Dublin - BusConnects

https://twitter.com/__kbaker__/status/1172251417026990080?s=20

https://twitter.com/DublinCommuters/status/1172131212724461568?s=20

That junction proposal may be good for cyclists ( personally I don’t think it is) but for a pedestrian to correctly from top left to bottom right for example, they need to cross 4 cycle paths. That’s assuming everyone crosses correctly as the engineers have envisioned but of course no one will and the 4 corners are going to turn into a war zone between cyclists pedestrians and in particular people with disabilities.

Last Stop wrote: »

That junction proposal may be good for cyclists ( personally I don’t think it is) but for a pedestrian to correctly from top left to bottom right for example, they need to cross 4 cycle paths.

Far better than the prevailing trend over the last 10 or so years to mix people cycling and walking or leaving people cycling at huge extra risk around motorists.

Last Stop wrote: »

That’s assuming everyone crosses correctly as the engineers have envisioned but of course no one will and the 4 corners are going to turn into a war zone between cyclists pedestrians

War zones? You really know how to take the biscuit. Get a grip and stop spreading nonsense. Much like your other ill-informed posts on cycling.

Last Stop wrote: »

and in particular people with disabilities.

Let’s get this straight: There’s people with disabilities who are pedestrians and there’s people with disabilities who are cyclists.

People with disabilities cycle themselves, are carried by bicycles (ie parents), and use cycle tracks things other than bicycles.

And for people with disabilities who do not cycle, crossing a cycle track is far better than mixing with bicycles in shared space.

Last Stop wrote: »

Ahhh so you’re bringing infrastructure into it now. So it’s not just motorists. I’m guessing there are other factors to blame too except the fact that a significant number of people don’t like to cycle for whatever reason. Because of this, if we are to seriously reduce congestion we need to invest in public transport and bringing this whole thing back on topic, trams are a far more efficient way of doing that than buses.

Last Stop wrote: »

There is absolutely no evidence to back up that opinion and to be perfectly honest I’d go as far as saying that is completely bull****.

This is the big problem with cyclists, they give out all day long about motorists which isn’t going to change anything instead of complaining about the real problems such as why the dublinbikes scheme hasn’t been expanded at anywhere near the rate it should have given its incredible success.

Except you’re wrong. For starters the two are clearly linked.

I’ve been writing about cycling as transport for a decade or so. There’s ample evidence — truck loads of it — to show that danger and perceived danger from motorists on the roads is the primary reason more people don’t cycle more.

Infrastructure is clearly linked — if you have infrastructure change you can provide safe space and/or reduce the volume of cars (ie filter out rat running). I think you know this but are claiming otherwise because your arguments are so poor.

The evidence doesn’t support your theories or reasoning and what’s more the evidence again and again shows when you transfer space to cycling and make it safer and more attractive, more people cycle.

Last Stop wrote: »

That junction proposal may be good for cyclists ( personally I don’t think it is)

It's very similar to junctions that have been shown to work across many cities with safe cycling infrastructure. For decades.

You're welcome to your opinion.

monument wrote: »

Except you’re wrong. For starters the two are clearly linked.

I’ve been writing about cycling as transport for a decade or so. There’s ample evidence — truck loads of it — to show that danger and perceived danger from motorists on the roads is the primary reason more people don’t cycle more.

Infrastructure is clearly linked — if you have infrastructure change you can provide safe space and/or reduce the volume of cars (ie filter out rat running). I think you know this but are claiming otherwise because your arguments are so poor.

The evidence doesn’t support your theories or reasoning and what’s more the evidence again and again shows when you transfer space to cycling and make it safer and more attractive, more people cycle.

So why does the GDA strategy assume 2000km of cycling infrastructure and yet no increase in cycling as a mode of transport?
What theories exactly are you referring to? I have said that some people just don’t want to cycle... that is true. I myself am one of them, I prefer to walk or get a bus/Luas because of the hassle of bringing a bike everywhere. Are you suggesting this is not the case?

monument wrote: »

Far better than the prevailing trend over the last 10 or so years to mix people cycling and walking or leaving people cycling at huge extra risk around motorists.

War zones? You really know how to take the biscuit. Get a grip and stop spreading nonsense. Much like your other ill-informed posts on cycling.

Let’s get this straight: There’s people with disabilities who are pedestrians and there’s people with disabilities who are cyclists.

People with disabilities cycle themselves, are carried by bicycles (ie parents), and use cycle tracks things other than bicycles.

And for people with disabilities who do not cycle, crossing a cycle track is far better than mixing with bicycles in shared space.

Clearly we’re looking at different drawings because the new proposals that I was looking at as tweeted by Kevin Baker increases the mixing of pedestrians and cyclists at the corners. If a cyclist is coming around that bend at speed and a pedestrian is crossing it’s not going to end well. Under the old proposal this was not an issue. This is an even bigger issue for people with disabilities as I was keen to highlight.
Your last point supports the old proposal over the new one so you’re completely contradicting yourself.
How are my other posts ill-informed? I’ve said time and time again that investment in trams is a far better investment than cycling or buses if we want to reduce congestion. No one has pointed to a single piece of research or figure that suggests otherwise. When it comes to buses vs trams, the theory is backed up by cso data.

CatInABox

Last Stop wrote: »

Clearly we’re looking at different drawings because the new proposals that I was looking at as tweeted by Kevin Baker increases the mixing of pedestrians and cyclists at the corners. If a cyclist is coming around that bend at speed and a pedestrian is crossing it’s not going to end well. Under the old proposal this was not an issue. This is an even bigger issue for people with disabilities as I was keen to highlight.

How does it increase the mix of pedestrian and cyclist? Because from what I'm seeing, it doesn't.

I'll also note that this design is international best practice, with dozens of examples of this type of junction.

If the area in each corner is at the same level and merely colour coded then of course pedestrians are going to cut the corner therefore crossing with cyclists. Why would a pedestrian walk backwards to go forwards because of the colour of the ground? Look at the trails through green areas where people have decided the most direct path from A-B as an example.
FWIW I don’t like the old proposal for filter lanes segregated from by cyclists. Why can’t the just put cyclist priority areas at the top of the junction with a 10 second head start on the lights?

donvito99

Last Stop wrote: »

If the area in each corner is at the same level and merely colour coded then of course pedestrians are going to cut the corner therefore crossing with cyclists. Why would a pedestrian walk backwards to go forwards because of the colour of the ground? Look at the trails through green areas where people have decided the most direct path from A-B as an example.
FWIW I don’t like the old proposal for filter lanes segregated from by cyclists. Why can’t the just put cyclist priority areas at the top of the junction with a 10 second head start on the lights?

You are assuming pedestrians and cyclists to be massively stupid and in capable of the act of crossing a road.

BonnieSituation

Peregrine wrote: »

https://twitter.com/__kbaker__/status/1172251417026990080?s=20

https://twitter.com/DublinCommuters/status/1172131212724461568?s=20[url][/url]

That is stunning. Hopefully that's the standard they're now aiming for.

is_that_so

monument wrote: »

Except you’re wrong. For starters the two are clearly linked.

I’ve been writing about cycling as transport for a decade or so. There’s ample evidence — truck loads of it — to show that danger and perceived danger from motorists on the roads is the primary reason more people don’t cycle more.

Infrastructure is clearly linked — if you have infrastructure change you can provide safe space and/or reduce the volume of cars (ie filter out rat running). I think you know this but are claiming otherwise because your arguments are so poor.

The evidence doesn’t support your theories or reasoning and what’s more the evidence again and again shows when you transfer space to cycling and make it safer and more attractive, more people cycle.

I really don't get why cyclists imagine that better cycling infrastructure will address the volume of cars. It is beneficial for cyclists unquestionably but without vastly improved integrated public transport it really doesn't matter what's done for bikes.

donvito99 wrote: »

You are assuming pedestrians and cyclists to be massively stupid and in capable of the act of crossing a road.

No, I’m assuming that pedestrians want to go from A-B the quickest way. Under this proposal, going for one side of the road to the other now involves 3 crossings.

For those thinking it’s the typical Dutch design, it’s not because:
1) there is a break between the cycle lane and the footpath which is not present in the Dutch model

2)the curves are far more exaggerated that the Dutch model

3) it’s all at the same level. If it wasn’t then they would have used different colours. Looking at the distances it looks like it has to be all the one level because of point 1

Even the correct Dutch design probably wouldn’t work here because
1) Dutch cyclists have a modal share of over 50% meaning they have priority in a lot of cases. That will never be the case here. Looking at some videos, it appears cyclists even have priority over pedestrians which would be again policy here under DMURS.

2) the Dutch signalling system is different. Here I’m assuming that if a cyclist wants to go straight he has to stop for cars turning left like a pedestrian does? This doesn’t happen in the Dutch model as the light sequence changes quickly. On the n11 the mainline gets a significant amount of priority over side roads so anyone wanting to cycle straight ahead is in for a long wait. Now we could adopt the Dutch model of signalling but that would increase bus journey times... the main point of Busconnects.

So can we stop this drooling over Busconnects as if they are doing everything correct when to date they have shown to be extremely incompetent in their design of a fundamentally flawed project which if it continues on its current path will simply mean money for private engineering companies with no improvement to public transport in Dublin.

is_that_so wrote: »

I really don't get why cyclists imagine that better cycling infrastructure will address the volume of cars. It is beneficial for cyclists unquestionably but without vastly improved integrated public transport it really doesn't matter what's done for bikes.

Because that is exactly what happened in Amsterdam.

In the 1970's they started removing cars from the city and instead give the space over to high quality cycling and pedestrian infrastructure.

It lead to a massive modal shift from both cars and even public transport to cycling and made it the city it is today.

The government there specifically decided to invest in cycling over both cars and yes even public transport and it was an incredible success.

Here is a video that has been doing the rounds this week from Amsterdam comparing the same street from the 1960's to today:

https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/d33k3m/amsterdam_rembrandtplein_1960_vs_today_radical/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x

Look at all the cars that were there in the 60's, now all gone.

There is no reason why the same can't be done here. Cycling infrastructure is not just for current cyclists, but for everyone who can become a cyclist with the high quality infrastructure put in place. Also when you remove the cars, it tends to make a much more pleasant city for pedestrians and residents too (see the above video, which time would you prefer to live on that street).

BonnieSituation wrote: »

That is stunning. Hopefully that's the standard they're now aiming for.

There are a few more of these community forums coming up. I'm hopeful we'll see similar stuff there.

is_that_so wrote: »

I really don't get why cyclists imagine that better cycling infrastructure will address the volume of cars. It is beneficial for cyclists unquestionably but without vastly improved integrated public transport it really doesn't matter what's done for bikes.

This is literally a thread for a project to vastly improve integrated public transport.

Leaving aside the mountain of evidence that shows how safer cycling infrastructure and removing space from cars increases the number of cyclists.

Peregrine wrote: »

This is literally a thread for a project to vastly improve integrated public transport.

Leaving aside the mountain of evidence that shows how safer cycling infrastructure and removing space from cars increases the number of cyclists.

And there is a similar mountain of evidence that shows
A) Buses or cycling measures are no where near as effective as trams or rail at reducing congestion

Cycling (outside of the rather ironically non mountainous) country of Holland has an extremely low modal split in the vast majority of cities around the world.

bk wrote: »

There is no reason why the same can't be done here.

There’s a whole list of reasons why the same can’t be done here including (but not limited to):
A) the fact that Holland is predominately flat and Dublin/Ireland certainly isn’t making it harder to cycle

Holland invested in its infrastructure which if history is anything to go by won’t happen here despite the promise of commitments
C) the perception that Ireland has a wet climate not suitable for cycling - I am aware we get similar levels of rain to Amsterdam
D) the power of the motorist lobby and in particular car park owners
E) the lack of adequate facilities in a number of work places
F) the fact that a number of people are not able to cycle and in turn that a strategy focused purely on cycling would be discriminatory
Etc
Etc
And trust me I could go on.

In summary I would say that yes Amsterdam is a paradise for cyclists but it is the exception rather than the norm of most cities. We should not be trying to emulate it as it is simply not feasible. We should seek a balance where cyclists can be safe but most importantly public transport is the main mode to get around the city

Podge_irl

Last Stop wrote: »

And there is a similar mountain of evidence that shows
A) Buses or cycling measures are no where near as effective as trams or rail at reducing congestion
Cycling (outside of the rather ironically non mountainous) country of Holland has an extremely low modal split in the vast majority of cities around the world.

A) Efficacy is an utterly irrelevant metric without including cost. Heavy rail is the most effective means of getting people from A to B but we can't build it everywhere.

Copenhagen for one. Unsurprisingly the modal share is high where cities have bothered to put the infrastructure in place. You may as well point to the low overall modal share of tram lines as a reason not to build more.

CatInABox

Last Stop wrote: »

In summary I would say that yes Amsterdam is a paradise for cyclists but it is the exception rather than the norm of most cities. We should not be trying to emulate it as it is simply not feasible. We should seek a balance where cyclists can be safe but most importantly public transport is the main mode to get around the city

It's hard, so we shouldn't try? It's that attitude that's meant no city in Ireland has had any investment in public transport for decades. You're part of the problem.

is_that_so wrote: »

I really don't get why cyclists imagine that better cycling infrastructure will address the volume of cars. It is beneficial for cyclists unquestionably but without vastly improved integrated public transport it really doesn't matter what's done for bikes.

Are you sure about that?

Recent modal share (I think 2017/8) on the left with modal change over one year on the right. btm = bus, tram, metro

Modal share change in Eindhoven:

Last Stop wrote: »

Clearly we’re looking at different drawings because the new proposals that I was looking at as tweeted by Kevin Baker increases the mixing of pedestrians and cyclists at the corners.

You're trying to claim segregation between cycling and walking increases mixed? You really need to stop talking nonsense.

Last Stop wrote: »

If a cyclist is coming around that bend at speed and a pedestrian is crossing it’s not going to end well.

Scaremongering nonsense following from other ill-informed posts.

Last Stop wrote: »

Under the old proposal this was not an issue. This is an even bigger issue for people with disabilities as I was keen to highlight.

As already posted, which you have yet to address:

Let’s get this straight: There’s people with disabilities who are pedestrians and there’s people with disabilities who are cyclists.

People with disabilities cycle themselves, are carried by bicycles (ie parents), and use cycle tracks things other than bicycles.

And for people with disabilities who do not cycle, crossing a cycle track is far better than mixing with bicycles in shared space.

Last Stop wrote: »

Your last point supports the old proposal over the new one so you’re completely contradicting yourself.

That's gibberish -- if you don't know how to see the difference between shared space and seprate space on drawings, you probably should not be looking at drawings.

Last Stop wrote: »

How are my other posts ill-informed? I’ve said time and time again that investment in trams is a far better investment than cycling or buses if we want to reduce congestion. No one has pointed to a single piece of research or figure that suggests otherwise. When it comes to buses vs trams, the theory is backed up by cso data.

How are your posts ill-informed? You claim to be relying on research yet you have it wrong on why more people don't cycle. It's possable that you're playing the fool here -- you know you are wrong but won't admit it because of your bias against cycling.

I don't know what "reduce congestion" means to you as it means so many things to so many people.

Trams are better at moving people but giving space to buses and cycling in BusConnects will reduce the numbers of people traveling by car across the city far more than the same amount of funding would if it was spent just on a tram line or two. But the plan isn't one or the other -- there are also plans for new or extended tram lines.

Return for investment -- cycling beats trams or buses to a huge degree. A large percentage of the benefits are health, so, it's up to Government to see that not just siloed transport bodies.

Last Stop wrote: »

No, I’m assuming that pedestrians want to go from A-B the quickest way. Under this proposal, going for one side of the road to the other now involves 3 crossings.

For those thinking it’s the typical Dutch design, it’s not because:
1) there is a break between the cycle lane and the footpath which is not present in the Dutch model

2)the curves are far more exaggerated that the Dutch model

3) it’s all at the same level. If it wasn’t then they would have used different colours. Looking at the distances it looks like it has to be all the one level because of point 1

I honestly cannot tell if you're spreading misinformation intentionally or if you're just that mis-informed.

This is the most Dutch-looking junction design. There is no standard curves on Dutch junction design -- the curves are done junction by junction.

Last Stop wrote: »

Even the correct Dutch design probably wouldn’t work here because
1) Dutch cyclists have a modal share of over 50% meaning they have priority in a lot of cases. That will never be the case here. Looking at some videos, it appears cyclists even have priority over pedestrians which would be again policy here under DMURS.

I like how you mention DMURS to bash the cycling proposals (I can't see the conflict you can, but anyway...), but you don't see the that the cycling proposals are actually bringing the N11 more in line with what's actually contained in DMURS (ie non-staggered crossings, removal of roadway slip turns etc).

It'd be funny if the misinformation you are spreading was not so serious.

Last Stop wrote: »

2) the Dutch signalling system is different. Here I’m assuming that if a cyclist wants to go straight he has to stop for cars turning left like a pedestrian does? This doesn’t happen in the Dutch model as the light sequence changes quickly. On the n11 the mainline gets a significant amount of priority over side roads so anyone wanting to cycle straight ahead is in for a long wait.

The Dutch are phasing out conflicting greens where possable. At this example N11 junction the sequence would be:

All red along the N11
Straight ahead green for walking, cycling and motorists along the N11, hold left turning motorists
Left green with buses and cars straight going green too (or go radical and have all four arms left green at the same time)
Same for side roads and repeat
Look at shorter cycle time overall which is better for buses as less likely people walking and cycling will be waiting too long.

It's telling that you don't care about extra green time for pedestrians. You only mention pedestrians to bash cycling with.

Last Stop wrote: »

Now we could adopt the Dutch model of signalling but that would increase bus journey times... the main point of Busconnects.

You have not looked at the drawings well or again don't know what you're talking about -- the turning lanes are shown inside the bus lanes, so, no delay for the bus lane.

Last Stop wrote: »

So can we stop this drooling over Busconnects as if they are doing everything correct when to date they have shown to be extremely incompetent in their design of a fundamentally flawed project which if it continues on its current path will simply mean money for private engineering companies with no improvement to public transport in Dublin.

Who has said that they have done everything correct when to date? The NTA have made it clearly that they are listening to people and are adapting their plans.

It's far from a fundamentally flawed project and you getting so many details wrong makes your claim on that look very weak.

Last Stop wrote: »

And there is a similar mountain of evidence that shows
A) Buses or cycling measures are no where near as effective as trams or rail at reducing congestion
Cycling (outside of the rather ironically non mountainous) country of Holland has an extremely low modal split in the vast majority of cities around the world.

Yet, Dublin is at 7-10% modal share before it has a single continuously segregated cycle route from city centre to any suburb.

I'm a big fan of tram, but you're data is wrong -- modal share for cycling has been around the same as tram use for Dublin City Council residents for years.

Last Stop wrote: »

There’s a whole list of reasons why the same can’t be done here including (but not limited to):

A) the fact that Holland is predominately flat and Dublin/Ireland certainly isn’t making it harder to cycle

The regions of Holland are predominately, The Netherlands (ie the country) is a little more mixed. And there's still high modal share in less flat places. Electric bicycles can help too.

Last Stop wrote: »

Holland invested in its infrastructure which if history is anything to go by won’t happen here despite the promise of commitments

Same can be said about public transport and expensive trams more than anything (except metro or heavy rail).

Cycling is a cheap way to provide sustainable transport with higher returns than other modes.

Last Stop wrote: »

C) the perception that Ireland has a wet climate not suitable for cycling - I am aware we get similar levels of rain to Amsterdam

Then you're just spreading an excuse. The real barrier is danger from motorists and lack of infrastructure to reduce that.

Last Stop wrote: »

D) the power of the motorist lobby and in particular car park owners

Which somehow does not apply to giving space to trams? :pac:

Last Stop wrote: »

E) the lack of adequate facilities in a number of work places

How much do you think that ranks in being a barrier to cycling when people cycling shorter trips don't need showers etc, and the vast bulk of work places have them are getting them or can be adapted? Again, you're making excuses, not providing reasons.

Last Stop wrote: »

F) the fact that a number of people are not able to cycle and in turn that a strategy focused purely on cycling would be discriminatory

A few points on this:

More people are able to cycle than those who can drive.
People can also be carried by bicycle.
Luas-like tram systems can only reach a percentage of the population
More people cycling is of benefit to the country, even to people who don't cycle

Last Stop wrote: »

In summary I would say that yes Amsterdam is a paradise for cyclists but it is the exception rather than the norm of most cities. We should not be trying to emulate it as it is simply not feasible.

Amsterdam is far from a paradise for cyclists. Utrecht is a far better example to follow.

Last Stop wrote: »

We should seek a balance where cyclists can be safe but most importantly public transport is the main mode to get around the city

Sure a balance to the second part, but why the second part? Is it even a reachable goal a city with Dublin's density (around about Amsterdam's) to get city-wide 50%, all-trips modal share for public transport?

You mentioned 50%... why not target that as the level of cycling in Dublin? It would still mean loads of options for people who can't cycle or have problems with cycling like some boards.ie posters.

Dyr

Last Stop wrote: »

And there is a similar mountain of evidence that shows
A) Buses or cycling measures are no where near as effective as trams or rail at reducing congestion
Cycling (outside of the rather ironically non mountainous) country of Holland has an extremely low modal split in the vast majority of cities around the world.

Road space should be based on volume of people each transport mode will move. Cycling is bottom of that pile yet it will get a disproportionate amount of space

Podge_irl wrote: »

A) Efficacy is an utterly irrelevant metric without including cost. Heavy rail is the most effective means of getting people from A to B but we can't build it everywhere.
Copenhagen for one. Unsurprisingly the modal share is high where cities have bothered to put the infrastructure in place. You may as well point to the low overall modal share of tram lines as a reason not to build more.

A) I assume you’re talking about efficiency? In that case yes heavy rail is most efficient followed by metro followed by trams etc. We can’t build heavy rail everywhere but we can build light rail lines to serve the vast majority of the city which is more efficient than buses everywhere.

I said the vast majority. Of course there is exceptions. Your point about trams is invalid as it has been shown on this thread that trams in Dublin alone carry a significant number of passengers and a high modal share given their relative size. 2 tram lines carrying millions of passengers.

CatInABox wrote: »

It's hard, so we shouldn't try? It's that attitude that's meant no city in Ireland has had any investment in public transport for decades. You're part of the problem.

Where did I say it was hard? I said it wasn’t feasible... there’s a huge difference

monument wrote: »

Are you sure about that?

Recent modal share (I think 2017/8) on the left with modal change over one year on the right. btm = bus, tram, metro

You're trying to claim segregation between cycling and walking increases mixed? You really need to stop talking nonsense.

Scaremongering nonsense following from other ill-informed posts.

As already posted, which you have yet to address:

Let’s get this straight: There’s people with disabilities who are pedestrians and there’s people with disabilities who are cyclists.

People with disabilities cycle themselves, are carried by bicycles (ie parents), and use cycle tracks things other than bicycles.

And for people with disabilities who do not cycle, crossing a cycle track is far better than mixing with bicycles in shared space.

That's gibberish -- if you don't know how to see the difference between shared space and seprate space on drawings, you probably should not be looking at drawings.

How are your posts ill-informed? You claim to be relying on research yet you have it wrong on why more people don't cycle. It's possable that you're playing the fool here -- you know you are wrong but won't admit it because of your bias against cycling.

I don't know what "reduce congestion" means to you as it means so many things to so many people.

Trams are better at moving people but giving space to buses and cycling in BusConnects will reduce the numbers of people traveling by car across the city far more than the same amount of funding would if it was spent just on a tram line or two. But the plan isn't one or the other -- there are also plans for new or extended tram lines.

Return for investment -- cycling beats trams or buses to a huge degree. A large percentage of the benefits are health, so, it's up to Government to see that not just siloed transport bodies.

All 3 examples you gave are in a single country. If it was as easy as you suggest then it would be replicated all over the world. But of course it isn’t.

I’m suggesting that in the proposed example, it is all at the one level meaning it’s just coloured pavement so it is as good as a mixed area as pedestrian will walk straight across the cycle path.

Telling the truth is now scaremongering? Are you saying cyclists won’t be coming fast?

When I refer to people with disabilities I am referring to people in wheelchairs or who those require assistance to walk. That is the traditional definition of disabilities I concede but you are using this minor point to avoid the the issue which is under the new proposal priority is given to cyclists over all pedestrians. You’re also incorrect in saying that a mixed zone is worse a in a mixed zone the pedestrian has priority.

I can see the difference in colour but not in levels as there does not appear to be one. Can you point to where on the drawing it shows where cyclists move from above road level to at road level where the crossing is? If they at the same level as pedestrians then that is not good segregation.

I like the way you belittle my proposal to 1 or 2 tram lines where I have suggested at least 4 to start with covering over 50km. This would mean that people would travel by tram instead of their car as it is quick and easier. The same cannot be said for buses or cycling.

We’ve seem the figures in the return on investment of trams vs buses but surprise surprise there isn’t an figures available for cycling. Surely there is figures to show the effect that the grand canal cycleway has had but there’s not. I like to believe that this is because cycle lanes aren’t as good an investment as people suggest.