Cyclists hail scrapping of NRA “fake greenway” scheme in Kerry

galwaycyclist

Cyclist.ie, Ireland’s National Cycling Network and Lobby Group has welcomed An Bord Pleanala’s rejection of a controversial National Roads Authority (NRA) scheme for the N86 in the Dingle peninsula. The road upgrade scheme running from Camp to Dingle had attracted particular concern because the designers planned to co-locate a tourist cycling path directly beside high speed traffic for the entire length of the scheme (28km).

The cyclists are hailing the decision as a vindication of the Failte Ireland tourism strategy and National Cycle Policy Framework (Department of Transport, 2009) which is to avoid busy roads. The rejection of the NRA design calls into question (1) other routes of the same design elsewhere and (2) the NRA’s role in delivering vital cycling infrastructure

Full story here
http://www.cyclist.ie/2012/11/cyclists-welcome-rejection-by-an-board-pleanala-of-controversial-kerry-n86-road-design/

This may help force a rethink on cycling provision - but that might be unwarranted optimism.

Lumen

"Recreational cyclists are not just looking for a strip of tarmac that is “free” of cars but for a cycling experience that is away from the noise, smell and other disturbances of high-speed traffic. (This includes being away from high-speed sports cyclists)"

Roadies are bit smelly, in fairness.

monument

I see the Mayo Greenway / road project is also going to ABP.

manwithaplan

Any self-respecting high speed road cyclist wouldn't be seen next nor near the smelly N86.

Straight on at Camp
Is your only man
To the Connor Pass
And the Ice Cream Van

galwaycyclist

monument wrote: »

I see the Mayo Greenway / road project is also going to ABP.

Do you have a link to any notice? If its Wesport to Mulranny I think the scheme is relatively OK. They are putting the greenway on an overbridge and underpass which should improve the experience - havent looked at the other details

smacl

+1, the only correct way to arrive at Dingle by bike is tearing down the Connor Pass, screeching to a halt outside Bennys for a well earned pint.

smacl

Lumen wrote: »

"Recreational cyclists are not just looking for a strip of tarmac that is “free” of cars but for a cycling experience that is away from the noise, smell and other disturbances of high-speed traffic. (This includes being away from high-speed sports cyclists)"

Roadies are bit smelly, in fairness.

So what exactly is a recreational cyclist? Is there a prescribed dress code, speed limit and style of bicycle. Just trying to imagine the signage on these new recreational cycle ways. Speed limits are fine, but pictures of a lycra top or drop bars surrounded by a red circle with a line through then will surely confuse the tourists. Really we seem to need three sets of roads, one for the recreational cyclist, one for the high-speed sports cyclist, and one for the motorised vehicles. :rolleyes:

fat bloke

smacl wrote: »

+1, the only correct way to arrive at Dingle by bike is tearing down the Connor Pass, screeching to a halt outside Bennys* for a well earned pint.

*Pronounced "Binny's".

Lumen

smacl wrote: »

So what exactly is a recreational cyclist? Is there a prescribed dress code, speed limit and style of bicycle. Just trying to imagine the signage on these new recreational cycle ways. Speed limits are fine, but pictures of a lycra top or drop bars surrounded by a red circle with a line through then will surely confuse the tourists. Really we seem to need three sets of roads, one for the recreational cyclist, one for the high-speed sports cyclist, and one for the motorised vehicles. :rolleyes:

Recreational cyclists smile and wave.

Roadies sneer elitistically.

RobertFoster

smacl wrote: »

So what exactly is a recreational cyclist?

They feel they can quit any time they want. They're not like those roadie types who deny their family money and time by cycling. They feel they can control their bike use, their bike use doesn't control them.

bambergbike

Yay for the end of the fake greenway!

We can mock attempts to define the „recreational cyclist“ until the cows come home, but when different categories of cyclist are lumped together, the results are often messy. My road bike has punctured on a cycle track surfaced with flints where my hybrid would have been fine. I have fallen off my hybrid on a generic cycle route where a mountain bike was really what was required. If I'm on a greenway outing with a small child, I need the route to be consistently of "greenway" quality and not to suddenly dump me into traffic.

smacl wrote: »

So what exactly is a recreational cyclist?[..] Really we seem to need three sets of roads, one for the recreational cyclist, one for the high-speed sports cyclist, and one for the motorised vehicles. :rolleyes:

Three different road networks would be a bit daft, but I don't see why we can't have three different route networks (with some overlap): a network of greenways for cyclists who want routes with very little motor traffic and gradients below 5%, a trails network for mountain bikers, and a network of routes for more ambitious recreational cyclists who want to experience the best climbs and the best views in the country and don't mind sharing the road with motor traffic (if it means they can escape from the horrors of tourist-clogged greenways). That last network would require almost nothing by way of physical infrastructure and could be quite useful to visitors. I would like to be able to walk into any tourist office and pick up a booklet, buy a map, download GPS tracks or hire a GPS unit with scenic and/or challenging routes contributed by local clubs. If that were possible, a "network" could be said to exist. To upgrade it, just add signposts, and maybe the odd signs at hazardous locations to warn motorists that they are on a tourist cycle route.