Clontarf to City Centre Cycle & Bus Priority Project discussion (renamed)

He is right. Nothing to fear in Fairview or Ballybough or North Strand. It’s surprising to hear some of the attitudes.

Right well we're not getting a 2 way cycle lane, this is like discussing a new Metro route, total waste of time.

I just asked Google Maps for the best way of getting to my place in North Strand from Artane and it is telling me to drive through Fairview/North Strand as usual without going through Ballybough, has something changed?

The footbridge is remaining and a signal controlled crossing is being provided. You could say that the footbridge isn't needed but people were opposed to it's removal. Removing it wouldn't automatically mean two-way lanes on that side could be implemented, you'd still have to remove a significant number of trees which also faced major opposition. And the grass verge under the arch is irrelevant, removing it would create the potential for significant number of vehicles hitting the bridge.

The narrowed two way path as you described could still be implemented, although I'm sure if that was proposed most cyclists and advocacy groups would consider it a terrible solution (and likely yourself too given how much your issues with the lanes on Griffith Ave.). It might work for the smaller numbers of people cycling from Fairview Park but forcing everyone cycling out of town towards Clontarf into that situation would make for a bigger issue.

What is being built now will at least have the option of using the proper cycle lane on the other side. This is particularly important for people whose destination is on or west of Howth Road who wouldn't be able to access a cycle lane in either direction without crossing the road. Not having that would seriously reduce provision for cyclists in the area for absolutely no gain.

Again, a cycle lane on the park side has little benefit. Again, it wouldn't remove the need to cross the road when cycling from North Strand to Clontarf! The benefits would be tiny and not worth the expense or disruption. It doesn't even negate the need for a cycle lane on the other side of the road.

The link you posted is irrelevant, that project was obviously considered to have a sound business case and was worth undertaking. Sure lots of things can be done but that doesn't mean everything is worth doing.

Well we didn't start off talking about just 20 metres. At the end of the day, two-way cycle lanes on the Park side isn't really an option (unless you wanted to go to battle with half the city who don't want a precedent for chopping down late numbers of mature trees being set). It would also be far worse in terms of cycling provision for locals who would have to cross the road when travelling in both directions.

You could formalise people cycling the "wrong" way for a short stretch from the eastern end of the park to east of ABR and it would work. Although it would be suboptimal imo, but as you say, it will happen regardless. It wouldn't remove the need to cross the road when heading out of town (and would force people to have to cross the road to access anywhere around Fairview or along Malahide or Howth Roads, which they otherwise wouldn't have to).

And going on about "what the Dutch would do" is complete BS. They have plenty of single direction cycle lanes, they certainly dont go to any expense or level of disruption to gain such small benefits.

Your use of the word direct here is it bit disingenuous. The park side may be considered "direct" for some journeys but certainly wouldn't be for any journeys to/from around Fairview or along Malahide or Howth Roads. That is a large population and probably accounts for more commuting cyclists than further out at Clontarf promenade as there are no commuters from the sea.

You seem to expect people from the area most effected to accept reduced access to the cycle lanes (having to cross the road to access to cycle in both directions) and loss of mature trees which are a defining feature. Why should people accept two things which they consider will make things worse for them with no benefits in return? Whatever about objections from elsewhere, most of the local community were opposed to mass tree removal. You seem to be the outsider whose opinion should have no bearing.

The number of people who would actually benefit from what you want is small and would be far outweighed by those who wouldn't want that. For anyone cycling to/from Clontarf from/to the city, there is no real benefit as they still have to cross to the other side of the road. There certainly isn't enough benefit to justify the cost and disruption you want to impose.

If you want cycle lanes in both directions, I have already said how that should be done on the other side of the road (while keeping the lane on the park side). That would tick that box for you and would be more "direct" for many people. That's more like what the Dutch would actually do rather than your idea.