Last Stop wrote: » So what is the red line being shown running alongside the platform. The exact same colour as the cycle lane?
Last Stop wrote: » Pretty amateur mistake to make.
MJohnston wrote: » It's not the exact same colour as the cycle lane, you can see that at the bottom of my screenshot where it crosses the actual cycling lane: It's also clearly not the size of a cycling lane. It's just a stroke on the fill around the Luas tracks. Poorly chosen colour perhaps, but pretty obvious when you're looking at the actual PDF. Also, just logically speaking, why would they bother adding a cycle lane there in such a disruptive location when the same movements can be easily completed using the other cycle lanes?
Last Stop wrote: » It’s even less obvious when looking at the PDF at full scale. It’s almost identical in colour. I obviously wasn’t the only one to assume it was a cycle lane either
MJohnston wrote: » You really just can't hold your hands up and admit you got it wrong?
Pete_Cavan wrote: » Interestingly the same coloured line appears on the other side of the Luas tracks as well, it just had a black line on top of it. Seems intentional rather than an error.
Pete_Cavan wrote: » I see that they are proposing to shift the Scherzer bridges either side and put a new full width road bridge in between.
loyatemu wrote: » they show a 2-way cycle lane all the way down to the Beckett bridge, but there's no way there's space for a cycle lane and footpath where the Dublin Docklands office building is.
Pete_Cavan wrote: » That building is to be demolished to make way for the white water rafting course building which I assume will be a bit narrower. The road also looks like it will be a bit narrower.
loyatemu wrote: » The rafting centre is in Georges Dock, the Docklands office building is on the river side of the quays here: https://goo.gl/maps/a6LuCjLaN4c1s6id8 I haven't heard of any plans to demolish it though as the DDDA is long gone, I'm not sure what it's now used for (extra offices for the council I guess, and somewhere for kids to jump off into the river).
BonnieSituation wrote: » Will do. I'm slowly making my way through each one. Liffey Valley and Ballyfermot currently on the go. What I find interesting is how they managed to justify closing the O'Hogan Road/Ballyfermot Road junction but somehow are keeping the The Oval/Lucan Road junction open. And not only that, they are proposing a bus only right turn from the Lucan Road to Mill Lane (at the Apple Green garage). I can see some advantage to that in a future routing from the Old Lucan Road but the Oval is a serious pinch-point.
Spanish Eyes wrote: » I've been reading the maps and the info and am a bit confused about the Oval junction, wonder if you know more. Seems to me that there will a right turn bus only from R148 to the Old Lucan Road serving Stewarts and Palmerstown Village. There are currently no buses serving the village apart from the 18 which does not use R148 anyway. But I guess they are going to get maybe the local no.26 to serve the village or something. It's not clear, but I am thinking the the current North side of the Oval/Applegreen/R148 junction will have buses turning left inbound onto the Chapelizod by pass. I presume this means that car traffic will no longer be able to use the Northside of the junction if it is to be bus only. Can see Kennelsfort Junction rammed as a result, but hey ho. This is the Lucan route 06.At the R148 signalised junction with the Old Lucan Road/the Oval a new westbound, bus only, right turn lane is provided on the R148 to facilitate bus services serving Palmerstown Village. An additional strip of land acquisition will be required from the western edge of the petrol filling station at this location to accommodate this new bus movement which was not included in the EPR. In addition, new bus stops are provided on the Old Lucan Road to serve Mill Lane/Stewarts Hospital
spaceHopper wrote: » They want to rip the arse out of Shankill village and there's be a few votes there for SF
loyatemu wrote: » terrrible cycle-lane routing here at UCD:
spacetweek wrote: » You could remove the trees.
William Legrande wrote: » The new plans for Shankill don't look as vandalistic as before, at least at first sight.
Alkers wrote: » At least there is a yield for the bus-lane to the cycle lane.
tom1ie wrote: » One question I have about these orbitals: Will there be continuous bus lanes/ bus priority on these routes and if so how long before this infrastructure is in place to service the new orbitals. Thanks. Apologies only seen the mid note after I posted. Off to the bus connects forum with me!!
