monument wrote: » The NTA has admitted their modelling doesn’t track cycling well.
Last Stop wrote: » The current numbers cycling in Dublin at the minute is around the 10% mark. So while cyclists continue to moan about a lack of infrastructure as the reason people don’t cycle, even if we did built the infrastructure that number would not rise considerably as has suggested by monument and others on here. I don’t know how much clearer I can make this point.
Last Stop wrote: » I don’t see how you can be positive about the response from DMURS given he has said what I have been saying all along.
The junction as it is currently proposed priorities cyclists.
Last Stop wrote: » Do you really want to frustrate people more by leading them astray again?
Last Stop wrote: » And once again I have to point out that if you remove the space you still have a Dutch style junction which of course you don’t like because it would mean cyclists have to stop. Can you not just admit that?
LeinsterDub wrote: » You can't take figures from one source and use them to dismiss the findings of an unrelated report. And even if you could I would just refer you back to the NTAs report which shows the GDA cycling plan is predicted to lead to a doubling of the modal share
Last Stop wrote: » Proof?
Last Stop wrote: » Which brings me back to my very original point that spending €2bn as is required to build the GDA cycling strategy would not have the same impact as building €2bn worth of tram lines. Cycling investment would increase modal share by 5% Luas investment (based investment to date) would increase modal share by over 10%
monument wrote: » No, he said it’s workable. You said it wasn’t. Raised zebras do not proposed priorities cyclists over pedestrians. Anybody can look at your posts and mine and judge who is trying to be misleading — you have asked questions you know the answers to just to make “got you” type replies. I’m really not going to engage with you again today like before. It should be fairly clear to everyone you don’t know much about cycling infrastructure and especially not Dutch infrastructure.
LeinsterDub wrote: » Where did the 2 bl for the GDA cycling scheme come from? Where did your Luas figures come from?
monument wrote: » What he said.
Last Stop wrote: » The €2bn comes from the estimated cost in the GDA cycling strategy. The €2bn for Luas comes from the 50km of lines I’ve advocated for instead of Busconnects. Monument has advised on existing Luas investment which is in line with what I would estimate.
Last Stop wrote: » Where have I ever said it’s not workable. Or are you twisting my words yet again?? Putting the space there as you have openly admitted is used to avoid cyclists stopping. DMURS says consider pedestrians first. If you considered pedestrians first, the cyclist would have to stop. I have asked questions that you and I know the answer to but you refuse to acknowledge. When you say I don’t know much about cycling infrastructure, I assume you’re referring to my unwillingness to be duped into all the fallacies and nonsense that is being used to justify their demands for more space and great priority even though it has been pointed out time and again that other modes are more efficient
monument wrote: » Re your line that “DMURS says consider pedestrians first. If you considered pedestrians first, the cyclist would have to stop” That’s your claim. But the author of the manual says yielding would be good enough. I’ve already replied to your other points.
donvito99 wrote: » Bus Connects intends to provide for 200km of cycle lanes. Why is discussion on this to be ended along with discussion of Luas, which does not form a part of Bus connects?
Last Stop wrote: » The argument around cycling was regarding a substandard junction design proposed as part of Busconnects which some on here have argued is adequate when even on of the authors of DMURs says it’s not great.
CatInABox wrote: » Just out of curiosity, which author said it's not great? Where?
Last Stop wrote: » In my interpretation of the English language; good enough (as monument has paraphrased the author) is the equivalent to not great. Now can we please park this. Busconnects is a hard enough sell as is without those who are interested in the scheme being put off by senseless arguments
CatInABox wrote: » Ah here, I'm happy to take a rap on the knuckles for this, but you can't go around throwing out lies and then declaring that it's the last word. Monument didn't say the author said the junction would be "good enough", he said "yielding would be good enough", which is a very different thing. The author is also quite happy with other, very similar designs:https://twitter.com/JTUrbanDesign/status/1173894251228422146
Last Stop wrote: » It’s beyond laughable at this stage. NTA have shown building infrastructure won’t increase cycling.
CatInABox wrote: » More meetings last night, and more of these junctions revealed:https://twitter.com/Feljin_J/status/1174077608658706432
specialbyte wrote: » I just want to highlight that the junction shown at the Swords meeting is a Manchester-style Protected Junction. The junction shown at the Bray BusConnects meeting was a Dutch-style protected junction. The junction shown at the Clongriffin meeting was most similar to the protected junctions Dublin City Council are proposing for the FitzWilliam Cycle Route and Clontarf to City Centre cycle route (Dublin-style protected junction???). All three have protected corners and provide traffic lights to cyclists. This prevents the dangerous (lethal) left-hook from motor traffic. It's a huge barrier to many people starting cycling. All of these designs are quite similar but with some subtle differences that mostly affect the traffic light sequencing. I'm not an expect on this topic but here's the key differences: * Dutch-style has an island for pedestrians. (Image here: https://trello.com/c/TzGnF5Na/32-busconnects-cbc13-bray) Pedestrians cross the cycle track to an island to wait to cross the road. Pedestrians normally have priority across the cycle track with a zebra crossing and raised platform. Cyclists crossing the road can have green light at the same time as pedestrians when travelling in parallel. The conflict is handled by the islands/zeberas out of phase of the traffic lights. * Manchester-style also has an island for pedestrians to wait at but this island is where the corner island are in the Dutch design (image above). I understand that this arrangement allows you to run an all-green wrap-around pedestrian phase. This allows pedestrians to cross the junction in a diagonal without conflicting with bikes. Manchester are mostly using it for inner-city junctions and not on larger distributor roads like the N11, Malahide Road or Swords Road. * The Dublin-style (which you can see here: https://trello.com/c/sljdIlQI/3-clontarf-to-city-centre-cycle-route) don't have an island for pedestrians there is instead three sets of traffic lights for cyclists so that they never cross a pedestrian crossing when the pedestrians have a green light. This is because the Irish Traffic Signals manual and Irish Law prevents such an arrangement. This could be avoided using a Manchester or Dutch approach. I think it's great to see the NTA looking at all of these designs. I hope BusConnects will settle on one or two of these approaches and not all three. Consistency of design is useful. Though the design needs to respond to the context it is in. A junction like the Five Lamps in the city is very different to White's Cross on the N11. The modal share at these junctions and their purpose is different so the design should be different too.
Last Stop wrote: » You’re seriously trying to resurrect this argument (when it has been shown just 2 posts above that there is a better design more in keeping with the Irish context) by subjective use of the English language? I never said it was the opposite of good enough so you’re wrong there. What I said was it wasn’t great. Call it good enough, sufficient, fine, adequate, could do better or whatever the **** your thesaurus is feeling but you cannot call that design great. End of story, move on.
donvito99 wrote: » You can't call the design you favour great either. I would support the design which is extremely successful at safely accommodating pedestrians, cyclists and motorists in other jurisdictions. That is not the 'Dublin design'. Great to see the NTA championing this, if done correctly and without compromise, could lead to the roll out of this spec to non-bus connects projects across the country. Any bit of design that reduces the number of people on bicycles being crushed to death by left turning heavy vehicles is a good thing.
