Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Update on the Quays cycle route

245

Comments

  • #32
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 53,181 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    CramCycle wrote: »
    Christ on a bike
    WWJD? would he wear hi-vis?


  • #33
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,110 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    The detail of this are not acceptable http://irishcycle.com/2017/04/29/liffey-cycle-route-solution-includes-2-85-metre-shared-cycling-and-walking-path/

    Here's the main bits:

    West of the James Joyce Bridge / Blackhall Place:
    img_0325.jpg?resize=768%2C461

    img_0336-1.jpg?resize=768%2C512

    At the James Joyce Bridge, I don't know how the boardwalk could intersect with the bridge as suggested on the right hand side here, so, it'll likely end up being a narrowed shared pinch point worse than the Grand Canal's ones:
    img_0335.jpg?resize=768%2C446

    At Queen Street and Mellows Bridge between the two boardwalks -- this would not be too much of a compermise if it was not for the other sections of shared paths and crossing footpaths a total of 7 times in less than 600 metres:
    img_0334.jpg?resize=768%2C548


  • #34
    HivemindXX
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,208 ✭✭✭HivemindXX


    Weepsie wrote: »
    It's as though drivers don't realise they create the traffic problems

    They don't. This should be obvious right? When you can look at the quays, completely jammed with cars every morning, and still read people saying that the reason the quays are so bad is cyclists or maybe busses or anything but all the cars.

    Jesus seems like a brakeless fixie kind of guy to me. Read in to that what you want. :)

    @ThisRegard, I hadn't even thought about the ha'penny and milllenium bridges. They are already a mess for any pedestrians trying to walk along the path due to the crowds that build up and completely block the path every couple of minutes. I wonder what the chances are that people will accept changing the priority here so that pedestrians get more green time. I can see the AA and various councillors now..."I am completely behind increasing crossing time for pedestrians but not at the expense of the poor victimised motorist".


  • #35
    Kaisr Sose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,774 ✭✭✭Kaisr Sose


    Weepsie wrote: »
    I got to thinking that all involved on the official side, Dublin CC, Cuffe, Varadkar (previously), Shane Ross etc are all useless and nothing more than Talking Heads. They've Stopped Making Sense because now they want to Take Us to the River basically on a Road to Nowhere. They had a Once in a Lifetime chance to make a real change, but I fear this plan will lead to carnage. They'll be nothing more than Cyclo Killers.

    :D

    AKA

    The Fun Boy Three and The lunatics have taken over the asylum ...


  • #36
    Corca Baiscinn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 643 ✭✭✭Corca Baiscinn


    Weepsie wrote: »
    I got to thinking that all involved on the official side, Dublin CC, Cuffe, Varadkar (previously), Shane Ross etc are all useless and nothing more than Talking Heads. They've Stopped Making Sense because now they want to Take Us to the River basically on a Road to Nowhere. They had a Once in a Lifetime chance to make a real change, but I fear this plan will lead to carnage. They'll be nothing more than Cyclo Killers.

    I understand the urge to rant but apart from letting off steam, casting the blame net so wide isn't going to get us anywhere. I'm seldom found defending SR but afaik neithr he nor Leo has had any function re Liffey Cycle Route. C Cuffe does hav but I do have some sympathy since he's caught between a rock and a hard place in that while he's undoubtedly pro cycling and pro cycling infrastructure he represents one of the areas affected by the diversion and is presumably coming coming under heavy pressure from the people who can reelect him to DCC or vote him out. Either that or he has a sense that the whole plan will fall if he doesn't accept the proposed changes.

    Monument says that busses and pedestrians will also be affected. I don't know of any pedestrian lobby apart from Cosain in Galway and the lady from Kilmainham if she ever got going, but surely bus companies and bus passengers could be asked to comment. How will Dublin bus for eg be affected and if adversely is there time for them to tell the council it's not on? It's still a Bank Hol w/e but hopefully, the cyclists objecting here will have emailed/phoned/tweeted in objections to their councillors by first thing Tuesday morning


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 53,181 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Weepsie wrote: »
    They've Stopped Making Sense because now they want to Take Us to the River basically on a Road to Nowhere.
    demmed if you do, demmed if you don't.


  • #38
    Kaisr Sose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,774 ✭✭✭Kaisr Sose


    Corca Baiscinn wrote: »
    I understand the urge to rant but apart from letting off steam, casting the blame net so wide isn't going to get us anywhere. I'm seldom found defending SR but afaik neithr he nor Leo has had any function re Liffey Cycle Route. C Cuffe does hav but I do have some sympathy since he's caught between a rock and a hard place in that while he's undoubtedly pro cycling and pro cycling infrastructure he represents one of the areas affected by the diversion and is presumably coming coming under heavy pressure from the people who can reelect him to DCC or vote him out. Either that or he has a sense that the whole plan will fall if he doesn't accept the proposed changes.

    Monument says that busses and pedestrians will also be affected. I don't know of any pedestrian lobby apart from Cosain in Galway and the lady from Kilmainham if she ever got going, but surely bus companies and bus passengers could be asked to comment. How will Dublin bus for eg be affected and if adversely is there time for them to tell the council it's not on? It's still a Bank Hol w/e but hopefully, the cyclists objecting here will have emailed/phoned/tweeted in objections to their councillors by first thing Tuesday morning

    I am sorry but if C Cuffe or any Councilor feels a seat is more important than doing the right thing, then we are in Talking Head /Fun Boy Three and Boomtown Rats territory.

    If they wish to reduce congestion in the city they have to address the cause of it - poor public transport and excessive vehicular traffic in the city centre. Building a boardwalk for cyclists is not addressing the fundamental issue...but aren't they all great, listening to all stakeholders and coming up with innovative solutions to keep themselves all in robes and office to continue to do great things for the city! We are so lucky!


  • #39
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,110 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    I started liffeycycle.com -- I hope it helps people to text and email councillors before tomorrow's transport committee meeting ...and ask others to please do the same.


  • #40
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,947 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Some discussion of contacting the councillors concerning the Liffey Cycle Route here:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057735952&page=2


  • #41
    Grassey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,393 ✭✭✭Grassey


    I received the following back from Ciaran. Will I hold my breath for a modified option 7.... No.

    Thanks for taking the time to write to me.

     

    As someone who has cycled on the streets of Dublin daily for over thirty years I agree with much of what you're saying.

     

    However there is a very real concern from residents in and around Stoneybatter and Smithfield that stopping private car traffic on the North Quays will lead to cars diverting onto Blackhall Place, North King Street, George's Lane, North Brunswick Street and Church Street. Imposing more car traffic, noise and pollution right beside those who live on the ground floor on these streets seems unfair. Of course the induced traffic will decrease, but there is a real danger of a significant increase in car traffic on these streets in the short to medium term.  Do you mind me asking where you are living yourself and how familiar you might be with these particular streets?

     

    Also I don't feel that there is sufficient political support on the Council for Option 7. Local Sinn Féin, Fine Gael, Labour and Independent representatives and councillors have come out strongly against Option 7 and I believe will influence their colleagues on the council to vote against it. A split vote could endanger the project. It is my view is that if we go ahead with Option 8 we can opt for an improved version (more similar to Option 7) at a later stage.

     

    To be honest, the City Council will be introducing traffic management measures on Bachelors Walk this August in preparation for the Luas Cross-City line at O'Connell Bridge, and we may well end up reconsidering the plans, but if we lose momentum now, we may end up getting nothing. That's why I'm currently supporting the Manager's report that will be presented tomorrow for Option 8. The Transportation Strategic Policy Committee can be watched online tomorrow here. It kicks off at 3.30pm

     

    If you've any further thoughts I'm prepared to listen, and perhaps change my mind.


    All the best,

    Ciarán

    [\quote]


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 53,181 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    that's the response i got too (albeit with a few minor differences). to be fair, he was the only councillor to respond in any fashion so far (with the caveat that i sent the emails late last night)


  • #43
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,947 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Yeah, only one to get back to me, much the same response. On the face of it, it's a reasonable response. But Option 8 is crap, for buses, pedestrians and cyclists. And it's only there so that they can say they made a concession to motorists.


  • #44
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,064 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    I'd sooner they scrapped it altogether than put in place an option not fit for purpose.


  • #45
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,461 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    CramCycle wrote: »
    I'd sooner they scrapped it altogether than put in place an option not fit for purpose.

    Same here. TBH I've not examined it in detail but my instinct is that it will make it much slower route for cyclists.


  • #46
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,461 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    HivemindXX wrote: »
    On the North vs South debate I find the North quays to be worse. I go this way during the busiest commuting time in the morning and the bus lane is jammed with busses, coaches and taxis. A huge number of which are trying very slowly to change lanes to go around obstructions (busses at stops, taxis stopped anywhere they like and delivery vehicles). My only trips along the south quays are well after busy commuting times so I guess the comparison isn't fair but I find it a lot less crowded and therefore better. It does have the quality of changing from three lanes to two lanes and back again at least twice which is something that does not help cyclist safety at all.

    I think we are at cross purpose. The north quays is slower, the south faster. Which I think is what people mean when they say its better.

    But I would find the north quays less dangerous for that same reason. its usually slower, and easier to change lanes etc. The south more dangerous as its all moving faster and more lane changing. But then I'm going to the Phoenix park, and crossing left to right outside Guinness needs you to have experience of merging at speed.

    I was considering it n terms of a cycle route to encourage novice cycles to use the bike.
    HivemindXX wrote: »
    As far as how many people get to the point or the convention centre by car versus public transport I don't know the numbers but I think you should bear in mind that it doesn't take all that many extra cars to jam up the city centre. Just because traffic slows to a crawl when there is something on does not mean that a large percentage of the attendees are arriving by car. Even if they do I don't think that implies that they should be facilitated at the expense of improving the more efficient and more sustainable options.

    I was more thinking its a single lane one way system for much of that area. So very little traffic causes queues. I find driving around it, takes ages. if there's anything on driving in to this area, out the tunnel, north wall, or even down the quays is excruciating. No idea what the volume is.

    Considering you've got train, dart and luas on its doorstep.


  • #47
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,947 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    CramCycle wrote: »
    I'd sooner they scrapped it altogether than put in place an option not fit for purpose.

    I definitely won't be using it if it has a two cycle lanes and pedestrians crammed into 2.8m. I suspect the boardwalks will be utter rubbish too. You'll have to queue at every bridge, and you'll be dodging pedestrians trying to get a view of the Liffey between junctions.

    In fact, it sounds so bad that it'll end up one of the roads, like the N11, that I spend my time looking at maps trying to find routes around.


  • #48
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 53,181 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    actually, that may end up being a good thing (good thing in a long term basis) - if this idea crashes abnd burns, it'll prove the idiocy of bad compromises regarding cycling and city centre planning.


  • #49
    onmebike
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 264 ✭✭onmebike


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    actually, that may end up being a good thing (good thing in a long term basis) - if this idea crashes abnd burns, it'll prove the idiocy of bad compromises regarding cycling and city centre planning.

    Or will it prove that even if you build a brand new 'perfectly good' bit of infrastructure, that crowd of lycra warriors still won't use it and we're still a terrible bunch?


  • #50
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,947 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    I'm not sure what'll happen if they build it. Some awful infrastructure still gets used (Fairview, for example, because it's hard to avoid the route coming from the north-eastern suburbs into town, and the road is so hostile. But I think Fairview was like that to begin with. The north quays are only a bit stressful in places (for adult cyclists), rather than outright hostile.


  • #51
    Annie get your Run
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,831 ✭✭✭Annie get your Run


    CramCycle wrote: »
    I'd sooner they scrapped it altogether than put in place an option not fit for purpose.
    onmebike wrote: »
    Or will it prove that even if you build a brand new 'perfectly good' bit of infrastructure, that crowd of lycra warriors still won't use it and we're still a terrible bunch?

    We need to communicate this to DCC now, before it's built. Even if option 8 is passed we need to tell them we won't cycle on it and that they're wasting taxpayers money and then we need to find journalists who will tell the public that cyclists won't use it. There's another thread here about communicating to the Councillors so hopefully everyone on here has done that.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    matc66
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 144 ✭✭matc66


    Just starting on live stream now.


  • #53
    the.red.baron
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,636 ✭✭✭the.red.baron


    This is the obvious answer, close thread


    baycycle-water-bike-o.jpg


  • #54
    matc66
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 144 ✭✭matc66


    The decision of the committee was to defer making a decision until more reports were provided.
    Paddy Smyth and Paul Hand were virtually the only voices of reason in the room.


  • #55
    Corca Baiscinn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 643 ✭✭✭Corca Baiscinn


    matc66 wrote: »
    The decision of the committee was to defer making a decision until more reports were provided.
    Paddy Smyth and Paul Hand were virtually the only voices of reason in the room.

    But at least they didn't make an adverse decision so we live to fight another day and considering the power/influence of Dublin Town and the Car Park owners and the fact that few Councillors understand or support cycling I'd consider that a victory for now. sounds a bit Roy Keane I know but in the circumstances a victory today (ie vote for option 7) was highly unlikely. now there is more time to show/illustrate/photograph/prove that option 8 is a non-runner.


  • #56
    matc66
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 144 ✭✭matc66


    I was a bit surprised by the amount of support for option 7. Three councillors supported it, Hand, Smyth, and Horgan-Jones.


  • #57
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,277 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Watched a bit of it this afternoon. Depressing. Design by committee in action.


  • #58
    HivemindXX
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,208 ✭✭✭HivemindXX


    Annie get your Run wrote: »
    We need to communicate this to DCC now, before it's built. Even if option 8 is passed we need to tell them we won't cycle on it and that they're wasting taxpayers money and then we need to find journalists who will tell the public that cyclists won't use it. There's another thread here about communicating to the Councillors so hopefully everyone on here has done that.

    Unfortunately I can tell you now what the response is likely to be. This route is not for you existing cyclists. The confident ones with the lycra and the nerves of steel. This will be for the theoretical cyclists, the ones who don't cycle now but would if they had a boardwalk to cycle along.

    This doesn't mean it is not worth protesting. If option 8 were to be accepted I would certainly attend any protest.


  • #59
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 53,181 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    RTE are reporting it as a rejection rather than a kicking of the can down the road.

    http://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2017/0503/872287-liffey-cycleway/


  • #60
    Grassey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,393 ✭✭✭Grassey


    Trial by media. It is as good as rejected now!


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    jimmycrackcorm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,353 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    There were also concerns at potential conflict with pedestrians where the cycleway would emerge onto the quays at Liam Mellows Bridge.
    Colm Ryder of the Dublin Cycling Campaign predicted that cyclists would ignore the boardwalk and use the quays.

    Commuting in on the north quays today I was crossing and filter squeezing between lanes like it was an 1980's frogger. Yesterday I took the bus which got held up for an extra 20 minutes.


    If one wanted to be a bit more imaginative with suggestions, then why not have a contra-flow filter lane for cyclists and buses in the morning going on the south quays? it would be the cheapest option to implement. Split into two incoming bus lanes in the morning on both sides of the quays.


Advertisement