nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Liffey quays cycle route: Detailed drawings online

monument

Here: http://www.dublincitycycling.ie/blog/?p=1479

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

monument

They have worked it out and have been working in this on and off since 2011.

Putting cars behind results in longer delays for cars AND buses.

monument

MrMorooka wrote: »

Easily 5 minutes at least, assuming this was dropped in tomorrow with no change to anything else(like DB dwell times). All it takes is one bus to have an extended stop at Smithfield(a wheelchair user, a large group, a belligerent passenger) to wreck things.

How are you coming to 5 minutes?

In the plans, there's a bus lane + bus stopping space at Smithfield.

MrMorooka wrote: »

The people who will be effected by the delay won't perceive any of these benefits as applying to them- they are living out in the suburbs and are only in the city for work. From their perspective, they won't get anything out of it but the delay. "business, tourism, health, a livable city and sustainability" are ephemeral things that mean nothing to the person living in a sprawling estate out in D15 with no intention(or financial ability) to move to the more urban environment where these things are more obvious. All they will see is their already too-long commute taking even longer.

That's why the debate and those in power need to look at the overall picture and not just the perceived or real effects on some individuals.

Re added stress -- it will add to the overall capacity of the quays meaning more people will be able to commute into the city. Without the changes the route is reaching top capacity already.

But it's also more than a route -- 10,000 people or more live per square KM along the quays. With more infill there will be more and more people living closer to the city centre -- these have to be accommodated in transport, leisure and a livable environment.

hmmm

Would reversing the flow of traffic on the quays be a runner?

MrMorooka

monument wrote: »

How are you coming to 5 minutes?

In the plans, there's a bus lane + bus stopping space at Smithfield.

The thing is, every bus passing by will actually be stopping at the stop. Already almost every bus on the 39/a etc. stops at Blackhall Place(where people get off and walk to Museum/Smithfield Luas stops) and Arran Quay to let people off. I can gurantee that at peak times every single bus on the route will be stopping at Smithfield because it will offer excellent interchange with Luas, making the bus lane useless- no buses will be overtaking. As a result, you will get queing. Look at Suffolk St(before diversions) and the current Bachelor's Walk stops for example of buses queing to access stops.

Then you add the traffic lights to the mix, and the fact that the short bus lane on Church St will probably be full. Like Aard says, a lot depends on signalising here. I don't think 5 minutes is unreasonable, looking at existing chokepoints. Certainly it has take 5 minutes to get from Pearse St outside the Garda Station to the corner of Aston Quay/Westmoreland St before, due to traffic lights and despite bus lanes.

hmmm

monument wrote: »

How are you coming to 5 minutes?

In the plans, there's a bus lane + bus stopping space at Smithfield.

Have you ever spent time looking at what goes on in Suffolk street? One bus that gets caught on the outside causes buses to queue up a long way back - at least on the quays other buses can pull out into the car lane if needs be. People aren't too stressed about this because at least they're on their way home, a similar situation on the way into work would cause an awful lot more angst. It's instructive to look at this area at 5pm, it wouldn't be wrong to call it chaotic.

The next proposed bottleneck is the T junction at Church street. One car in the yellow box, or one bus that can't make it around the T junction for whatever reason stops the entire line of buses.

After that, there is another T junction onto the quays. The traffic signals for both T junctions have to be perfectly aligned, or a max or 3 buses or so are all that will get through. There also you have the problem that a single bus that can't make the turn will hold up the entire line, until the blockage in front of it is removed.

Commutting on that route wil become a lottery. It might be 20 seconds of a delay, it might be 15 minutes. A commuting route needs to be reasonably predictable, otherwise it is not fit for purpose.

monument

MrMorooka wrote: »

The thing is, every bus passing by will actually be stopping at the stop. Already almost every bus on the 39/a etc. stops at Blackhall Place(where people get off and walk to Museum/Smithfield Luas stops) and Arran Quay to let people off. I can gurantee that at peak times every single bus on the route will be stopping at Smithfield because it will offer excellent interchange with Luas, making the bus lane useless- no buses will be overtaking. As a result, you will get queing. Look at Suffolk St(before diversions) and the current Bachelor's Walk stops for example of buses queing to access stops.

Then you add the traffic lights to the mix, and the fact that the short bus lane on Church St will probably be full. Like Aard says, a lot depends on signalising here. I don't think 5 minutes is unreasonable, looking at existing chokepoints. Certainly it has take 5 minutes to get from Pearse St to the corner of Aston Quay/Westmoreland St before, due to traffic lights and despite bus lanes.

It looks like the have two bays at Smithfield -- but there is space to add a longer bus stop and I think they should be doing that. The non-bus lane runming beside the Smithfield stop and Church St isn't really needed and should be omitted to give buses and better run.

There could also be a stop at Museum.

MrMorooka

Yes, a bit of a redesign that incorporates more capacity and recognises the bus corridor in the area as a main city transit route would certainly improve matters if the plan does go ahead.

paddyland

MrMorooka wrote: »

Yes, a bit of a redesign that incorporates more capacity and recognises the bus corridor in the area as a main city transit route would certainly improve matters if the plan does go ahead.

If they recognise the bus corridor as a main city transit route, then they don't send it down Benburb Street.

You can take the word of a bus driver who has spent seventeen years sitting in Dublin's traffic jams, including the quays, and knows through seventeen years of sitting in those jams what causes them. Or you can take the word of a cyclist who never drove a bus in his life, and thinks that the whole bus corridor will work like magic, simply because yellow and white lines on a road say it will.

It makes no difference to me, I won't be sitting fuming in a bus, unless I am getting paid to sit there. It'll make a hell of a difference to thousands of daily bus commuters, though. Since when did a cyclist ever care about the worries of a bus passenger? Tiny delay, indeed.

Spanish Eyes

Well, whatever route is chosen I do hope that it will become mandatory for cyclists to use the cycle lane ONLY.

That is not the case at the moment AFAIK with existing cycle tracks.

Does anyone agree?

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Well, whatever route is chosen I do hope that it will become mandatory for cyclists to use the cycle lane ONLY.

That is not the case at the moment AFAIK with existing cycle tracks.

Does anyone agree?

No, I don't think you find most cyclists would agree.

If the cycle lane is of a high enough quality, then of course most cyclists will naturally opt to use it.

But what we have often found in the past is that most cycle lanes and paths are terrible designed, cleaned and maintained and thus it is often much safer to cycle in the road then the cycle lane. Hopefully this one will be different, but we will have to wait and see.

Spanish Eyes

bk wrote: »

No, I don't think you find most cyclists would agree.

If the cycle lane is of a high enough quality, then of course most cyclists will naturally opt to use it.

But what we have often found in the past is that most cycle lanes and paths are terrible designed, cleaned and maintained and thus it is often much safer to cycle in the road then the cycle lane. Hopefully this one will be different, but we will have to wait and see.

Yes, I can understand that - where the open road is in better condition than the cycle way, fair enough.

But you know yourself, if it's not mandatory on this and other very good quality lanes, SOMEONE will break into the traffic lane!

beauf

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Well, whatever route is chosen I do hope that it will become mandatory for cyclists to use the cycle lane ONLY,....

You realise this was the law and it was changed. It was unworkable, and more dangerous.

http://www.businesspost.ie/#!story/Home/News/Varadkar+abolishes+requirement+for+cyclists+to+use+cycle+lanes/id/19410615-5218-5085-7ae6-7b87b0401760

Spanish Eyes

beauf wrote: »

You realise this was the law and it was changed. It was unworkable, and more dangerous.

http://www.businesspost.ie/#!story/Home/News/Varadkar+abolishes+requirement+for+cyclists+to+use+cycle+lanes/id/19410615-5218-5085-7ae6-7b87b0401760

Thanks for the link, I actually didn't know about that change!

Anyway, let's hope everyone is happy with the new arrangements. But you can't please all the people all of the time either I suppose.

Aard

I am surprised that anybody is defending those drawings. They benefit nobody.

As a daily cyclist of that route, I would be majorly pissed off if any of those designs get signed off.

Spanish Eyes

Aard wrote: »

I am surprised that anybody is defending those drawings. They benefit nobody.

As a daily cyclist of that route, I would be majorly pissed off if any of those designs get signed off.

What would you suggest instead? Rough idea would be great, might get others thinking aswell. Maybe DCC reads this too!

Aard

Properly address junctions. Junctions are the points of highest conflict. In these cases between foot, bike, and car. The "shared space" junctions are lazy. There will be accidents. People will give out about bikes being on footpaths. People will give out about walkers standing in the way of cycling. It's not the done thing. Many of the junctions are poorly designed for turning on/off the cycle track. There will be an accident because of this. I am not scaremongering, but speaking from what works in best practice. The tie-ins between different cycle tracks has been thrown together. In one instance (don't have the drawings in front of me atm) two cycle lanes run into each other head-on. This is a laugh. Can you imagine that somebody actually drew lines on a page where cyclists would be running into each other?! This leads me to believe that the designers have absolutely no training in best practice design for cycling infrastructure. AECOM/DCC are continuing the old codology of treating cyclists like cars one minute, and like pedestrians the next. Giving cyclists a raw deal in both instances, and causing a lot of unnecessary anti-cycling sentiment.

DCC are engineering danger into the streets with these drawings.

ezra_pound

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Yes, I can understand that - where the open road is in better condition than the cycle way, fair enough.

But you know yourself, if it's not mandatory on this and other very good quality lanes, SOMEONE will break into the traffic lane!

God forbid. God willing if and when this happens, the cyclist concerned will cycle faster than the general traffic in that lane.

Maybe one day a car might one day block the entire cycle lane or a taxi might stop in the bus lane to pick up some fare. I pray that we will overcome these challenges and prosper under adversity.

monument

Aard wrote: »

I am surprised that anybody is defending those drawings. They benefit nobody.

As a daily cyclist of that route, I would be majorly pissed off if any of those designs get signed off.

Aard wrote: »

Properly address junctions. Junctions are the points of highest conflict. In these cases between foot, bike, and car. The "shared space" junctions are lazy.....

I'm writing a post on this for elsewhere so I'm not going to pre-write it here, but you're right, there should be no shared use or at least it should be the very last resort rather than the easy solution.

I'm still looking at the drawings but with option 3 there's the less shared use than option 1 and with option 3 there's still space and potential to redesign the junctions before the route is built.

There's also junctions which could do with stacking space / turning lanes in the cycle path -- and there's also space for this at some of the major junctions (ie heading eastbound on the quays and a right turn onto Church Street).

monument

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

My view?

Try and accommodate ALL public transport options over cars. I know that will irk car drivers, but moving cars out of the city as far as possible seems to be the policy du jour now.

So.... pedestrians, cyclists and buses get priority. That is the only way I can see this working.

On the quays, one lane dedicated to bus, one similar size lane or even larger for bikes, and a boardwalk for the pedestrians. I don't know how it would be configured, but I reckon that is the way to go.

Cars go down Benburb Street and do the turn that buses would do. At least buses carry 80+ passengers per vehicle, so they do deserve priority over cars.

Now I don't want anyone to have a go at me, because I am tired today, but I am totally against the buses going down Benburb Street. Totally. As if it wasn't bad enough as it is! At least it's a straight line and works well as it is.

So, as I said, ALL public transport options should be given absolute priority, and let the planners work it out.

Overall the impact on cars will be far greater than any possible impact on buses -- look at the full route and not just one part of it. But absolute priority is only possible on railways with no conflicting services (ie metros or Dart lines without intercity mixed in), it's a non-starter on city streets.

I've reply already to others a few times re why cars are not being sent across the bus lane twice -- because it would have massive impacts including impacting on buses more that diverting buses.

hmmm wrote: »

Have you ever spent time looking at what goes on in Suffolk street? One bus that gets caught on the outside causes buses to queue up a long way back - at least on the quays other buses can pull out into the car lane if needs be. People aren't too stressed about this because at least they're on their way home, a similar situation on the way into work would cause an awful lot more angst. It's instructive to look at this area at 5pm, it wouldn't be wrong to call it chaotic.

I know Suffolk St very well and have used buses from there more than a few times. The passenger movements on and off the average bus stopping at Suffolk St is massive, nothing like what it will be like at Smithfield. Smithfield would also have larger footpath space to cope with passenger movements, while on Suffolk St is packed with bus users and people who just want to walk up the street -- you get people walking past blocking passengers getting on/off etc.

hmmm wrote: »

The next proposed bottleneck is the T junction at Church street. One car in the yellow box, or one bus that can't make it around the T junction for whatever reason stops the entire line of buses.

You'll have to explain the reason why a bus would not make it other than a motorist blocking the junction, as for a motorist blocking the junction: More of these with signs up and letters in the post would quickly work wonders:

hmmm wrote: »

After that, there is another T junction onto the quays. The traffic signals for both T junctions have to be perfectly aligned, or a max or 3 buses or so are all that will get through. There also you have the problem that a single bus that can't make the turn will hold up the entire line, until the blockage in front of it is removed.

You're saying three buses would fit into a space of 60m+? You'd easily get five standard ones or four tri-axle buses. Just short of five tri-axles and with four you could have three meters between each bus.

But that's splitting hairs because clearly for this to work buses would mostly get green at both junctions at the same time.

hmmm wrote: »

Commutting on that route wil become a lottery. It might be 20 seconds of a delay, it might be 15 minutes. A commuting route needs to be reasonably predictable, otherwise it is not fit for purpose.

A 15min delay is hyperbole which can't be supported.

paddyland

monument wrote: »

I know Suffolk St very well and have used buses from there more than a few times. The passenger movements on and off the average bus stopping at Suffolk St is massive, nothing like what it will be like at Smithfield. Smithfield would also have larger footpath space to cope with passenger movements, while on Suffolk St is packed with bus users and people who just want to walk up the street -- you get people walking past blocking passengers getting on/off etc.

He is talking about bus movements on the roadway, not passenger movements on the pavement.

paddyland

monument wrote: »

But that's splitting hairs because clearly for this to work buses would mostly get green at both junctions at the same time.

You can't just state glibly that 'buses would mostly get green at both junctions at the same time.' What does that mean in practical terms?

At risk of repeating my earlier points, in order for the bus priority to work, the buses will need green at both junctions at the same time. But the knock-on effect of that to all the other general traffic will be way out of proportion. The traffic jams that will ensue elsewhere will be too great.

I am all in favour of traffic elsewhere losing priority, and the overall traffic deterrent that creates, but it has to be so that buses get an efficient, prompt run. Causing all that ensuing traffic chaos for this half-hearted mess just frustrates everyone, motorists and passengers alike, and only negates any goodwill towards future public transport priority schemes.

Besides which, that two-way cycle lane is far too narrow to be worth all the obstruction and upset to everyone else. Cyclists need more space than that. One wide lane each side of the quays has to be safer than two narrow lanes, forcing faster cyclists back into the general traffic flow, obstructing others, and just creating the same old frustrations all round all over again, which this was supposed to alleviate. That two way cycle lane is not safe. Cyclists need an express lane. If all they are offered is the usual one-metre wide corridor, they simply won't use it. It'll be useless, like every other cycle lane that was ever created.

paddyland

monument wrote: »

A 15min delay is hyperbole which can't be supported.

I drive buses. I get stuck in traffic jams. I'll support it.

monument

paddyland wrote: »

He is talking about bus movements on the roadway, not passenger movements on the pavement.

Are you trying to say that the passenger movements (both on the footpath and on/off buses) is not the largest cause of the delays on Suffolk Street? What do you think is?

paddyland wrote: »

I drive buses. I get stuck in traffic jams. I'll support it.

Where do you see the 15mins hold up talking place?

The Smithfield bus stop will be far quicker than the stops that it replaced.

Where and how would the delay of 15mins happen???

paddyland wrote: »

You can't just state glibly that 'buses would mostly get green at both junctions at the same time.' What does that mean in practical terms?

I'll rephrase:

Clearly buses would need to get green lights at both junctions at the same time 80-90% of the time.

Nothing at street level on street networks like in Dublin City Centre gets 100% priority all of the time. The only modes of transport that get even near to 100% priority is segregated rail services running on dedicated tracks, or maybe large-scale fully-segregated BRT (ie some systems in China or South America).

paddyland wrote: »

At risk of repeating my earlier points, in order for the bus priority to work, the buses will need green at both junctions at the same time. But the knock-on effect of that to all the other general traffic will be way out of proportion. The traffic jams that will ensue elsewhere will be too great.

No they it would not be out of proportion.

The Smithfield > Church Street > quays bus sequence can be green at the same time as cycling and walking has green along the quays.

paddyland wrote: »

I am all in favour of traffic elsewhere losing priority, and the overall traffic deterrent that creates, but it has to be so that buses get an efficient, prompt run. Causing all that ensuing traffic chaos for this half-hearted mess just frustrates everyone, motorists and passengers alike, and only negates any goodwill towards future public transport priority schemes.

Besides which, that two-way cycle lane is far too narrow to be worth all the obstruction and upset to everyone else. Cyclists need more space than that. One wide lane each side of the quays has to be safer than two narrow lanes, forcing faster cyclists back into the general traffic flow, obstructing others, and just creating the same old frustrations all round all over again, which this was supposed to alleviate. That two way cycle lane is not safe. Cyclists need an express lane. If all they are offered is the usual one-metre wide corridor, they simply won't use it. It'll be useless, like every other cycle lane that was ever created.

You're calling option 3 a "half-hearted mess", yet you're coming up with fictional alternatives such as a "wide lane each side of the quays" (a continuous wide cycle lane on each side of the quays would mean massive effects on buses and general traffic -- such impacts would make the impact of option 3 look like nothing.

There's still potential to widen the cycle path in places in option 3, while other places are pinch points and there's nothing to be done, but... Where in option 3 do you see "the usual one-metre wide corridor" for cycling?

As for "faster cyclists back into the general traffic flow, obstructing others" -- that's highly unlikely because people cycling fast have quicker travel times than buses or private motorists (bar motorbikes, and cars in the middle of the night when there's no traffic).

pclive

Just looking through the comments at http://www.dublincitycycling.ie/blog/index.php/2015/03/seeking-feedback-on-the-proposed-liffey-cycle-route-options/comment-page-1/#comment-271601
There seems to be a lot of positive comments from cyclists and very little comments on the negative impact these plans might have on public transport along the north quays as per previous posts.....

LXFlyer

pclive wrote: »

Just looking through the comments at http://www.dublincitycycling.ie/blog/index.php/2015/03/seeking-feedback-on-the-proposed-liffey-cycle-route-options/comment-page-1/#comment-271601
There seems to be a lot of positive comments from cyclists and very little comments on the negative impact these plans might have on public transport along the north quays as per previous posts.....

To be fair that is a cycling sub-site of Dublin City Council.

Most public transport users will know nothing of this and will only find out if it receives sufficient publicity.

pclive

Agreed lxflyer but im referring to a number of members who posted comments on this thread

Hope they plan to comment through the official lines or public transport will find itself delayed further on Benburb Street

trellheim

I have to say I'm mystified at what problem this is solving ; buses and cycles have no problems on wolfe tone quay it only gets hairy for both when it gets to ormond quay ; this is crayoning of the worst order and a number of posters here should be ashamed. BTW I get both bus and cycle on the route in question all the time 50/50 so first hand experience.

monument

The link to that site was on the city council's website homepage for a few days and its still in their news section and at their consultation hub at https://consultation.dublincity.ie/ -- they also promoted it via their social media outlets.

Since the designs went up, there was also coverage with links on the following non-cycling only websites:

...And a selection of accounts with a large following:

https://www.facebook.com/wearerabble/posts/860038427375005
https://twitter.com/weareDublinTown/status/578880124529086465
https://twitter.com/DubCityCouncil/status/578503044662468608 (DCC's account with nearly 30k followers, + retweeted by Fingal accounts etc)
@LiveDrive also retweeted it and it has 17k followers

I'm excluding other media reports which linked to the site before the drawings were up -- this was well flagged by media reports, all business groups know about it, and every city councillor now knows about it -- and I'd be surprised if many county councillors or Dublin TDs don't know about it.

monument

trellheim wrote: »

I have to say I'm mystified at what problem this is solving ; buses and cycles have no problems on wolfe tone quay it only gets hairy for both when it gets to ormond quay ; this is crayoning of the worst order and a number of posters here should be ashamed. BTW I get both bus and cycle on the route in question all the time 50/50 so first hand experience.

It's amazing that so many people who cycle and those who want to cycle have a different view to you... isn't it? Sarcasm only included because of your hyperbole statement.

This isn't a cycle route on for Wolfe Tone Quay -- it's a continuous, segregated route from the East Link Bridge to the Phoenix Park and beyond in different directions.

trellheim

It's amazing that so many people who cycle and those who want to cycle have a different view to you... isn't it? Sarcasm only included because of your hyperbole statement.

It is, isn't it, based on the large amount of people I pass on bicycles happily pedalling along every day having zero problems on said route segment ; there is zero argument for expending any public funds here. Ormond quay to batchelors walk - that needs fixing and i'd listen to cogent arguments round cyclist and bus separation for safety reasons in that area that accelerated both modes progress.

But please don't pretend anyone's pushing anything other than personal agenda in this thread.

Rgds.