BusConnects - Cyclist Support Vital

aldark

Maybe, they could always introduce a new category of bus lane specifically for these routes though and ban cyclists from that.

Based on the designs I've seen so far, I think the aim is to get cyclists out of the way, not to better integrate us into the road infrastructure.

So would not be at all optimistic that any sense will prevail. Time to lobby the pols I think.

ED E wrote: »

Word is they're not banning cycles from bus lanes. I can't point to that in black and white, yet.

buffalo

Well here's someone in an official role saying something positive:

NTA Deputy Chief Executive Hugh Creegan said they accept not all cyclists will use that diversion. “Our problem is we can’t fit everything in, that’s our problem. Something has to give.”

He said they’ve tried to put in reasonable alternatives. “And in the case of Kildare Road, that actually is a more direct alternative for a lot of cyclists, and may be attractive.”

Those who don’t turn off, and stay on Crumlin Road could use the bus lane, he said. “Which is safer than merging with general traffic.”

https://www.dublininquirer.com/2019/02/06/council-briefs-busconnects-and-cyclists-the-liffey-cycle-route-and-getting-more-of-the-amber-man

nomdeboardie

As long as they let the bus drivers know that :rolleyes:

Chips Lovell

nomdeboardie wrote: »

As long as they let the bus drivers know that :rolleyes:

I think finding a cure for stupidity is beyond the NTA's remit.

nomdeboardie

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I think finding a cure for stupidity is beyond the NTA's remit.

True, but at least if drivers are explicitly told that cyclists have a right to use the bus lane we're covered for funeral expenses if our relatives sue :P

Chips Lovell

AFAIK, they are are told. It's always been the law. But you'll always get idiots in buses, taxis, and even private cars, who think they aren't allowed there or, better still, know they are allowed, but think they should get off them anyway.

magicbastarder

don't stand near the pram, you're likely to be fatally wounded by supersonic toys.

BusConnects chiefs propose making Rathmines one-way for cars
https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/busconnects-chiefs-propose-making-rathmines-15903601

Chips Lovell

Many lattes will be shot out of many noses.

CPTM

aldark wrote: »

I think this is new - its the core bus corridor design for rathfarnham to city centre - including the plans for getting cyclists off the rathmines and rathfarnham roads.

https://busconnects.ie/media/1453/12-busconnects-cbc-rathfarnham-to-city-centre-040119-fa.pdf

Plan in rathfarnham is to redirect cyclists onto brookvale downs, then onto a lane, then onto dodder park road. Brookvale Downs is a quiet residential estate - presumably kids playing, cars reversing onto road etc. Seems bonkers.

Hi there, I am actually looking at buying a house in Brookvale Downs where the proposed bike lane is set to pass through. It's made me a little hesitant. Do you think the bike lane would be used, or will people just fly on down the Rathfarnham road in the bus lane?

If they do go through the estate, is it even a bad thing to have cyclists passing through an estate? I can't make up my mind whether this is a good thing or a bad thing for the houses in Brookvale Downs.

Grassey

CPTM wrote:

Do you think the bike lane would be used, or will people just fly on down the Rathfarnham road in the bus lane?

Nobody in their right mind would detour off the main road down a narrow shared use lane, through the estate and back onto to a different road perpendicular to where they started, where they now need to cross at a pedestrian crossing in order to continue from rathfarnham towards terenure.

Seth Brundle

Given the option would you rather have cars flying down your street or bicycles?

Plus surely having quick sustainable transport on your doorstep is an advantage?

CPTM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Given the option would you rather have cars flying down your street or bicycles?

Plus surely having quick sustainable transport on your doorstep is an advantage?

Yes, I'm all about that. I cycle to work every day, and my wife gets a bus. It's actually why we like the house, because of the bus routes available.

I'm more worried about the value of the house changing, or the noise/disruption it might cause during implementation. Does anyone know when, between 2021 and 2027, the proposed works are due to be carried out? I know it's due to take about two years per corridor, but I wonder if they've decided which one they'll do first.

I think having a cycle lane going through an estate would make it more secure?

Grassey

I'd say the only disruption for that estate would be a fresh layer of tarmac and some coloured paint slapped down.

magicbastarder

looks like the scaremongering has had its intended result, to a extent anyway.

Dublin’s bus network redesign to be carried out over ‘phased basis’
BusConnects plan now due to be implemented between 2021 and 2023, instead of end of 2019
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/dublin-s-bus-network-redesign-to-be-carried-out-over-phased-basis-1.3930058

Chips Lovell

Pushing it out beyond the next general election.

magicbastarder

the absolute PITA about this is that it's going to stall all sorts of work; there are roads which really need to be resurfaced or repaired, but they were holding off on (AFAIK) because why surface a road if it's going to be reconfigured for busconnects?
this will just kick that can further down the road.

Macy0161

They should save the trees by making the effected routes bus lanes (i.e. current legal users) only, and resident access only (with long detours to get to the driving route). All these idiots will be giving out about why the trees were left get so big the next time one of these trees come down in a storm.

Chips Lovell

I'd be surprised if it ever happens in the shape originally envisaged.

Hurrache

Macy0161 wrote: »

They should save the trees by making the effected routes bus lanes (i.e. current legal users) only, and resident access only (with long detours to get to the driving route). All these idiots will be giving out about why the trees were left get so big the next time one of these trees come down in a storm.

Removing trees on the basis they may some day fall over, sure why bother planting any in the future. There's preventative maintenance on them as it is anyway. But because people don't want trees remove where possible, it doesn't make them idiots either.
(edit: the people who are saying trees that will be cut down that won't, or the media publishing photos of tree lined avenues which won't be affected, for their own agenda are however.)

magicbastarder

what bugs me is the 'save the trees because of climate change!' argument (i've seen this many times).
some maths:
an average car will produce over 150g of CO2 per km driven (a petrol car managing 5.6l per 100km produces 130g of CO2 per km; you would not expect to get that efficiency in an urban area in a petrol car).
a tree - under ideal conditions - can absorb maybe 100g of CO2 per day. it's actually closer to half that, so let's say 75g as a compromise.

this means that simply driving 500m in a car produces as much CO2 as a single tree can absorb in one day.

on a road near me (mobhi road), there are trees roughly every 20m, so 50 on each side of the road per km; if you drive the 1km along that road, and make the return trip, in one day; in one car, you have taken up the CO2 sequestration of 4 of those 100 trees.

i.e. just 25 cars making a return trip on that road per day overwhelms the ability of the trees to deal with the CO2 emitted. that's less than one third the capacity of a single double decker bus (based on a passenger capacity of 1.3 people per car)

i'm a tree hugger, i know there's a hell of a lot more utility to street trees than just carbon sequestration, but that aspect of it is so miniscule as to be irrelevant. (and i know no-one here made the argument, i just felt like giving out).

Hurrache

I understand you're not saying the argument for keeping trees is for CO2 reasons, my issue anyway with 'save the trees' is mainly from an aesthetic point of view. We've enough grey concrete and black tarmac. Look at how O'Connell Street turned out.

mirrormatrix

Well this sort of fear mongering (put out by UCD twitter the other day) probably doesn't help matters:

https://dublintrees.com/2019/06/11/potential-loss-of-trees-to-dublins-new-core-bus-route-corridor/

Hurrache

The Irish Times haven't been covering themselves in glory either.

LennoxR

Whatever about the trees, I thought we'd established that this plan's cycling provisions weren't up to much, no?

Chips Lovell

To me, the biggest flaw in the plan was they attempted to pander to everyone and pleased virtually no one.

You can easily minimise the tree issue by making more parts of the route one-way for general traffic or bus/bike only and only permit local access. Similarly, rather than divert more general traffic through residential areas, they should be attempting to reduce it instead. However, by attempting to minimise disruption to motorists they managed to alienate a whole other swathe of people instead without actually winning the "car is king" types over

Chips Lovell

LennoxR wrote: »

Whatever about the trees, I thought we'd established that this plan's cycling provisions weren't up to much, no?

True, but I don't think the cycling provisions are the main reason the plan is being pushed back.

average_runner

magicbastarder wrote: »

what bugs me is the 'save the trees because of climate change!' argument (i've seen this many times).
some maths:
an average car will produce over 150g of CO2 per km driven (a petrol car managing 5.6l per 100km produces 130g of CO2 per km; you would not expect to get that efficiency in an urban area in a petrol car).
a tree - under ideal conditions - can absorb maybe 100g of CO2 per day. it's actually closer to half that, so let's say 75g as a compromise.

this means that simply driving 500m in a car produces as much CO2 as a single tree can absorb in one day.

on a road near me (mobhi road), there are trees roughly every 20m, so 50 on each side of the road per km; if you drive the 1km along that road, and make the return trip, in one day; in one car, you have taken up the CO2 sequestration of 4 of those 100 trees.

i.e. just 25 cars making a return trip on that road per day overwhelms the ability of the trees to deal with the CO2 emitted. that's less than one third the capacity of a single double decker bus (based on a passenger capacity of 1.3 people per car)

i'm a tree hugger, i know there's a hell of a lot more utility to street trees than just carbon sequestration, but that aspect of it is so miniscule as to be irrelevant. (and i know no-one here made the argument, i just felt like giving out).

But you don't need to touch the trees, why not make the roads one way only, have the bus on the left, car in the middle and a cycle lane with separation on the right

LennoxR

Chips Lovell wrote: »

True, but I don't think the cycling provisions are the main reason the plan is being pushed back.

Yeah I d say that'd be mainly the result of a lot of wealthy people facing losing their front gardens or parts thereof.

But Personally I wouldn't be a fan of the plan at all. As someone else has said it tried to create these bus corridors without taking any space from cars and relegating cyclists to very impractical routes. Just my two cents.

average_runner

LennoxR wrote: »

Yeah I d say that'd be mainly the result of a lot of wealthy people facing losing their front gardens or parts thereof.

But Personally I wouldn't be a fan of the plan at all. As someone else has said it tried to create these bus corridors without taking any space from cars and relegating cyclists to very impractical routes. Just my two cents.

In fairness I don't think any one should lose their garden and can understand their anger over. For example Crumlin Road is not full of rich people but they want to take some of their small gardens, best of luck and it will end up in court.

Chips Lovell

LennoxR wrote: »

Yeah I d say that'd be mainly the result of a lot of wealthy people facing losing their front gardens or parts thereof.

I don't know. That's certainly the caricature, but in my area at least, there's fairly strong opposition to it despite the fact that only a handful of people stand to have their gardens affected by it. Was one of the main issues raised in the local election campaign etc.