monument wrote: » The NTA has admitted their modelling doesn’t track cycling well.
Last Stop wrote: » The GDA transport strategy plans 2000km is cycle infrastructure by 2035. But in 2035, their modelling suggests cyclists will have a modal share of 10% which is roughly what we have today. Monument has been told this multiple times and continues to ignore it.
LeinsterDub wrote: » This report? https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Transport_Strategy_for_the_Greater_Dublin_Area_2016-2035.pdf This report predicts an almost doubling of the cycling modal from 6% to 10% and in actual numbers is more than a doubling
On-going increases in the numbers of people cycling;
According to this survey, the number of cyclists travelling into the city centre has risen by 114% between 2006 and 2014 from 4,800 to over 10,000, most of which has occurred since 2010. Another critical indicator of cycling’s growth, nationally, is that the share of primary school children cycling to school has shown its first rise in a generation.
Figure 9.8 – Mode Share for Commuting Trips
LeinsterDub wrote: » What infrastructure has illustrated this?
Last Stop wrote: » It’s beyond laughable at this stage. NTA have shown building infrastructure won’t increase cycling.
monument wrote: » This applies to cycling and BusConnects too — build it and they will come:https://twitter.com/hanneydp/status/1173870091693412354?s=21 Also: the main author of the Design Manual For Urban Road and Streets (DMURS) saying the Dutch-like protected junction design is not ruled out by it:https://twitter.com/jturbandesign/status/1173882611799855104?s=21 Dublin City and Suburbs is the CSO defines area of Dublin’s continuous urban area — it’s the international measure of a city’s continuous area. It’s 1.1 million people on a very small part of our large island and Dublin’s density in that regard is still higher than most other EU cities of Dublin’s size. So, you’re going to have to do a bit more explaining before you dismiss it.
monument wrote: » This applies to cycling and BusConnects too — build it and they will come:https://twitter.com/hanneydp/status/1173870091693412354?s=21
is_that_so wrote: » Most of "Dublin" is outside what defined as the city, in the ratio of 2:1 and it's growing, so it's really a bit of fallacy and a fairly pointless measure of anything.
abitofacomedian wrote: » What I like about the Bus Connects project, unlike a light rail project, is that there can be incremental benefits. Every junction upgraded, every section of bus lanes added to a street, every new shelter makes things slightly better for the passenger. Even if you only save 30 seconds on a journey that could be the difference between making your connection, or seeing the back of a bus and waiting 15 mins for the next one. Of course the network effect of the completed project would enhance this to a huge degree, but you don't have to wait years until things start to improve. The Luas is brilliant where done, but if a new line broke ground tomorrow there would be no benefits for five years or so. They could have it 80% built in two years, but its worthless until trams start to run. Saying that, I still believe that railways are the only civilised way to travel, and that is a hill I will gladly die upon! This, 100% this. The amount of times I've had to correct people who claim that Dublin is a low density city.
monument wrote: » Look back at what you said — those examples prove you wrong. Even Amsterdam with a number of metro lines, a load of tram lines, and a massive regional/national rail network still has 50% cycling modal share. When do you think Dublin will be matching Amsterdam’s public transport? We can built the infrastructure for cycling. Most people in Dublin live within cycling distances from work, school, college and play, and shopping. Average time by is irrelevant given cycling is already quicker for most journeys at peak. Dublin has slightly higher population density than Amsterdam— so, it’s not true to say people live too far away to get 50% cycling to work. It might be hard to get to that point and to be clear: I think heavy investment in public transport is part of the solution.
LeinsterDub wrote: » The one law of roads that's held up since the 1940's. Demand increases to match capacity. I don't dispute your figures however history has shown that people will drive when allowed
Last Stop wrote: » Sorry got sidetracked and missed the second part of your post. I think your underestimating the impact Metrolink will have. A 3,000 park and ride at Estuary will take a significant amount of pressure off the M1 and in turn the Drumcondra road meaning people who might go down Mobhi road could switch. It’s designed for 20,000 passengers per hour but even if it’s carrying half of that when it first opens that would be an average of 1,000 passengers per station between Estuary and O’Connell. That’s 4,000 off the Ballymun road or 40 bus loads of people. If you add in a half full bus every 10 minutes (300) and the 10% cyclists, there will be a significant decrease in traffic.
LeinsterDub wrote: » The spoil is being removed north of Northwood is it not? If they one way system is put in place there will be very little construction. Buses can be stuck in traffic for up to 20 minutes on Mobhi Rd. ML won't change this some level of bus priority is required
Last Stop wrote: » I knew someone would say this. Never said it would remove the need for buses, I said it would remove the need for a bus corridor. The idea of a bus running along Mobhi road to cater for demand between and even to metro stations is completely logical but spending the guts of €80m on a bus corridor which will be under utilised due to the presence of a fast underground metro to the city centre is not. And before anyone comes along and says it could be an interim measure before ML begins operation: ML and Busconnects are due to both start construction in 2021. ML is due to be bored from Northwood so the stations along Ballymun road and Mobhi road will be the first on the list. The level of disruption that ML will cause along that road (see Collins Ave as a perfect example) means it would be a complete waste to start construction of a bus corridor prior to ML. Add in the additional HGVs as part of spoil removal and it would be suicidal to consider roadworks along that stretch. Therefore the bus corridor would have to be built after which would mean it would be open for a very short period before ML.
Sam Russell wrote: » Mod: Can we cool it - and get back to discussing Busconnects, instead of trying to score points?
monument wrote: » You know there’s two options for the street, right? I can’t tell when you’re acting clueless or just... Did you forget your original point was that 3m cycle lanes were being built everywhere and you were acting clueless as to why such are needed? Do you want me to link to your post? But it’s not 3m wide!!!?? Your mask slipped there.
monument wrote: » The hierarchy of priority isn’t supposed to be used as tool to attack cycling with as you are trying to do. As you know, the hierarchy of priority doesn’t mean there will be total pedestrian priority everywhere and the manual makes it clear than pedestrian priority isn’t all about traffic signals. You know roads and steered can only have one type of crossing on them? For example you can have a signalised crossing across motor traffic lanes and an non-signalised crossing across a tram track right beside it. Or you can have the same where pedestrians cross a main road and then a service street. But you know this already, so, we can all take it that your arguments are just anti-cycling segregation or at least anti-protected junction, which are life-saving. I’ve addressed most or all of these issues already — I disagree with you but we’ll have to agree to disagree. By the way: the level definition of shared paths with the pedestrian and bicycle sign is not “shared space”, it’s a cycle track where pedestrians are allowed. They kind of messed up on that one.
Last Stop wrote: » So you want to spend €80m to cut down a line of mature trees to put in a bus lane and then spend more money to put in some less mature trees which will take years to establish when the bus lane becomes predictably under-utilised).
Last Stop wrote: » Nice of you to acknowledge 10ft wide cycle lanes though. Did a civil engineer tell you they could be that wide?
Last Stop wrote: » For the record there is already a contra-flow cycle lane up the hill beside Na Fianna to serve the schools.
Last Stop wrote: » You challenged my credentials, I’ve shown you the standard I got my figure from and you still can’t admit you’re wrong. You gave a similar style of apology a 5 year old would give when forced to by their mother and now you’re questioning if I’m the bigger man as I try to get over this whole debacle. Jesus you cyclists are a special breed. It’s no wonder you don’t understand simple things like traffic light colours (and yes that was a pot shot).
Last Stop wrote: » Oh for god sake. Just when I think we’re getting somewhere. The hierarchy of priority in DMURS is: 1 pedestrians 2 cyclists 3 public transport 4 private vehicles
Last Stop wrote: » That design as proposed proposed by the NTA you have admitted prioritised cyclists over pedestrians. Therefore it was not compliant with DMURS. It’s a signalised cross roads so talking about zebra crossing is as you would say a fallacy.
Last Stop wrote: » Again if you look at the drawing, it is quite clear by the tactile paving and the lack of markings on the bike lane that cyclists have priority. Calling it a draft design is yet another fallacy. It was a design produced and presented to the general public. It actually took more effort to include the space in the design that to do it without it. I don’t even know what you want me to say when it comes to pedestrian green time. I said I assumed that the current pedestrian green time is adequate. Is their any evidence to prove it isn’t? So now you’re arguing against longer green times. I really don’t know what you’re trying to say? Where have I ever advocated for shared space? I certainly didn’t in the post you are referring to. I think you’d find it a pretty hard case to win in court if a cyclist knocked down a pedestrian in shared space because the clue is in the name... it’s sharing and if you’re travelling at a faster speed, the onus is on you to take due care. I said from the very start it was a bad design. You tried to justify it by saying it’s a standard Dutch design which I pointed out it wasn’t and eventually after multiple attempts (including bizarrely saying it was my problem) you admitted it prioritised cyclists. You’re referring to the protection at the corner (deliberately to make a point) when you know full well that I am referring to the space further back between the road and the cycle lane at the pedestrian crossing. The corner is without doubt required in this design. The NTA strategy proposed the Lucan Luas line and BRTs to UCD, Clongriffin and Tallaght via Rathfarnham. Now since the strategy was published, brt had quietly been dropped. Therefore, the proposal to include tram lines along corridors which the NTA has clearly identified as requiring capacity in excess of what can be provided by a QBC is reasonable and in line with the logic of the strategy. Your suggestion that cycling numbers would rise at an significant percentage is not backed up by the strategy in any way.
monument wrote: » Exactly and a city is a living thing. If I’m the future bus priority isn’t needed, the space can be converted into green space with trees or 3 metre wide cycle paths in both direction. After all there’s both a school and a hill on that stretch.
monument wrote: » Err... you think that post makes you look the bigger man? “We Are All In The Gutter But Some Of Us Are Looking At The Stars” I’m sorry alright — to the people subscribed to the thread and the mods.
LeinsterDub wrote: » The nearest metro stop will be 2k from my house and even more for others if it's ever built my bus is often stuck on Mobhi road. Services will absolutely be rearranged after ML comes online but it won't remove the need for buses completely
monument wrote: » What a shocker. I said this is what you were playing at it my last post — so, you look rather foolish continuing with your plan on this one. The problem for you is that it is not in contradiction to DMURS — if it was so would pedestrian islands be in all sorts of places, such as in the middle of a large road or half way across a zebra crossing. If anything DMURS makes it clear than pedestrian priority isn’t always about traffic signals and pedestrians can have priority without signals. You’d know that if you were not just using using the manual as a stick to attack protected junctions. Now that you have gone ahead with your silliness there’s two possibilities we are left with: (A) you are fairly clueless about road and street design at least in regard to the finer details OR (B) you know your stuff but are twisting things because you are against protected cycle paths at junctions or generally against cycling. I cannot know for sure which one of those is true. Priority is dictated by the type of crossing used. The design is a draft outline — there’s loads of groups which will have input. Here’s where you said it:https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111254139&postcount=1739 If you have ever worked on street or road schemes with signalised junctions, there’s no doubt in my mind that the traffic light engineers loved you. (In case you missed it: that was sarcasm. What you claimed was sarcasm a few pages back wasn’t) You’re caught out yet again. You claimed to care about people with disabilities but now you’re advocating shared space which most or all groups representing people with disabilities advocate against. And it’s actually not clear that shared space = some kind of full priority for pedestrians as people think — the normal road traffic law applies, including around who should yield to who in different situations. It seems to be little known by advocates of shared space but shared walking and cycling areas marked with a normal shared sign are legally a form of a cycle track. You have been saying that’s clear to you from the start. Then you started playing all innocent pretending you don’t know how the junction design works and asking over and over how it work when you know how it works. Removing “the gap” — or in English: the space for pedestrians — would make protected junctions unworkable, exposing cyclists to left turning cars, trucks etc. The NTA strategy also does not include your tram ideas.... Grand, so, the NTA are infallible. You must be wrong about your tram over buses idea then. (Another example of sarcasm for you there — I’ve stated using sarcasm as a last resort)
Bambi wrote: » Surely you know that you're not supposed to back seat mod but use the report button? Odd carry on.
Last Stop wrote: » I think the above and my demonstration of where lanes should be over 10ft is sufficient evidence. Nevertheless I’ll be the bigger man and accept your let’s be honest rather childish attempt at an apology.
Last Stop wrote: » It’s hard to argue with them on the overall point that Busconnects and Metrolink should not be going up the same corridor
monument wrote: » Note to mods: Last Stop has made legal threats twice in the thread already. I’ll save you the time by reporting this post. I would like to make it clear that I never intended to undermine your professional qualifications and that I don’t think I did so. I think you’ll have a hard time explaining it to the mods what exactly you think I said which amounts to undermining your professional qualifications.
monument wrote: » You claimed a while ago in this thread to be a qualified civil engineer and now you're asking why cycle lanes should be wider than 1 metre? What lane in Dublin has been built or is planned to be built "up to 10ft wide" that isn't two-way? Every time I think you have shown the extent of how little you know about cycling, you start typing again. Given your posts here, if you're still working as a civil engineer, please tell me nobody is letting you near cycling projects.
Last Stop wrote: » Now you’re using fallacies instead of admitting that the gap is to give cyclists priority which is in contradiction to DMURS... as I said from the very beginning. Glad we got there several pages later. Of course it isn’t pedestrian friendly ad I pointed out but that’s ok to you because cyclists get priority.
Last Stop wrote: » Cyclists do have priority over pedestrians at that point as monument has in a round about way just admitted.
Last Stop wrote: » In other responses, monument has accused me of not wanting longer green time for pedestrians.
Last Stop wrote: » If you remove the gap, the distance to cross the road becomes longer and requires longer green time.
Last Stop wrote: » In shared space, pedestrians have priority! This isn’t shared space by the way, the cyclist has priority. The pedestrian has to cross the cycle lane and there is tactile paving who is used to indicate to those with visual impairments the presence of a crossing. If the pedestrian had priority, their would be a line beside the crossing.
Last Stop wrote: » It is now quite clear that the design is intended to allow cyclists skip the lights and take priority over pedestrians. Therefore it does not conform with DMURS.
Last Stop wrote: » Remove the gap, make cyclists stop and it does. But of course that would require cyclists to stop which clearly the designer and those who support the idea don’t like even though it is a safer design for all road users
Last Stop wrote: » And I have told you time and time again that even if we built the infrastructure, the NTA in the GDA strategy envisage 10% modal share which we are in agreement is roughly what it is today. The GDA strategy includes 2000km of a cycle lane network so even when the infrastructure is built people won’t use it. And of course the reason for this is that currently the infrastructure is an easy fallacy/excuse etc which is hard to argue with. When that is removed the majority of people will simply move on to the next reason on the list.
