S2S Cycleway - northside

railer201

odyssey06 wrote: »

I'm not exonerating the designers of the S2S completely here... The people who signed off on it also signed off on some v risky sections of cycle paths for example coming out of Fairview Park there's a blind corner and pedestrians have no idea they are crossing a cycle path.

But... I don't think your analogy is quite right.

There are many many roads in this country that don't have footpaths. Pedestrians will be found walking on the road - I'm sure they'd prefer to be walking on a footpath.

This doesn't mean it is hypocritical to say that:
(1) Where there are footpaths, they should be for pedestrians - not cyclists or motor vehicles.
(2) Where there are footpaths, pedestrians should be using them and not walking on the road.

I see your point but would you find a road in the country that had a footpath that was subsequently removed ? In other words going backwards !

The previous set-up at the location I'm referring to, namely opposite the end of Dollymount Avenue, from the seaward side, consisted of a Footpath - Cycle lane - Road, clearly segregated. Ok, it was one lane in the city direction, however the clear demarcation between footpath/cycle lane/road hasn't been maintained with the present dual use set-up.

I would suggest cyclists and pedestrians sharing the same space at these locations are not a very good mix and a recipe for an accident.

odyssey06

railer201 wrote: »

The previous set-up at the location I'm referring to, namely opposite the end of Dollymount Avenue, from the seaward side, consisted of a Footpath - Cycle lane - Road, clearly segregated. Ok, it was one lane in the city direction, however the clear demarcation between footpath/cycle lane/road hasn't been maintained with the present dual use set-up. I would suggest cyclists and pedestrians sharing the same space at these locations are not a very good mix and a recipe for an accident.

In that scenario, I'll add a point (3) that where there is sufficient space then clear demarcation should (must?) be provided. Agreed?

railer201

odyssey06 wrote: »

In that scenario, I'll add a point (3) that where there is sufficient space then clear demarcation should (must?) be provided. Agreed?

I agree with that, but include mini zebra crossings at appropriate points for pedestrians to ensure their right of way when crossing over the cycleway. The dual use would then be redundant and unnecessary over these long sections, and they could be instead re-aligned to segregated cycling and pedestrian usage.

railer201

I decided to video the section between the Bull Bridge and St. Annes earlier today and including the entrance to the bridge (not shown) there are in total six dual use sections on this section of the S2S.

In addition I realised that people waiting in the tram shelter for the 130 bus have to cross the cycleway in order to board the bus. There is no dual use at this point which does seem a definite oversight from a safety point of view.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmYyVMq9SdA

mrcheez

railer201 wrote: »

I decided to video the section between the Bull Bridge and St. Annes earlier today and including the entrance to the bridge (not shown) there are in total six dual use sections on this section of the S2S.

In addition I realised that people waiting in the tram shelter for the 130 bus have to cross the cycleway in order to board the bus. There is no dual use at this point which does seem a definite oversight from a safety point of view.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmYyVMq9SdA

That's some fine balancing at that pace I'd probably topple over

railer201

mrcheez wrote: »

That's some fine balancing at that pace I'd probably topple over

I had some zoom on the camcorder to narrow the field of view, which in turn makes me appear to be travelling slower.

monument

railer201 wrote: »

In addition I realised that people waiting in the tram shelter for the 130 bus have to cross the cycleway in order to board the bus. There is no dual use at this point which does seem a definite oversight from a safety point of view.

There's no need for shared sections where there's enough room for an island bus stop.

railer201

monument wrote: »

There's no need for shared sections where there's enough room for an island bus stop.

The problem is that intending bus passengers wait in the tram shelter until the bus arrives then cross the cycleway to board. You have a shared section further along at Dollymount Avenue which alerts cyclists to share the space with pedestrians, but no such measure at the tram shelter/bus stop.

If one considers the tram shelter to be part of the bus stop, which in practice it is, then that knocks the island concept on the head. What you have there is a cycle track passing through the middle of a bus stop. Very definitely that point on the cycleway is an accident waiting to happen.

Carawaystick

The issue seems to be, apart from the tram shelter
Pedestrians need to move to the kerb to wait for a green person light to cross the road

And will be standing in the way of the cyclists

So there should be a footpath island and the cycle lane should go east of this island with zebra crossings/pedestrian priority where the footpath/cycle path cross before and after the traffic lights

Shedite27

Jeez lads if I was the council reading this...
Sod this, building cycle paths gets as much complaints as not building cycle paths!

mr spuckler

there are also more than 45 drain covers in the bike lane on the new section, lots of scope for access requirements and van parking on the lane as a result. what do you think of that mr council man (if you're reading )?

mrcheez

Why has construction at the causeway ended? Is that going to remain a permanent fixture like the "men at work" signs on the Samuel Beckett bridge that have been there for over a year despite there being no "men at work" there?

One would think they would complete it now before the bad weather kicks in

Tenzor07

Shedite27 wrote: »

Jeez lads if I was the council reading this...
Sod this, building cycle paths gets as much complaints as not building cycle paths!

Build it right in the first place and you'll have no ideas on how to do it right complaints ....:pac:....:pac:...

Roadhawk

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Build it right in the first place and you'll have no ideas on how to do it right complaints ....:pac:....:pac:...

Its far better than what was there before so its progress. If you look for flaws in anything you will find them. The trick is to remain an optimist not a pessimist.

brocbrocach

Roadhawk wrote: »

Its far better than what was there before so its progress. If you look for flaws in anything you will find them. The trick is to remain an optimist not a pessimist.

Teach an engineer how to build right and he will build right forever. Confucius say.

Mercian Pro

Roadhawk wrote: »

Its far better than what was there before so its progress. If you look for flaws in anything you will find them. The trick is to remain an optimist not a pessimist.

More Positive Pete and less Negative Nelly as we say when things look bad in a sailing race!

I still occasionally experience the old dread when approaching Dollymount before remembering there's no more hassle of crossing the main road, traffic, potholes etc to contend with. Despite the minor imperfections, the new section of S2S is great (even in a head-wind). How great it would be to have that quality all the way from Sutton to Sandycove.

mrcheez

Mercian Pro wrote: »

I still occasionally experience the old dread when approaching Dollymount before remembering there's no more hassle of crossing the main road, traffic, potholes etc to contend with.

Heh, i thought i was the only one.

Happens mostly when I'm tired after work, but the realisation thats it's clear sailing always perks me up.

Tenzor07

Ah sure dem cyclists Joe, dey want the lovely oul trees cut down so they can cycle, it's a scandal!

http://www.thejournal.ie/fairview-park-trees-locals-demand-saved-3530854-Aug2017/

Roadhawk

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Ah sure dem cyclists Joe, dey want the lovely oul trees cut down so they can cycle, it's a scandal!

http://www.thejournal.ie/fairview-park-trees-locals-demand-saved-3530854-Aug2017/

Well thats disgraceful!

magicbastarder

i am a certified tree hugger, and i am broadly in agreement with hugh linehan here:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fairview-trees-row-shows-why-dublin-remains-a-mess-1.3183739

odyssey06

magicbastarder wrote: »

i am a certified tree hugger, and i am broadly in agreement with hugh linehan here:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fairview-trees-row-shows-why-dublin-remains-a-mess-1.3183739

I thought the article was a mess. All urban landscapes are artificial. I dont see how the specific history of Fairview makes any difference. He doesnt seem to like Dublin 3 very much. I detected an undercurrent of snobbery and arrogance throughout it.
One wonders how he would react to changes in his own area. I suspect rather differently.
I am getting too old to be impressed by a sneering superior tone... and it is not a tone that is going to persuade someone of an opposing point of view.
If he wants to change the opinion of the people signing petitions this is not the way to go about it. Probably he just wants ordinary peoples voices to be silenced.

magicbastarder

odyssey06 wrote: »

Probably he just wants ordinary peoples voices to be silenced.

i can see how his tone might come across as a little too robust, but the above is a leap.

it's a bit of a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' issue for DCC (dublin city council); they probably don't have too many options that's not going to piss off a significant number of people.
DCC (dublin cycling campaign) want a two way cycle lane, but i've not seen the plans so am not sure how people heading outbound would swing up into marino or up the malahide road.

but even though i'm rather a fan of trees, and they should be planted bleedin' well everywhere, in this context i think the trees should serve the urban design, not vice versa. there were complaints about the trees on o'connell street, but i think they did a relatively good job replacing them.

as an aside, my wife used to take phone calls for the council, and it became clear to her quite quickly that many people in dublin have a love/hate relationship with trees. people would ring threatening legal action over root damage from trees to their properties, who would also threaten legal action over the suggestion that the tree could be removed. trees and leaves were quite a common issue for them to have to deal with, obviously a largely seasonal one. she used to dread autumn.

brocbrocach

odyssey06 wrote: »

I thought the article was a mess. All urban landscapes are artificial. I dont see how the specific history of Fairview makes any difference. He doesnt seem to like Dublin 3 very much. I detected an undercurrent of snobbery and arrogance throughout it.
One wonders how he would react to changes in his own area. I suspect rather differently.
I am getting too old to be impressed by a sneering superior tone... and it is not a tone that is going to persuade someone of an opposing point of view.
If he wants to change the opinion of the people signing petitions this is not the way to go about it. Probably he just wants ordinary peoples voices to be silenced.

I didn't get that undertone out of it at all.
That said it was a bit of a nothing article - basically saying if you live in a city you should be prepared to be bulldozed.
The most sensible thing to be read in all of it is the comment added to it which points out the cycleway through the park. The vast majority of cyclists I know are happy enough with that. What's wrong with using that as the main cycleway, even if it needs work to be separated from pedestrians etc?

odyssey06

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's a bit of a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' issue for DCC (dublin city council); they probably don't have too many options that's not going to piss off a significant number of people.
DCC (dublin cycling campaign) want a two way cycle lane, but i've not seen the plans so am not sure how people heading outbound would swing up into marino or up the malahide road.
but even though i'm rather a fan of trees, and they should be planted bleedin' well everywhere, in this context i think the trees should serve the urban design, not vice versa. there were complaints about the trees on o'connell street, but i think they did a relatively good job replacing them.
as an aside, my wife used to take phone calls for the council, and it became clear to her quite quickly that many people in dublin have a love/hate relationship with trees. people would ring threatening legal action over root damage from trees to their properties, who would also threaten legal action over the suggestion that the tree could be removed. trees and leaves were quite a common issue for them to have to deal with, obviously a largely seasonal one. she used to dread autumn.

You see I get from what you are saying that you understand that there will be a trade-off to the changes, it's a case of balancing the pros and cons and choosing the best \ least disruptive solution. If you want to convince the local community that the change is necessary \ justified, that's the way to go.
I didn't get that at all from the Irish Times article, the vibe I got was 'slack jawed yokels in the way of progress and perfect solution'.

I think it's a good sign that the local people care about the park and are apprehensive about any changes to it, especially anything that might be seen as infringing on its boundaries ... slippery slope and all that.
Once upon a time Fairview had a fair view of the sea... that went but they got a park and these trees. Now they are coming for the park and the trees... I understand people getting defensive especially after some of the crazy proposals DCC have considered for the area.
In the last 30 years there was the Clontarf as fuel storage dump idea, and there was let's get rid of the €250,000 recently refurbished Fairview footbridge.
If you want a textbook case in how to needlessly annoy the locals, look at the debacle that was the height of the Dollymount sea wall.

And I understand that some people put a high value on mature trees, after all these are living things which have been around for longer than the state - even if I don't necessarily assign the same value. It has nothing to do with cycling... if I tried to get permission myself for anything that involved cutting down a 100 year tree on public land, there would be uproar.

Tenzor07

odyssey06 wrote: »

I thought the article was a mess. All urban landscapes are artificial. I dont see how the specific history of Fairview makes any difference. He doesnt seem to like Dublin 3 very much. I detected an undercurrent of snobbery and arrogance throughout it.
One wonders how he would react to changes in his own area. I suspect rather differently.
I am getting too old to be impressed by a sneering superior tone... and it is not a tone that is going to persuade someone of an opposing point of view.
If he wants to change the opinion of the people signing petitions this is not the way to go about it. Probably he just wants ordinary peoples voices to be silenced.

I didn't get that undertone either, I thought the author was just trying to put everything into perspective..

And I like the way he called out the "NAI" (not an inch) NIMBYs, the ones who blocked the cycle route because the height of the wall would spoil the view for passing cars!

Besides, as he said, it's a good way for local councillors to get elected by jumping on bandwagons like this...

Leroy42

There isn't really a big issue with pedestrians using the cycle track through Fairview park. Of course it happens, but does it happen anymore than pedestrians jaywalking? I use it everyday and the problems I see are more to do with how the council operate it. Having one gate locked until after 8am each morning. Don't understand that.

I don't think they should get rid of the trees. They should deal with them better. They need pruning. They need maintenance. They seems to me to be more about getting rid of the hassle rather than making things better.

odyssey06

Tenzor07 wrote: »

And I like the way he called out the "NAI" (not an inch) NIMBYs, the ones who blocked the cycle route because the height of the wall would spoil the view for passing cars!

In DCC's presentation to An Bord Pleanala... they clearly stated that the view from the road would not be affected. They got the height of the wall wrong, otherwise 1/3 of the extra height wouldn't be getting lopped off now. They failed to meet several of the conditions of the permissions granted including liaison with the local community and bird-watching groups; and the finishing\cladding of the wall.
The local community did not block the cycle route. DCC needlessly wasted months and money by failing to do what they said they would do with the sea wall, scoring several unforced own goals.
Very easy to turn around blame the local NIMBYs for calling them out on it, than actually do a proper job.
I don't even see how they could be called NIMBYs... the people didn't have an issue with the concept of the wall or the cycle path, and the delays had consequences for them too as the Clontarf promenade was a building site.

What DCC propose they will do and what will actually get done and two very different things.
Unless they know they are on watch, I wouldn't be at all suprised if 'somehow' the wrong tress got felled.

Tenzor07

Leroy42 wrote: »

There isn't really a big issue with pedestrians using the cycle track through Fairview park. Of course it happens, but does it happen anymore than pedestrians jaywalking? I use it everyday and the problems I see are more to do with how the council operate it. Having one gate locked until after 8am each morning. Don't understand that.
I don't think they should get rid of the trees. They should deal with them better. They need pruning. They need maintenance. They seems to me to be more about getting rid of the hassle rather than making things better.

Can't say i've ever used the cycle track in the park, when I used to commute along Fairview park i'd cycle in the Bus lane, which was grand if you hold at least 25 kph and don't mind swinging out into the traffic lanes around a bus and can hold your nerve against beeping Taxi drivers... Would feel sorry for more timid and slower bicycle commuters though...

brocbrocach

Leroy42 wrote: »

There isn't really a big issue with pedestrians using the cycle track through Fairview park. Of course it happens, but does it happen anymore than pedestrians jaywalking? I use it everyday and the problems I see are more to do with how the council operate it. Having one gate locked until after 8am each morning. Don't understand that.

I don't think they should get rid of the trees. They should deal with them better. They need pruning. They need maintenance. They seems to me to be more about getting rid of the hassle rather than making things better.

This is exactly it.

magicbastarder

are there any by-laws visible in the park regarding cycling through it (max speed, etc.)? i wonder if there's an ideological issue within the council about providing the existing cycle track in the park purely as a recreational one, which they're being pressured to turn into a commuting one, which might explain the gate locking - the parks department may want to retain the park purely for recreational use. that's just a guess, though.