BusConnects - Cyclist Support Vital

schemingbohemia

There is a lot of misinformation being put forth by the NBRU and political parties regarding Bus Connects, saying buses are being "culled" or "lost" when they're actually being re-numbered and most people will be able to get further quicker. They'll also benefit from a 90 minute fare that can also be used on Luas and Train services.

What has this to do with cycling? The Bus Connects infrastructure plan includes 200km of high quality segregated cycle lanes running adjacent to the new bus lanes - not in, but beside and segregated from.

If the network re-design fails to get support the infrastructure plan is dead, so no 200km of segregated cycle lanes. If you want them you need to complete the survey
https://www.busconnects.ie/initiatives/dublin-area-bus-network-redesign/
and show your support for the plan (you can also raise issues with details of it, specific routes etc) but support for the core ideas of the plan - Spines and Orbital routes is key to getting this across the line and getting all those segregated cycle lanes.

Closing date for this is Friday.

ED E

This isn't straight good for us. The plan is a sketch right now but some of their cycle lanes may be parallel but 200m away in a side street yielding every 50m.

The devil is hugely in the detail here.

Macy0161

Yep, I'd also be giving guarded support. Anything that enhances public transport for the city is a good thing, and I do believe bus connect does that. However, I'm less convinced from what I've seen of the cycling specific details tbh.

schemingbohemia

ED E wrote: »

This isn't straight good for us. The plan is a sketch right now but some of their cycle lanes may be parallel but 200m away in a side street yielding every 50m.

The devil is hugely in the detail here.

Yes, and the detail will be discussed as part of the public consultation on infrastructure starting next month.

However, there won't be anything to discuss if the Network re-design doesn't get enough support.

Also, most of us on here are experienced cyclists, segregated cycle lanes are much more essential for increasing the numbers cycling, particularly children and those currently fearful of cycling in non-segregated traffic.

So give guarded support but give support otherwise it will be dead in the water.

ED E

Whats needed is segregated bus lanes, we won't get that though. Take a bus in at rush hour down rathmines road and see all the vans and taxis blocking the bus lane.

Bus connects can't work without enforcement first. Gardai don't want that job (new Comm said so) and DSPS/DCC have a MASSIVE conflict of interest. Maybe I'm a cynic but the whole thing is transport theatre IMO.

schemingbohemia

Well, the actual draft plans for Rathmines have only one traffic lane instead of the two now. But sure leave the whole thing to the Nimbys and let it not even get off the ground cause that will be so much more beneficial.

brocbrocach

Why would the NBRU and political parites want to block a move that increases bus services?

monkeybutter

brocbrocach wrote: »

Why would the NBRU and political parites want to block a move that increases bus services?

to keep Parity?

mirrormatrix

Personally, I'm happier on the road than in a dedicated cycle lane. But I do support BusConnects in general.

Macy0161

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Well, the actual draft plans for Rathmines have only one traffic lane instead of the two now. But sure leave the whole thing to the Nimbys and let it not even get off the ground cause that will be so much more beneficial.

Actually I'd already done the survey supporting the bus elements, but way to get support!

schemingbohemia

Macy0161 wrote: »

Actually I'd already done the survey supporting the bus elements, but way to get support!

You're probably right, I do however think this is a once in a generation opportunity to massively increase cycling infrastructure for those who will not consider it given the current provision.

I think on it's own, Bus Connects will massively improve public transport in the City and it also provides as an ancillary a huge increase in cycling infrastructure. I am probably too emotionally involved in it and feel that it is at serious risk of failure due to ambivalence on the part of those likely to benefit from it.

Public consultation tends to bring out opponents more than supporters and if the opponents win then we'll just continue with piecemeal cycling infrastructure.

Opposing Bus Connects or not voicing support for it because of a couple of draft routes doesn't make sense to me.

magicbastarder

brocbrocach wrote: »

Why would the NBRU and political parites want to block a move that increases bus services?

The NBRU think it's a trojan horse to privatise the buses.
The political parties are playing local games. They're looking at this at a micro rather than macro level. As a 'this means the 13 bus will disappear' issue rather than one of necessary changes to improve the service.

brocbrocach

It's nonsensical that cycling infrastructure would be tied to agreeing a business strategy for Dublin Bus. What higher power decreed that these two completely separate modes of transport should be intertwined, and isn't it more than likely that the cycling infrastructure will be built regardless of how Dublin Bus uses it's resources?

brocbrocach

magicbastarder wrote: »

The NBRU think it's a trojan horse to privatise the buses.

I think so too and I'm opposed to that.

Chips Lovell

Macy0161 wrote: »

Yep, I'd also be giving guarded support. Anything that enhances public transport for the city is a good thing, and I do believe bus connect does that. However, I'm less convinced from what I've seen of the cycling specific details tbh.

Ditto. The bus element looks good, but I'm not gone on the cycling aspect, nor the plans in some parts to divert private cars through residential areas.

Fian

https://www.busconnects.ie/initiatives/on-your-bike/

Cycling facilities
The implementation of “next generation” bus corridors as part of BusConnects doesn’t just address the bus requirements along those routes – it also allows the creation of a “next generation” network of cycling facilities.

The major bus corridors also represent the major cycling arteries for the city. The reconstruction of these roads to provide the essential bus lanes that are needed for BusConnects also provides the opportunity to similarly transform the cycling infrastructure.

On each of the Core Bus Network corridors, we will provide high quality cycling facilities, segregated from the bus lanes and general traffic lanes as far as is practicable. When implemented, this will mean that inexperienced cyclists, as well experienced cyclists, will be able to use these routes safely.

This benefits the bus system as well. It avoids cyclists sharing bus lanes with buses, where the bus speed can be limited to the speed of the slowest cyclist in the lane, and removes many of the conflicts that bus drivers have to deal with.

Accordingly, the implementation of BusConnects will also see the delivery of a network of key cycle routes, which form the foundation of the overall cycle network that has been planned for the Greater Dublin Area.

I responded to teh survey, and in the "any other comments" piece I asked that the cycling infrastructure not yield if the main route would have right of way, pointed out that if it is not fit for purpose cyclists will not use it and will use the bus lanes instead and that a tick teh box cycle lane that is not fit for purpose is a complete waste of public resources.

Mickiemcfist

mirrormatrix wrote: »

Personally, I'm happier on the road than in a dedicated cycle lane. But I do support BusConnects in general.

This is why people hate cyclists

Annie get your Run

mirrormatrix wrote: »

Personally, I'm happier on the road than in a dedicated cycle lane. But I do support BusConnects in general.

Me too, the cycle lanes we have are mostly not fit for (my) purpose nor many other commuters; yielding to motor traffic at junctions, built beside footpaths & walked on by pedestrians, badly maintained, full of potholes and slippery manhole covers etc etc etc etc etc.

I also support Bus Connects and have filled in the survey and commented on my concerns that the cycle infrastructure they will build will be suitable for all levels of cycling, otherwise many will continue to use the roads, as is their right.

Chips Lovell

Fian wrote: »

I responded to teh survey, and in the "any other comments" piece I asked that the cycling infrastructure not yield if the main route would have right of way, pointed out that if it is not fit for purpose cyclists will not use it and will use the bus lanes instead and that a tick teh box cycle lane that is not fit for purpose is a complete waste of public resources.

This is the biggest area of concern. While they're not explicit, it sounds like they may be considering changing the law to bar cyclists from bus lanes. We've tried mandatory use before and it took years of lobbying to get rid of it.

Annie get your Run

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

This is the biggest area of concern. While they're not explicit, it sounds like they may be considering changing the law to bar cyclists from bus lanes. We've tried mandatory use before and it took years of lobbying to get rid of it.

I wonder will it be all bus lanes or just the connect ones? Seems like they will allow taxis to use them though..

schemingbohemia

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

This is the biggest area of concern. While they're not explicit, it sounds like they may be considering changing the law to bar cyclists from bus lanes. We've tried mandatory use before and it took years of lobbying to get rid of it.

Not sure where you're getting that view from, can you point to anything that leads you to that opinion?

Legislation could not be introduced for Bus Connects only bus lanes, unless there was a totally new designation for them which is highly unlikely.

Annie get your Run

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Not sure where you're getting that view from, can you point to anything that leads you to that opinion?

Legislation could not be introduced for Bus Connects only bus lanes, unless there was a totally new designation for them which is highly unlikely.

They confirmed this on twitter a while back, whether that's a hope or something definite is unclear but I definitely read a tweet from @busconnects stating cyclists wouldn't be allowed and taxi's would.

ED E

Annie get your Run wrote: »

I wonder will it be all bus lanes or just the connect ones? Seems like they will allow taxis to use them though..

Word on the street is the NTA want taxis out of bus lanes but are picking their battles as such a move would lead to massive disruptive protests.

Chips Lovell

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Not sure where you're getting that view from, can you point to anything that leads you to that opinion?

Legislation could not be introduced for Bus Connects only bus lanes, unless there was a totally new designation for them which is highly unlikely.

The piece quoted by Fian above:

This benefits the bus system as well. It avoids cyclists sharing bus lanes with buses, where the bus speed can be limited to the speed of the slowest cyclist in the lane, and removes many of the conflicts that bus drivers have to deal with

As I said, they're not explicit, but it sounds like they want to force cyclists out of the bus lanes.

schemingbohemia

brocbrocach wrote: »

It's nonsensical that cycling infrastructure would be tied to agreeing a business strategy for Dublin Bus. What higher power decreed that these two completely separate modes of transport should be intertwined, and isn't it more than likely that the cycling infrastructure will be built regardless of how Dublin Bus uses it's resources?

It's not a business strategy for Dublin Bus. It's about more efficient use of the buses we have and the 27% increase in bus services.

It makes sense when you're putting in next generation bus lanes that you use the opportunity to, at the same time, put in high quality segregated cycle lanes.

People were giving out when Luas cross-city was brought in that the impact on bus services and cycling wasn't considered, now you're giving out that they are!

RayCun

brocbrocach wrote: »

It's nonsensical that cycling infrastructure would be tied to agreeing a business strategy for Dublin Bus. What higher power decreed that these two completely separate modes of transport should be intertwined, and isn't it more than likely that the cycling infrastructure will be built regardless of how Dublin Bus uses it's resources?

It isn't just about how Dublin Bus uses its resources. The changes to routes proposed in this plan depend on road layouts being changed throughout the city to support uninterrupted bus lanes on the major routes. Those changes to road layout enable the development of cycling infrastructure.

Mickiemcfist

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

As I said, they're not explicit, but it sounds like they want to force cyclists out of the bus lanes.

Why should cyclists get to slow down other methods of transport when they have their own dedicated lane? I cycle to work & have to use some fairly bad cycle paths, therefore use a MTB rather than road bike, each method of transport have their drawbacks, but it seems cyclists have a sense of entitlement that no other demographic have.

Where is the incentive for the government to invest heavily in cycling infrastructure when you have people saying I prefer the road anyway

ED E

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

Why should cyclists get to slow down other methods of transport when they have their own dedicated lane? I cycle to work & have to use some fairly bad cycle paths, therefore use a MTB rather than road bike, each method of transport have their drawbacks, but it seems cyclists have a sense of entitlement that no other demographic have.

Where is the incentive for the government to invest heavily in cycling infrastructure when you have people saying I prefer the road anyway

Because cyclists are helping to solve the problem. Force them to use crap infra and they drive. That makes it worse for everyone.

Can't use cycle lanes if they're full of cars.
http://freethecyclelanes.vool.ie/

buffalo

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

Why should cyclists get to slow down other methods of transport when they have their own dedicated lane? I cycle to work & have to use some fairly bad cycle paths, therefore use a MTB rather than road bike, each method of transport have their drawbacks, but it seems cyclists have a sense of entitlement that no other demographic have.

Where is the incentive for the government to invest heavily in cycling infrastructure when you have people saying I prefer the road anyway

If everyone used the bad cycle tracks, why would anyone bother to build good ones?

Chips Lovell

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

Why should cyclists get to slow down other methods of transport when they have their own dedicated lane? I cycle to work & have to use some fairly bad cycle paths, therefore use a MTB rather than road bike, each method of transport have their drawbacks, but it seems cyclists have a sense of entitlement that no other demographic have.

I don't know about you Mick, but if I drive or take the bus to work, it isn't the cyclists who're slowing traffic down.

It's kind of bizarre that you admit to needing to use a bike designed for riding off-road in order to use cycle lanes and then say anyone not prepared to do this has a "sense of entitlement".

brocbrocach

schemingbohemia wrote: »

It's not a business strategy for Dublin Bus. It's about more efficient use of the buses we have and the 27% increase in bus services.

It makes sense when you're putting in next generation bus lanes that you use the opportunity to, at the same time, put in high quality segregated cycle lanes.

People were giving out when Luas cross-city was brought in that the impact on bus services and cycling wasn't considered, now you're giving out that they are!

No, I know what it's about. It's about tying positive changes in city infrastructure (which would be logical changes anyway) to a restructuring of bus services which has major flaws. There is no reason why that cycling infrastructure wouldn't be built independently of BusConnects.

I'd compare this move to something like the proposed changes to the Fairview road system, which involved using the need for a cycling lane to push for otherwise unpopular decisions.

Why cyclists should feel a moral obligation to support the privatisation of bus routes is beyond me.

Mickiemcfist

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I don't know about you Mick, but if I drive or take the bus to work, it isn't the cyclists who're slowing traffic down.

It's kind of bizarre that you admit to needing to use a bike designed for riding off-road in order to use cycle lanes and then say anyone not prepared to do this has a "sense of entitlement".

My point is that TFI are suggesting building dedicated, segregated cycle lanes yet people above are still saying they're going to use the road. If I was a planner & read that I'd just shrug my shoulders & ignore cyclists completely as it seems they'll use car/bus infrastructure regardless of what was built. Which is what they've been doing to date.

schemingbohemia

brocbrocach wrote: »

No, I know what it's about. It's about tying positive changes in city infrastructure (which would be logical changes anyway) to a restructuring of bus services which has major flaws. There is no reason why that cycling infrastructure wouldn't be built independently of BusConnects.

I'd compare this move to something like the proposed changes to the Fairview road system, which involved using the need for a cycling lane to push for otherwise unpopular decisions.

Why cyclists should feel a moral obligation to support the privatisation of bus routes is beyond me.

There is no privatisation!

Are you opposed to the LUAS? It's contracted the same way as Go Ahead.

Experience has shown that cycling infrastructure comes way down the priority list for politicians, tying it in with Bus Infrastructure gives it a much better chance of success.

Fian

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

My point is that TFI are suggesting building dedicated, segregated cycle lanes yet people above are still saying they're going to use the road. If I was a planner & read that I'd just shrug my shoulders & ignore cyclists completely as it seems they'll use car/bus infrastructure regardless of what was built. Which is what they've been doing to date.

People, including myself, are saying that if the "dedicated segregated cycle lanes" are worse to use than the road we will use the roads. nobody is saying "if these cycle lanes are more convenient to use than teh roads I will use the roads anyway."

Let's imagine there are two routes available to you to drive your car into the city: one smooth, quick and convenient, the other bumpy/jarring, dangerous, slower, full of stops and starts and less convenient.

Legally, you are perfectly entitled to choose to use either route.

Do you (a) use the convenient route, or (b) use the inconvenient once because you want to leave more room for other traffic on the nice one?

I frequently find myself with exactly that choice based on existing infrastructure, when that arises I choose (a).

brocbrocach

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Experience has shown that cycling infrastructure comes way down the priority list for politicians, tying it in with Bus Infrastructure gives it a much better chance of success.

So now that cycling infrastructure is beginning to be made more of a priority, that planners and elected officials are finally seeing the light ... we throw away all that moral high ground so governments can spend less money on public transport?

Why do you think the people behind BusConnects are tying cycle lanes into the package, because our shared lanes have formed a bond between us?



I don't see the relevance of all your Luas references. Changing some bus routes and timetables is very different to providing a brand new form of PT. Are you saying that the Luas service isn't privatised? It's mere semantics if it's not.

brianomc

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

Why should cyclists get to slow down other methods of transport when they have their own dedicated lane? I cycle to work & have to use some fairly bad cycle paths, therefore use a MTB rather than road bike, each method of transport have their drawbacks, but it seems cyclists have a sense of entitlement that no other demographic have.

Where is the incentive for the government to invest heavily in cycling infrastructure when you have people saying I prefer the road anyway

I took the bus in this morning at half 6 from Chapelizod, we got to the quays and got stuck behind 2 slow cyclists for about a minute until the bus could overtake. The driver then proceeded about 100metres before getting stuck in a bus lane* behind cars. The cyclists overtook us and I never saw them again. It took 10 minutes to get from Heuston Station to Bachelors Walk.

I prefer to use the road, if there are slow cyclists in front of me, I have more space to overtake than in a segregated lane. Also the usual, keeping priority at junctions, roads are better condition in general etc

* Bus lane isnt active until 7am so the bus has to sit behind miles of cars and put up with trucks doing deliveries

Bus Connect is making the service worse through Chapelizod, down with Bus Connect!!!!

I agree with having segregation to encourage nervous/inexperienced cyclists but don’t want their construction to lead to a mandatory use situation, or an assumed mandatory-use which is even worse.

RayCun

The infrastructure changes and route changes are directly linked.
The infrastructure changes are to build dedicated bus lanes so that bus traffic on those roads will be faster.
The route changes are to put all radial traffic on to those roads, and support them with other routes to get people on to the fast routes.

The two go hand in hand. The infrastructure changes won't go ahead unless they can be justified by more frequent bus traffic on the changed roads.

Macy0161

brianomc wrote:

I took the bus in this morning at half 6 from Chapelizod, we got to the quays and got stuck behind 2 slow cyclists for about a minute until the bus could overtake. The driver then proceeded about 100metres before getting stuck in a bus lane* behind cars. The cyclists overtook us and I never saw them again. It took 10 minutes to get from Heuston Station to Bachelors Walk.

I'm always pointing this to people in my locale when they're complaining about being stuck behind cyclists how we all get stuck behind the Sunday drivers, tourists, buses, campervans for 10 or 15 km, yet they're complaining about being stuck behind a cyclist for a couple of seconds.

I don't really know about the being stuck behind slower cyclists as a reason not to use them. That's what we give out to motorists for having no patience? For me, it's the quality of the surface, whether it's clear of leaves and branches, interactions with pedestrians, where they spit you out on the road, the yielding signs/ marks when the road has right of way etc. But I suppose they're not appropriate for going faster in many cases because of how crap they are.

magicbastarder

I've heard complaints about the changes to the bus service in chapelizod, but a colleague was telling me that it currently has loads of buses passing through which are full by the time they get there, and the change will mean a less regular, but dedicated, service?

magicbastarder

I've heard complaints about the changes to the bus service in chapelizod, but a colleague was telling me that it currently has loads of buses passing through which are full by the time they get there, and the change will mean a less regular, but dedicated, service?

Qrt

brianomc wrote: »

I took the bus in this morning at half 6 from Chapelizod, we got to the quays and got stuck behind 2 slow cyclists for about a minute until the bus could overtake. The driver then proceeded about 100metres before getting stuck in a bus lane* behind cars. The cyclists overtook us and I never saw them again. It took 10 minutes to get from Heuston Station to Bachelors Walk.

I prefer to use the road, if there are slow cyclists in front of me, I have more space to overtake than in a segregated lane. Also the usual, keeping priority at junctions, roads are better condition in general etc

* Bus lane isnt active until 7am so the bus has to sit behind miles of cars and put up with trucks doing deliveries

Bus Connect is making the service worse through Chapelizod, down with Bus Connect!!!!

I agree with having segregation to encourage nervous/inexperienced cyclists but don’t want their construction to lead to a mandatory use situation, or an assumed mandatory-use which is even worse.

Are you a "typical" cyclist? Just a question. Good bike, dedicated clothing, eyewear, helmet etc?

brianomc

Macy0161 wrote: »

I don't really know about the being stuck behind slower cyclists as a reason not to use them. That's what we give out to motorists for having no patience?

If I'm stuck behind them, then so be it. I wont squeeze passed, I'll just sit back and go with the flow for a few minutes until it's safe to overtake. All I meant was, it's easier to overtake a cyclist on a road than a segregated cycle lane. On something like the cycle lanes through the phoenix park or S2S Northside I will take to the grass to overtake if it's dry. Bit harder to do that if you had a drop off a curb or raised curbing at the edge.

Qrt wrote: »

Are you a "typical" cyclist? Just a question. Good bike, dedicated clothing, eyewear, helmet etc?

If that's the definition of typical cyclist then the answer is "sometimes". If I'm on a proper spin, which doesn't happen much any more, then yes to all 4. On my commute, decent bike, tracksuit bottoms, cycling jersey, prescription glasses of the regular variety, helmet (is this seen as a bad thing now?)

I see more people on my commute cycling basic bikes or dublin bikes, wearing suits/jeans/workwear, no eyewear, 50:50 helmets, so your definition of cyclist differs from mine as far as commuting goes.

magicbastarder

Qrt wrote: »

Are you a "typical" cyclist? Just a question. Good bike, dedicated clothing, eyewear, helmet etc?

Well, that doesn't sound like a loaded question at all at all.

brianomc

magicbastarder wrote: »

I've heard complaints about the changes to the bus service in chapelizod, but a colleague was telling me that it currently has loads of buses passing through which are full by the time they get there, and the change will mean a less regular, but dedicated, service?

It will be starting at Liffey Valley, backroads into Palmerstown and into Chapelizod and running every 30 minutes, instead of the usual 5-10 minutes as it stands now. Outside of peak commuting times I always got on board on any bus and wouldn't even check the next one before walking to the stop. They had to add a 6:25, 7:25 and 8:25 bus from the West County in Chapelizod last year to give us any chance of getting a bus in the mornings. Prior to that, if the one went passed at 6:30 without stopping then it could be anywhere from 20-40 minutes before getting on the next one that stopped as the rest were all full. I usually only got the bus once a week and luckily I can cut the bus out completely and cycle in if it comes to it. I'm in work so early I've never seen the queues at their worst at the Chapelizod stops.

The fear is that if the bus is less frequent then the buses will fill up before they reach us and instead of maybe getting one in 5 or 10 mins you will have to wait 30 minutes for the next one and maybe get on. There's a post on the local facebook page that says that the number 26 went passed full. The number 26 starts at Cherry Orchard, down through Palmerstown and into Chapelizod which is very similar to the new route. If that bus is full now, and it's our only option in the future then people will turn back to cars, or bikes, but probably cars.

brianomc

magicbastarder wrote: »

Well, that doesn't sound like a loaded question at all at all.

Believe me, it took a lot but I resisted the urge to give my definition of "typical" <insert other road user here>

Qrt

brianomc wrote: »

If I'm stuck behind them, then so be it. I wont squeeze passed, I'll just sit back and go with the flow for a few minutes until it's safe to overtake. All I meant was, it's easier to overtake a cyclist on a road than a segregated cycle lane. On something like the cycle lanes through the phoenix park or S2S Northside I will take to the grass to overtake if it's dry. Bit harder to do that if you had a drop off a curb or raised curbing at the edge.



If that's the definition of typical cyclist then the answer is "sometimes". If I'm on a proper spin, which doesn't happen much any more, then yes to all 4. On my commute, decent bike, tracksuit bottoms, cycling jersey, prescription glasses of the regular variety, helmet (is this seen as a bad thing now?)

I see more people on my commute cycling basic bikes or dublin bikes, wearing suits/jeans/workwear, no eyewear, 50:50 helmets, so your definition of cyclist differs from mine as far as commuting goes.

magicbastarder wrote: »

Well, that doesn't sound like a loaded question at all at all.

I didn't mean anything by it, I just based the "typical" part on what gets stereotyped etc. Judging from the post you seemed like a very well versed cyclist, exact opposite of myself. I lived in Germany over the summer, very rural, cycled everywhere on a rusting old step-on city bike. Cycling there was an absolute dream. I don't cycle here at the moment (bike got nicked) but I can't see myself being able to get the metaphorical balls to do so any time soon.

brianomc

Qrt wrote: »

I don't cycle here at the moment (bike got nicked) but I can't see myself being able to get the metaphorical balls to do so any time soon.

Don't be put off. It's way safer than it's made out to be. The positives outweigh the negatives by far.

Edit: If you enjoy cycling but feel nervous on the roads then there are off-road lanes available. If you are in Dublin then the Phoenix Park and from Alfie Bryne road out to Howth both have comfortable off-road setups. They rent bikes in the park too at the entrance near the criminal courts.

Qrt

brianomc wrote: »

Don't be put off. It's way safer than it's made out to be. The positives outweigh the negatives by far.

I've always thought that, but I live at home with the aul' wan (do people say that for mothers, like aul' fella for fathers?) and any notion of getting into it leads to a slight row. The worst thing is that the BusConnects infrastructure plan essentially leaves out my entire area, and leave it to the mercy of SDCC. Great plans in the NTA plan published all those years ago now, but few have come into fruition.

Mr. Grieves

The idea of a bus getting stuck behind a cyclist is ludicrous, a bus has to stop every few hundred metres. My local bus achieves an average speed of 7 km/hr into town during peak times.

However, if there are to be dedicated bus lanes with enforcement regarding driving in them, bus speed will improve. So we need to engage with the next phase of the consultation which deals with the road design.

I'm an 'experienced' cyclist and I won't use crap cycle lanes. But I happily use good ones. I definitely support Bus Connects and think it represents an opportunity to be consulted on how roads are designed.

To those who don't like segregation, can I ask if you cycle with kids day to day, and if you don't, why don't you (assuming you have kids)?

Annie get your Run

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

My point is that TFI are suggesting building dedicated, segregated cycle lanes yet people above are still saying they're going to use the road. If I was a planner & read that I'd just shrug my shoulders & ignore cyclists completely as it seems they'll use car/bus infrastructure regardless of what was built. Which is what they've been doing to date.

The problem is, our track record for building cycling infra in this country is dreadful. No proper planning or consultation, rubbish lanes and as stated several times already, you loose right of way at junctions etc. If that's what they're planning to build then they can keep it and spend the money elsewhere. Most people who commute by bike would love nothing more than proper Dutch style dedicated infra separate from the cars/buses and taxi's and indeed motorbikes we normally have to mix with. I won't hold my breath though, they'll squeeze in something where they can and it won't work and then we'll be the worst in the world for not using the lanes they spent millions making a balls of.

They need to hold a separate consultation process for the cycling infrastructure and they need to speak to people who will use it regularly. Actually, I'd be happy if a few engineers travelled with me by bike on my route in and out to work so they can see first hand what the problems are. They should do this for every major route into the city!

magicbastarder

Re traffic getting stuck behind cyclists, earlier in the summer on my commute into work, I saw a guy in a distinctively coloured audi (i.e. it was a shade of brown that looked like fermented ****) pulling a dick move on east wall road. We were still swapping places with each other passing leopardstown racecourse. If a car cannot go faster than a cyclist before 7:30am, over a distance of about 10km, it doesn't feed into a narrative of cyclists holding traffic up.