Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Save Fairview Park

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    ixoy
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 17,993 Mod ✭✭✭✭ixoy


    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.
    Exactly. Why is this even required when there is a cycle path there already?

    And will they address the fact that Fairview park gates are closed often in the morning, even when there's daylight? This is often at hours when people would be on their way into work somewhat rendering any work useless.


  • Options
    #33
    Dr Crayfish
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,960 ✭✭✭Dr Crayfish


    I cycle through the park every day, the bike lane is fine. I can't my head around the proposed development. What do they want to do? Replace the existing diagnol lane through the park? Or build a new one along the Fairview Road?
    That side isn't even too bad. They should concentrate on building a seperated lane on the other side of the road, there's enough space there, and it's a crazy free for all going out of town on that road at rush hour, very dangerous.


  • Options
    #34
    Dr Crayfish
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,960 ✭✭✭Dr Crayfish


    ixoy wrote: »
    Exactly. Why is this even required when there is a cycle path there already?

    Ok so it's the one along the road. Well I used to work in D7 so I'd have to go along that lane and then up into Ballybough so I'd use a bike lane if I was going that way - getting over to the road that goes into Ballybough proved difficult sometimes though.


  • Options
    #35
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 30,157 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    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

    And a segregated wall wouldnt reduce the effort and thereby the risk even further?
    You are worried about the effort right now but dont think the clearest demarcation available is needed?
    Maybe that works for you... I just dont see it working for the majority of other users... either on 2 wheels or legs.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Options
    #36
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    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.

    This. Cycle paths in parks and park-like spaces ruin the whole idea of those spaces as safe areas free from fast moving vehicles, where it's safe for people and their kids / pets to relax.

    When and if the S2S cycleway makes it to Dun Laoghaire, if they still try to route it through Newtownsmith Green instead of around it, I for one will be on the front line protesting about it. And of course, before anyone asks, I'd obviously do exactly the same thing if they were discussing routing motor traffic through a park area as well.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    jon1981
    Registered Users Posts: 4,359 ✭✭✭jon1981


    Wet leaves... that cycle lane is f**king lethal during Autumn months when it's wet. I'm in favour of felling a few trees if it makes the lane more usable.


  • Options
    #38
    P_1
    Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    This. Cycle paths in parks and park-like spaces ruin the whole idea of those spaces as safe areas free from fast moving vehicles, where it's safe for people and their kids / pets to relax.

    When and if the S2S cycleway makes it to Dun Laoghaire, if they still try to route it through Newtownsmith Green instead of around it, I for one will be on the front line protesting about it. And of course, before anyone asks, I'd obviously do exactly the same thing if they were discussing routing motor traffic through a park area as well.

    You can relax without blindly walking onto a cycle path. It's called common sense.

    I don't understand why they want to route the path around the trees anyway, with the wet leaves it becomes a death trap.

    Imagine something akin to this being laid on the main cycle path through the park. Smooth and well lit for cyclists and bright and shiny enough for the blithering idiots to know to stay the hell off of.

    https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/07/poland-builds-a-solar-powered-bike-path-that-glows-a-ghostly-blue/


  • Options
    #39
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 30,157 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    P_1 wrote: »
    You can relax without blindly walking onto a cycle path. It's called common sense.

    It's very easy to blindly walk onto a cycle path right now in numerous places around Dublin, and especially Fairview Park.
    Sadly common sense is in all too short supply in DCC.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Options
    #40
    TallGlass
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,935 ✭✭✭TallGlass


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    It's very easy to blindly walk onto a cycle path right now in numerous places around Dublin, and especially Fairview Park.
    Sadly common sense is in all too short supply in DCC.

    Simple solution, raise the cycle track up higher. Seriously OTT to go cutting down all the trees, I am fairly certain there are one hundred and one other plans that are not even as money consuming as felling all the trees. The cycle track via the park is quicker anyway, I use it all the time.

    As a cyclist it's easy to blame people walking onto the track, but in fairness some cyclists need to slow down a little and a bit of hazard perception when cycling would avoid knocking someone down or getting knocked off the bike.


  • Options
    #41
    P_1
    Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    It's very easy to blindly walk onto a cycle path right now in numerous places around Dublin, and especially Fairview Park.
    Sadly common sense is in all too short supply in DCC.

    The path I'm referring to is a straight line through the park. You'd want to be Stevie Wonder to blunder into it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Tusky
    Registered Users Posts: 17,065 ✭✭✭✭Tusky


    Am I the only one who doesn't think this is such a bad idea? There's three rows of trees at the edge of the park, they are only proposing to remove the outer row. They have conducted an arborist report which says those trees are struggling anyway.

    That stretch of road is a deathtrap for cyclists ('m a driver, not a cyclist) during rush hour, so the lane is badly needed. It's not good enough to have a cyclelane sharing space with the path.

    And if the cyclelane runs through the park it has to cut across the path twice, which is not ideal.


  • Options
    #43
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 30,157 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    P_1 wrote: »
    The path I'm referring to is a straight line through the park. You'd want to be Stevie Wonder to blunder into it.

    From your description you make it sound like there is one single straight line through the park.

    In fact it is a straight line that intersects lots of other non cycle way paths in the park... and those junctions are not wellmarked at all.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Options
    #44
    P_1
    Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    From your description you make it sound like there is one single straight line through the park.

    In fact it is a straight line that intersects lots of other non cycle way paths in the park... and those junctions are not wellmarked at all.

    True but you would presume that they would be if the main path was being upgraded.


  • Options
    #45
    dubrov
    Registered Users Posts: 3,571 ✭✭✭dubrov


    P_1 wrote:
    True but you would presume that they would be if the main path was being upgraded.


    It would still be substandard.
    Why not just build something decent that would benefit cyclists, pedestrians and motorists alike?


  • Options
    #46
    TallGlass
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,935 ✭✭✭TallGlass


    I was looking at it and thinking about it. A few points.

    1. The trees really really really don't need to be removed. The existing fence around the park could easily stay or be move back to make way for a new track or path behind the inner row of trees. Cycle path now becomes ped only.

    2. Upgrade the existing track via the park, making it some what wider with cycle track higher than normal ped walkway.

    3. Completely new routes via the park.

    4. Option would be resizing the existing road to make way for upgraded cycling lanes on the existing roads for both traffic entering and exiting town. This to me would be a good idea, I am sticking to the roads outbound as is cause I cut via Fairview a new lane would only really benefit me entering town anyway.

    For options 2/3. Something needs to be done about the gates and lighting upgrades.


  • Options
    #47
    Billgirlylegs
    Registered Users Posts: 494 ✭✭Billgirlylegs


    We are all pro cyclists.
    They should be on the road and comply with Road Traffic Acts
    If they and the rest of the traffic did that (or were made to) there would be no need for "cycle paths".
    It's a ridiculous waste of money, not to mention misguided in getting rid of the trees.
    As was said - these particular trees are almost purpose designed to deal with traffic pollution.


  • Options
    #48
    jon1981
    Registered Users Posts: 4,359 ✭✭✭jon1981


    If a small section of park creates this much debate and conflict, it's a miracle we get anything done in this city!


  • Options
    #49
    Billgirlylegs
    Registered Users Posts: 494 ✭✭Billgirlylegs


    jon1981 wrote: »
    If a small section of park creates this much debate and conflict, it's a miracle we get anything done in this city!

    Really stupid proposals generate this kind of response.
    What do the powers that be "plan" on spending on this proposal?
    Would a general "we invite submissions from locals on how to improve traffic flows through Fairview Park area" have suggested knocking trees or gouging a bit out of the park to facilitate traffic movement?


  • Options
    #50
    gizmo81
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,695 ✭✭✭gizmo81


    Just passed by this morning and there are diggers clearing all the bushes along the canal.


  • Options
    #51
    Dr Crayfish
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,960 ✭✭✭Dr Crayfish


    A lane on the other side of the road is badly needed


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    dubrov
    Registered Users Posts: 3,571 ✭✭✭dubrov


    Billgirlylegs wrote: »
    We are all pro cyclists.
    They should be on the road and comply with Road Traffic Acts
    If they and the rest of the traffic did that (or were made to) there would be no need for "cycle paths".
    It's a ridiculous waste of money, not to mention misguided in getting rid of the trees.
    As was said - these particular trees are almost purpose designed to deal with traffic pollution.
    Billgirlylegs wrote: »
    Really stupid proposals generate this kind of response.
    What do the powers that be "plan" on spending on this proposal?
    Would a general "we invite submissions from locals on how to improve traffic flows through Fairview Park area" have suggested knocking trees or gouging a bit out of the park to facilitate traffic movement?

    Your comment about everyone following the rules is nonsense. Everyone doesn't follow the rules with particularly large consequences when motorists don't. We need to plan for the real world.

    Would you be happy if the road was reduced to a single car lane to allow the trees to be kept? I doubt it.


  • Options
    #53
    Dr Crayfish
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,960 ✭✭✭Dr Crayfish


    dubrov wrote: »
    Your comment about everyone following the rules is nonsense. Everyone doesn't follow the rules with particularly large consequences when motorists don't. We need to plan for the real world.

    Would you be happy if the road was reduced to a single car lane to allow the trees to be kept? I doubt it.

    Cyclists shouldn't really have to follow the rules anyway, to a certain extent. If a cyclist was to come to a red light at a T junction, what's stopping him from dismounting, walking across the path and continuing cycling? Is that illegal? There really should be different rules, in the real world, as you say!


  • Options
    #54
    Billgirlylegs
    Registered Users Posts: 494 ✭✭Billgirlylegs


    dubrov wrote: »
    Your comment about everyone following the rules is nonsense. Everyone doesn't follow the rules with particularly large consequences when motorists don't. We need to plan for the real world.

    Would you be happy if the road was reduced to a single car lane to allow the trees to be kept? I doubt it.

    Where is that proposed?

    There is adequate space for all users at the moment - everyone seems to manage to get where they are going. For some reason there is a proposal to change things. The proposal is counter-productive.


  • Options
    #55
    Dr Crayfish
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,960 ✭✭✭Dr Crayfish


    Billgirlylegs wrote: »
    Where is that proposed?

    There is adequate space for all users at the moment - everyone seems to manage to get where they are going. For some reason there is a proposal to change things. The proposal is counter-productive.

    Well, a cyclists died not too long ago where the lane is being proposed. We're trying to avoid such tragedies. I think 11 cyclists are dead so far this year, so there's clearly something wrong.


  • Options
    #56
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    Billgirlylegs wrote: »
    Where is that proposed?

    There is adequate space for all users at the moment - everyone seems to manage to get where they are going. For some reason there is a proposal to change things. The proposal is counter-productive.

    It's not counter-productive. It will lead to more people cycling due to it being a safer route. This leads to less traffic. Technically it will result in a more efficient and productive city.


  • Options
    #57
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 30,157 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Dr Crayfish wrote: »
    Well, a cyclists died not too long ago where the lane is being proposed. We're trying to avoid such tragedies.

    They dont need to cut down any trees to avoid a repeat of that tragedy. They tomorrow could fix the layout of the Howth Road junction with Fairview which is a mess right now. We can't rely on having segregated cycle lanes all the time, the roads need to be safe regardless.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Options
    #58
    Dr Crayfish
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,960 ✭✭✭Dr Crayfish


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    They dont need to cut down any trees to avoid a repeat of that tragedy. They tomorrow could fix the layout of the Howth Road junction with Fairview which is a mess right now. We can't rely on having segregated cycle lanes all the time, the roads need to be safe regardless.

    Is it a mess? I go through it twice a day and don't really have any problems. It can be hairy going past the Bru Pub and Joeys etc, along that strip, the layout of the bike lanes are comical.


  • Options
    #59
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 30,157 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Dr Crayfish wrote: »
    Is it a mess? I go through it twice a day and don't really have any problems. It can be hairy going past the Bru Pub and Joeys etc, along that strip, the layout of the bike lanes are comical.

    The junction with Malahide Road is a hairy one for everyone - bikes, cars and pedestrians... traffic volumes too much for it with cars backed up from Griffith Avenue all the way to Fairview junction.

    I've read complaints elsewhere on Boards about the filter light for the turn left from Fairview onto Howth Road, which cuts across the cycle path from bikes which are going straight - probably the bikes would need to position themselves in the middle of the two car lanes for going straight but with the cycle lane and two car lanes there's not always room to do that cleanly.

    But the general point remains, the roads need to be safe too... cycle paths should make it easier \ encouraging and yes in the long run safer. But if the roads aren't safe, that's not going to be enough, every road in Dublin isn't going to get a segregated cycle path ... and this cycle path could be months - years coming to fruition.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Options
    #60
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    P_1 wrote: »
    You can relax without blindly walking onto a cycle path. It's called common sense.

    Not if you have small children or pets. Areas which are widely used to let either of the aforementioned play freely shouldn't have any sort of high speed traffic whatsoever allowed on them. I don't know about Fairview park, but Newtownsmith in Sandycove, where the end portion of this massive cycle route is intended to intersect, is used by pretty much everyone locally for off-lead dog exercise, as well as family picnics etc. Having people zipping around the green at high speed would completely kill that atmosphere. Is the portion of Fairview park under discussion here similar at all? Like, if people have been using a place for years to let young toddlers and pets play freely without having to watch them every second or worry about them getting injured, it's pretty understandable that opening such areas up to any form of high speed vehicular traffic would piss people off.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Not if you have small children or pets. Areas which are widely used to let either of the aforementioned play freely shouldn't have any sort of high speed traffic whatsoever allowed on them. I don't know about Fairview park, but Newtownsmith in Sandycove, where the end portion of this massive cycle route is intended to intersect, is used by pretty much everyone locally for off-lead dog exercise, as well as family picnics etc. Having people zipping around the green at high speed would completely kill that atmosphere. Is the portion of Fairview park under discussion here similar at all? Like, if people have been using a place for years to let young toddlers and pets play freely without having to watch them every second or worry about them getting injured, it's pretty understandable that opening such areas up to any form of high speed vehicular traffic would piss people off.

    Dogs are meant to be under the control of their owner. If they are straying onto a cycle path/track then they are not under their owners control.


Advertisement