Liffey quays cycle route: Detailed drawings online

lxflyer wrote: »

Look I appreciate that you have a particular interest from the cycling perspective, but please stop trying to belittle the impact on public transport. At peak times this is not going to add "only seconds" to bus journeys and trying to suggest otherwise is just not realistic. At least 95 Dublin Bus vehicles in one hour plus everything else thrown in are going to experience longer journeys.

This is the principal public transport corridor for most of west Dublin and funnelling every bus/coach from that direction down a road that will lead to two T Junctions is not a viable prospect.

I'm absolutely in favour of developing improved cycling facilities in this city, but they should be in tandem with improved public transport - not at it's expense. That's a nonsense.

Focus on what I'm saying rather than what you think I'm saying, please and thank you.

Can you accept the benefits around capacity, tourism, health, sustainable? Or not? If not why not?

Where are the two T-junctions?

Where am I'm belittling the delay? What delay would you put on it? It will be quicker for buses coming from Blackhall Place, it will avoid the current mess of a bus stop before the Four Courts.

Option 3 is the only one I'd concider because it's the most balanced for all users. Option 2 would be worse for buses and option 1 would have too many walking/cycling conflicts.

Option 4 is in ways worse than what's there now because it's narrow segregation where it's least needed and exposed at junctions. It has low benefits because it won't be attractive to many more people than are already willing to cycle in current conditions.

cgcsb wrote: »

Option 3 seems to be coming out on top with slightly less disruption for buses. Why is diverting cars, instead of buses off the quays not an option?

Diverting cars would mean cars crossing bus lanes twice and would mean a larger impact on buses.

desertcircus wrote: »

A cycle path on the right-hand side of traffic, if it's used, will require cyclists to cross lanes when entering and exiting, whether on the quays or on the bridges. And a lot of cyclists simply won't bother using such a system; they'll simply stay on the road instead.

People said the same about the canal route yet it carries far more that the parallel cycle lanes. Also, there won't be room in many places to stay on the road, unless you want to go slowly along slow moving traffic (ie Option 2/3 from Blackhall Place to Church Street at rush hour).

Re crossing lanes -- in most cases, it will be at signalised junctions so it won't be "crossing" lanes of traffic in the normal since -- it will be more like going straight on and then turning:



My big question is how are they planning to do right turns for bicycles on bridges northbound and turning right to go eastbound -- that'll require good design and signalising.

A lot will depend on signalising. That's a bit of a worry of mine.

lxflyer wrote: »

I am focussing on what you are saying - your posts have continually expressed a view that changes that have negative impacts on public transport, specifically buses and coaches, are not necessarily a bad thing, be it in this case or in the re-routing of buses via Westland Row and Pearse Street due to LUAS BXD.

My stance on diverting buses is a pragmatic one due to everything not fitting into College Green and it being better for all modes not to try to do such -- if you look back to older BXD threads, you'll find my posts were saying that Luas should go around.

lxflyer wrote: »

I find that view really infuriating - we should be trying to encourage cycling and public transport and making using the car a less attractive option.

I agree, but sometimes the best solution is to move buses, as in this case because moving cars to the building side would create two major crossovers which would impact on buses more so than the Option 3.

lxflyer wrote: »

This is the biggest public transport corridor from West Dublin into the city and while there are benefits for cyclists (and rightly so), the public transport users (who any plans ought to be trying to encourage) are discommoded,.....

I'm not talking about "benefits for cyclists" -- the capacity benefits are benefits for the city and employment; the tourism benefits are benefits for the city and employment, the health benefits are benefits for the health service and the taxpayer as well as individuals, and the sustainability benefits is a benefit for the city and its people, not just those who cycle.

The phrase "for cyclists" also edges towards the misleading because most will read it as for current bicycle users when cycling is going to account for a far larger modal share than it does now.

lxflyer wrote: »

.....while car users seem to be virtually untouched.

Most options include omitting parking along the quays and the removal of a general traffic lane from Capel Street to O'Connell Bridge, etc

lxflyer wrote: »

There are 2 T Junctions:
1 - Turning from Hammond Lane into Church Street
2 - Turning from Church Street back onto the North Quays

Fair enough, but the Church St and the north quays isn't a T-junction -- it's a slip junction at one side of a four-way junction.

I've said before that there's no real reason why they don't make that a fully protected turn for buses that can be green all the time bar when pedestrians are crossing.

lxflyer wrote: »

I cannot take your suggestion that funnelling 90 buses and probably another 20 coaches during one hour down that route and through a signal controlled junction with a yellow box onto a short stretch of road leading to another signal controlled T-junction (T from buses perspective) is going to add "seconds" to a journey that is currently a straight line route at peak times. I just can't.

As I've said: It will be faster for some buses such as the ones coming from Blackhall Place; other benefits include the removal of the vast bulk of bicycles from the bus lane and it will avoid the poor junction before the Four Courts.

The design could do with some tweaking and red light enforcement cameras should be put on all bus/Luas junctions.

My main issue with the way buses are treated is in the Docklands -- parking being kept with no justification such as local shops, rather than retaining bus lanes etc.

Greenmachine wrote: »

Option 3 seems the most bizarre. Are they planning on giving that section of the north quay to grass and two cycle lanes. If they can reroute buses along benburb street why not send the cyclists that way.

A quay-side park with grass footpaths and a cycle path. What's so bizarre? This is a city, not just a network of roads for commuters or anybody else. The population density along the quays is a massive 10,000 people per square KM. This is about more than just transport.

Why not reroute bicycles?

1. Because the cycle route is along the river-side and rerouting it would require people cycling to cross three lanes of traffic at both ends of the detour. OR if the traffic light times were bearable for cycling, it would have a far larger impact on all modes of transport as they have to wait longer.

2. Both options could have such a massive impact on cycling that people may not use the route.

3. For people using the cycle route westbound and back onto the south side, that detour would not be the first but second detour -- making the route very unattractive to them. And coming up with an alternative to a the madness that is cycling on the south quays is a big part of this project.

4. Even if there were not the above reason, accomadation local access and a two-way cycle route would be a lot harder than putting in a bus lane.

lxflyer might have left the thread, but anybody who thinks the diversion of buses will have a massive impact, please answer these two questions:

How long do you think the delay will be?

Will the delay not be worth it give the extra capacity of people, and the benefits relating to business, tourism, health, a livable city and sustainability?

If you're not addressing those questions, you're really not addressing the issue at hand.

And if you're willing to answer, please do remember the following about the diversion route in option 3:

-- With Luas and buses the junctions will likely have the highest flow of public transport passengers on any surface route -- priority will have to be kept high

-- It has fewer bus stops -- which cuts down dwell time and/or buses getting in the way of other buses
It has a continuous bus lane its full length

-- It has a bus bay inside a bus lane at it's only stop

-- It removes turning conflicts of motorists needing to use the bus lane to turn into Blackhall Place, and into Smithfield

-- It removes the vast bulk of bicycle conflicts (along the diversion route and for a long way along the quays)
It gets buses away from one of the most poorly designed bus stops on the quays

-- It will use junctions which have are are due to have red light cameras
It includes bus priority of having a bus-only turning lane from the Church St to the quays

I'm not saying all of this will mean that there's no delay, but these factors will minimise any delay.

cgcsb wrote: »

Another point that has yet to be raised is the introduction of BRT bendi buses.

Can bendi buses do the double T junction?? surely their tail end would cause blockages if they were caught by a red light?

No BRT route will be traveling west-east around here:

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/SWIFTWAY_City_Centre_Map.jpg

Ben D Bus wrote: »

Solve that one problem at the entrance to the new corridor and many of the subsequent issues just go away. And I've no doubt it an be solved easier than the Church St junction problem.

How far down the N4 do you want to hold traffic up?

What's your solution?

pclive wrote: »

No need to send the buses down Benburb street as per my previous post if:
general traffic is reduced to one lane from Heuston and around the back of Croppy Acre this allows the bus lane to continue onto the North Quays and should allow the two way cycle track with the help of a boardwalk for pedestrians

Which leaves major conflict points where the boardwalk can't integrate with bridges, tiny cycle path widths which will be a pain from day one, both of which will mean safety issues and capacity issues and attractiveness issues, meaning it's less attractive to residents, cycling commuters, tourists, and a no go for blind people.

And you'd also have the removal of a footpath, and the isolated boardwalk space and all the issues those have.

If they suggested anything like the impacts option one has for walking and cycling for buses they'd be murder.