to oppose this (or to be noisy to look for more money)

I'd hope that most of the changes could be put through by removing on-street parking spaces and redirecting traffic (ie, making some roads one-way)

Chips Lovell

It's all very well, but something needs to be done to avoid traffic just diverting through adjoining residential areas. Reducing car traffic is great. Pushing it onto to roads that are even less suited to heavy traffic, not so much.

RayCun

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

It's all very well, but something needs to be done to avoid traffic just diverting through adjoining residential areas. Reducing car traffic is great. Pushing it onto to roads that are even less suited to heavy traffic, not so much.

Pushing cars onto smaller roads, which become congested, making journeys take longer.
While bus and bike journeys are faster because they are on priority routes.
So people are pushed towards buses and bikes, and away from cars.

How else do you reduce car traffic? A congestion charge? I'd be on for that but it would be a harder sell.

magicbastarder

regardless of losing gardens, i expect a lot of anger will be from people who live on heavily trafficked roads finding out that instead of the traffic passing 10m or 15m from their windows, will now find it passing 5m from their windows. i expect we'll hear arguments about financial recompense not just from the cost of buying the property, but also subsequent falls in property values.

RayCun

magicbastarder wrote: »

regardless of losing gardens, i expect a lot of anger will be from people who live on heavily trafficked roads finding out that instead of the traffic passing 10m or 15m from their windows, will now find it passing 5m from their windows. i expect we'll hear arguments about financial recompense not just from the cost of buying the property, but also subsequent falls in property values.

Property close to the LUAS increases in value

magicbastarder

they don't usually mean within 5m of the luas.

Grassey

and enter the rational debate...

http://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-bus-corridors-4064645-Jun2018/

Chips Lovell

RayCun wrote: »

Pushing cars onto smaller roads, which become congested, making journeys take longer.
While bus and bike journeys are faster because they are on priority routes.
So people are pushed towards buses and bikes, and away from cars.

How else do you reduce car traffic? A congestion charge? I'd be on for that but it would be a harder sell.

Experience to date has suggested that people are very slow to give up their cars, even when alternatives are quicker. Residents in those areas could be waiting for a long time for the penny to drop among passing motorists. In the meantime they have to put up with heavy traffic on roads that their kids may be walking or cycling to school on.

Congestion charge is one possibility, but a very simple measure is just blocking off rat runs, making sure that there are no obvious alternative routes, e.g. making it one way in/one way out of residential areas.

average_runner

RayCun wrote: »

Pushing cars onto smaller roads, which become congested, making journeys take longer.
While bus and bike journeys are faster because they are on priority routes.
So people are pushed towards buses and bikes, and away from cars.

How else do you reduce car traffic? A congestion charge? I'd be on for that but it would be a harder sell.

We can't be diverting traffic through residential areas, residential areas should be safe zones and not a traffic zone.

Tenzor07

average_runner wrote: »

We can't be diverting traffic through residential areas, residential areas should be safe zones and not a traffic zone.

The objections to the proposed South Dublin/Dodder cycle quiet ways would suggest residents wish to keep all local roads open to car traffic..

RayCun

Sure, in some cases, where you can get the residents to agree on the single point of entry and exit.

But the cars are going to go somewhere. It's not like there are loads of non-residential streets available and unused.

average_runner

RayCun wrote: »

Sure, in some cases, where you can get the residents to agree on the single point of entry and exit.

But the cars are going to go somewhere. It's not like there are loads of non-residential streets available and unused.

Well keep them on the main road. Kids play in residential areas and that should not change

buffalo

RayCun wrote: »

Sure, in some cases, where you can get the residents to agree on the single point of entry and exit.

But the cars are going to go somewhere. It's not like there are loads of non-residential streets available and unused.

Research would suggest that many of the cars don't go somewhere, and instead get left at home as people switch to other less punitive modes - the disappearing traffic phenomenon (the opposite of induced demand).

RayCun

average_runner wrote: »

Well keep them on the main road. Kids play in residential areas and that should not change

If the residential streets are open at both ends, cars will use them. They already do.

If there is less space for cars on the main roads because of bus corridors, that will push some cars onto side streets. But if you don't make space for buses on the main roads then the buses take longer, so people drive instead, and the main roads get jammed, and some drivers will take the side streets.

The side streets get used either way (as long as they are open). The only thing that can be changed is the capacity of the main roads - more buses and bikes on the main roads means more people using them.

RobertFoster

average_runner wrote: »

Well keep them on the main road. Kids play in residential areas and that should not change

That was a quick jump to Helen Lovejoy.

RayCun

buffalo wrote: »

Research would suggest that many of the cars don't go somewhere, and instead get left at home as people switch to other less punitive modes - the disappearing traffic phenomenon (the opposite of induced demand).

Yes, make buses and bikes more attractive and cars less attractive and people will switch. Not everyone, but enough to make a difference.

And part of making cars less attractive can be traffic-calming measures on side streets, closing off throughways, one-way systems etc. But residents seem to complain about those things almost as much as they complain about ratrunners!

average_runner

RayCun wrote: »

Yes, make buses and bikes more attractive and cars less attractive and people will switch. Not everyone, but enough to make a difference.

And part of making cars less attractive can be traffic-calming measures on side streets, closing off throughways, one-way systems etc. But residents seem to complain about those things almost as much as they complain about ratrunners!

We are a long way off before this will ever happen, bound to be two general elections at least!!

magicbastarder

https://twitter.com/ccferrie/status/1006479547552993280

LennoxR

As a cyclist I don't actually like the sounds of this plan at all.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/dublin-homes-to-lose-gardens-and-parking-under-high-speed-bus-route-plan-1.3527128

However, the authority warns that because there is “so little unused space” along some roads, that “it will often not be possible to accommodate the bus lanes and cycle lanes in the width available”.

So basically there will be a lot of road widening and cyclists will often be pushed out altogether where there is a conflict with buses. I don't think this is what we need in Dublin at all.

I also think the idea of removing people's gardens is a terrible idea for the quality of life in the city. Taking away on street parking is another matter entirely.

magicbastarder

i'm lucky; i live along a road which is slated to have one of these, and also to have the metro. but it's wide enough that i've no real concerns about losing any of the front garden.

RayCun

LennoxR wrote: »

As a cyclist I don't actually like the sounds of this plan at all.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/dublin-homes-to-lose-gardens-and-parking-under-high-speed-bus-route-plan-1.3527128

However, the authority warns that because there is “so little unused space” along some roads, that “it will often not be possible to accommodate the bus lanes and cycle lanes in the width available”.

So basically there will be a lot of road widening and cyclists will often be pushed out altogether where there is a conflict with buses. I don't think this is what we need in Dublin at all.

There are details in the document at the link. For most of the routes, the proposal is to have bus lanes and bike lanes beside each other, but they call out places where that isn't possible. For example, route 1 from Clongriffin, they say "Malahide Road between Fairview and Griffity Avenue. Due to restricted road width in this area, a proposal is to re-route cyclists via Brian Road and Charleton Road"

average_runner

RayCun wrote: »

There are details in the document at the link. For most of the routes, the proposal is to have bus lanes and bike lanes beside each other, but they call out places where that isn't possible. For example, route 1 from Clongriffin, they say "Malahide Road between Fairview and Griffity Avenue. Due to restricted road width in this area, a proposal is to re-route cyclists via Brian Road and Charleton Road"

Are the bike lanes separate from the bus lanes, ie buses can't go into the cycle lanes? If we are going through all this trouble, lets do it right and not half arse

LennoxR

RayCun wrote: »

There are details in the document at the link. For most of the routes, the proposal is to have bus lanes and bike lanes beside each other, but they call out places where that isn't possible. For example, route 1 from Clongriffin, they say "Malahide Road between Fairview and Griffity Avenue. Due to restricted road width in this area, a proposal is to re-route cyclists via Brian Road and Charleton Road"

Well per the post above in Rathmines, which I often use, bikes will now be pushed out altogether from the main road.



Strictly from a cyclists point of view, I think this is a step backwards.

loyatemu

the question is does "rerouting" cyclists mean they are barred from the new buslanes?

In Shankill they're proposing "rerouting" cyclists around the back of the village through housing estates and quiet road, this sounds like a recipe for a much slower journey. What's to stop me going through the village anway (there's no cycling facilities there currently, so it won't be any worse that it is now).

schemingbohemia

The line the NTA should use in promoting this is "It will be like the schools are off every day".

When you actually look at the time savings estimated by these changes it is stunning - 25-30 minute saving from Liffey Valley and similar for Clongriffin. That is massive, instead it's been about a few people losing a few metres of their front garden and being paid handsomely for it. Again For the Few not the Many seems to be determining the narrative in the media.

RayCun

LennoxR wrote: »

Well per the post above in Rathmines, which I often use, bikes will now be pushed out altogether from the main road.

Strictly from a cyclists point of view, I think this is a step backwards.

Pushed off the main road, but onto a segregated cycle path. If it's kept in good condition, wouldn't it be safer than sharing the main Rathmines road, and more attractive to casual cyclists?

RayCun

average_runner wrote: »

Are the bike lanes separate from the bus lanes, ie buses can't go into the cycle lanes? If we are going through all this trouble, lets do it right and not half arse

according to the diagram in the document, yes.

ED E

Why are we working on more bus lanes when the present ones are constantly blocked by goods vehicles. Fix that first.

LennoxR

RayCun wrote: »

Pushed off the main road, but onto a segregated cycle path. If it's kept in good condition, wouldn't it be safer than sharing the main Rathmines road, and more attractive to casual cyclists?

No, per the plan above pushed onto a side street which is a significant detour to nowhere. You have to be on a route going towards a bridge over the canal to get into the city centre.

It would make cycling much more difficult as a means of getting places.

I don't buy the segregated bike lanes thing as there is no space for them on the main routes. I don't believe they would happen, rather cyclists would be rerouted onto impractical routes.

magicbastarder

some more comment on the cycle routes being pushed to side streets:

A key example is an outline plan for the removal of cycle routes off the Rathmines Road, an entry point into the city where peak bicycle traffic outnumbers cars.

The draft details published on the NTA’s website confirmed what many cycling advocates have suspected for some time — the authority has shifted its focused from cycling to bus priority with car access maintained.

http://irishcycle.com/2018/06/12/nta-set-to-abandon-key-sections-of-dublin-cycle-network-plan/

RayCun

LennoxR wrote: »

It would make cycling much more difficult as a means of getting places.

Well, that's a question.

On one hand, the shortest route is the easiest, so anything longer is more difficult.

On the other, safe, segregated routes are used more, so even if they are a bit longer they make cycling easier.

People who are cycling now probably agree with the first one.

But what about the people who aren't cycling now because they don't feel safe?

LennoxR

magicbastarder wrote: »

some more comment on the cycle routes being pushed to side streets:

http://irishcycle.com/2018/06/12/nta-set-to-abandon-key-sections-of-dublin-cycle-network-plan/

Thank you. This:

National Transport Authority officials look set to abandon key sections of the Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network Plan in favour of bus priority with car lanes maintained.
A key example is an outline plan for the removal of cycle routes off the Rathmines Road, an entry point into the city where peak bicycle traffic outnumbers cars.

Sums up why this is not a good plan for cyclists.

Chips Lovell

Bikes are allowed use buslanes

LennoxR

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Bikes are allowed use buslanes

But we would not be under the new plan.


Just looking at my other regular route into town, through Harolds Cross. The plan wants cyclists to take a left off the main road, take a right turn onto the canal and then Clanbrassil street would now also be off limits to bikes. This plan would basically ban bikes from the main and most convenient routes into the city centre.

Chips Lovell

LennoxR wrote: »

But we would not be under the new plan.

Does it say that anywhere? They'd need to change the current law if they plan to do so.

buffalo

LennoxR wrote: »

But we would not be under the new plan.

Says who?

It's a simple dichotomy - comfortable sharing the roads with motor vehicles and keeping up with buses? Go direct. If you're not confident, there's a dedicated route just for you.

Or if the dedicated route is actually well designed and built, maybe everyone will just use it.

LennoxR

RayCun wrote: »

Well, that's a question.

On one hand, the shortest route is the easiest, so anything longer is more difficult.

On the other, safe, segregated routes are used more, so even if they are a bit longer they make cycling easier.

People who are cycling now probably agree with the first one.

But what about the people who aren't cycling now because they don't feel safe?

I respectfully disagree with the whole premise. First about 10% of journeys in Dublin are already made by bike. Two, there should be safe cycling infrastructure on the main routes. Three the proposed routes are not even segregated, they are side streets which will also be open to cars. ANd lastly they appear to require long delays and right turns as priority is given to other traffic.

LennoxR

buffalo wrote: »

Says who?

It's a simple dichotomy - comfortable sharing the roads with motor vehicles and keeping up with buses? Go direct. If you're not confident, there's a dedicated route just for you.

Or if the dedicated route is actually well designed and built, maybe everyone will just use it.

Yeah my understanding of what I'm reading is that bikes will not be allowed to use the new bus lanes. If I'm wrong then great. The new cycle routes they are proposing so far look very poor to me.

seamus

loyatemu wrote: »

the question is does "rerouting" cyclists mean they are barred from the new buslanes?

It's actually irrelevant.

Cyclists, like pedestrians, will take the fastest route. If the choice is a 350m diversion eastbound along the canal, or just taking a bus lane 100m directly towards your destination, they will take the latter.

Alternative routes for cyclists can't be designed like alternative route for vehicles.

If the alternative route can't be switched onto seamlessly (i.e. without needing to dismount or cross 4 lanes) or isn't taking the cyclist roughly in the direction they want to go, then they won't take it. They'll just use the bus lane.

The Kimmage map in buffalo's OP shows that the cyclist travelling towards the city centre will have to cross the road (either at a junction or a right-hand turn) at least seven times. If they just stay in the bus lane, they only have 4 junctions to deal with.

It's a clear illustration that the planners do not understanding cycling. At all.

Effects

seamus wrote: »

Cyclists, like pedestrians, will take the fastest route. If the choice is a 350m diversion eastbound along the canal, or just taking a bus lane 100m directly towards your destination, they will take the latter.

I don't think that's always the case. I'll take a route depending on a number of factors at the time. On my commute I sometimes leave earlier so I can cycle along the Liffey. Likewise I sometimes take the canal home which takes longer.

I know plenty of cyclists who take a longer route based on it being safer for them to do so.

loyatemu

the idea is that there will be continuous segregated(?) cycling routes along these corridors. So they have to do something to accommodate cyclists at the pinch points other than just dumping them into the bus lanes, hence the diversions. That doesn't necessarily mean that fast cyclists won't be allowed to just continue on the buslane, but we just don't know yet.

As mentioned above it would require a change of legislation to ban cyclists, and considering they don't really enforce people cycling on the Luas lines...

LennoxR

loyatemu wrote: »

the idea is that there will be continuous segregated(?) cycling routes along these corridors. So they have to do something to accommodate cyclists at the pinch points other than just dumping them into the bus lanes, hence the diversions. That doesn't necessarily mean that fast cyclists won't be allowed to just continue on the buslane, but we just don't know yet.

As mentioned above it would require a change of legislation to ban cyclists, and considering they don't really enforce people cycling on the Luas lines...

I suppose it's a case of wait and see at this point to be fair.

But what I'm imagining, maybe wrongly, is that whether there is an actual law change or not, buses would have the expectation that they would have a clear route where they could drive at relatively high speed and that if the bike lanes were removed from these main routes it would make cycling there significantly more dangerous.

And these detours they are proposing, as I've said, look very impractical to me. So it looks like this is bad for cycling in Dublin to me, but yes, maybe I'm wrong about that.

ED E

seamus wrote: »

It's actually irrelevant.

Cyclists, like pedestrians, will take the fastest route.

The dutch have found the opposite. Cyclists takes the most interesting route.

RayCun

LennoxR wrote: »

I respectfully disagree with the whole premise. First about 10% of journeys in Dublin are already made by bike.

That could be a lot higher

LennoxR wrote: »

Two, there should be safe cycling infrastructure on the main routes.

Why does the cycling infrastructure have to be on the current main routes?
Buses need to go on main roads, a bike route could go through a park, or a two lane sidestreet could be split into a bike route and a one-way street for cars.

LennoxR wrote: »

Three the proposed routes are not even segregated, they are side streets which will also be open to cars.

Are they? The only diagrams I see are for the routes with buses, cars, and bikes, and on those routes the bikes are segregated. Why assume that the side streets won't be?

LennoxR wrote: »

ANd lastly they appear to require long delays and right turns as priority is given to other traffic.

Kimmage and Portobello seem to be the only areas with significant diversions.
How do you know how traffic will be prioritized at junctions, or how long the delay will be?

LennoxR

RayCun wrote: »

That could be a lot higher


Why does the cycling infrastructure have to be on the current main routes?
Buses need to go on main roads, a bike route could go through a park, or a two lane sidestreet could be split into a bike route and a one-way street for cars.


Are they? The only diagrams I see are for the routes with buses, cars, and bikes, and on those routes the bikes are segregated. Why assume that the side streets won't be?


Kimmage and Portobello seem to be the only areas with significant diversions.
How do you know how traffic will be prioritized at junctions, or how long the delay will be?

You appear to be very committed to this plan for whatever reason, so you will not see its flaws. As it happens, Harolds Cross and Rathmines are the two main routes that concern me, so I'm speaking for myself. They also happen to be among the most heavily cycled routes in the city.

But in this thread alone people have also cited the Malahide Road and Shankill, so actually this problem of detours would appear to be quite widespread.
Certainly we should be trying to improve the figure of 10% of journeys by bike. But I think this plan will do the opposite. The advantage of cycling as it stands is that is much quicker, more direct and more convenient. As I and others have been trying to point out, by making long detours and more junctions, this will negate this advantage.

schemingbohemia

LennoxR wrote: »

You appear to be very committed to this plan for whatever reason, so you will not see its flaws. As it happens, Harolds Cross and Rathmines are the two main routes that concern me, so I'm speaking for myself. They also happen to the most heavily cycled routes in the city.

But in this thread alone people have also cited the Malahide Road and Shankill, so actually this problem of detours would appear to be quite widespread.
Certainly we should be trying to improve the figure of 10% of journeys by bike. But I think this plan will do the opposite. The advantage of cycling as it stands is that is much quicker, more direct and more convenient. As I and others have been trying to point out, by making long detours and more junctions, this will negate this advantage.

You're a confident, experienced cyclist. The increase in segregation and alternate routes on quietways aren't for you, they're for people who are afraid to cycle at the moment. Think of all the people who currently use the Grand Canal cycle track even though it has so many junctions, how many of those people were actually cycling at all before it was built? The CSO data shows a huge increase in numbers cycling in the areas around the canal. This is to ensure that the 10% gets to 20%, those who aren't afraid are cycling at the moment.

Maybe take time to look at this from an alternate viewpoint.