Blanchardstown to Phoenix Park cycle route - public consultation

Pinch Flat

Have your say here:


http://www.fingal.ie/planning-and-buildings/development-plans-and-consultations/public-consultations/currentconsultations/

d15ude

they want to chop off the trees in laurel lodge just to flatten the ramp a little!?
that would be a shame!

according to this:
http://www.fingal.ie/media/Photo%20Montage%20of%20New%20Bridge%20No.1%20of%203.pdf

daymobrew

d15ude wrote: »

they want to chop off the trees in laurel lodge just to flatten the ramp a little!?
that would be a shame!

It is not to flatten the ramp (that would not be possible as it has to gain the same height over the same distance).

It is to make space for a 3.5m wide shared use pedestrian/cyclist ramp. It is proposed to remove the existing path on one side of the road to make space for an on-road cycle track on the opposite side of the road.

As the bridge over the road is quite narrow something had to give.

See the diagrams in the Pedestrian Cyclist Bridge Layout document.

I don't think that it is necessary but it seems that some cyclists prefer segregated facilities instead of mixing with motorists on the road. I am (mostly) comfortable on the road though I'd never say no to an on-road cycle lane (with a solid white line bordering it of course).

ThisRegard

From Blanchardstown Village to the park the only really bad spot is Castleknock Village, particularly at rush hour. There's a good route from the village via the existing pedestrian bridge over the M50 bringing you out at the tennis club and then up Auburn Avenue avoiding Castleknock village altogether.

I'm all for more cycling facilities, but wouldn't it be cheaper to improve on this route, Auburn Avenue is fairly wide as it is, the junction in Blanchardstown Village onto the old Navan Road towards the 12th Lock would need improving, that's the only really 'dodgy' junction on the route.

daymobrew

ThisRegard wrote: »

From Blanchardstown Village to the park the only really bad spot is Castleknock Village, particularly at rush hour. There's a good route from the village via the existing pedestrian bridge over the M50 bringing you out at the tennis club and then up Auburn Avenue avoiding Castleknock village altogether.

I'm all for more cycling facilities, but wouldn't it be cheaper to improve on this route, Auburn Avenue is fairly wide as it is, the junction in Blanchardstown Village onto the old Navan Road towards the 12th Lock would need improving, that's the only really 'dodgy' junction on the route.

I thought about suggestion that one could avoid Blanch Village by going via the hospital.

To help with the right turn onto Old Navan Road they propose a zebra/toucan crossing a little further back (toward the village).

Another benefit of going via Old Navan Road is that people can go into the canal towpath (due to be reopened in February) or over the pedestrian bridge over the M50. Going via the pedestrian bridge gives the option of continuing along Navan Road cycle track (and can enter Phoenix Park at Ashtown) or turning right up Auburn Avenue, where it is probably wide enough to paint on-road cycle tracks on each side.

monument

ThisRegard wrote: »

From Blanchardstown Village to the park the only really bad spot is Castleknock Village, particularly at rush hour. There's a good route from the village via the existing pedestrian bridge over the M50 bringing you out at the tennis club and then up Auburn Avenue avoiding Castleknock village altogether.

I'm all for more cycling facilities, but wouldn't it be cheaper to improve on this route, Auburn Avenue is fairly wide as it is, the junction in Blanchardstown Village onto the old Navan Road towards the 12th Lock would need improving, that's the only really 'dodgy' junction on the route.

I have major issues with some of the design elements of the route (maybe more on that later), but the routing is in keeping with the principals and goals of the GDA cycle network, it helps with the goals of the park's management plan, and it fits in with international best practice to provide direct and safe routes.

While it's a route which starts at Blanch and ends at the park, it's designed to serve many more types of trips, and many of those are short trips; for example:

- Castleknock Village area to Blanch
- Blanch Village area to the Blanchardstown Centre
- Blanchardstown Centre to Castleknock train station
- Castleknock Village area to Castleknock train station
- Castleknock to Castleknock Village
- etc etc etc

There's also a ton of longer distance trips it will help; ie north Dublin City to Blanch Centre or Castleknock via the Royal Canal Route. I could also add in more internal D15 trips that this routing would help with, but you get the idea.

It's worth also saying that this routing is not for current cyclists -- it's for a Dublin where 25%+ of trips will be made by bicycle.

beauf

Like others have said I would have assumed it would be more practical to have a circular route that uses quieter and wider routes. One that might be longer but would have less stop starts for cyclists.

This seems to have gone down the narrowest, most expensive route they could find. That said it puts the cycle facilities right in everyone's face (way). It will raise the profile of cycling massively. Maybe negatively though. I would expect a lot of resistance to the expense and disruption likely to be caused by this.

Its not on my route. So I don't really have any experience of cycling on these roads. My route is the back road to Castleknock College, Carpenterstown Road and down Whites road. Cutting through College Wood/Grove to avoid the traffic in the morning.

monument wrote: »

...It's worth also saying that this routing is not for current cyclists -- it's for a Dublin where 25%+ of trips will be made by bicycle.

I think people especially non cyclists will struggle with that perspective.

beauf

I'd have like to see some focus on kids routes to schools. We have an ok route. But many seem to have poor cycle routes to them, for kids.

RichardoKhan

Its to be hoped this is a tad more successful than the dedicated cycle lanes put up in Littlepace area last year. YET to see anyone on them.

Godge

monument wrote: »

I have major issues with some of the design elements of the route (maybe more on that later), but the routing is in keeping with the principals and goals of the GDA cycle network, it helps with the goals of the park's management plan, and it fits in with international best practice to provide direct and safe routes.

While it's a route which starts at Blanch and ends at the park, it's designed to serve many more types of trips, and many of those are short trips; for example:

- Castleknock Village area to Blanch
- Blanch Village area to the Blanchardstown Centre
- Blanchardstown Centre to Castleknock train station
- Castleknock Village area to Castleknock train station
- Castleknock to Castleknock Village
- etc etc etc

There's also a ton of longer distance trips it will help; ie north Dublin City to Blanch Centre or Castleknock via the Royal Canal Route. I could also add in more internal D15 trips that this routing would help with, but you get the idea.

Much of this makes sense. However, as well as tying in with the GDA cycle strategy, it also needs to tie in with the public transport strategy. So, for example, if you have bus lanes on both sides of the Navan Road all the way from the Halfway House to Cabra, this fits in.

Also it needs to fit in with the access strategy in Blanchardstown itself. As long as the estates that back onto the Snugburough Road block pedestrian/cyclist access to that road, it is also a problem.

monument wrote: »

It's worth also saying that this routing is not for current cyclists -- it's for a Dublin where 25%+ of trips will be made by bicycle.

That is not a serious proposition.

daymobrew

beauf wrote: »

I'd have like to see some focus on kids routes to schools. We have an ok route. But many seem to have poor cycle routes to them, for kids.

Even if good routes were there I think that you'd struggle to get parents to allow their children to cycle. It's a mix of fear (of the perceived dangers of cycling) and laziness. There is a nice off-road cycle track in Carpenterstown to St Patrick's National School - I have a number of neighbours (I can think of 5 off hand) that are driven the 1 mile to that school rather than be put on bikes.

Back on topic, the Blanch Gazette has an article about the proposed cycle route, with one councillor predicting objections from people in Castleknock village (the councillor says that the village is not very compatible with cycling).

monument

beauf wrote: »

Like others have said I would have assumed it would be more practical to have a circular route that uses quieter and wider routes.

More practical for just a small amount of the possible trips covered by this route. And this route improves connections to the current circular route for those who want to use it.

beauf wrote: »

I think people especially non cyclists will struggle with that perspective.

I've come to the view that more cyclists than non-cyclists struggle with those kind of ideas.

While the "why don't cyclists use the cycle path" often comes from those who shout the loudest, what I've heard a lot from talking to non-cyclists casually recently is their views on how bad cycle lanes are and how such lanes are not respected by some motorists. There's fairly critical understanding by some non-cyclists that cycle lanes are often narrow, disconnected, and disrespected.

beauf wrote: »

I'd have like to see some focus on kids routes to schools. We have an ok route. But many seem to have poor cycle routes to them, for kids.

daymobrew wrote: »

Even if good routes were there I think that you'd struggle to get parents to allow their children to cycle. It's a mix of fear (of the perceived dangers of cycling) and laziness. There is a nice off-road cycle track in Carpenterstown to St Patrick's National School - I have a number of neighbours (I can think of 5 off hand) that are driven the 1 mile to that school rather than be put on bikes.

There's a bit of chicken and egg (and which came first) to this: I think if you get more parents (or would be parents) out cycling on safe routes to work or even just to the shops, than they are more likely to want and let their children to cycle.

Godge wrote: »

Much of this makes sense. However, as well as tying in with the GDA cycle strategy, it also needs to tie in with the public transport strategy. So, for example, if you have bus lanes on both sides of the Navan Road all the way from the Halfway House to Cabra, this fits in.

The main part of the bus strategy is the planned BRT network, I'd be very, surprised if the BRT planned for D15 included any of the roads on this cycle route.

Godge wrote: »

Also it needs to fit in with the access strategy in Blanchardstown itself. As long as the estates that back onto the Snugburough Road block pedestrian/cyclist access to that road, it is also a problem.

Yes, that's important too.

Godge wrote: »

That is not a serious proposition.

Yes, it is. It's already at just under 8% across Dublin City and 6% in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown area -- getting to 25% across the city is far from imposable.

The trend is upwards and there's plans that will increase that. As well as improved cycle routes, DublinBikes was linked with increasing the amount of cycling and that scheme is now doubling. Dún Laoghaire and South Dublin are expected to get their own bike rental schemes too.

There's a city in Europe which compares well to Dublin -- it as a has a comparable climate; including comparable rainfall; comparable population; comparable population density; comparable city centre with restrictive street layouts etc... that city is called Amsterdam. Where cycling accounts for nearly 40% of all trips, and 57% of residents use their bicycles daily (many may also use a car, tram, train etc). If Amsterdam can get to nearly 40% (and growing) Dublin can manage 25%.

Godge

monument wrote: »

Yes, it is. It's already at just under 8% across Dublin City and 6% in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown area -- getting to 25% across the city is far from imposable.

The trend is upwards and there's plans that will increase that. As well as improved cycle routes, DublinBikes was linked with increasing the amount of cycling and that scheme is now doubling. Dún Laoghaire and South Dublin are expected to get their own bike rental schemes too.

There's a city in Europe which compares well to Dublin -- it as a has a comparable climate; including comparable rainfall; comparable population; comparable population density; comparable city centre with restrictive street layouts etc... that city is called Amsterdam. Where cycling accounts for nearly 40% of all trips, and 57% of residents use their bicycles daily (many may also use a car, tram, train etc). If Amsterdam can get to nearly 40% (and growing) Dublin can manage 25%.

You are confusing a well-planned European city with the mess that is Dublin and one with a considerably difference in topography.

Given that this is the Dublin 15 forum, you only need to look at how high above the Liffey the M50 bridge is to appreciate the climb to Blanchardstown from the city centre after an arduous days work.

Pinch Flat

Godge wrote: »

Given that this is the Dublin 15 forum, you only need to look at how high above the Liffey the M50 bridge is to appreciate the climb to Blanchardstown from the city centre after an arduous days work.

Have you ever cycled it? there's a slight incline through the gates at Park Gate Street, then a slight incline up Castleknock Road. Most cyclists would handle this (and do) daily without issue. Arduous it is not. If you want ardouous, try Knockmaroon Hill.:pac:

monument

Godge wrote: »

You are confusing a well-planned European city with the mess that is Dublin

Lots of the mess in Dublin makes it better suited to mass cycling over bus or tram lines. But most of Amsterdam was retrofitted kind of like how Dublin is planned to be retrofitted. Cycling was not planned for very well until after the 70s. Their streets, roads, squares etc had looked much like ours.

Godge wrote: »

and one with a considerably difference in topography

Given that this is the Dublin 15 forum, you only need to look at how high above the Liffey the M50 bridge is to appreciate the climb to Blanchardstown from the city centre after an arduous days work.

Cycling into and out of the city centre will suit some people (and, when routes are improved on both sides of the park, it will suit a lot more people), it's a reasonable genial incline, but the main bulk of cycling trips in D15 will be contained in and around D15.

Only 8% of commuter trips in the Greater Dublin Area are from the outer suburbs to the city centre and even more of all trips are shorter trips. In the context of Blanch and D15 in general there's a ton of shorter trips to workplaces in the area, schools, shops, the park etc.

beauf

monument wrote: »

....
Cycling into and out of the city centre will suit some people (and, when routes are improved on both sides of the park, it will suit a lot more people), it's a reasonable genial incline, but the main bulk of cycling trips in D15 will be contained in and around D15.

Only 8% of commuter trips in the Greater Dublin Area are from the outer suburbs to the city centre and even more of all trips are shorter trips. In the context of Blanch and D15 in general there's a ton of shorter trips to workplaces in the area, schools, shops, the park etc.

I see vastly more cyclist on the commute through the park than around the general D.15 area.

RichardoKhan wrote: »

Its to be hoped this is a tad more successful than the dedicated cycle lanes put up in Littlepace area last year. YET to see anyone on them.

What he said.

beauf

Godge wrote: »

You are confusing a well-planned European city with the mess that is Dublin and one with a considerably difference in topography.

Given that this is the Dublin 15 forum, you only need to look at how high above the Liffey the M50 bridge is to appreciate the climb to Blanchardstown from the city centre after an arduous days work.

Its 41.5 meters. I don't even think Castleknock is even that high. Seriously its not that bad. The lack of cover from the wind is a bigger issue.

beauf

David McGuinness (FF) said although he welcomes the plan, putting new routes in when existing cycle routes are “poorly maintained” is disappointing for cyclists.

I wish they'd put a surface on that last section of the park. Its been left unfinished for a very long time.

monument

beauf wrote: »

I see vastly more cyclist on the commute through the park than around the general D.15 area.

I said 'will be' -- I'm talking about the future and the context of what routes like this are trying to address.

The current route to the park and the park are vastly better than the general cycling experience around D15.

The cycle paths are desperate in general and there's major barriers to cycling: Such as the walls people are unwilling to be knocked; the N3 crossings and the busy and complex junctions near the bridges over it; the canal path with barriers and a poor surface; the many cycling unfriendly roundabouts across D15 etc.

There are other non-street design barrier to getting people on bicycles too, but with current conditions it's hard to get over those hills!

beauf

daymobrew wrote: »

Even if good routes were there I think that you'd struggle to get parents to allow their children to cycle. It's a mix of fear (of the perceived dangers of cycling) and laziness. There is a nice off-road cycle track in Carpenterstown to St Patrick's National School - I have a number of neighbours (I can think of 5 off hand) that are driven the 1 mile to that school rather than be put on bikes.....

You might not have noticed as you like me commute on the road.

Actually there isn't. There is no cycle path that joins Carpenterstown to St Patricks. It stops at the roundabout. The best you could so is cycle through bramley then use the footpath. Thats really my point. Thus far the cycle paths are just randomly here and there. For small kids the simply don't join up. The paths have load of pedestrians on them.

Riverwood, has routes to the school. But its on the doorstep. Indeed theres a good few bikes daily in St Patricks. If you are cycling with small kids to primary schools in the wider area, the routes are poor. I know of a good few who commute to work, but have found the routes for dropping kids to schools poor.

On my commute between D.15 and D.4 I dislike D.15 the section the most. Roads are narrow in places and traffic overtakes much closer and faster and give you far less road space than the the city center.

I hope I'm not dragging this too far off topic. But I welcome the high profile this new cycle route will give to cyclists. Seems to suit the commuter more then local traffic. Regardless of the intention. For me its more like a cyclist commuter highway. Which I think is a great idea.

daymobrew

beauf wrote: »

Riverwood, has routes to the school. But its on the doorstep.

I am in Riverwood - I should have said. Cycle track all the way to St Patrick's and 5 get driven. I blame the parents as the children cycle around the estate.

Pinch Flat

daymobrew wrote: »

I am in Riverwood - I should have said. Cycle track all the way to St Patrick's and 5 get driven. I blame the parents as the children cycle around the estate.

Same here - I'm in riverwood and will cycle with my son or give him a cross bar if logistics dictate. There are kids driven from much closer than 1 mile as well.

I think the cycle routes to am from schools should be expanded and joined up where necessary - as peoples have pointed out, it is considered (wrongly) a dangerous mode of transport. People's reactions when I say I'm giving my 7 year old road exoerience in his bike are priceless.....

ThisRegard

Godge wrote: »

You are confusing a well-planned European city with the mess that is Dublin and one with a considerably difference in topography.

Given that this is the Dublin 15 forum, you only need to look at how high above the Liffey the M50 bridge is to appreciate the climb to Blanchardstown from the city centre after an arduous days work.

Depends on what way you come from, via Chapelizod village then yes you have a climb, but via the Phoenix Park - Castleknock Village or the Navan Road there's no noticeable climb. If you were to go further towards Hollystown and Tyrrelstown then you have a climb but that's it.

beauf

Well there is a bit of a climb. The Park rises from one end to the other, all the way to Castleknock village, at bit more if you go out via whites road, or use the island bridge gate. But its really not that much. If you're going southside (via Kilmanham) its a bit more of a V profile, but lets be honest, its not much. For me its about a difference in 10~15 mins going to work vs coming home. Its going to work you want to be the quickest.

Its still faster than car, bus, train etc. Especially if you don't stop at the ice cream van at the Zoo.

beauf

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Same here - I'm in riverwood and will cycle with my son or give him a cross bar if logistics dictate. There are kids driven from much closer than 1 mile as well...

Its a shame, probably the same all over.

Riverwood isn't actually in the main catchment of St Patricks (or CCC) even though its one of the nearest schools to it. So a lot of the people are coming from all over D.15 to it. Or they are going from Riverwood to all the other schools over D.15. So their cycle routes are not that pleasant.

But this disconnect between school catchments and their location causes a lot of the local traffic in the mornings.

But look on the bright side its improving for cyclists. This new route will help a lot.

bobcranfret

daymobrew wrote: »

Back on topic, the Blanch Gazette has an article about the proposed cycle route, with one councillor predicting objections from people in Castleknock village (the councillor says that the village is not very compatible with cycling).

The Socialist councillor is reported as saying that a cycle path may be an issue for residents in Castleknock Village. "Everyone is in favour of more cycle paths and pathways, but it is a reality that it is a village that is not very compatible with cycling. The narrowness of the roads, the paths – I am not sure how this is going to work as it is being presented. I don’t see it as a very safe cycling facility".

There aren't many residents actually living "in Castleknock Village" which could be described more correctly as a busy road junction with a poorly-sited shopping centre with too much parking, and an unnecessary petrol station. The village would be a much better place all round if there were less cars, more bikes and more pedestrians passing through and/or spending some time there.

beauf

Not strictly true. There's lots of estates that are in the immediate area of the village. Behind Myos for example. A very large amount of houses 5 mins or less walk away. Just because they aren't on the main road, doesn't make them not in the village. It has a church, school, pubs, shops, restaurants. How is it not a village. It was more distinct when there more of a green belt around it, 20 yrs ago.

Problem is, its become a main route for the greater D.15 area. They built massive estates in D.15 when there was no road capacity to handle the traffic. So a lot of it all comes through Castleknock, Chapelizod. Both narrow villages. The only main road the N3 they reduced to one lane.

Cars will always be there unless they reroute or stop the traffic. So they are going to have to co-exist with cyclists.

ThisRegard

It's still a lazy argument for them, the village is everything, bar car, unfriendly, it's just one big glut of motor traffic all day.

beauf

Oh agreed. When the traffic is in grid lock its generally safe for cycling as the cars aren't moving. So its a bit noise thats all.

Only issue is they don't leave enough room for a cyclist to pass on the inside. Its the same on the back road to Castleknock College. People hug the kerb. They could widen the road by tidying up the hedge and ditch there. I avoid it in the mornings by going though College Gate.

This new proposed layout gives the cyclists space, which is great.

ozmo

d15ude wrote: »

they want to chop off the trees in laurel lodge just to flatten the ramp a little!?
that would be a shame!

according to this:
http://www.fingal.ie/media/Photo%20Montage%20of%20New%20Bridge%20No.1%20of%203.pdf

Thats just horrible - all for cycle lanes but not at the expense of local residents and park users who I am sure would miss the trees. Must be a better route than that.

monument

ozmo wrote: »

Thats just horrible - all for cycle lanes but not at the expense of local residents and park users who I am sure would miss the trees. Must be a better route than that

According to the council, the trees are nearing the end of their life cycle anyway.

As already said in detail, the route is aiming to serve everything along these road -- no other route can do that.