COMMENT & ANALYSIS: Below are 3D renderings of the planned bus stops on the Clontarf Cycle Route… based on the images, what do you think? Here’s my thoughts…
Segregated cycle paths at bus stops (aka ‘bus stop bypasses’ or ‘island bus stops’) are required if you want your city to have safe cycling where children and adults cycling don’t have to mix with buses. This isn’t a new design, and there’s no better alternative. All the other design options are worse (they are shown in this Twitter thread from 2019).
So, lets please focus on getting the design right and not a wider debate. This is for people who think mixing buses and people cycling is ok:
The design for the bus stops on the Clontarf Cycle Route was included in a presentation to the Central Area Committee of councillors in December 2020. Cllr to his website where he asked for feedback.(FG) uploaded the presentation
The design includes three different formalised crossing points which seems excessive to the point of adding risk. There’s too much happening. Having three crossings points so close to each other is really unusual in this design — I’ve looked and I cannot find any examples of bus stops with cycle paths and three formal crossings.
Remember, as well as at the crossings, some pedestrians will also be crossing without using any of the formal crossing points. I’ve worked somewhere with a zebra crossing on a busy road beside it, and it’s maddening how many people will cross just a metre or two away from the formal crossing.
Over-design like this is well meaning, but it doesn’t take overall human behaviour into account.
Having yield markings at one crossing point but not at the others is a pedestrian safety issue. The crossings without yield markings are the only ones with tactile paving to guide people with sight issues. Why would have yield markings at one crossing, but not where people with sight issues are more likely to cross?
If you add in three yield markings and the overengineering becomes even more apparent. Painted zig zag markings also seem excessive and could be another hazard, especially when wet.
If the middle crossing with no tactile paving before pedestrians start to cross means is used by a person with sight issues, they may be left unaware they are crossing a primary cycle route which already has the second highest volumes of people cycling in Dublin City.
The ramp looks to be an excessive gradient compared to the dropped kerb for crossing 1 and 3. If this is the case, it will effect less stable and less able people on bicycles more than it will effect idiots going at excessive speed.
While some people understandably don’t want forgiving kerbs, not having them compounds the issues above.
People with a keen eye will have spotted the “tram track” or similar tactical paving across cycle tracks (shown in the image below). These are — like tram tracks — a known slip hazards to people cycling, especially people who are less able or more at risk of a fall. Having these tiles anywhere near a ramped crossing point should be ruled out — ie two hazards combined.
Such paving also makes it harder to react safely a mistake when it happens, be it the fault of a person on a bicycle or a pedestrian.
The solution here is to make the crossing point more like an actual crossing — including adding tactual kerbs for people with sight issues, the removes the need for the “tram track” paving and makes it clearer to everybody that this is a crossing point. It’s not a place to linger.
Having a crossing point at the top of the bus stop shelter also causes an issue because of the lack of visibility / sightlines. It looks ok in the graphic, but what about when there’s passenger information or and advertisement posted on the bus shelter?
Transport For London guidance recommends that “the crossing will be located such that the passenger will turn left when exiting the bus to locate the crossing, when one bus is at the stop, and it is stopped in the correct place. When walking from the footway to the bus stop, the passenger turns left to locate the bus stop flag, in the standard layout.”
Dublin City Council are right to be taking extra care to design cycle paths around bus stops, but as outlined above, overengineering can also be problematic.
Hello Reader... IrishCycle.com is a reader-funded journalism publication. Effectively it's an online newspaper covering news and analyses of cycling and related issues, including cycle route designs, legal changes, and pollical and cultural issues.
There are examples, big and small, which show that the reader-funded or listener-funding model can work to support journalism -- from the Dublin Inquirer and The Guardian to many podcasts. To make it work for IrishCycle.com, it just needs enough people like you to believe!
Monthly subscriptions will give IrishCycle.com's journalism a dependable base of support. But please don't take free access for granted. Last year IrishCycle.com had an average of 15,800 readers per month and we know our readers include people who cycle and those who don't, politicians, officials and campaigners.
I know only a small percentage of readers will see the value of keeping this open enough to subscribe, that's the reality of the reader-funded model. But more support is needed to keep this show on the road.
The funding drive was started in November 2021 and, as of the start of February, 210 readers have kindly become monthly subscribers -- thank you very much to all that have!
But currently, it's only around 1.3% of readers who subscribe. So, if you can, please join them and subscribe today via ko-fi.com/irishcycle/tiers