Save Fairview Park

gizmo81

So, DCC in their wisdom want to fell beautiful trees of Fairview Park to create a cycle path.

This is ridiculous, the trees provide a beautiful solace from all the destruction happening in the area.

Cyclists have a path in Fairview that they ignore and in East Wall they cycle on the footpaths knocking over pedestrians.

Please sign to save these beautiful trees and park.

https://www.change.org/p/dublin-city-council-save-the-fairview-trees?recruiter=54788899&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=share_petition&utm_term=share_for_starters_page

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

Fighting Tao

You might get more signatures if you weren't so obviously anti-cyclist. Many cyclists disagree with the plan too. Many of the cycle tracks in the Fairview to Amiens St Bridge area are on paths segregated by a white line. Pedestrians walk in them and cyclists cycle on the path. A painted line is not a force field. Also another reason some cyclists avoid said tracks is because they are abysmal. But you have your little rant. No cyclist demanded trees be cut.

Although I do find it amazing that there has been a lack of protest about new roads that results in tree felling.

It's a pity the NRA were the ones designing the route as they are too heavily focused on carriage ways for motorised vehicles and pedestrians and cyclists are largely ignored resulting in plans like this.

LeinsterDub

gizmo81 wrote: »

Cyclists have a path in Fairview that they ignore and in East Wall they cycle on the footpaths knocking over pedestrians.

Link please

They cut down and replaced the trees on O'Connell st and it was grand.

Is there a petition to support the plan?

OT I know but are they still planning to remove the footbridge too?

sbs2010

Is this route (end of Howth Road to Annesley Bridge) not already served by the cycle path that goes through the park?

There's no need for the cycle path that is on the Marino Mart/Fairview Road footpath, is there?

Collie D

Karsini wrote: »

OT I know but are they still planning to remove the footbridge too?

Are they? Was only renovated/replaced a few years ago

riemann

Fighting Tao wrote: »

It's a pity the NRA were the ones designing the route as they are too heavily focused on carriage ways for motorised vehicles and pedestrians and cyclists are largely ignored resulting in plans like this.

It's a pity that some (not all) cyclists insist they cycle on the roadway holding up traffic, instead of using the cycling paths provided.

This type of selfish behaviour only furthers the animosity between the two.

Teyla Emmagan

Never mind giving out about the cyclists.

They are talking about taking down 42 historic trees from Fairview park alone. Those trees are healthy and beautiful. They were planted for Arbour Day by unionists and Republicans in 1908. There is no reason a new cycle path can't be designed around them. They are London Plane trees and do an amazing job of filtering toxins from our environment. They are stunning and, IMO, the best thing about Fairview.

The change.org petition is given above. You can also email your local councillor if you are living in Dublin. Or the DCC engineering department who have come up with this ridiculous plan in the first place.

Fighting Tao

riemann wrote: »

It's a pity that some (not all) cyclists insist they cycle on the roadway holding up traffic, instead of using the cycling paths provided.

This type of selfish behaviour only furthers the animosity between the two.

I'm confused as people on bicycles are part of traffic. They are obeying the law if they are on the road.

Collie D

Collie D wrote: »

Are they? Was only renovated/replaced a few years ago

Yeah, I got a newsletter through the door a couple of years ago about a meeting to discuss it. DCC wanted to remove the footbridge and replace it with traffic lights despite the renovation, they apparently wanted to reuse it somewhere else.

millie35

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Link please

They cut down and replaced the trees on O'Connell st and it was grand.

Is there a petition to support the plan?

I don't think it was grand at all.

The replacement trees on O'Connell Street are a much poorer substitute.

I've signed the petition and I am pro cyclist.

Fighting Tao

millie35 wrote: »

I don't think it was grand at all.

The replacement trees on O'Connell Street are a much poorer substitute.

I've signed the petition and I am pro cyclist.

The issue isn't that cyclists don't want park areas preserved, it is the anti-cycling rant in OP that is the main issue here. Also, the petition mentions that there is a 'perfectly fine cycleway' in the park. If it was perfectly fine then it would be used. Good infrastructure leads to use when it comes to cycling. They shouldn't have mentioned the 'perfectly fine cycleway', it should concentrate on alternative designs rather than tell cyclists what is 'perfectly fine' for them.

amcalester

riemann wrote: »

It's a pity that some (not all) cyclists insist they cycle on the roadway holding up traffic, instead of using the cycling paths provided.

This type of selfish behaviour only furthers the animosity between the two.

Don't use the road.

Don't use the footpath.

Don't build a cycle path.

In fact, just don't cycle.

dubrov

I don't see why they are trying to build a cycle path through the park anyway. They should be looking at building a decent off road path along the main road. Something much better than the travesty that is currently there.

Having a large straight stretch through the park encourages cyclists to hit 30kmph+ which isn't safe to have toddlers anywhere near. It would need a small wall to make it work.

dubrov

Anyone got a link to the planning proposal?

LeinsterDub

dubrov wrote: »

Having a large straight stretch through the park encourages cyclists to hit 30kmph+ which isn't safe to have toddlers anywhere near. It would need a small wall to make it work.

I know I know. You can't go out of your house for fear of being knocked down by imaginary cyclists when of course they aren't knocking down imaginary kids. Just yesterday I was killed in my imagination by a man on a penny farthing

tricky D

Folks, if this turns into the standard rant about cyclists, it won't last long. So please try to tone that down. Tx.

HivemindXX

dubrov wrote: »

I don't see why they are trying to build a cycle path through the park anyway. They should be looking at building a decent off road path along the main road. Something much better than the travesty that is currently there.

As far as I know this is what this is. The cycle path is not planned to go through the middle of the park but rather along the edge of it. Presumably this was settled on after it was decided that narrowing the road was out of the question.

There needs to be space for a cycle lane and a foot path and it seems they think they can't do that without narrowing the road or cutting a slice out of the park.

odyssey06

As you exit Fairview Park towards Fairview Corner as a pedestrian you cross a cycle path. There is no signs or obvious indication you are about to do this.
One side of the exit is a blind corner due to hedges. It's a miracle that no one has been killed or seriously injured...

Let's hope they do a safer job with any new cycle path works, and the designers have the imagination to think about how someone either as a pedestrian (with or without child or dog) or as a cyclist can safely use the park.

I'd hate for this to be another one of those Irish "it'll be grand... sure no one's died" ... yet... moments.

dubrov

LeinsterDub wrote:

I know I know. You can't go out of your house for fear of being knocked down by imaginary cyclists when of course they aren't knocking down imaginary kids. Just yesterday I was killed in my imagination by a man on a penny farthing

Is that some sort of auto-response? When did I mention cyclists killing anyone. If I bring a toddler to the park I want to be able to let them roam free. That isn't possible near the current cycle path.

As a regular cyclist myself I'd much prefer to have an offroad flat cycle path that is not shared with pedestrians.

LeinsterDub

dubrov wrote: »

Is that some sort of auto-response? When did I mention cyclists killing anyone. If I bring a toddler to the park I want to be able to let them roam free. That isn't possible near the current cycle path.

As a regular cyclist myself I'd much prefer to have an offroad flat cycle path that is not shared with pedestrians.

It's entirely possible to let em roam . Cyclists - pedestrian accidents are so rare/minor as to be basically not worth mentioning

odyssey06

LeinsterDub wrote: »

It's entirely possible to let em roam . Cyclists - pedestrian accidents are so rare/minor as to be basically not worth mentioning

A collision involving a bike and a toddler is going to be minor ... really?
Let them roam is up there with let them eat cake as far as I'm concerned.

Waiting until something serious happens before we do something is an attitude I cannot abide.

If an expanded cycle path is put into the park, inevitably there will be more cyclists and therefore more potential for accidents... with negative consequences for both cyclists and pedestrians.

It would be negligent of the council not to consider safety measures to minimise the risk of accidents.

LeinsterDub

odyssey06 wrote: »

A collision involving a bike and a toddler is going to be minor ... really?
Let them roam is up there with let them eat cake as far as I'm concerned.

Let's wait until someone is seriously hit before we do something... is that your attitude?

If an expanded cycle path is put into the park, inevitably there will be more cyclists and therefore more potential for accidents... with negative consequences for both cyclists and pedestrians.

It would be negligent of the council not to consider safety measures to minimise the risk of accidents.

No my attitude is these kind of accidents are so rare as to be practically nil. We may as well plan our infrastructure around the risk of being hit by a football or the risk of being injured by a swarm of wasps.

odyssey06

LeinsterDub wrote: »

No my attitude is these kind of accidents are so rare as to be practically nil. We may as well plan our infrastructure around the risk of being hit by a football or the risk of being injured by a swarm of wasps.

If that's the case... why does anything need to be done at all now with Fairview Park for cyclists? We don't need to remove any more trees to widen the cycle path, in fact the logical thrust of your argument is that we don't need marked cycle lanes in Fairview Park (or any park that doesn't have cars) at all... everything is grand right now?

Your earlier post suggested you were in favour of cutting down the trees to make more room for cyclists. So ... confusion?
Are the trees currently in the way or something???

sbs2010

Unless I'm missing something this whole thing isn't really necessary.

The shared cycle path straight through the park is big enough to handle any volumes I've ever seen.

All it needs is maybe a bit of work at either end to ease entry/exit and signs saying:

"Cyclists intending to travel at >25kmph please use the bus lane. Those using the cycle path please be aware of pedestrians using the park"


And we save a big bag of cash to use somewhere else and no trees get cut. And the joke cycle path that runs by the road into town can be given back to the footpath.

LeinsterDub

odyssey06 wrote: »

If that's the case... why does anything need to be done at all now with Fairview Park for cyclists? We don't need to remove any more trees to widen the cycle path, in fact the logical thrust of your argument is that we don't need marked cycle lanes in Fairview Park (or any park that doesn't have cars) at all... everything is grand right now?

Your earlier post suggested you were in favour of cutting down the trees to make more room for cyclists. So ... confusion?
Are the trees currently in the way or something???

Because it gives priority to cyclists

odyssey06

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Because it gives priority to cyclists

Which according to your earlier post they don't need because even if they don't have priority and have to share priority with pedestrians there's nothing to be concerned about ...

odyssey06

sbs2010 wrote: »

Unless I'm missing something this whole thing isn't really necessary. The shared cycle path straight through the park is big enough to handle any volumes I've ever seen. All it needs is maybe a bit of work at either end to ease entry/exit and signs saying:
"Cyclists intending to travel at >25kmph please use the bus lane. Those using the cycle path please be aware of pedestrians using the park"

That could work, as long as they also get rid of the ****** hedges\shrubs\overgrown weeds obscuring the view of the entry\exits.

They don't commemorate anything, nobody will be starting a petition to save them, and no 1908ers will be cursing us from the grave for getting rid of them!

LeinsterDub

odyssey06 wrote: »

Which according to your earlier post they don't need because even if they don't have priority and have to share priority with pedestrians there's nothing to be concerned about ...

No they need priority in order to travel to a destination with minimal effort. If they share priority effort will be increased but it doesn't increase the risk of them hitting a pedestrian

ED E

Just to balance with the OP, this is the cycle path in question.

LeinsterDub

odyssey06 wrote: »

Which according to your earlier post they don't need because even if they don't have priority and have to share priority with pedestrians there's nothing to be concerned about ...

Nothing to be concerned about in terms of causing actual bodily harm. Lots to be considered about in terms of the effort involved with sharing priority with pedestrians