No more cycling on the Grand Canal path in Dublin.

bob123456

Which is partly fair enough as there are roads beside most of the canal, but not everywhere as can be seen in photo 1.

They were painting the signs today.

I hopped off my bike and took the photos, hopped back on again and cyclyed away!

Kooli

Awww that sucks. I always cycle on the portion in the first photo. By the second photo I'm back on the road again.

Lumen

Relax, those signs only prohibit the use of hybrids and other flat-barred bikes.

blorg

Lumen wrote: »

Relax, those signs only prohibit the use of hybrids and other flat-barred bikes.

Good point, on a similar vein I noticed while cycling in the woods on my cross bike that only mountain bikes were prohibited.

Chips Lovell

bob123456 wrote: »

Which is partly fair enough as there are roads beside most of the canal, but not everywhere as can be seen in photo

Ummm, there's a road on the other side of the canal.

Doctor Bob

The only location on that stretch of the canal without a road immediately parallel is the one in the first pic, but there's a parallel road not 50 metres to the north, behind the apartments, which is hardly a detour at all and might in fact be slightly quicker than the path. (The apartments in the pic were built on the old Portobello Harbour [boooo], so there was never a road or path there historically either, i.e. this 'gap' always existed.)

If/when the Rathmines to Fairview canal cycle route gets connected to the Ashtown to Blackhorse canal cycle route, this barrier will have to be addressed. It could be done with, say, a pricey boardwalk, or it could be done on the virtually traffic-free streets of Portobello, streets which are already among the safest for cycling in Dublin.

vektarman

Lumen wrote: »

Relax, those signs only prohibit the use of hybrids and other flat-barred bikes.

And bikes with no chains.:)

bob123456

Doctor Bob wrote: »

The only location on that stretch of the canal without a road immediately parallel is the one in the first pic, but there's a parallel road not 50 metres to the north, behind the apartments, which is hardly a detour at all and might in fact be slightly quicker than the path.

There's also the stretch of road further up which is one-way and is very narrow if cars are on the road.

It was much safer and legal to cycle on the path.

bob123456

el tonto wrote: »

Ummm, there's a road on the other side of the canal.

True.

Perhaps I should have said on the side of the canal that you are cycling on.

I wonder if the red strikethrough will be visible at night.

congo_90

Why are bikes not allowed use it? Surely there's some law against this?

rflynnr

It's a footpath. It's illegal to ride on footpaths (which are for pedestrians).

(See my sig.)

Sean02

Footpath or towpath?, Either way I wonder if Ciaran's Dept. had anything to do with this contradiction to saposed cycle friendly DCC.

mmclo

So this isn't part of the new route been planned? Where is it going in the same vicinity?

Doctor Bob

mmclo wrote: »

So this isn't part of the new route been planned? Where is it going in the same vicinity?

It's not part of the route- the Rathmines to Fairview route starts just east of here, right outside Portobello College. I suspect this was partly due to the constricted nature of the footpath in question.

bob123456 wrote: »

There's also the stretch of road further up which is one-way and is very narrow if cars are on the road.

It was much safer and legal to cycle on the path.

I'm not sure it was ever legal; more likely tolerated at best. And it may have been safer for you, but was it safer for the pedestrians with whom you shared the path?

As for the section of road, yes, it's one-way, but it's also very lightly used by cars. I realise that both options constitute rule-breaking or -bending, but the danger to both you and others is lower on the road.

Sean02 wrote: »

Footpath or towpath?, Either way I wonder if Ciaran's Dept. had anything to do with this contradiction to saposed cycle friendly DCC.

Footpath.

As mentioned above, this was never a towpath. There was a harbour here originally:



The stretch in question is where the word 'harbour' is on this map.




This is the harbour, now filled in.

See here for more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portobello,_Dublin


If I seem a little cranky about this, it's because I think we need to pick our battles a bit better when it comes to criticising pro- or anti-cycling developments. In this case, I accept that the path isn't right for cycling, and good options exist in the vicinity already anyway. As for the comment about "Ciaran's Dept.", I'd suggest that no local authority would be doing its job if it prioritised one mode at the expense of all others (as was done historically for cars, and is still being done for cars in too many places around the country), especially at the expense of the more vulnerable ones, i.e. in this case, pedestrians.

I can't agree that it's the job of a Cycling Officer to push cycling at all costs, I don't accept that there is a contradiction here, and I think you're being unfair in criticising DCC for this intervention. (It's not like there aren't enough grounds for legitimate criticism already with other projects discussed here recently!)

Okay- rant over. I need a pint.

mmclo

But the plan is to extend things ot Clondalkin?? So at this point it will move on road, boardwalk or other side??

Doctor Bob

mmclo wrote: »

But the plan is to extend things ot Clondalkin?? So at this point it will move on road, boardwalk or other side??

Yep- the plan is to connect the Adamstown-Blackhorse canal route to the Portobello-Fairview route. See the post from Ciarán in DCC here.

My guess is it would have to go on road at this point, behind the old harbour, before returning to the canal bank on Portobello Road and Windsor Terrace. But the harbour isn't the only barrier on the north bank of the canal- west of here, the road(space) effectively disappears behind Griffith College and the National Stadium, and there are a few other blockages on the north bank further west. Once the canal turns at Suir Road it's a fairly unimpeded run to Blackhorse.

I suppose a boardwalk is always an option, but I'm assuming that would cost more; maybe the opposite bank would have to be considered...

It's worth scooting around on Google Maps/Earth or the bird's eye view on Bing Maps to see the route.

daymobrew

Doctor Bob wrote: »

I'm not sure it was ever legal; more likely tolerated at best. And it may have been safer for you, but was it safer for the pedestrians with whom you shared the path?

When going to the Lebanese cafe on Richmond Road I generally park on Lennox Place, at the canal banks. Cyclists using the stretch mentioned in the first post can be annoying.

Sean02

This was the rear of the Ever Ready Factory. I would have thought that the towpath changed sides of the canal at H.X.Bridge Any old photos out there

IM0

rflynnr wrote: »

It's a footpath. It's illegal to ride on footpaths (which are for pedestrians).

that would be like painting B&W stripes on the roads and wondering why peds keep crossing there. Its painted red FFS...like moths to a flame!

blorg

me@ucd wrote: »

that would be like painting B&W stripes on the roads and wondering why peds keep crossing there. Its painted red FFS...like moths to a flame!

That's a good point, hadn't noticed it was red.