New bus lanes set to greatly reduce journey times by 50%

Qrt

Bambi wrote: »

When they say segregated does it mean the cycle lanes going to be physically segregated from pedestrian areas?

Indeed. See the differing kerb height levels.

https://busconnects.ie/media/1174/busconnects-figure-4-typical-road-layout-01.pdf

Qrt

Patww79 wrote: »

I already said not speeding them up is a better option.

But let that not take away from your by the numbers internet win.

Not speeding them up? So maintaining the status quo and allow the city to grind to a halt altogether?

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Dyr

Qrt wrote: »

Indeed. See the differing kerb height levels.

https://busconnects.ie/media/1174/busconnects-figure-4-typical-road-layout-01.pdf

Not going to stop cyclists mounting the pedestrian area so not really physical segregation, fencing/bollards are physical segregation

Also worth noting that that the narrow footpaths the NTA have a real gror building to accommodate their extra traffic lanes are likely so you'll also have pedestrians spilling into the cycling lane as well

The more you see of this the more you wonder.

Qrt

Patww79 wrote: »

The city isn't at a halt but regardless it's incredibly wrong to steal from people for anything like this. What's the point in working for anything when it can be swiped by the latest whim.

Hopefully people treat this like they did the water charges and take even more drastic measures to halt this happening.

By the use of the word "stealing" I sense we have a tremendous ideological difference. However, while I would absolutely hate to have some of my front garden taken, the owners have to understand it is for the sake of our city. I'm sure many will be very supportive of the project if the rumoured €25,000/m^2 comes to fruition.

marno21

Patww79 wrote: »

The city isn't at a halt but regardless it's incredibly wrong to steal from people for anything like this. What's the point in working for anything when it can be swiped by the latest whim.

Hopefully people treat this like they did the water charges and take even more drastic measures to halt this happening.

You do realise they are being compensated for their land? It's not being stolen.

Why not give away the railway lines so people can extend their gardens onto them out of fairness

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

circadian

The main problem with this is that it's all for buses to the city centre. There's no strategy for getting across city without the city centre.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Qrt

Bambi wrote: »

Not going to stop cyclists mounting the pedestrian area so not really physical segregation, fencing/bollards are physical segregation

Also worth noting that that the narrow footpaths the NTA have a real gror building to accommodate their extra traffic lanes are likely so you'll also have pedestrians spilling into the cycling lane as well

The more you see of this the more you wonder.

I found a random street in Utrecht with slightly sunken bicycle paths and not an overly wide pedestrian path alongside. It looks like quite a busy road.

Amsterdamsestraatweg 223-229, 3551 CC Utrecht, Netherlands
https://goo.gl/maps/JqEbkgjm3j72

magicbastarder

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

you'd be quite happy for the country not to have a motorway network so?

thomasj

I fear we're all being led up the garden path! (Hopefully not )

Qrt

magicbastarder wrote: »

you'd be quite happy for the country not to have a motorway network so?

Not to mention the Luas Green Line. Fairly sure the stretch near Balally had to be bought back from people's back gardens.

Stephen Strange

circadian wrote: »

The main problem with this is that it's all for buses to the city centre. There's no strategy for getting across city without the city centre.

In the document, there are proposed orbital routes also, seperate to the 16 bus corridors, only briefly mentioned though.

Lantus

marno21 wrote:

You do realise they are being compensated for their land? It's not being stolen.

You don't have a choice so it's hardly consensual either. I'll give you a fair price for your car which I will be taking Tuesday regardless.

Legalised theft with some compensation doesn't make it right.

Carawaystick

Lantus wrote: »

You don't have a choice so it's hardly consensual either. I'll give you a fair price for your car which I will be taking Tuesday regardless.

Legalised theft with some compensation doesn't make it right.

Criminal Justice (theft and fraud) act 2001 wrote:

A Person cannot steal land

It's no more theft than taxation is.

Podge_irl

Lantus wrote: »

You don't have a choice so it's hardly consensual either. I'll give you a fair price for your car which I will be taking Tuesday regardless.

Legalised theft with some compensation doesn't make it right.

They're being paid above market rates. In your facetious scenario he would go away and buy a new car and make a profit.

I also don't have a choice about where my taxes go - is that theft too?

marno21

Lantus wrote: »

You don't have a choice so it's hardly consensual either. I'll give you a fair price for your car which I will be taking Tuesday regardless.

Legalised theft with some compensation doesn't make it right.

Why are you taking my car? Is it for the benefit of many more people than the one person that I am ? If so work away

sharper

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

As far as I know nobody is losing their home here. At worst some people will lose their front garden or driveway.

Compulsory purchase orders are a part of pretty much any democracy. It's a limited power that can only be invoked for very specific reasons i.e. public works projects which will benefit the entire community.

You say you find the status quo preferable but there is no such thing. The economy is either growing or it's shrinking. If it's growing that means more people, more houses, more cars, more busses and more people getting around.

We've already seen that even with brexit happening on our doorstop we could have been better placed to capitalise on it and attract business to Dublin rather other EU nations. Those companies looked at Dublin and found property prices too high and quality of life (of which commute time is a part) too low.

For the government to say "Well all the land is in use already, there's nothing we can do" would be condemning the economy. Nobody has the benefit of just ignoring reality.

cython

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So you're against virtually every road project in the state for the last 20+ years then too? Sound! Unless you're actually naive enough to think that there were no CPOs involved in the recent motorway builds/expansion, road realignments, and almost any other large scale infrastructure project you care to mention, and that people were given the option of selling, or to reroute the road through the most willing neighbour's property.....

Admittedly it may have been people's farms rather than their gardens in this case, but it was still no more voluntary in many cases.

Qrt

cython wrote: »

Admittedly it may have been people's farms rather than their gardens in this case, but it was still no more voluntary in many cases.

Arguably the CPO-ing of farms would have met more resistance considering it would be a likely loss in income and an inconvenience, especially if you have to bring cattle or sheep a long distance towards the nearest crossing. Yet these cases wouldn't have been in the media as nearly as often as the gardens.

magicbastarder

i feel guilty now for having started the thread with the focus on the CPOs.

anyway, it's bananas that taxis will be allowed use the bus lanes. surely the whole point is to prioritise high efficiency transport?

marno21

magicbastarder wrote: »

i feel guilty now for having started the thread with the focus on the CPOs.

anyway, it's bananas that taxis will be allowed use the bus lanes. surely the whole point is to prioritise high efficiency transport?

The entire focus on this project, besides what I heard on Sean O'Rourkes show yesterday, and anywhere else that I can be corrected on, has been on loss of gardens and privatisation of bus services and questioning the NTA. I don't see any issue with how you posted it, that's how the Irish Times broke the news.

cython

Qrt wrote: »

Arguably the CPO-ing of farms would have met more resistance considering it would be a likely loss in income and an inconvenience, especially if you have to bring cattle or sheep a long distance towards the nearest crossing. Yet these cases wouldn't have been in the media as nearly as often as the gardens.

My understanding is that in a lot of cases if a farmer would have been left with a small holding on the far side of a motorway in many cases, the excess was CPOed to be left idle, rather than building a crossing facility for them. So at least that won't be a concern here!

@magicbastarder, agreed that the taxis being let use these lanes is farcical, just look at the extra congestion they add to the likes of College Green at the moment, never mind the obstructions they cause everywhere when they stop up to pick up and drop fares. Actually, I guess if it could somehow be done in such a way that taxis weren't let collect and drop in these lanes the impact might be less, but that's hardly enforceable!

Dyr

Qrt wrote: »

I found a random street in Utrecht with slightly sunken bicycle paths and not an overly wide pedestrian path alongside. It looks like quite a busy road.

Amsterdamsestraatweg 223-229, 3551 CC Utrecht, Netherlands
https://goo.gl/maps/JqEbkgjm3j72

If we lived in Holland that would be useful. As an aside I think most of the footpaths in Amsterdam are way too narrow and wouldn't be in any hurry to mimic their street layouts, ugly as sin usually.

You also might also want to reevaluate what you consider a busy road. Key indicators to look for are cars on the road and pedestrians on the pavement

Qrt

Bambi wrote: »

If we lived in Holland that would be useful. As an aside I think most of the footpaths in Amsterdam are way too narrow and wouldn't be in any hurry to mimic their street layouts, ugly as sin usually.

You also might also want to reevaluate what you consider a busy road. Key indicators to look for are cars on the road and pedestrians on the pavement

It's the longest shopping street in the Netherlands according to Wikipedia, it was likely surveyed very early morning.

Podge_irl

magicbastarder wrote: »

i feel guilty now for having started the thread with the focus on the CPOs.

anyway, it's bananas that taxis will be allowed use the bus lanes. surely the whole point is to prioritise high efficiency transport?

Is there any legal framework to not allow the taxis in the buslanes? Perhaps this is a legislative issue more than an NTA planning issue? They are not allowed (I think) in contraflow bus lanes but there are specific criteria set out in law no?

hmmm

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If you choose to live in a city you are going to face the prospect of change to facilitate other people. Particularly if you choose to live in a house in a city with massive levels of urban sprawl.

Houses are part of the problem - if we had dense living in the city centre, there would be less need for high speed transport corridors.

Something has to give - we can't have a city with people living in two story houses within spitting distance of the centre, while hundreds of thousands people are supposed to crawl in on clogged bus routes from neighbouring counties to get to work.

monument

Padraig Mor wrote: »

So you agree - cyclists comprise a small minority of those travelling in Dublin daily?

10% isn't that small for so little investment... did I mention and growing? Oh, I did.

Padraig Mor wrote: »

I presume most - on this and the Cycling forums anyway (which are pretty interchangeable) - will welcome this as a step towards making Dublin more like Copenhagen?

Something between Utrecht and Amsterdam is probably closer to Dublin, but sure...

Padraig Mor wrote: »

I was actually in Copenhagen recently - lovely city and certainly well set up for cyclists. Yet even in the "world's most bike friendly city" what form of transport has the largest modal share of daily journeys? Nope, not the bike, but the private car - and bike use is dropping steadily.

Decline what now? And I think you'll find that bicycles now outnumber cars in Copenhagen...

Or we can look at Amsterdam:


Or Utrecht, which is closer to the world's more cycling friendly city...

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime

hmmm wrote: »

If you choose to live in a city you are going to face the prospect of change to facilitate other people. Particularly if you choose to live in a house in a city with massive levels of urban sprawl.

Houses are part of the problem - if we had dense living in the city centre, there would be less need for high speed transport corridors.

Something has to give - we can't have a city with people living in two story houses within spitting distance of the centre, while hundreds of thousands people are supposed to crawl in on clogged bus routes from neighbouring counties to get to work.

So by that logic , let's knock down the houses and build high rise apartments ?

Knock down the whole area around croke park for example and have thousands of apartments instead and an over crowding issue.


Which all this comes back down to. The city is overcrowded.

Dublin is not fit for this. I'd rather see most businesses such as offices , factories etc withing the canals moved out to M50 ring itself or beyond.

Why have a closed off office in the city center with 300 people working inside who commute for hours into a congested city when they could commute to another location outside the city on an improved orbital route network for cheaper and also save the employer money on office location cost.

The city shouldn't have hundreds of thousands of people all trying to get into the city between 8 and 10 am and all trying to leave again between 5 and 7 pm.