Liffey quays cycle route: Detailed drawings online

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.

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.

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 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).

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 wrote: »

My comment above remains : close in needs fixing not far out.

Only in the minds of some hardened cyclists, most people won't cycle on the quays and on the far out (Western) sections both high speeds and need for for crossing lanes of heavy traffic puts of even many people who do cycle a bit.

So leaving some sections the way they are would be unattractive to and so useless for the average commuter, tourist, or resident.

trellheim wrote: »

but all the other stuff ... no ... bonkers.

Why is it bonkers? Because they are looking to have continuous segregated cycle paths, as wanted by most people who want to cycle?