The Dublin Cycling Campaign is an independent, voluntary lobby group that has been working to improve the city for all cyclists for over a decade and a half.
Sign up to our free email newsletter to keep up to date
2009-11-30 - QBC Consultation - Bray Town
Dublin Cycling Campaign has submitted the following submission to the public consultation for the Bray Town Centre QBC scheme. The Quality Bus Network Office plans were available here:
braytowncouncil.ie/pages/posts/bray-quality-bus-corridor243.php
www.dublincity.ie/RoadsandTraffic/QBNProjectOffice/Pages/BrayTownCouncil.aspx
Dublin Cycling Campaign Submission. The Executive Summary is copied below.
2009-11-30-QBC_Consultation_Submission-Bray_Town_Centre
If you have any comments please contact James Leahy.
James Leahy 30/11/09
Executive Summary
1.1 Introduction
Dublin Cycling Campaign’s comments on the consultation have been guided by the National Cycle Policy Framework (Department of Transport 2009) and Cyclist.ie’s (2008) National Cycling Promotional Policy: Achieving a Cycle Friendly Ireland. This calls for a hierarchical approach to the consideration of measures to address cycling, encompassing the classic three ‘E’s: Education, Enforcement and Engineering.
We pledge ourselves to a collaborative approach and would like to work with the QBN Office to deliver a better result for transport modes that tread lightly on the environment. We believe our experience has something to offer and we look forward to meeting with you. Doubtless there may be a small number of situations where, having worked with you, it is impossible to achieve a solution we are happy with. In such situations, should they exist, we will request detailed formal justification from the QBN office. However, we believe this position does not take from the need to engage and exchange in the first instance.
We recognise that much has been learnt since the QBC programme began in 1997 and we notice real improvements in the design and implementation of newer QBC’s such as the Coombe Bypass and Mc Mahon Bridge. We hope that we can build on this progress through partnership with the QBN Office.
1.2 Education
• We call for the QBN office engineers who are designing the proposals to meet with us and cycle the routes so that we can each learn from each other’s experiences.
• We propose that a leaflet similar to the one in Appendix A3 be created jointly by all stakeholders to educate drivers and cyclists about interaction in bus/cycle lanes.
1.3 Enforcement
On completion of any proposed works we call for a multi-agency campaign of enforcement which will concentrate in particular on:
• Speeding in the city
• Dangerous overtaking within bus/cycle lanes
• Illegal parking in bus lanes.
1.4 Engineering
Proposed measures to address cycling should be considered in a hierarchy as proposed in Cyclist.ie’s (2008) National Cycling Promotional Policy and Policy 2.1 of the Department of Transport’s (2009) National Cycle Policy Framework. The particular issues have been summarised according to this hierarchy below:
1.4.1 Traffic reduction
• Dublin Cycling Campaign welcomes the decision to introduce measures which will reduce traffic such as: traffic calming measures, lower speeds and the reallocation of road space from general vehicle lanes and parking, to cyclists and buses.
1.4.2 Traffic calming
• The introduction of a 30 kmph zone and the general redesign of these roads as urban streets is strongly welcomed. The speed reductions if enforced in themselves will be of great benefit to cyclists and will not significantly reduce the quality of bus services.
1.4.3 Junction treatment and traffic management
• The general provision of well design urban junctions with tight radii on the curves and pedestrian crossings is strongly welcomed.
• The provision of cycle lanes on left of lanes with left turning traffic is completely unacceptable. Perversely, they encourage and mandate that cyclists cycle in the position in the lane where it is generally least appropriate to do so.
1.4.4 Redistribution of the carriageway
• The realllocation of space to bus/cycle lanes is strongly welcomed.
• The proposal to make Eglington Road two way would improve permeability for cyclists and is supported.
• The proposal to use the same substandard design which was proposed earlier in 2009 for Anna Livia Bridge for the Dargle Bridge is particulary dissapointing and must be revised.
• The proposal for a substandard 4.0 m wide bus/cycle lane on Castle Street is unacceptable and must be revised.
1.4.5 Cycle lanes, cycle tracks and cycle ways
• Cycle lanes should only be provided once all the other measures in the hierarchy have been considered. What function do the cycle lanes marked through the junction of Main Street and Westbourne Terrace serve? How do cyclists use them and how do the cyclists interact with left and right turning traffic? The problems with some of these have been discussed above and in this submission.
• The substandard cycle lanes on Killarney Road are unacceptable.
• The failure to provide sufficient separtion between cyclists and opening parked car doors on Quinsborogh Road and Florence Road is unacceptable and must be redesigned.
1.5 Conclusion
Dublin Cycling Campaign broadly welcome the overall concept of the proposals. However, many of the details are substandard and are therefore unacceptable and must be redesigned.
It is understood that the delay in the publication of the Dublin Transportation Office Cycle Manual makes it more difficult to develop QBC proposals. This is not an excuse for designs that are obviously substandard, by any standard. We cannot continue to spend millions of Euros on schemes that will require remedial works as soon as they are audited against the Cycle Manual, when it is finally published.
The continuous reuse of substandard details in QBC proposals questions the commitment of the QBN Office to the National Cycle Policy Framework, which was published seven months ago. It is accepted that a ten-year policy cannot be implemented overnight. Nevertheless, the repetition of details that are substandard, when simple alternatives are available and affordable, and have been repeatedly suggested by Dublin Cycling Campaign in consultation submissions, is not acceptable.
