Bicycles, Phoenix Park and traffic

Weepsie

Larbre34 wrote: »

Ah yes. Having them closed was causing mayhem within and around the Park and unnecessary pollution.

Nope. People making unneccessary journeys is what did that.

VonLuck

plodder wrote: »

The nicest part of the park imo is the section near the southern perimeter roads that are already blocked to through traffic. So, it's great to see that continuing with more cul-de-sacs.

I'd agree the 30km/h speed limit is great in principle, and will have to be enforced, but hopefully not with speed bumps. I see they did some case studies including Centennial park in Australia. The speed limit there is 30km/h and is "strictly enforced". I presume that would need legislation and investment in detection equipment and man power to achieve.

Also, I see the bridge plan from Kilmainham and the War Memorial gardens is not completely dead, but the accessible link to climb the height to the park appears to be. That's a shame. It could really have been a significant attraction in its own right.

The road in its current arrangement is not suitable for a 30km/h speed limit. It's akin to telling people to maintain a speed of 70km/h on a motorway. Just not practical. They need to look at some physical measures to reduce the traffic speed, not just Gardaí enforcement.

plodder

VonLuck wrote: »

The road in its current arrangement is not suitable for a 30km/h speed limit. It's akin to telling people to maintain a speed of 70km/h on a motorway. Just not practical. They need to look at some physical measures to reduce the traffic speed, not just Gardaí enforcement.

But, we do sometimes have 70 km/h speed limits or less on motorways. The problems only arise when a few people observe them, but lots of others don't, without getting caught. Like the Australian park, I think the speed limits should be enforced by park rangers, which would need legislation I suspect.

Stark

plodder wrote: »

But, we do sometimes have 70 km/h speed limits or less on motorways. The problems only arise when a few people observe them, but lots of others don't, without getting caught. Like the Australian park, I think the speed limits should be enforced by park rangers, which would need legislation I suspect.

Which generally doesn't work out until you stick a permanent speed van there. 120km/hr through the M7 roadworks was common before they had full time speed vans. And even then, after a while people started to get to know the typical places where the vans were stationed so would just slow down at that part.

Dr_Colossus

plodder wrote: »

I think the speed limits should be enforced by park rangers, which would need legislation I suspect.

Don't see much prospects of that when we can't even have cameras to catch all the red light jumpers. Again when no enforcement there's no deterrent so people will bend/break any available legislation.
What's the impediment to stick a couple of gatso vans in the park on a semi permanent basis to ensure enforcement, legislation again since governed by the OPW?

plodder

Dr_Colossus wrote: »

Don't see much prospects of that when we can't even have cameras to catch all the red light jumpers. Again when no enforcement there's no deterrent so people will bend/break any available legislation.
What's the impediment to stick a couple of gatso vans in the park on a semi permanent basis to ensure enforcement, legislation again since governed by the OPW?

Don't know. How do they do it in Australia? Can't be beyond the wit of mankind. One thing is sure though if it's left to the gardai, I can imagine where enforcing speed limits in the park will come on their list of priorities. If it has to be speed bumps, then so be it.

Birdie Num Num

Weepsie wrote: »

Except for those running, cycling or walking in the park.

Whereas the journey to the park and around it was more enjoyable. The opening of the gates and allowing traffic around it more, made the park itself immediately a whole lot less enjoyable.

It should be what is the best way to use the park, not what is the best way to ensure some are not inconvenienced.

Disagree completely. I’ve ran in the park for over 40 years and it was the pits during Much of 2020. What was very noticeable when retail reopened how the number of Park visitors dropped like a stone.

Larbre34

Peregrine wrote: »

I remember. The pollution from all the cars trying to park on North Road was so bad, I went home.

Cars parked on footpaths and grass verges. Saw a wheelchair being pushed around illegally parked cars. Even I couldn't get through safely.

I'm glad it was enjoyable for you.

Smart arsery might make you feel better, but a few of us are trying to deal with reality here.

The mobility plan is an attempt to deal with all the problems associated with the Parks success. I could say your attitude is just selfish and wanting to keep it as a local amenity, to be accessed for the most part by walking and cycling, but I recognise the fact it is a national Park with some great amenities and historical and tourist interest that will always be popular, not to mention the 2,800 jobs supported within its walls.

Having read the report, I'll be pushing for option 7B.

Birdie Num Num

Peregrine wrote: »

I remember. The pollution from all the cars trying to park on North Road was so bad, I went home.

Cars parked on footpaths and grass verges. Saw a wheelchair being pushed around illegally parked cars. Even I couldn't get through safely.

I'm glad it was enjoyable for you.

The parking was a disgrace but was more do with the gates shut, parking restrictions outside and inside the park. That also coincided with a lot of people visiting the park that wouldn’t ordinarily use it when everything else is opened up. Some people that use the Park don’t respect it or other people that use it and that was certainly more obvious in 2020.

cgcsb

Have only just had a chance to skim the report. Seems to be no mention of whom will operate the bus service, what the rolling stock will be and how it fits into current and future fare structures.

MojoMaker

The gates shut in the park earlier this year made the park a nicer place to be. The only group it didn't suit were those trying to use the park to get somewhere else.

Why would you care about the traffic tailback on Chesterfield avenue labre34, unless you were one of the drivers caught in the traffic? Walkers and cyclists generally stayed away from the main avenue so the despair must be a motoring perspective.

Just want to be clear on it as I wasn't grasping your point of view first time around.

Local residents were for the most part delighted with the gate closures, but I could see how commuters may have a different view.

Larbre34

MojoMaker wrote: »

Local residents were for the most part delighted with the gate closures, but I could see how commuters may have a different view.

Thats an absolutely incorrect assertion.

MojoMaker

In your opinion.

I am a local resident. What you seem to be suggesting is that from your perspective as a motoring local resident it was sub-optimal.

Maybe my problem is I don't drive through the park and just can't appreciate how annoying measures taken to support walkers, cyclists, and wildlife are on the motoring community.

I probably don't, but I am keen to understand it. There was a post a few pages back (not by you) that stated the traffic was grand once the gates were shut - continuous movement, albeit slow and steady, and that acres of the park were opened up to younger children for the first time in years, free from the menace of motorised traffic on the roads adjacent to the main thoroughfare.

Maybe that's a bad thing, again I don't know. Why should kids, animals, birds etc, be prioritised over the motorist considering it's a critical artery into the city?

polesheep

MojoMaker wrote: »

In your opinion.

I am a local resident. What you seem to be suggesting is that from your perspective as a motoring local resident it was sub-optimal.

Maybe my problem is I don't drive through the park and just can't appreciate how annoying measures taken to support walkers, cyclists, and wildlife are on the motoring community.

I probably don't, but I am keen to understand it. There was a post a few pages back (not by you) that stated the traffic was grand once the gates were shut - continuous movement, albeit slow and steady, and that acres of the park were opened up to younger children for the first time in years, free from the menace of motorised traffic on the roads adjacent to the main thoroughfare.

Maybe that's a bad thing, again I don't know. Why should kids, animals, birds etc, be prioritised over the motorist considering it's a critical artery into the city?

It shouldn't be a critical artery into the city. Removing the toll on the M50 could go a long way to removing the traffic through the Park. Quite a lot of the traffic through the Park is avoiding the toll. You can see it any evening going through Chapelizod and into the Park.

beauf

MojoMaker wrote: »

The gates shut in the park earlier this year made the park a nicer place to be. The only group it didn't suit were those trying to use the park to get somewhere else.

Why would you care about the traffic tailback on Chesterfield avenue labre34, unless you were one of the drivers caught in the traffic? Walkers and cyclists generally stayed away from the main avenue so the despair must be a motoring perspective.

Just want to be clear on it as I wasn't grasping your point of view first time around.

Local residents were for the most part delighted with the gate closures, but I could see how commuters may have a different view.

Since the biggest gridlock happened at the weekends, with people parking all over the place. That's some strange commuting and through traffic.

I'm a local and haven't used it for commuting for years. Well other than commuting on the bike a good bit. It restricted our use a lot. I didn't hear anyone complaining. Most locals I know, avoid it when its busy, or did a U-Turn and came home. As we did. Just used all the other local parks. Being local its easy to pop up to the park when its quiet. I guess locals are just used to it.

beauf

tomasrojo wrote: »

That's interesting. Was it a commuter service to/from Castleknock or something like that?

Found out a bit more.

CityswiftFollow
Park shuttle
The ill fated Phoenix Park shuttle bus, launched by the Office of Public Works in May 2008 to offer a shuttle bus from Parkgate Street around the Phoenix Park for a nominal fee.

Originally operating every half hour seven days a week, using former UK based Millennium Dome buses, powered by LPG, operated by Aircoach, the service was poorly used, frequency reduced at first to just one bus & then discontinued in early 2010.

The route operated a circular route inside the Phoenix Park, connecting with the visitors centre.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/cityswift/28455843340/

Mercian Pro

Dr_Colossus wrote: »

What's the impediment to stick a couple of gatso vans in the park on a semi permanent basis to ensure enforcement, legislation again since governed by the OPW?

plodder wrote: »

One thing is sure though if it's left to the gardai, I can imagine where enforcing speed limits in the park will come on their list of priorities. If it has to be speed bumps, then so be it.

Chesterfield Avenue is 4.2km long. If you get from one end to the other in less than 8.4 minutes, you will have broken the proposed 30km/h speed limit. Average speed cameras with number-plate recognition are common elsewhere and are in use on the Port Tunnel. I assume they need very little manpower once they are sey up and issuing of fines and/or penalty points is presumably automated.

MojoMaker

beauf wrote: »

Since the biggest gridlock happened at the weekends, with people parking all over the place.

As you say, that has nothing to do with commuting and/or putting local residents out due to re(mis?)directed traffic, that's purely down to popularity and the lack of anything else to do.

The park was a brilliant place to be when less motorists made a decision to drive through it.

Are you sure we're not conflating the issue of closed side gates with the decision to remove parking spaces from Chesterfield avenue? That certainly did annoy local residents, as many of the normal parking population ended up in the local environs - crucially instead of shifting the mindset away from driving at all, we're wedded to the damn car so just park somewhere else.

Fairly or otherwise, the cycling community bizarrely did get the blame for those parking space changes, which soured a lot of drivers towards anyone who cycles (in the park or otherwise, but especially in the park).

Larbre34

MojoMaker wrote: »

In your opinion.

I

No, not in my opinion. I spoke to several public reps and the offices of others at the time who said they were "very busy" and "inundated" with complaints from Castleknock, Navan Road, Blackhorse Ave and Chapelizod about congestion, delays and inconsiderate parking on residential streets in and around the Park.

As a local resident myself I remember the gridlock from Myos down to the Gates and on down Castleknock Road. Delight is that last word I would choose to describe everything I saw and heard about.

beauf

Mercian Pro wrote: »

Chesterfield Avenue is 4.2km long. If you get from one end to the other in less than 8.4 minutes, you will have broken the proposed 30km/h speed limit. Average speed cameras with number-plate recognition are common elsewhere and are in use on the Port Tunnel. I assume they need very little manpower once they are sey up and issuing of fines and/or penalty points is presumably automated.

I suggested something similar. A toll if you enter and leave the park within a certain amount of time and during peak commuting hours. Would deter commuters, but still leave access. Was entirety shot down.

Can't change anything historic in this man-made nature reserve. Not a nut on a gate, or a stone in a wall. Unless it removes cars. Then anything goes.

Best to leave them to it.

Mercian Pro

beauf wrote: »

Found out a bit more.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/cityswift/28455843340/

From memory, the bus was subsequently used for ferrying visitors to Aras an Uachtaráin from the Ashtown Castle Visitor Centre. It's hard to know how popular it will be this time round. Hopefully there are a lot more potential Park visitors now who don't automatically think of piling into the car as the only option.


Back doing my regular circuits of the Park. Yesterday, the numbers per circuit were about 95 walkers, 55 drivers, 30 cyclists and 20 runners. As pointed out here before, a lot of cars seem to come in the Chapelizod Gate and turn left heading presumably to the Castleknock or Ashtown exits. Quite a few are commercial vans who shouldn't really be in the Park at all according to the By-Laws.

beauf

MojoMaker wrote: »

As you say, that has nothing to do with commuting and/or putting local residents out due to re(mis?)directed traffic, that's purely down to popularity and the lack of anything else to do.

The park was a brilliant place to be when less motorists made a decision to drive through it.

Are you sure we're not conflating the issue of closed side gates with the decision to remove parking spaces from Chesterfield avenue? That certainly did annoy local residents, as many of the normal parking population ended up in the local environs - crucially instead of shifting the mindset away from driving at all, we're wedded to the damn car so just park somewhere else.

Fairly or otherwise, the cycling community bizarrely did get the blame for those parking space changes, which soured a lot of drivers towards anyone who cycles (in the park or otherwise, but especially in the park).

I think we are conflating a lot of things. Its blocking an honest and open discussion of lots of things. As is people claiming half the stuff we can see in photos and videos doesn't exist.

I don't see how parking at least on the D15 side moved to "local environs" There is very little near the park. They even closed White road for some time. Can't speak for other areas.

I don't really have any objections to trying new plans. But they never seem to make any sense. The OPW always want to turn it into a nature reserve. They don't want people in the park, regardless if there are in a car or not. Last thing was they didn't want was better lighting. I think there are ways to improve lighting and minimizing the impact on wildlife.

Their park, their rules I guess.

beauf

Mercian Pro wrote: »

...., a lot of cars seem to come in the Chapelizod Gate and turn left heading presumably to the Castleknock or Ashtown exits. Quite a few are commercial vans who shouldn't really be in the Park at all according to the By-Laws.

There is a lot of North South crossing the park. Its not all West East.

beauf

Had a close relative in Marys for some time. Use to call in on the way from work, weekends etc.

They would often close roads and you were forced to extra driving in the park to get to it. Which seem to be counter intuitive to reducing cars in the park. They seem to do this a lot with their traffic plans. So someone in there must think more is less.

jackofalltrades

Larbre34 wrote: »

As a local myself...

A local to where?
Because for someone who supposedly lives very close to the park you seem to have quite strong views on being able to drive and park in it.
Congestion in and around the park seems to really upset you.
To the point where you're in contact with politicians about it.
Your views seem to be the opposite to most locals around the park.

beauf

jackofalltrades wrote: »

.......
Congestion in and around the park seems to really upset you.
To the point where you're in contact with politicians about it.
Your views seem to be the opposite to most locals around the park.

Is traffic chaos a thing people generally desire. Must have missed that...

Location, location, location....traffic gridlock...

https://www.thejournal.ie/phoenix-park-side-gates-complaints-5290762-Dec2020/

MojoMaker

beauf wrote: »

They would often close roads and you were forced to extra driving in the park to get to it. Which seem to be counter intuitive to reducing cars in the park.

The weekend end summertime partial closure of Chesterfield Avenue is an absolute delight. For a few hours a city park becomes a park once more, where you aren't looking over your shoulder wondering where the next car is coming from.

Likewise during Lockdown I anyway, a joy to be in a city park largely free of motorised traffic. Only took Garda checkpoints on the way in to make it viable of course, and as soon as those checkpoints disappeared in lockdown II the motoring lobby worked to get the gates open again so PP became a free-for-all once more, even though the Navan Road and the M50 never went anywhere.

Anyway, the tide is turning, slowly but surely, and 2020 has helped a lot. Roll on more measures in 2021 to reduce motorised traffic even further.

magicbastarder

Larbre34 wrote: »

No, not in my opinion. I spoke to several public reps and the offices of others at the time who said they were "very busy" and "inundated" with complaints from Castleknock, Navan Road, Blackhorse Ave and Chapelizod about congestion, delays and inconsiderate parking on residential streets in and around the Park.

opposition to a measure is *always* far louder and more visible than what you hear from people in favour of something. it's a natural fact that people with cause to complain about something are far more likely to express that, than people with cause to support it.

you can see this in relation to the plans about the greenway through the deep sinking. people in favour of it are keeping their heads down so as not to draw the attention of those campaigning against it.

beauf

magicbastarder wrote: »

opposition to a measure is *always* far louder and more visible than what you hear from people in favour of something. it's a natural fact that people with cause to complain about something are far more likely to express that, than people with cause to support it.

you can see this in relation to the plans about the greenway through the deep sinking. people in favour of it are keeping their heads down so as not to draw the attention of those campaigning against it.

Well you had people opposing it being opened to traffic and people opposing it being closed. Opportunity there for vocal people on both sides.

MojoMaker

Larbre34 wrote: »

delays

Got it.