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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Cycling Infrastructure

  • 16-09-2011 12:08pm
    #1
    dubhthach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭


    I'm not a cyclist myself (not in the last 10 years anyways) but I figure it would be a good idea to have a thread specifically about Cycle infrastructure (or the lack of it). There are a number of interesting plans regarding greenways, extending Dublin Bikes (or similiar schemes in other cities) etc.

    For example the "Grand Canal way"
    http://www.csea.ie/uploads/canalbrochure.pdf
    Construction Data
    • 136,000m of Ducts
    • 44,000 Shrubs
    • 2,600m of Railing
    • 1000 Trees
    • 308 Lights
    • 200 Signs
    • 66 Cameras
    • 21 Kissing and Vehicle Gates
    • 16 Bat Boxes
    • 12 Otter Holts
    • 3 Timber Jetties
    • 2 Limestone Jetties

    Alot of that ducting for example is tied in with laying of Fibre for broadband.

    I didn't start the thread to talk about "human behaviour", so please refrain from ranting about "All * are ^%$#$" Where * = Cyclist/Motorists
    Tagged:


«1

Comments

  • #2
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    dubhthach wrote: »
    I'm not a cyclist myself (not in the last 10 years anyways) but I figure it would be a good idea to have a thread specifically about Cycle infrastructure (or the lack of it). There are a number of interesting plans regarding greenways, extending Dublin Bikes (or similiar schemes in other cities) etc.

    Just new/panned schemes, how to improve existing schemes or can we talk about facilities that are already available?


  • #3
    dubhthach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Just new/panned schemes, how to improve existing schemes or can we talk about facilities that are already available?

    The lot, thread is to be about the infrastructure past, present, future.


  • #4
    AngryLips
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,760 ✭✭✭AngryLips


    I posted this elsewhere but it seems more appropriate here: Dublin Canal Way Cycle Lights

    I'm optimistic that this is the first one of many payoffs to the city's cycle infrastructure resulting from the introduction of Dublin Bikes. Although, what worries me is that any attempt to segregate cyclist from other road traffic or relegating them to share space with pedestrians (a la what you get in Berlin) will only encourage slower cycling which I wouldn't really be in favour of.


  • #5
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Just new/panned schemes, how to improve existing schemes or can we talk about facilities that are already available?



    I think a lot of regular cyclists have "panned" a lot of schemes, due to their being rubbish! ;)

    The 21 kissing gates would be an example of inappropriate cycling infrastructure, IMO.

    Waste of money and materials, and cyclists don't like them because they impede progress for no good reason.

    Not sure what else to add, since I'm unsure regarding how a thread like this is supposed to evolve.

    I would say, however, that the Mulranny-Achill Greenway in Co. Mayo is reported to be a stunning success.

    I believe the Clifden-Galway Greenway along the old railway line is also at an advanced stage of planning.

    Great news on the leisure/tourist cycling front anyway.


  • #6
    dubhthach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    I think a lot of regular cyclists have "panned" a lot of schemes, due to their being rubbish! ;)

    The 21 kissing gates would be an example of inappropriate cycling infrastructure, IMO.

    Waste of money and materials, and cyclists don't like them because they impede progress for no good reason.

    Not sure what else to add, since I'm unsure regarding how a thread like this is supposed to evolve.

    I would say, however, that the Mulranny-Achill Greenway in Co. Mayo is reported to be a stunning success.

    I believe the Clifden-Galway Greenway along the old railway line is also at an advanced stage of planning.

    Great news on the leisure/tourist cycling front anyway.

    What was the exact reasoning for using kissing gates on the grand canal route? From what I can see they aren't used on the Mayo greenway or on the parts of the West Limerick greenway (old Limerick - Tralee line).


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Cathaoirleach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 701 ✭✭✭Cathaoirleach


    Isn't it to stop knackers racing up and down on their motorbikes?


  • #8
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    What's the problem with the East Wall part of the route?


  • #9
    markpb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,342 ✭✭✭markpb


    BrianD wrote: »
    What's the problem with the East Wall part of the route?

    The council wanted to remove on-street parking to make space for the cycle track. Some local residents complained about it's removal. DCC had stats to show that almost no-one used the on-street parking anyway but the residents wouldn't give up their parking without a fight so DCC backed down.


  • #10
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    BrianD wrote: »
    What's the problem with the East Wall part of the route?

    Here's what happened. They had part 8 planning for the full route up to the north end of West Road (although not the bridge connecting it to the park). Councillors gave in to pressure from residents, although as noted in the above link some strongly disagreed with what happened.

    What did not help was the council loosing or leaving out a petition signed by 100s of people out of the consultation because it had the wrong reference number. There was also questions over whether the plans for the route were put on display at the local community centre -- I think the council could prove they paid the centre for it, but not that the plans went up or at least councillors were not happy with the answers from the officials.

    Like some QBC projects, there are some lessons to be learned about promoting plans to residents.

    markpb wrote: »
    The council wanted to remove on-street parking to make space for the cycle track. Some local residents complained about it's removal. DCC had stats to show that almost no-one used the on-street parking anyway but the residents wouldn't give up their parking without a fight so DCC backed down.

    There seems to be three issues -- parking as explained by markpb, the link between the cycle route and Dart Underground which the residents oppose, and the muttered-under-the-breath issue of linking the Eastwall area better with Sheriff Street.

    The link between Dart Underground was and the route was hyped up by some residents -- it was only Irish Rail and the council talking to each other and Irish Rail including the cycle route in their plans. It was a good example of often missing forward thinking, but conspiracy theories followed. The Dart plans includes moving a bridge where the Ossory and extra room was been made for a two-way cycle track, but this extra room was claimed by some groups from East Wall to allow HGV traffic for Dart Underground construction.

    And there was all sorts of claims from some residents, such as it was "circuitous route" (it actually is the most direct route between the current Fairview route and the route now ending in the North Docklands). They say it should use East Road and East Wall Road (which would have caused the loss of more parking spaces and needed at least an extra five junction crossings).

    There was some mention of still using West Road but just having makings showing it was a cycle route and lowering the speed limit, rather than the planned two-way cycle route, but the whole section is up in the air now. It leaves the mostly city centre disconnected at both ends when it should have only been so at the south end.

    Separately, but related, the city council put forward plans this year to link the end of the route in the North Docklands and North Strand Road, via the canal. It also included cycle tracks crossing both side of the bridge on North Strand Road... this was dependent on funding from the NTA.


  • #11
    HivemindXX
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,208 ✭✭✭HivemindXX


    There have been a number of threads over on the cycling forum about infrastructure.

    A brief summary might be that people disagree on what good cycling infrastructure actually is but agree that some of the existing bicycle infrastructure (including relatively recently added bits) is very bad.

    The Grand Canal route as specified in an earlier post is a leisure facility. It's not particularly suitable for commuting due to the kissing gates and the shared use nature. As a leisure resource it's fine (except for the kissing gates which just suck) but I'd hate to see this type of facility put in place along my entire commute. It would significantly slow me and make it more likely that driving would become the best option.

    Here's a picture of a bit of cycling infrastructure put in in Galway. Hard to avoid the idea that the purpose of this is to get rid of cyclists rather than encourage them.

    doughiska_galway.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    dubhthach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    You wonder how long it took to paint those on, that in Doughuisce?

    With regards to cycle lanes I'm assuming the general preference is that they are a integral part of road surface as oppose to slighly elevated/attached to path? One of main issues I see around Dublin is where the council decided to paint on a cycle lane more as a "cosemetic job" instead of widening the carriageway to accommodate it etc.


  • #13
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,536 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    If that is Doughiska, those being painted on looks to have stopped people using the entire path as extra parking spaces which should make it easier for pedestrians - even though they're bog all use for cyclists (appears to be a lack of dishing on the bus bays and all).


  • #14
    HivemindXX
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,208 ✭✭✭HivemindXX


    dubhthach wrote: »
    With regards to cycle lanes I'm assuming the general preference is that they are a integral part of road surface as oppose to slighly elevated/attached to path? One of main issues I see around Dublin is where the council decided to paint on a cycle lane more as a "cosemetic job" instead of widening the carriageway to accommodate it etc.

    That would be my preference but it's by no means certain that is the preference of the majority. There is a line of reasoning that non-cyclists are concerned about proximity to cars so if you want to get these people cycling you need to put cycle facilities in place that completely seperate them.

    There was quite a long thread on the cycling board about this which gives some arguments for and against this sort of cycle facility.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056373919

    In my opinion there are three targets for cycling infrastructure:
    • Long distance leisure cyclists. These are served by things like the green ways and these are primarily tourist facilities in my opinion. They can be completely off road (ie: potentially nowhere near a road) and can also include other facilities such as water stops. These allow a very pleasurable journey so long as you want to travel a very limited route.
    • Inexperienced/nervous cyclists and/or children. These are served by segregated cycle paths adjacent to roads. The large number of problems with these types of paths (hazardous re-entry to the road, loss of right of way, getting stuck on a path that turns out not to go where you want) should be dealt with in some way as well.
    • Commuters and other utility cyclists. This type of cyclist is served by cycle facilities that are at least as convenient to use as the public roads they are replacing. We already have a ubiquitous network of roads that go basically everywhere you might want to go and it's not really credible that a complemetary network of cycle paths can be built. This sort of cyclist is best served by on road cycle paths which means widening roads (at design time preferably), installation of painted cycle lanes merely to act as a visual reminder to be aware of cyclists and keep clear of the side of the road, advanced stop lines at junctions and...that's basically it.


  • #15
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    MYOB wrote: »
    If that is Doughiska, those being painted on looks to have stopped people using the entire path as extra parking spaces which should make it easier for pedestrians - even though they're bog all use for cyclists (appears to be a lack of dishing on the bus bays and all).




    Complete joke facilities.

    Very handy for potato advertising though.


  • #16
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,536 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Complete joke facilities.

    Very handy for potato advertising though.

    Last time I was down that road they were being used as extended parking facilities. So we've found a use for painted on cycle paths finally!


  • #17
    Aidan1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 624 ✭✭✭Aidan1


    Commuters and other utility cyclists.

    Spot on - the question is one of speed really. Shared pedestrian/cyclist spaces, (or even) cyclist only spaces, are fine for city centre streets or for those who want or need to dawdle, or whatever the cyclist equivelant of a stroll is. But for those who want or need to get from place to place quickly, it really means road infrastructure similar to that used by cars, without sudden or tight corners, obstructions, gates or other such nonsense. Ideally that would mean a designated lane for cyclists, either wide enough for one cyclist to pass another easily, but certainly without barriers between that lane and the rest of the road.


  • #18
    LaFlammeRouge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 177 ✭✭LaFlammeRouge


    I am just back from a visit to Nottingham. They have secure bike lockers at their tram stops. Why don't we have these at Bus Aras, Connolly Station, Hueston, St. Stephan's Green and the other city stations.

    PhoenixPkCycLkrs1008no3_600.jpg


  • #19
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,536 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    How are they 'secure'? They look open-fronted and hence no safer than anything else, other than being dry.


  • #20
    LaFlammeRouge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 177 ✭✭LaFlammeRouge


    MYOB wrote: »
    How are they 'secure'? They look open-fronted and hence no safer than anything else, other than being dry.

    Nope, they're proper lockers. Here is a better photo:

    Andy_Wickham_Phoenix_600.jpg

    They also have these type of lockers in Los Angeles:

    2294341078_d71bd6075d.jpg


  • #21
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,536 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Bit limiting in how many bikes can be locked up without providing a massive collection of them, some rail stations here already have a multitude of that many locked up.

    However, at rail/luas stations in areas with slightly dodgier reputations it might be useful to get people to start cycling to them that might not otherwise.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Some of the larger stations could have indoor bike parking with other services provided - rental, repairs etc.

    A lot of stations just need more cycle parking -- although thankfully this is in the process of being addressed or partly so by both Irish Rail and the RPA.


  • #23
    HivemindXX
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,208 ✭✭✭HivemindXX


    Those lockers seem interesting but I'm not sure how much benefit they bring.

    Certainly they take up more space than a sheffield stand and I assume they cost more.

    I'm not sure how much more secure they are than properly locking your bike. It's unclear how they lock but professional thieves bring the tools for the job and cracking open these things by drilling out the lock or cutting the hinges off with an angle grinder shouldn't be any harder then getting past a good u-lock.

    On the plus side they would appear to keep your bike dry but the large type of canopy that covers multiple bike racks does that as well.

    Another advantage seems to be that you don't need to carry your own heavy lock. I can't tell from the picture but it looks like there's two possibilties. Maybe the key comes with the locker and you take it when you put your bike in like in a sport centre which has it's own security problems. Maybe your bring your own padlock and use that which is going to be a lot lighter than a regular bike lock, but is more vulnerable to bolt cutters than an ordinary bike lock.


  • #24
    markpb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,342 ✭✭✭markpb


    HivemindXX wrote: »
    Those lockers seem interesting but I'm not sure how much benefit they bring.

    I think you're being very pessimistic :) The are more secure because someone popping an angle grinder out of their pocket and attacking permanent fixtures at a Luas stop would attract a lot more attention than someone cutting a lock off a bike. There's also the added advantage that RPA would devote more of their resources to protecting a bike locker than own than they will protecting a bike that they don't.

    An additional thing that I didn't think of is that you can leave your helmet and bag in the locker too.


  • #25
    LaFlammeRouge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 177 ✭✭LaFlammeRouge


    HivemindXX wrote: »
    Those lockers seem interesting but I'm not sure how much benefit they bring.

    I see plenty of benefits, particularly for suburban and country stations:
    • Greater passenger potential. Metro North and other rail stations are designed to have a catchment radius of 1km (a 10 min walk). The addition of cycling facilities increase this radius. The RPA wanted the DublinBikes on their new city centre stations for this reason.
    • Less bicycle theft increases Garda resources.
    • Greater interest in cycling means less traffic congestion.

    Just did a small search and these lockers are present in loads of transit systems around the world.


  • #26
    LaFlammeRouge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 177 ✭✭LaFlammeRouge


    Here is another idea, a segregated cycleway from Tallaght to St. Spephen's Green. This route was previously mentioned by Cathaoirleach on this forum as a potential route for a metro. However, I think it would make an ideal route for a segregated cycleway as much of the infrastructure is already there.

    http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=200832783753934675596.0004ae15eb194959213a2&msa=0

    The cycleway would follow the River Poddle


  • #27
    HivemindXX
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,208 ✭✭✭HivemindXX


    I meant I didn't see any benefit over installing regular sheffield stands.

    I see huge benefit to having bike parking facilities at transit hubs like rail and bus stations and even at park and rides.

    My main issue is that these lockers would appear to cost more in cash and space required and I'm dubious about the extra security provided over using a sheffield stand with a good lock and proper locking technique.

    If you can walk up to a sheffield stand and use a large bolt cutter, hydraulic jack or angle grinder to remove a u-lock then you can do the same to whatever holds these lockers closed. At this point the locker may be ruined and nobody else can use it. With sheffield stands at least the stand itself is generally not damaged by thieves. From the point of view of the people installing these things that's another issue, do you want maintenance free sheffield stands which are effectively one piece of steel embedded in the concreete or something with moving parts that may get destroyed on a regular basis by thieves.

    These lockers would protect your bike from the sort of mindless thugs that vandalise bikes left locked up in a public space and that's a good thing but I don't think it outweighs the other issues.

    To reiterate: Bike parking good! These lockers not necessarily the best solution.


  • #28
    dynamick
    Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭dynamick


    The Japanese now have automated underground bike parking.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK9C9VtCypE


  • #29
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,979 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    I think we should have both types of bike stands at all stations.

    A large number of covered Sheffield stands for free use and a smaller number of locker stands for pay to use.

    The lockers stands would be particularly useful for people leaving their bikes over night.


  • #30
    dubhthach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    LaFlammeRouge wrote: »
    Here is another idea, a segregated cycleway from Tallaght to St. Spephen's Green. This route was previously mentioned by Cathaoirleach on this forum as a potential route for a metro. However, I think it would make an ideal route for a segregated cycleway as much of the infrastructure is already there.

    http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=200832783753934675596.0004ae15eb194959213a2&msa=0

    The cycleway would follow the River Poddle

    Interesting route, could be used for a backbone/Arterial route with many connecting sideroutes etc.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    dynamick
    Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭dynamick


    There's a cycle track along the Dodder from Lwr Churchtown Rd to Clonskeagh. It could continue as far West as Terenure and as far East as Donnybrook-Ballsbridge-Ringsend.


  • #32
    oharach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 185 ✭✭oharach


    dynamick wrote: »
    The Japanese now have automated underground bike parking.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK9C9VtCypE

    This would be really excellent for new Dublin Bikes stations where there is limited space, or where the current station is oversubscribed.


  • #33
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    LaFlammeRouge started a thread over on the cycling board on Potential Segregated Cycleways in Dublin.

    May be of interest to some here who have not seen it.


  • #34
    bigar
    Registered Users Posts: 596 ✭✭✭bigar


    As a daily commuter and user of a bicycle to get through Dublin fast, it just baffles me how bad the infrastructure is and how drivers and pedestrians seem to be unable to deal with bicycles.

    Dublin has a very confusing lay out for car traffic and as a cyclist you should not have to follow the completely illogical car flow. One way streets should be opened up for bicycles in both directions where possible. Parking spaces should be removed to make space for bicycles lanes. Pedestrian streets should be opened up for bicycles outside the busiest hours (bicycles would not use them anyway when they are packed as you would not get through). Finally, bicycles should be allowed to turn left on most crossings on red.

    Sounds all very crazy, you may say? These changes were done years ago in many countries in Europe, including in the biggest cities (Brussels, Amsterdam, Berlin to name a few). They went hands in hand with a large awareness campaign for pedestrians and car users.

    It is really time to make these changes here as well.


  • #35
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    I've only recently begun cycling again (Dublin Bikes), and it's the first time I've ever cycled in the city centre. The #1 thing that prevents me from taking a bike over walking is the convoluted routing. Usually I'd have to walk 20 minutes plus, so going by bike would make sense. I don't know the one-way system well enough to 'wing it', and most of the time I stick with my trusty walking-route. There's just some glaring anomalies in routing that, if rectified (literally!) would help encourage cycling enormously.

    First, it's nearly impossible to avoid O'Connell Bridge to travel north/south. This usually means O'Connell St too, which is ridiculous to cycle down: busses pulling in every few metres, parked vans, and weaving taxis. The only alternative is Eustace St in Temple Bar (cobblestones - good luck!) or Parliament/Capel which is southbound only.

    Second, some major road intersections are useless. Parnell St eastbound > O'Connell St southbound is one. If you're to follow the roadmarkings, you have to go uphill around Parnell Sq. If you take a more direct route, you have to either cycle against traffic, or on the path, or down Moore/Henry. (Aside: for this I blame in part the ILAC monster-block. There used to be a street between Liffey St and Parnell St, but that's long gone unfortunately.)


  • #36
    Cianos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Cianos


    Another example of illogical cycle routing is the West edge of Stephen's Green, where cycling towards Grafton Street brings you by cycle lane straight in to the inside lane of oncoming one way traffic, with signage giving allowance for same!

    gmaps street view link.

    Ironically we see a cyclist here about to do just that.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    HivemindXX
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,208 ✭✭✭HivemindXX


    Cianos wrote: »
    Another example of illogical cycle routing is the West edge of Stephen's Green, where cycling towards Grafton Street brings you by cycle lane straight in to the inside lane of oncoming one way traffic, with signage giving allowance for same!

    gmaps street view link.

    Ironically we see a cyclist here about to do just that.

    That little bit of cycle lane is quite crazy alright. Not matter which end you join it from when you get to the far end you are facing the wrong way down a one way street.

    However, I actually use it all the time. When heading South I come around Stephens Green, take that lane and then turn right at the end past RCS (all legal). When heading North I dismount at the end of the lane and walk to the nearby bike racks (I admit if I didn't want to stop there simply cycling down Georges Street would be better).

    A lot of one way roads around the city are not suitable for cars and bicycles going the correct way and also bicycles going the other way. Often they are not wide enough for an additional cycle lane. Often the routing would be difficult and/or dangerous. For example think about how cyclists going South on Dawson street would join or leave the street. I can't see how it would be done without having to cross oncoming traffic in an awkward way.

    I don't think a blanket change to allow cyclists to go both ways on all streets is a good idea. Certainly some roads would support this so starting to roll this idea out concentrating on the best candidates first would be good.


  • #38
    robd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 951 ✭✭✭robd


    bigar wrote: »
    Parking spaces should be removed to make space for bicycles lanes.
    You got to understand how Dublin Council is funded to understand why that won't happen under current system.

    A huge amount of their revenue comes from on street parking so they'll fight tooth and nail for every space thats removed. Of course that's completely counter intuitive to the best needs of the city in terms of public transport and traffic free flow and bikes but there you go. Now you know why.


  • #39
    dowlingm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,337 ✭✭✭dowlingm


    Toronto Bicycle Stations
    http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/bicycle-station/#about

    The railway station adjoining (Union Station) is getting a major rebuild and they will get showers at that bike station at that point.


  • #40
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,979 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    dowlingm wrote: »
    The railway station adjoining (Union Station) is getting a major rebuild and they will get showers at that bike station at that point.

    Great idea, you could almost introduce such bike parking at all DART stations and a few other key locations (car parks) around the city.

    It wouldn't have to be anything fancy:

    - Register with photo id and proof of address at one or two main stations.
    - Access granted to all cycle parking stations via a registered Leap card.
    - CCTV to monitor the parking stations.

    One thing, the fees at the Toronto station are a bit step.

    BTW Drury Street Car Park has free cycle parking.


  • #41
    robd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 951 ✭✭✭robd


    Would be nice to see some sections of the Sutton to Sandycove cycle track completed - www.s2s.ie. Prob a bit much to expect the whole thing to be completed to such a high standard but certainly relatively easy to fill in the missing sections one at a time year upon year rather than the current situation.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    Just in my inbox - UK Department for Transport lit review on cycling infrastructure.

    http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/to-increase-cyclist-safety-reduce-motor-vehicle-speeds/012278


    http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/infrastructure-and-cyclist-safety/infrastructure-and-cyclist-safety.pdf



    Main findings
    Of all interventions to increase cycle safety, the greatest benefits come from reducing motor vehicle speeds. Interventions that achieve this are also likely to result in casualty reductions for all classes of road user. This may be achieved by a variety of methods, including physical traffic calming; urban design that changes the appearance and pedestrian use of a street; and, possibly, the wider use of 20 mph speed limits.

    Most cyclist injuries in multi-vehicle collisions take place at junctions. Reducing the speed of traffic through junctions appears to be an effective approach to reducing cycle casualties, and physical calming methods are a reliable means of achieving such a reduction.

    Providing segregated networks may reduce risks to cyclists, although evidence suggests that the points at which segregated networks intersect with highways can be relatively high-risk, sometimes of sufficient magnitude to offset any safety benefits of removing cyclists from the carriageway.


  • #43
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    The intruduction of bike boxes at the front of newly designed junctions in Galway is the only good thing that has resulted from all the fannying around with roundabouts there in recent years.

    The front car at a red light is separated from pedestrians crossing by a box reserved for Cyclists and cyclists get off first.


  • #44
    doopa
    Registered Users Posts: 435 ✭✭doopa


    Sponge Bob wrote: »

    The front car at a red light is separated from pedestrians crossing by a box reserved for Cyclists and cyclists get off first.

    Which would be nice if anyone ever paid attention to them!


  • #45
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,036 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    http://www.etenders.gov.ie/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=NOV291855

    A step in the right direction or more faffing about with no action?


  • #46
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    http://www.etenders.gov.ie/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=NOV291855

    A step in the right direction or more faffing about with no action?

    Long story short it depends what the agenda is. Dun Laoighre Rathdown employed Transportation Initiatives and got a strategy that is largely exemplary. Galway city council employed Aecom, got a consultant who was not apparently au fait with cycling in traffic, and ended up with a draft strategy that tries to turn National Policy on its head and is not worth the paper it's written on.


  • #47
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    doopa wrote: »
    Which would be nice if anyone ever paid attention to them!

    They do normally.


  • #48
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Just in my inbox - UK Department for Transport lit review on cycling infrastructure.

    Problem with focusing on infrastructure is that you don't get the big picture. The most widespread way which have been proven to work in increasing cyclists' safety is increasing the amount of cyclists (ie safety in numbers).

    Safety in numbers works on Netherlands scale, but it also works for places with comparably tiny percentages of cycling.

    How you increase the amount of cyclists can be done in a huge amount of ways -- Dublin Bikes, bike to work, green schools cycling programmes, promoting cycling correctly and not allowing the safety agenda to take over (which can be counter-productive), or infrastructure from advance stop lines possibly combined with bike lights to give an extra advantage on major roads, to bike parking, to bike lanes.

    Segregated infrastructure could even have a role to play -- not for safety reasons but to make routes more attractive to cyclists.


  • #49
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    monument wrote: »
    Problem with focusing on infrastructure is that you don't get the big picture. The most widespread way which have been proven to work in increasing cyclists' safety is increasing the amount of cyclists (ie safety in numbers).

    Safety in numbers works on Netherlands scale, but it also works for places with comparably tiny percentages of cycling.

    How you increase the amount of cyclists can be done in a huge amount of ways -- Dublin Bikes, bike to work, green schools cycling programmes, promoting cycling correctly and not allowing the safety agenda to take over (which can be counter-productive), or infrastructure from advance stop lines possibly combined with bike lights to give an extra advantage on major roads, to bike parking, to bike lanes.

    Segregated infrastructure could even have a role to play -- not for safety reasons but to make routes more attractive to cyclists.

    Agreed but where this falls down in Irish practice is the definition of "attractive". By "attractive" do we mean trying to increase the practical "level of service" for existing cyclists (reduce delay) or something that feels "safe" for novice cyclists who have no understanding of cycling in traffic?

    And the problem with the latter is that subjective safety is used by the roads engineers as an excuse for designs that reduce the level of service for all cyclists.

    My instinct is that, as an initial approach, we need to focus on level of service and address percieved safety issues by other means. When we have restored mass cycling, and embeded the requirements of cycling in the popular understanding, we can then go after Dutch style infrastructure.


  • #50
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    The intruduction of bike boxes at the front of newly designed junctions in Galway is the only good thing that has resulted from all the fannying around with roundabouts there in recent years.

    The front car at a red light is separated from pedestrians crossing by a box reserved for Cyclists and cyclists get off first.

    These are often termed Advance Stop Lines in the manuals and are very popular with cyclists. On the safety side there appear to be clear benefits for crossing pedestrians as they have greater separation from waiting vehicles For the cyclists, the safety arguments are less clear cut.

    I am attaching an extract from the Danish Road Directorate's 1998 "Adonis" Compendium of different treatments.

    This specifies that the reservoir at the junction is to be 5m deep to avoid putting waiting cyclists in a blind spot for HGV drivers.

    @Spongebob this example is for a staggered stopline scenario with no right turn available - it might be useful to contrast the treatment in the attached with the recent changes to the Newcastle traffic signals in Galway (also has no right-turn).

    In terms of national practice, if you look at the NTAs most recent draft of their cycle manual;

    http://www.nationaltransport.ie/cycman.html

    They appear to be specifying a 4m depth for ASLs which it would seem is going to put cyclists in a blind spot for some HGV drivers. Going under left- turning HGVs is a proportionately high source of fatal cyclist collisions.


  • #51
    G-Man
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 553 ✭✭✭G-Man


    Kissing gates on Grand Canal are starting to change... Well this opening was made today at park west, western entry. You can just about straddle your bike through..

    It probably stops the scooters, plays hell with a horses fetlocks though!


  • Advertisement
Advertisement