Comment & Analysis: Dublin City Council has a dual issue with its active travel network it is frustratingly slow at delivering a network for cycling, and, even with that slowness, many of its routes are of poor quality. Im not sure what to write to try to get the council to collectively snap out of it or to get councillors to act. The tech industry phrase move fast and break things is warped into move slowly, break things, and leave them messed up. The plan for the Suir Road / Davitt Road Junction Upgrade project, part of the Kilmainham to Thomas Street Active Travel route, will end up poorer than needed for all road users, including vulnerable pedestrians, people cycling, bus users, and motorists.The new design is unquestionably safer than the current sprawling road layout, but the quality of whats planned is so far below what the city council should be aiming for, and their reasoning is questionable at best. Heres the latest design it can be found in PDF format along with the consultation report via the projects page on the city council website.ContradictionsOne of the key problems with the design is the use of Dublin-style junction design, or what the Cycle Design Manual calls a Protected Junction with full signal control (TL503). The design manual outlines: The main advantage of a full signal control layout compared to protected junctions with zebra crossings of the cycle track is that it requires less space. Another potential advantage is that pedestrians have more controlled priority over the cycle track as the interaction is signal-controlled.But this latter advantage is theoretical its not how most people walking or cycling use these junctions in practice. Dublin City Council engineers involved with the first example of the design admitted such, but institutionally, theres a denial of this fact. The Cycle Design Manual also outlines that the layout also has some disadvantages compared to other protected junction layouts, including: Longer pedestrian crossing distancess; Longer pedestrian signal phase which may increase delays and reduce junction capacity; Full set back cycle crossings may be more difficult to achieve; Sharper turns potentially less comfortable for cyclists; Smaller protected corner islands may feel less safe for some cyclists; Less stacking space for cyclists due to smaller corner islands; and At busy junctions, pedestrians waiting to cross may block the footpath for other users.With the combination of a less efficient junction design due to choosing to keep cycling and walking movements separate, plus the Luas tracks, and allowing all of these motor traffic movements to circulate as shown in the image below, this junction is unlikely to function very well. In the minds of the public, it will likely be blamed on the cycle lanes generally. When there were choices which could have offered more safety, making walking and cycling more attractive, and still allowed for the junction to function better. In reality, the design has the issues listed above, but where the space is available or can be made available for better designs. So, there are no advantages over other protected junction designs.Theres plenty of space here:On the point of Longer pedestrian crossing distances the distance of the longest crossing seems to be 17.5 metres. It means people crossing will have to cross the equivalent width of five lanes in one go under time pressure, rather than three lanes and crossing the cycle lanes separately.But lets just say that the advantage is not just theoretical, and traffic signals are needed in interactions between people walking and cycling.So, why is it ok for pedestrians to cross a 9-metre-wide side road with buses entering and exiting, cyclists entering and exiting, and private motorists entering?All traffic will be entering without any dedicated lanes, so motorists will be under pressure to avoid blocking the main flow of traffic:For the avoidance of doubt, the council even provides an image showing the unsignalised crossing across the new entry point to Slievenamon Road people crossing here will not be able to see when buses exiting via the bus gate will have a green light:The junction design also means that theres convoluted cycling movements across the footpaths and the shared crossing baked into the design including from A to B here:And the reverse movement: And A to B here:Previous designs for the project had the sandy coloured footpath area below marked as a shared path:Rather than use a bit of the former carriage area for a two-way cycle path along here, the public consultation report explains they are just going to ban cycling along this section: DCC Active Travel have considered the submissions received and the design has been updated to remove this shared space, designated as Share with Care. This section shall instead form a wide pedestrian route alongside the public realm and landscaping areas. The southbound cycling connectivity from the junction to Slievenamon Road shall instead be provided through a toucan crossing on Dolphin Road with access onwards to Slievenamon Road (refer to response to Item 3.4).When I last heard the project team present to local councillors, they were talking about possibly linking the route to the local GAA club (just to the left of the drawing below). With the shared path gone, the legal route cycling from the GAA club to Slievenamon Road is shown with the green arrows below there are four (4) traffic lights along this route. But lets be realistic, children and teenagers are, of course, going to cycle along the wide path, which was to be a shared path. And once again, some councillors and others will ponder why they arent using the lovely cycle lanes: The public consultation response is even worse regarding why it is not providing a two-way cycle link between Slievenamon Road and the main junction ahead of the Luas tracks:Regarding submissions which suggested a segregated cycle facility between the public realm area and the adjacent footpath, this was considered in the design development (both a two-way and a single southbound link). However, accommodating a connection from the junction to this link would require multiple additional cycle stop lines / signals due to the additional crossovers of cycle tracks. There would also be additional pedestrian crossings required for pedestrians walking alongside Dolphin Road and looking to cross over this cycle track towards Davitt Road. All such movements are now accommodated via the two-way link to the toucan crossing. It is considered that overall, the design provides safe and direct route options throughout, while adhering to the principles of the Cycle Design Manual.Why would a single extra stop line or signal need to be provided? Why would there be such a big deal if a pedestrian route crossed the cycle path? As outlined before (in June 2024 and August 2024), this is a sketch of how the design could work with a two-way cycle path: There are other issues with the design.For example, while the lack of stacking space for cycling is a known problem with the design type, at both of these circled corners, the lack of stacking space is made worse for no apparent reason.Elsewhere, there are similar issues. How are people cycling supposed to make the right turn across the toucan crossing without blocking people cycling straight on?Why is the cycle lane here not segregated when narrower ones are elsewhere on the project? If all pedestrian crossings of cycle paths need signalised crossings, why are none needed anywhere on Slievenamon Road?Why are none needed at the roundabout at the other end of Slievenamon Road? Its the kind of place that, at least, zebra crossings might be useful, but nothing? If all movements are really overall, the design provides safe and direct route options through, why is there a need for a cycling access point across a T-junction with three lanes on the main road? These kinds of access points are generally needed, but this close to an already complicated junction with another crossing in the other direction?