Now we need a pedestrian crossing at the Seafront

pixbyjohn

Greystones Seafront Cycle path by pixbyjohn, on Flickr

Annasopra

Bloody ridiculous that they took all the parking away

karma_coma

mango salsa wrote: »

Bloody ridiculous that they took all the parking away

I'm amazed at the high levels of defence towards the dependency on cars and the associated motor vehicular infrastructure, particularly in this area.

The car park for the Holy Rosary Church is free, there is ample parking along Kimberly Road and in the IrishRail car park at the end of La Touche Rd.. If you study the road layout plans available from the council website, there are car spaces (as there were previously) on the right side of the road.

As such I think contrary to your point, the council have shown great foresight in leaving provision for parking of cars, particularly for parents collecting their kids from St. David's.

Perhaps with the infrastructure for safer cycling in place, more parents will encourage their kids to cycle to David's. Then there would be less need for parking on the sea front.

I don't think the work of the council, in taking away a few car parking spaces to provide more safety for cyclists, should be scalded. After all, it is a far healthier method of transporting one self and requires far less land space as a method of transport in comparison to cars.



In conclusion, it seems to me that people, such as yourself, are objecting to the new layout as the option of parking ones car to stare out at sea for a bit is no longer there. I see that behaviour as something that should be discouraged.

I would like to congratulate the planner of this scheme for the design. It is a much more attractive layout for walkers and cyclists and it actively discourages the few 'car addicted, sea gazers' ( ) from going there and encourages them to use their legs!

cotton

In conclusion, it seems to me that people, such as yourself, are objecting to the new layout as the option of parking ones car to stare out at sea for a bit is no longer there. I see that behaviour as something that should be discouraged.

I would like to congratulate the planner of this scheme for the design. It is a much more attractive layout for walkers and cyclists and it actively discourages the few 'car addicted, sea gazers' ( ) from going there and encourages them to use their legs!

But not everyone can. My partner liked going up there every now & again as a "sea gazer" to watch the seagulls & the waves ete, he's a paraplegic. I know a lot of older people whos legs aren't the best liked doing the same. That simple pleasure has been taken away from them. I think it's a shame they've taken all the parking away

Annasopra

Heaven forbid an amenity for older people with mobility problems would be provided. I mean everyone can walk and cycle can't they :rolleyes:

karma_coma

cotton wrote: »

But not everyone can. My partner liked going up there every now & again as a "sea gazer" to watch the seagulls & the waves ete, he's a paraplegic.

I certainly acknowledge your point and it is a good one, that for older persons and for persons with a disability, like your partner, it may not be possible to enjoy the sea view in the same way as before.

I think there are a lot of design challenges to a project such as this in trying to provide inclusion for all members of a community. Unfortunately, many such plans neglect the aforementioned persons in that their needs are often forgotten about.

Conversely, I think the council have done a reasonably good job of considering these people in the design and my next point will reference this.

I think it's a shame they've taken all the parking away

This is the mistake I would like to clarify again which a lot of people seem to be making. The parking, which was previously in place on the right hand side of the road is still there. The sea and scenic views can still be enjoyed by persons parked on that side of the road although I would concede that they are not perhaps as good.

A compromise may be afforded for the frail and disabled could be that such persons can park in the St. David's car park facing out towards the sea. There may be issues with insurance however but it is one worth pursuing.

karma_coma

I think the most important thing for persons is to study the PDF link as follows:




http://www.wicklow.ie/apps/wicklowbeta/News/Part%208%20Greystones%20cycle/2012P006%20PL-02%20Rev%20C.pdf


As one can observe, and this is actually something I concede I did not realise, the provision for parking will still be there and on the left (sea side) once all works are completed.

As PBJ pointed out in the title of this thread, there needs to be pedestrian crossing points in the new layout. One can observe two well spaced crossing points in the drawing and they even ensure a yielding point to stop cyclists so as to allow full right of way for pedestrians.

I think what people are forgetting is that this project isn't yet completed. The council workers still have a good bit of ground work to complete and further review should be made at its conclusion.

loyatemu

Looks great, I look forward to cycling along it with the kids.

The Bishop Basher

I don't get the point of spending all this money creating a cycle lane on a relatively quiet, one way, 1 km stretch of road. Surely this money would be better spent putting cycle lanes on main commuter stretches where the sharing of roads poses a real and significant threat to the safety of commuter cyclists.

I notice that the preceeding stretch by the cove is the usual half arsed attempt of drawing a white line down the centre of the footpath which is dangerous for both cyclists and pedestrians and which most cyclists refuse to use anyway.

It would make a lot more sense if it was part of a network of cycle lanes around the town but it's not. Are people really going to dust of their bikes and cycle a couple of miles to the seafront just for the thrill of a 2 minute cycle on these oversized lanes ?

sccmcc

Swanner wrote: »

I don't get the point of spending all this money creating a cycle lane on a relatively quiet, one way, 1 km stretch of road. Surely this money would be better spent putting cycle lanes on main commuter stretches where the sharing of roads poses a real and significant threat to the safety of commuter cyclists.

I notice that the preceeding stretch by the cove is the usual half arsed attempt of drawing a white line down the centre of the footpath which is dangerous for both cyclists and pedestrians and which most cyclists refuse to use anyway.

It would make a lot more sense if it was part of a network of cycle lanes around the town but it's not. Are people really going to dust of their bikes and cycle a couple of miles to the seafront just for the thrill of a 2 minute cycle on these oversized lanes ?

I have to say I personally think the money may have been better spent properly repairing the roads in the locality. Filling in potholes and re-surfacing, some areas are in dire conditions especially after the heavy rains a few weeks ago.

magoko101

I suspect this is part of getting a cycle lane to run from howth to greystones....
Something was mentioned about it in the past and would be a great amenity if they got it up and running.

I fear that it is likely that it meets the requirement to provide a certain % of cycle lanes by painting one on a stretch of road where it was easy to do so.

Why not add a kerb between the bike lane and the road? As they do in Holland... to make it a truly cycle on lane and prevent cars from parking on it.

loyatemu

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Greystones Seafront Cycle path by pixbyjohn, on Flickr

why are the arrows painted on the wrong sides - we cycle on the left in this country....

Jimjay

loyatemu wrote: »

why are the arrows painted on the wrong sides - we cycle on the left in this country....

I guess so the cyclists riding at the side of the road are going in the same direction as the cars.

loyatemu

Jimjay wrote: »

I guess so the cyclists riding at the side of the road are going in the same direction as the cars.

That would be my guess as well, but its a raised cyclepath so they're already segregated. A bad, wrong-headed idea to reverse the directions IMO, it will lead to accidents.

Jimjay

loyatemu wrote: »

That would be my guess as well, but its a raised cyclepath so they're already segregated. A bad, wrong-headed idea to reverse the directions IMO, it will lead to accidents.

Is it raised? it doesn't look like it in the picture and i haven't been down yet

The Bishop Basher

Was down there this morning. I don't think it is but stand to be corrected.

Son of Jack

I'm sure the new cycle lane was planned with good intention as part of a system that will eventually connect up along the East Coast and that the people involved had some vision.

However I believe the money would have been better spent as a previous poster mentioned on maintaining roads in the area.

Also I think, there should be good information provided online and in the paper and radio press about the availability of parking elsewhere. The church car park was mentioned. That is 'the church' carpark.

Older attendees at morning mass were also finding it hard to get parking near the church because some people working in the town and taking the Dart had been parking there. This has been explained from the pulpit.

In the last year, the church carpark is closed early on the morning of a funeral and reopened shortly before the ceremony so that mourners can find parking. So for practical reasons I can't see an influx of cars being accommodated there.

Unless Greystones Town Commissioners flag the changes in availability in parking in front of St.David's there will be some fraught occasions with traffic jams and unhappy residents and visitors.

In particular I am thinking of fine summer Sundays when there are car boot sales in St. David's (its lifeline for very necessary fundraising) and mass goers, daytrippers and locals.

People will adjust and find alternatives but clear availability of information with help the process.

Having travelled with a carload of kids and Granny to many a beach on summer days in Ireland, to find myself in heavy traffic, I can see that without forethought, Greystones will become 'more of the same' and that would be a shame.

loyatemu

there are 2 large carparks at the south beach, and extra parking now at the harbour. there's a carpark opposite the La Touche and another behind the station. The removal of maybe 20 spaces along Strand Rd is hardly the end of the world.

AFAIK this is not part of any grand east-coast cycleway plan, as there is no easy route between Bray and Greystones, its just part of the councils general plans to make Greystones more cycle-friendly. (there is a coastal cycle route in progress between Dun Laoghaire and Sutton, but its bogged down in planning difficulties).

pixbyjohn

loyatemu wrote: »

there are 2 large carparks at the south beach, and extra parking now at the harbour. there's a carpark opposite the La Touche and another behind the station. The removal of maybe 20 spaces along Strand Rd is hardly the end of the world.

OK point taken. We will just have to see how it works out on a busy Sunday.

recedite

loyatemu wrote: »

A bad, wrong-headed idea to reverse the directions IMO, it will lead to accidents.

If you go up the cycle lane from Charlesland, just past the entrance to Eden Gate it changes from "cycle on the left" to "oncoming cyclists coming at you" on the left

Jimjay

Went down today. The cycle path is raised so the arrows are a bit odd. Maybe a European arrow painter made a mistake?

matt-dublin

The outer lane to the road is the same direction as the traffic for safety reasons

More importantly why make cycling lanes when cyclists NEVER FCUKING USE THEM.....

Don't even get me started on the bray wheelers....

Maudi

matt-dublin wrote: »

The outer lane to the road is the same direction as the traffic for safety reasons

More importantly why make cycling lanes when cyclists NEVER FCUKING USE THEM.....

Don't even get me started on the bray wheelers....

hundreds of thousands of euros wasted on this stretch of useless cycle path..ive been down a few evenings and people WALKING all along the fkn thing..it dosent differ from the path enough.and i guarantee it will lead to collisions/rows with cyclists /walkers.

Jimjay

Maudi wrote: »

hundreds of thousands of euros wasted on this stretch of useless cycle path..ive been down a few evenings and people WALKING all along the fkn thing..it dosent differ from the path enough.and i guarantee it will lead to collisions/rows with cyclists /walkers.

A bit of a premature comment. It's not finished yet. There are big chunks of both the walking path and cycle path that have not even been surfaced yet.

Jimjay

matt-dublin wrote: »

The outer lane to the road is the same direction as the traffic for safety reasons

More importantly why make cycling lanes when cyclists NEVER FCUKING USE THEM.....

Don't even get me started on the bray wheelers....

That's a bit unfair. Loads of people use them.
I have two bikes myself one for touring around and casual cycling which the cycle paths are great for and a road bike for keeping fit and training. When I am riding the road bike at at 30kmh or above I would be unfair or dangerous to other people for me to use a cycle path instead of the road and also knacker my bike going up and down the kerbs not to mention not get a good workout from having to stop all the time.

Btw I am not in bray wheelers and there are a lot of things cyclist do to pee me off when I'm driving that I avoid doing myself, there are also many things drivers do when I'm cycling which is dam right dangerous but that is another topic.

luapenak

matt-dublin wrote: »

The outer lane to the road is the same direction as the traffic for safety reasons

More importantly why make cycling lanes when cyclists NEVER FCUKING USE THEM.....

Don't even get me started on the bray wheelers....

Can't see why your attacking the Bray Wheelers, but would agree that they are generally a waste of money, because cyclists including myself generally stay well clear of them (but thats a whole other discussion which has been repeated many times on the cycling forum). I'd say I cycled that piece of road every day between the ages of 11 and 17 and I don't for one second see the need for a cycle lane there.

bido

I was down there today Sunday and while there were a lot of walkers I didn't see one cyclist.
A waste of money while others roads are full of potholes.:mad::mad:

Cerco

I would like to be positive so I see two advantages:

1. You can spot the dog turds easily on the new surface and avoid them.

2. It is providing employment for the contractors.

Of course the latter could be employed more fruitfully by repairing the roads.

Maudi

Jimjay wrote: »

A bit of a premature comment. It's not finished yet. There are big chunks of both the walking path and cycle path that have not even been surfaced yet.

the harbour has been f...ed up and a f..k up has been made and thousands wasted on that "cycle"path.just up the road from it..there was utterly no need for a cycle lane there.

Plastik

There is no law, rule or otherwise that makes it compulsory for cyclists to use cycle lanes.

I haven't seen the new paths yet but I might cycle by tomorrow evening, on the road.

Taltos

Plastik wrote: »

There is no law, rule or otherwise that makes it compulsory for cyclists to use cycle lanes.

I haven't seen the new paths yet but I might cycle by tomorrow evening, on the road.

Suggest you have a browse through here: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/si/0294.html#zzsi294y1964a16

I too used to regularly cycle that stretch as a kid and never had an issue with it. To be honest though - if it encourages more leisurely cycles out then great - we just need to keep an eye out during the summer time for young kids running in front of the bikes or the odd dog.

The pedestrian crossings will be a great advantage here as well. But I am going to hold off my full judgement on this stretch until we see the final parking arrangements.
My OH was horrified at the loss of parking - but lets wait and see.

Anyone else here remember the seasonal changes to the road - summertime - 1 way; off summer two way flow of traffic Funtimes...