S2S Cycleway - northside

Raam

Shout-out to the gentleman manning the stop/go sign on the Howth side for always giving cyclists a little head start.

Mec-a-nic

brian.henry wrote: »

Irish Times: "I also think it was disingenuous to put flood defences in with the cycle project. ..."

Ah now, it's not like they are pushing through a road project in the guise of a cyclepath. I believe three projects (sea wall, new pipeline, S2S) were aligned to cause minimum roadworks disruption, and still people complain?

Finally, a 1 metre high wall that walkers, cyclists and bus users can see over... but people in cars cannot, boo hoo..

brocbrocach

Mec-a-nic wrote: »

Ah now, it's not like they are pushing through a road project in the guise of a cyclepath. I believe three projects (sea wall, new pipeline, S2S) were aligned to cause minimum roadworks disruption, and still people complain?

Finally, a 1 metre high wall that walkers, cyclists and bus users can see over... but people in cars cannot, boo hoo..

If you could trust them to be doing everything right and that this was the only option ... but you can't.
I've never seen any proper flooding along by St Anne's and there's no housing there yet the wall (looks higher than a metre to me?) is going to block off that whole lovely view of the lagoon there.
There's little enough that's nice in this world. Why not keep some of it?
Unfortunately this has all been manouevered to make opposition to one element opposition to all, probably deliberately. The cycleway is now part of an unpopular imposition on the area.

Raam

brocbrocach wrote: »

If you could trust them to be doing everything right and that this was the only option ... but you can't.
I've never seen any proper flooding along by St Anne's and there's no housing there yet the wall (looks higher than a metre to me?) is going to block off that whole lovely view of the lagoon there.
There's little enough that's nice in this world. Why not keep some of it?
Unfortunately this has all been manouevered to make opposition to one element opposition to all, probably deliberately. The cycleway is now part of an unpopular imposition on the area.

I have, plenty of times.

monument

Mec-a-nic wrote: »

Ah now, it's not like they are pushing through a road project in the guise of a cyclepath. I believe three projects (sea wall, new pipeline, S2S) were aligned to cause minimum roadworks disruption, and still people complain?

Trying to call the Liffey Cycle Route a "road project" as if it was some kind of promotion of car space is disingenuous or ill-informed.

The project takes space from general traffic lanes and car parking spaces.

brocbrocach

Raam wrote: »

I have, plenty of times.

Ok, fair nuff. Do you mean tidal flooding at the causeway cross?
What I've seen could be made harmless enough with better drainage and a bit of work the road.

Effects

Raam wrote: »

I have, plenty of times.

But it hasn't come from the sea.

cdaly_

brocbrocach wrote: »

the wall (looks higher than a metre to me?) is going to block off that whole lovely view of the lagoon there.

If you look at the wall under construction, the black painted bit will be underground. Only the unpainted bit will be a wall above the bike lane surface. It's no higher than the wall further east around Bayside...

Squeaksoutloud

cdaly_ wrote: »

If you look at the wall under construction, the black painted bit will be underground. Only the unpainted bit will be a wall above the bike lane surface. It's no higher than the wall further east around Bayside...

That looks correct. The finished footpath level will be above the black line so wall will be quite low in reality. From reading all the information to date the wall gets a bit higher before getting very low once you reach the end of St. Annes Park / Mount Prospect Avenue.

brocbrocach

That's good news!
Will they raise the road level as well or will the track be above the road like in bayside?

cdaly_

I suspect track above road though, given the height of the new footpath on the park side of the road I would expect there'll be an extra 50mm in the road height with the new surface...

mattdi22le

Have been reading this forum for a few months now, new to cycling only at it 6 months on a road bike and before that 12 months on a hybrid, got my first puncture on sat morn after about 2000km around Dublin to date, about 8-10 cyclists passed me on the new road from Lucan to Tallaght just after the Naas road flyover I was Lucan bound, every one of them slowed and asked if I was ok, had everything etc......

very encouraging and prob doesn't happen in any other group on the road.

Nice one if it was you.

mattdi22le

Have been reading this forum for a few months now, new to cycling only at it 6 months on a road bike and before that 12 months on a hybrid, got my first puncture on sat morn after about 2000km around Dublin to date, about 8-10 cyclists passed me on the new road from Lucan to Tallaght just after the Naas road flyover I was Lucan bound, every one of them slowed and asked if I was ok, had everything etc......

very encouraging and prob doesn't happen in any other group on the road.

Nice one if it was you.

sh*t, wrong thread !!

mathie

I was stopped at the nice guy who mans the stop sign this morning going southbound.
I overheard on his walkie talkie something about "The council are here to look and see if they can raise the road"
I said to him "Did I hear that right?"
"Yeah" he says "Great use of taxpayers money"

An Irish solution and all that.

Raam

mathie wrote: »

I was stopped at the nice guy who mans the stop sign this morning going southbound.
I overheard on his walkie talkie something about "The council are here to look and see if they can raise the road"
I said to him "Did I hear that right?"
"Yeah" he says "Great use of taxpayers money"

An Irish solution and all that.

Monster trucks for everyone. Problem solved.

Carawaystick

mathie wrote: »

I was stopped at the nice guy who mans the stop sign this morning going southbound.
I overheard on his walkie talkie something about "The council are here to look and see if they can raise the road"
I said to him "Did I hear that right?"
"Yeah" he says "Great use of taxpayers money"

An Irish solution and all that.

This is so people driving cars can look out at the sea instead of looking at the road?

:eek:

buffalo

Carawaystick wrote: »

This is so people driving cars can look out at the sea instead of looking at the road?

:eek:

I do wonder if anyone complaining is part of the same brigade who claim they can't obey the 30kph speed limits in Dublin because they'll spend too long looking at the speedometer...

odyssey06

Gosh, you'd imagine cars only have 1 passenger...

Carawaystick

Gosh you'ld imagine the plans weren't published on the internet with time to comment on them long before any construction started.

Rogue-Trooper

Dublin City Councillors have passed a motion which says a new sea wall in Clontarf should be no higher than necessary to protect from flooding.
The council called a full meeting last night to deal with the controversial wall.
Locals have objected to the construction of the wall along the coastline.
Councillors also voted to reverse any building work already carried out that goes against the motion.

Link



Hmmmm, looks like we could be 'running the gaunlet' at the roadworks for a while yet so.


Also, that outbound stretch from the wooden bridge to the stop/go system is getting worse every day. There seems to be several new trenches filled with a mound of tarmac every evening - there is no good line to take through it all. My bunny-hopping skills on the road bike are progressing nicely though........

lennymc

I can imagine the headline in a couple of years

"locals outraged as flood defences fail to defend against floods"

report suggest they should have been higher......

cdaly_

Rogue-Trooper wrote: »

Link

Did they really say "no higher than necessary"? That sounds like carte-blanche for a 3-metre wall to me.

I wonder how many of the 'locals' out protesting yesterday actually live in the flood zone and have suffered uninsured losses?...

Leroy42

I live close to the area and I do understand the worry of the residents. It is a great view across the bay and to have it behind a wall is a shame.

However, surely the greater good must be considered. As mentioned above, if a flood should occur will be residents be happy to have damage to their homes and uninsurable properties like in other parts.

If they want to enjoy the view so much, then taking it in while sitting in the car is kinda missing the point somewhat.

As a local resident surely they can walk/cycle down to enjoy the view and enjoy the exercise while they are at it.

On a slightly different point, the coupling of these works to the extension of the bike path is now having the obvious effect of this wall being apportioned to the bike path, when it actually has little/nothing to do with it

odyssey06

People seem to be assuming the only feasible flood defence is a massive fixed concrete wall. It isn't. There are places in England that I've never even heard of that are putting in more advanced and\or flexible flood defences than DCC feel is warranted for our capital city.
One must also consider the safety aspect, in some proposals for flood defences proposed by DCC, cyclists and pedestrians would be isolated from view of the road and houses behind head height walls. Seems like a recipe for crime and anti-social behavour to me.

Raam

I did hear that it is more than a wall and that there is water storage in place, but that was from talking with a mate.

Lusk_Doyle

Lots of places (both public and private) use underground storage chambers with drainage controls to alleviate flooding and reduce the risk of it also. Much better than walls but more costly.

lennymc

"Locals outraged at cost of flood defences "

"I can't see any flood defences." Said one local. "They just dug up the road and put it back down again. It would have been better had they built a big wall."

Mercian Pro

Raam wrote: »

I did hear that it is more than a wall and that there is water storage in place, but that was from talking with a mate.

Your mate may be confusing water storage with the trunk water main that is a major element of the scheme.

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Lots of places (both public and private) use underground storage chambers with drainage controls to alleviate flooding and reduce the risk of it also. Much better than walls but more costly.

Attenuation tanks are often used to slow the flow of flood water from land drains but I have never heard of them being used for sea flooding.

Lusk_Doyle

Mercian Pro wrote: »

Your mate may be confusing water storage with the trunk water main that is a major element of the scheme.



Attenuation tanks are often used to slow the flow of flood water from land drains but I have never heard of them being used for sea flooding.

Me neither but there is always a first time for everything...

Mercian Pro

cdaly_ wrote: »

Did they really say "no higher than necessary"?

Cop-out #1 - the Councillors want to make sure that they can't be blamed if the height of the wall is reduced and there is flooding at some stage.

Cop-out #2 - they are also well aware that motions like this are not binding on the Manager/DCC but look good when they go looking for votes next year.