Monkstown Road Cycle Route

patrickbrophy18

Okay, so there is a knew Public Consultation on the Monkstown Road Cucle Route as per the following link:


http://www.dlrcoco.ie/en/news/general-news-public-consultation/public-consultation-monkstown-road-cycle-route


What do y'all think?


Personally, I had a look at the plans and it appears that the cycle lanes are literally going to be on top of the normal carriageway. It's like the current situation on the Rock Road at present where the cycle lanes are superimposed on the bus lanes. In other words, no segregation at all.

Monkstown Road is a major route linking Monkstown to the Rock Road and is heavily used by the 7 and hourly by the 703 Dalkey/Killiney Aircoach Route. This scheme will only lead to delays in the journey time for both routes in that it effectively and deliberately tightens the road.

Bus journeys need to be optimized where possible. This wont be the case if bus drivers have to wait for opportunities to overtake. Going by the cross-sections, it also looks like more of the same type of cycle lane with a lick of paint defining barriers as opposed to proper segregation.

Pottery Road is the only road I can see that has had satisfactory improvement for ALL road users. This is because the carriageway, cycle lanes and sidewalk have been grade separated and the main carriageway maintains a consistent width from Johnstown Road all the way to Rochestown Avenue.

Larbre34

Pottery Road had a fairly wide corridor to allow for all that. This is about the best that can be done on Monkstown Road, IMO.

ted1

I’ve put in a submission and asked for segregation. Everybody should do similar.

White paint is not acceptable.

Larbre34

If they segregate, the only option is to shave the kerb and gulley space off the cycletrack width provision as the footpath and traffic lane provision are already below optimum.

So, do you want 1.7m at grade or 1.3/1.4 segregated?

Dardania

That cross section A-A on the first page seems to not bear similarity with the plan it’s meant to be a cross section of. It looks like there’s a bit of artistic expression showing that it’s buses and bicycles only - will it truly have cars barred?
They should try reclaim some space by removing one of the north bound lanes - why does a turning left lane need to persist?

Similar to Patrick brophys comment above / there’s no real segregation - the belief on white paint is showing great faith. Particularly after the bus stop heading southbound, just after which the road narrows - some cyclist is going to receive a smack of a car (or worse) there.

If they truly want this to be effective, they need to take some space from front gardens.

I’ll put a submission in a bit later when I have time to type it up properly.

Has anyone compared this stretch to see if any cross over with bus connects that was put out for consultation?

Awaaf

I have thought for a long time that the solution here is a one-way system from York Road to the Blackrock bypass with Monkstown Road inbound and Seapoint Ave. outbound.

Assuming that this won't happen and returning to the proposal as it stands.
There is a lot of pedestrian traffic on this road and a lot of cycling traffic. It seems pretty unpleasant for both groups. I don't by the argument of prioritising speeding up the busses on this stretch as there are 4 bus stops on a short stretch so even if the bus was behind a cyclist for the full duration they would pass through pretty quickly. A bus lane on the Blackrock bypass would be far more effective IMHO.

ted1

Larbre34 wrote: »

If they segregate, the only option is to shave the kerb and gulley space off the cycletrack width provision as the footpath and traffic lane provision are already below optimum.

So, do you want 1.7m at grade or 1.3/1.4 segregated?

They did a good job with the cycle lane on the n11 by RTE. they used the kerbing with it built in so it’s under the path as opposed to under a lane. So raise the lane to is path height
There is a million ways to skin a cat. They could reduce the width of the path, the road, CPO about 18 inches from gardens etc.



Either way no more cycle paths should’ve built without segregation

Larbre34

Ah come on Ted, CPO 18 inches from those gardens? Compensation and replacing those walls would cost 50 times the project as proposed, i.e. never happen.

The available corridor outside RTÉ is 20+ metres, lets at least compare apples with apples. On Monkstown Road, something has to be sub-standard, I guess it depends on individual bias whether you fight for the footpath, the traffic lane or the cycletrack.

schemingbohemia

The pinch point at Montpelier Parade though should be easily CPO'able, it's just a few trees and most could be retained. Seems to be a shared space rather than divided between the House owners, could it be in Council ownership already?

ted1

Larbre34 wrote: »

Ah come on Ted, CPO 18 inches from those gardens? Compensation and replacing those walls would cost 50 times the project as proposed, i.e. never happen.

The available corridor outside RTÉ is 20+ metres, lets at least compare apples with apples. On Monkstown Road, something has to be sub-standard, I guess it depends on individual bias whether you fight for the footpath, the traffic lane or the cycletrack.

What about raising the cycle lane to Path level and putting the gully under lane.

Larbre34

ted1 wrote: »

What about raising the cycle lane to Path level and putting the gully under lane.

Not impossible, stick it on a submission

ted1

Larbre34 wrote: »

ted1 wrote: »

What about raising the cycle lane to Path level and putting the gully under lane.

Not impossible, stick it on a submission

I did.
I made a string point about doing it right and it’ll get used doing it wrong and it won’t

My kids go to Scoil Lorcain so it’s of extra interest that it’s segregated to me. As otherwise them and their classmates won’t be allowed or safe to cycle.

patrickbrophy18

Awaaf wrote: »

I have thought for a long time that the solution here is a one-way system from York Road to the Blackrock bypass with Monkstown Road inbound and Seapoint Ave. outbound.

I've also shared this sentiment. In fact, I think a one-way system is just about the only long term option that would benefit ALL road users. There are more than enough link roads between them. Ultimately, this could be streamlined the entire way between the Blackrock Bypass and the Squareabout in Dalkey.


Now, if one considers that the road width averages 10.75 meters between the residential boundaries for each direction of travel, you could have a cross-section layout as follows:

• 2 meters for kerbs
• 3.25 meters for cars, buses and trucks
• 3.5 meters for a 2 way cycle track (1.75 meters per direction) with the contra-flow beside the car, bus and truck lane
• 2 meters for kerbs

Smart features could be built in such as sensors which detect the approach to a particular junction that would trigger a traffic light switch for cyclists.



Now, any widening of roads should be done sparingly or where the carriageway is particularly narrow. For example, where the 10.75 Meter benchmark is not being achieved. However, very few sections are like this. In any case, the result would be a massive improvement for ALL road users.

Awaaf wrote: »

Assuming that this won't happen and returning to the proposal as it stands. There is a lot of pedestrian traffic on this road and a lot of cycling traffic. It seems pretty unpleasant for both groups.

As someone, who has walked this stretch dozens of times, I don't really find it unpleasant. The simple reason is that I know I will have to cross the road only once i.e. at each end. People just need to be more decisive and strategic when embarking on their respective journeys. Now, I can understand why it would be unpleasant for cyclists because the bulk of them do use the carriageway designated for cars, buses and trucks due to a lack of designated facilities. So, segregation is nigh on impossible here.

Awaaf wrote: »

I don't by the argument of prioritising speeding up the busses on this stretch as there are 4 bus stops on a short stretch so even if the bus was behind a cyclist for the full duration they would pass through pretty quickly.

Having measured the length of this stretch of road, you are talking about 4 bus stops within a kilometer which is madness as it cripples the performance of bus journeys.

Awaaf wrote: »

A bus lane on the Blackrock bypass would be far more effective IMHO.

That is all very well and good. However, to change the perception of existing motorists who use the Blackrock Bypass, new routes need to be introduced from the pool of originating areas. The 4 and 7 are all very well and good. However, the 84 which originates from well into Wicklow needs a big increase in frequency. As naive as that may sound, we need to transfer the bulk of the existing demand for motorised traffic onto buses so that the fall in demand 2 lanes can warrant the reduction of lanes for buses.

Cookie_Monster

Seems sorta pointless to just stop it at the church rather than continue all the way to DL? Clear the on street parking etc as that acts as a blockage now anyway.
That cyclist light at the Temple Hill junction needs to go as well, it's terrible.

As for segregated, no thanks.

Awaaf

@PB18

I accept your point that it is not unpleasant for you walking that stretch. It is after all quite pleasant visually. I am often walking with small children and I find watching them to keep them back from the kerb edge the main source of unpleasantness. When walking by myself I usually divert onto seapoint ave as soon as possible. OK it has the sea views but a big factor for me are the wider pavements and not having the cars within inches for good stretches.

The NTA Merrion Gates plan envisaged some one way in this area so the idea is taking hold at official level. I think some elements of this plan will go ahead but not the flyover and the one-way bit at Seapoint for now AFAIK. This was disappointing as the vast majority of submissions seemed to support it.

In other news I see a pedestrian and cycle bridge over the DART being proposed for Idrone terrace to Brighton Vale which looks like a very nice addition.

ted1

Awaaf wrote: »

@PB18

In other news I see a pedestrian and cycle bridge over the DART being proposed for Idrone terrace to Brighton Vale which looks like a very nice addition.

that'd be some bridge!!!

any links for the proposal

Awaaf

ted1 wrote: »

that'd be some bridge!!!

any links for the proposal

I should have been more clear. The bridge is just to cross the tracks. The route then continues on the seaward side to Brighton Vale.

Spotted at https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/merrion-gates-closure-plan-shelved-1.3518469

ted1

Awaaf wrote: »

I should have been more clear. The bridge is just to cross the tracks. The route then continues on the seaward side to Brighton Vale.

Spotted at https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/merrion-gates-closure-plan-shelved-1.3518469

I cant read the full article,

but there was a plan to put the S2S cycle path between the sea and railtracks.


this is from 2005
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiH5ZWZgojcAhXJD8AKHROgAUAQFghTMAY&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcyclingindublin.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F09%2F06_FINAL_report_section_12.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2Y8EFdrUxuET3UyzVAZ01G

Awaaf

Here is the relevant paras:

"The NTA said it would proceed with the section of the cycle route south of Merrion Gates to Seapoint, but would not turn Seapoint Avenue into a one-way street as previously planned, a measure which had been opposed by one-in-five submissions.

Instead it proposes to build a cycling and pedestrian bridge over the Dart line at Idrone Terrace to allow the cycle route to run between the sea wall and the Dart line. The route will then travel around the perimeter of Maretimo headland and then onto an elevated boardwalk from Maretimo to Seapoint."

ted1

The elevated platform might be a big deterrent for some cyclists.

work

WHEN DOES ANYONE THINK THEY might progress any of this?

Dardania

So on page 129 (or 55 depending on your PDF reader) it seems that this route will continue to support the 7 bus under BusConnects:
https://www.busconnects.ie/media/1239/chapter7recommendednetworkplan.pdf
It will range between 7 and 13 minute frequency.

patrickbrophy18

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

As for segregated, no thanks.

Why not?


Segregation seems to work in the Netherlands and Denmark where cycling is a massive modal share.


The issue with having a single road shared by ALL road users is that they are mixing road user groups that are incompatible with each other.


Like it or not, cyclists generally operate at a slower speed than motorised traffic between junctions where lack of segregation doesn't just hold up drivers but also holds up people who are commuting by bus.


I can remember taking the 8 bus when it was operational and regularly experienced slow performance between stops because the bus driver was either waiting for an opportunity to overtake a cyclist or it was not possible because the cyclist was in the center of the bus lane.


Now, I am aware that the cycle rest areas at traffic lights are often mounted by ignorant motorists when they are there to facilitate cyclists wishing to turn right at the respective junction. This is also a practice that constitutes an automatic fail in the driving test. Due to the endemic nature of this traffic offense, I can understand why cyclists take the center of the lane to correct an otherwise awkward and unsafe right-turn. So, it needs much stronger re-enforcement from the traffic corps.


This lack of segregation also affects the Luas in the vicinity of Dublin City for the exact same reason to the point where cyclists wind up getting their bikes jammed between the grooves of the Luas tracks. On the other hand, trains in Dublin nevermind nationwide don't have to worry about this problem because the infrastructure is completely segregated for the most part from ALL other modes of transport bar at level-crossings.


Then again, common sense and planning regularly don't go hand in hand in The Emerald Isle that is Ireland.

Cookie_Monster

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Why not?

because:

segregated lanes are never maintained and end up full of all sorts of rubbish
they tend not to follow roads and don't go where people actually want to go
lose priority at junctions, often being funneled into ped/cyclist lights rather than the general traffic lights.
make it exceptionally difficult to turn right at junctions
lose priority at bus stops or other random locations where road lanes do not
aren't wide enough generally
often contain pedestrians
are a complete waste of resources when there are perfectly good roads there already.

Give me a painted line on the road any day over segregated infrastructure.

Dardania

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Why not?

because:

segregated lanes are never maintained and end up full of all sorts of rubbish
they tend not to follow roads and don't go where people actually want to go
lose priority at junctions, often being funneled into ped/cyclist lights rather than the general traffic lights.
make it exceptionally difficult to turn right at junctions
lose priority at bus stops or other random locations where road lanes do not
aren't wide enough generally
often contain pedestrians
are a complete waste of resources when there are perfectly good roads there already.

Give me a painted line on the road any day over segregated infrastructure.

Seems like reasonable observations. Have you made a submission, particularly regarding your earlier point about non-continuous cycle lane?

Cookie_Monster

Dardania wrote: »

Seems like reasonable observations. Have you made a submission, particularly regarding your earlier point about non-continuous cycle lane?

yes I have