Now we need a pedestrian crossing at the Seafront

pixbyjohn

Greystones Seafront Cycle path by pixbyjohn, on Flickr

Annasopra

Bloody ridiculous that they took all the parking away

karma_coma

mango salsa wrote: »

Bloody ridiculous that they took all the parking away

I'm amazed at the high levels of defence towards the dependency on cars and the associated motor vehicular infrastructure, particularly in this area.

The car park for the Holy Rosary Church is free, there is ample parking along Kimberly Road and in the IrishRail car park at the end of La Touche Rd.. If you study the road layout plans available from the council website, there are car spaces (as there were previously) on the right side of the road.

As such I think contrary to your point, the council have shown great foresight in leaving provision for parking of cars, particularly for parents collecting their kids from St. David's.

Perhaps with the infrastructure for safer cycling in place, more parents will encourage their kids to cycle to David's. Then there would be less need for parking on the sea front.

I don't think the work of the council, in taking away a few car parking spaces to provide more safety for cyclists, should be scalded. After all, it is a far healthier method of transporting one self and requires far less land space as a method of transport in comparison to cars.



In conclusion, it seems to me that people, such as yourself, are objecting to the new layout as the option of parking ones car to stare out at sea for a bit is no longer there. I see that behaviour as something that should be discouraged.

I would like to congratulate the planner of this scheme for the design. It is a much more attractive layout for walkers and cyclists and it actively discourages the few 'car addicted, sea gazers' ( ) from going there and encourages them to use their legs!

cotton

In conclusion, it seems to me that people, such as yourself, are objecting to the new layout as the option of parking ones car to stare out at sea for a bit is no longer there. I see that behaviour as something that should be discouraged.

I would like to congratulate the planner of this scheme for the design. It is a much more attractive layout for walkers and cyclists and it actively discourages the few 'car addicted, sea gazers' ( ) from going there and encourages them to use their legs!

But not everyone can. My partner liked going up there every now & again as a "sea gazer" to watch the seagulls & the waves ete, he's a paraplegic. I know a lot of older people whos legs aren't the best liked doing the same. That simple pleasure has been taken away from them. I think it's a shame they've taken all the parking away

Annasopra

Heaven forbid an amenity for older people with mobility problems would be provided. I mean everyone can walk and cycle can't they :rolleyes:

karma_coma

cotton wrote: »

But not everyone can. My partner liked going up there every now & again as a "sea gazer" to watch the seagulls & the waves ete, he's a paraplegic.

I certainly acknowledge your point and it is a good one, that for older persons and for persons with a disability, like your partner, it may not be possible to enjoy the sea view in the same way as before.

I think there are a lot of design challenges to a project such as this in trying to provide inclusion for all members of a community. Unfortunately, many such plans neglect the aforementioned persons in that their needs are often forgotten about.

Conversely, I think the council have done a reasonably good job of considering these people in the design and my next point will reference this.

I think it's a shame they've taken all the parking away

This is the mistake I would like to clarify again which a lot of people seem to be making. The parking, which was previously in place on the right hand side of the road is still there. The sea and scenic views can still be enjoyed by persons parked on that side of the road although I would concede that they are not perhaps as good.

A compromise may be afforded for the frail and disabled could be that such persons can park in the St. David's car park facing out towards the sea. There may be issues with insurance however but it is one worth pursuing.

karma_coma

I think the most important thing for persons is to study the PDF link as follows:




http://www.wicklow.ie/apps/wicklowbeta/News/Part%208%20Greystones%20cycle/2012P006%20PL-02%20Rev%20C.pdf


As one can observe, and this is actually something I concede I did not realise, the provision for parking will still be there and on the left (sea side) once all works are completed.

As PBJ pointed out in the title of this thread, there needs to be pedestrian crossing points in the new layout. One can observe two well spaced crossing points in the drawing and they even ensure a yielding point to stop cyclists so as to allow full right of way for pedestrians.

I think what people are forgetting is that this project isn't yet completed. The council workers still have a good bit of ground work to complete and further review should be made at its conclusion.

loyatemu

Looks great, I look forward to cycling along it with the kids.

The Bishop Basher

I don't get the point of spending all this money creating a cycle lane on a relatively quiet, one way, 1 km stretch of road. Surely this money would be better spent putting cycle lanes on main commuter stretches where the sharing of roads poses a real and significant threat to the safety of commuter cyclists.

I notice that the preceeding stretch by the cove is the usual half arsed attempt of drawing a white line down the centre of the footpath which is dangerous for both cyclists and pedestrians and which most cyclists refuse to use anyway.

It would make a lot more sense if it was part of a network of cycle lanes around the town but it's not. Are people really going to dust of their bikes and cycle a couple of miles to the seafront just for the thrill of a 2 minute cycle on these oversized lanes ?

sccmcc

Swanner wrote: »

I don't get the point of spending all this money creating a cycle lane on a relatively quiet, one way, 1 km stretch of road. Surely this money would be better spent putting cycle lanes on main commuter stretches where the sharing of roads poses a real and significant threat to the safety of commuter cyclists.

I notice that the preceeding stretch by the cove is the usual half arsed attempt of drawing a white line down the centre of the footpath which is dangerous for both cyclists and pedestrians and which most cyclists refuse to use anyway.

It would make a lot more sense if it was part of a network of cycle lanes around the town but it's not. Are people really going to dust of their bikes and cycle a couple of miles to the seafront just for the thrill of a 2 minute cycle on these oversized lanes ?

I have to say I personally think the money may have been better spent properly repairing the roads in the locality. Filling in potholes and re-surfacing, some areas are in dire conditions especially after the heavy rains a few weeks ago.

magoko101

I suspect this is part of getting a cycle lane to run from howth to greystones....
Something was mentioned about it in the past and would be a great amenity if they got it up and running.

I fear that it is likely that it meets the requirement to provide a certain % of cycle lanes by painting one on a stretch of road where it was easy to do so.

Why not add a kerb between the bike lane and the road? As they do in Holland... to make it a truly cycle on lane and prevent cars from parking on it.

loyatemu

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Greystones Seafront Cycle path by pixbyjohn, on Flickr

why are the arrows painted on the wrong sides - we cycle on the left in this country....

Jimjay

loyatemu wrote: »

why are the arrows painted on the wrong sides - we cycle on the left in this country....

I guess so the cyclists riding at the side of the road are going in the same direction as the cars.

loyatemu

Jimjay wrote: »

I guess so the cyclists riding at the side of the road are going in the same direction as the cars.

That would be my guess as well, but its a raised cyclepath so they're already segregated. A bad, wrong-headed idea to reverse the directions IMO, it will lead to accidents.

Jimjay

loyatemu wrote: »

That would be my guess as well, but its a raised cyclepath so they're already segregated. A bad, wrong-headed idea to reverse the directions IMO, it will lead to accidents.

Is it raised? it doesn't look like it in the picture and i haven't been down yet

The Bishop Basher

Was down there this morning. I don't think it is but stand to be corrected.

Son of Jack

I'm sure the new cycle lane was planned with good intention as part of a system that will eventually connect up along the East Coast and that the people involved had some vision.

However I believe the money would have been better spent as a previous poster mentioned on maintaining roads in the area.

Also I think, there should be good information provided online and in the paper and radio press about the availability of parking elsewhere. The church car park was mentioned. That is 'the church' carpark.

Older attendees at morning mass were also finding it hard to get parking near the church because some people working in the town and taking the Dart had been parking there. This has been explained from the pulpit.

In the last year, the church carpark is closed early on the morning of a funeral and reopened shortly before the ceremony so that mourners can find parking. So for practical reasons I can't see an influx of cars being accommodated there.

Unless Greystones Town Commissioners flag the changes in availability in parking in front of St.David's there will be some fraught occasions with traffic jams and unhappy residents and visitors.

In particular I am thinking of fine summer Sundays when there are car boot sales in St. David's (its lifeline for very necessary fundraising) and mass goers, daytrippers and locals.

People will adjust and find alternatives but clear availability of information with help the process.

Having travelled with a carload of kids and Granny to many a beach on summer days in Ireland, to find myself in heavy traffic, I can see that without forethought, Greystones will become 'more of the same' and that would be a shame.

loyatemu

there are 2 large carparks at the south beach, and extra parking now at the harbour. there's a carpark opposite the La Touche and another behind the station. The removal of maybe 20 spaces along Strand Rd is hardly the end of the world.

AFAIK this is not part of any grand east-coast cycleway plan, as there is no easy route between Bray and Greystones, its just part of the councils general plans to make Greystones more cycle-friendly. (there is a coastal cycle route in progress between Dun Laoghaire and Sutton, but its bogged down in planning difficulties).

pixbyjohn

loyatemu wrote: »

there are 2 large carparks at the south beach, and extra parking now at the harbour. there's a carpark opposite the La Touche and another behind the station. The removal of maybe 20 spaces along Strand Rd is hardly the end of the world.

OK point taken. We will just have to see how it works out on a busy Sunday.

recedite

loyatemu wrote: »

A bad, wrong-headed idea to reverse the directions IMO, it will lead to accidents.

If you go up the cycle lane from Charlesland, just past the entrance to Eden Gate it changes from "cycle on the left" to "oncoming cyclists coming at you" on the left

Jimjay

Went down today. The cycle path is raised so the arrows are a bit odd. Maybe a European arrow painter made a mistake?

matt-dublin

The outer lane to the road is the same direction as the traffic for safety reasons

More importantly why make cycling lanes when cyclists NEVER FCUKING USE THEM.....

Don't even get me started on the bray wheelers....

Maudi

matt-dublin wrote: »

The outer lane to the road is the same direction as the traffic for safety reasons

More importantly why make cycling lanes when cyclists NEVER FCUKING USE THEM.....

Don't even get me started on the bray wheelers....

hundreds of thousands of euros wasted on this stretch of useless cycle path..ive been down a few evenings and people WALKING all along the fkn thing..it dosent differ from the path enough.and i guarantee it will lead to collisions/rows with cyclists /walkers.

Jimjay

Maudi wrote: »

hundreds of thousands of euros wasted on this stretch of useless cycle path..ive been down a few evenings and people WALKING all along the fkn thing..it dosent differ from the path enough.and i guarantee it will lead to collisions/rows with cyclists /walkers.

A bit of a premature comment. It's not finished yet. There are big chunks of both the walking path and cycle path that have not even been surfaced yet.

Jimjay

matt-dublin wrote: »

The outer lane to the road is the same direction as the traffic for safety reasons

More importantly why make cycling lanes when cyclists NEVER FCUKING USE THEM.....

Don't even get me started on the bray wheelers....

That's a bit unfair. Loads of people use them.
I have two bikes myself one for touring around and casual cycling which the cycle paths are great for and a road bike for keeping fit and training. When I am riding the road bike at at 30kmh or above I would be unfair or dangerous to other people for me to use a cycle path instead of the road and also knacker my bike going up and down the kerbs not to mention not get a good workout from having to stop all the time.

Btw I am not in bray wheelers and there are a lot of things cyclist do to pee me off when I'm driving that I avoid doing myself, there are also many things drivers do when I'm cycling which is dam right dangerous but that is another topic.

luapenak

matt-dublin wrote: »

The outer lane to the road is the same direction as the traffic for safety reasons

More importantly why make cycling lanes when cyclists NEVER FCUKING USE THEM.....

Don't even get me started on the bray wheelers....

Can't see why your attacking the Bray Wheelers, but would agree that they are generally a waste of money, because cyclists including myself generally stay well clear of them (but thats a whole other discussion which has been repeated many times on the cycling forum). I'd say I cycled that piece of road every day between the ages of 11 and 17 and I don't for one second see the need for a cycle lane there.

bido

I was down there today Sunday and while there were a lot of walkers I didn't see one cyclist.
A waste of money while others roads are full of potholes.:mad::mad:

Cerco

I would like to be positive so I see two advantages:

1. You can spot the dog turds easily on the new surface and avoid them.

2. It is providing employment for the contractors.

Of course the latter could be employed more fruitfully by repairing the roads.

Maudi

Jimjay wrote: »

A bit of a premature comment. It's not finished yet. There are big chunks of both the walking path and cycle path that have not even been surfaced yet.

the harbour has been f...ed up and a f..k up has been made and thousands wasted on that "cycle"path.just up the road from it..there was utterly no need for a cycle lane there.

Plastik

There is no law, rule or otherwise that makes it compulsory for cyclists to use cycle lanes.

I haven't seen the new paths yet but I might cycle by tomorrow evening, on the road.

Taltos

Plastik wrote: »

There is no law, rule or otherwise that makes it compulsory for cyclists to use cycle lanes.

I haven't seen the new paths yet but I might cycle by tomorrow evening, on the road.

Suggest you have a browse through here: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/si/0294.html#zzsi294y1964a16

I too used to regularly cycle that stretch as a kid and never had an issue with it. To be honest though - if it encourages more leisurely cycles out then great - we just need to keep an eye out during the summer time for young kids running in front of the bikes or the odd dog.

The pedestrian crossings will be a great advantage here as well. But I am going to hold off my full judgement on this stretch until we see the final parking arrangements.
My OH was horrified at the loss of parking - but lets wait and see.

Anyone else here remember the seasonal changes to the road - summertime - 1 way; off summer two way flow of traffic Funtimes...

LEIN

Maudi wrote: »

the harbour has been f...ed up and a f..k up has been made and thousands wasted on that "cycle"path.just up the road from it..there was utterly no need for a cycle lane there.

There is no need for that tone here whatsoever, please cut it out.

RosieJoe

Plastik wrote: »

There is no law, rule or otherwise that makes it compulsory for cyclists to use cycle lanes.

I haven't seen the new paths yet but I might cycle by tomorrow evening, on the road.

Taltos wrote: »

Suggest you have a browse through here: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/si/0294.html#zzsi294y1964a16

I too used to regularly cycle that stretch as a kid and never had an issue with it. To be honest though - if it encourages more leisurely cycles out then great - we just need to keep an eye out during the summer time for young kids running in front of the bikes or the odd dog.

The pedestrian crossings will be a great advantage here as well. But I am going to hold off my full judgement on this stretch until we see the final parking arrangements.
My OH was horrified at the loss of parking - but lets wait and see.

Anyone else here remember the seasonal changes to the road - summertime - 1 way; off summer two way flow of traffic Funtimes...

There was up until recently. It was changed back in October 2012.

See article here on it.

Transport minister Leo Varadkar has announced new legislation that will abolish the requirement for cyclists to use cycle lanes.

A newly published statutory instrument updating road traffic regulations has removed the previous mandatory use requirement. Cyclists are now only obliged to use cycle lanes when a contra-flow cycle lane is present or when there is a cycle lane through a pedestrianised area.

The new law also clarifies the right for cyclists to pass on the left hand side when traffic is stationary or slow moving.

The update to the law was promised more than three years ago when the previous government published the National Cycle Policy Framework.

The strategy document acknowledged that many of the cycling facilities constructed to date were "often of a poor standard" and "poorly maintained".

It said many cycle lanes actually force cyclists to the inside of left-turning vehicles, including heavy goods vehicles (HGVs). Incidents with left-turning HGVs are one of the prime causes of serious accidents involving cyclists.

Cycle lanes were also ill-suited to groups of sports cyclists who were using the roads to train, it said.

artvandelay48

luapenak wrote: »

Can't see why your attacking the Bray Wheelers, but would agree that they are generally a waste of money, because cyclists including myself generally stay well clear of them (but thats a whole other discussion which has been repeated many times on the cycling forum). I'd say I cycled that piece of road every day between the ages of 11 and 17 and I don't for one second see the need for a cycle lane there.

I suspect that the cycle paths at the beach are not intended for the likes of bray wheelers but rather families cycling with small kids. I for one welcome the face lift; the old paths were terrible for pushing a buggy.

Plastik

Taltos wrote: »

Suggest you have a browse through here: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/si/0294.html#zzsi294y1964a16

I too used to regularly cycle that stretch as a kid and never had an issue with it. To be honest though - if it encourages more leisurely cycles out then great - we just need to keep an eye out during the summer time for young kids running in front of the bikes or the odd dog.

The pedestrian crossings will be a great advantage here as well. But I am going to hold off my full judgement on this stretch until we see the final parking arrangements.
My OH was horrified at the loss of parking - but lets wait and see.

Anyone else here remember the seasonal changes to the road - summertime - 1 way; off summer two way flow of traffic Funtimes...

I suggest you have a browse through here http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2012/en/si/0332.html and bring yourself up to date. There are two very specific instances where cycle lanes are compulsory if provided, that's it. 99% of the time, they're not.

edit: Anyway, the cycle lane thing has been done to death at this stage. Why it was brought up in the thread, along with the targeting of the local cycling club, is beyond me.

Macy0161

Seems a bit of waste for the location to me. It's one of those locations that mean the cycle lanes will inevitably become part of the footpath, so won't be used by cyclists.

clocha_liatha

The cycle lanes are not fully finished yet so it remains to be seen how they will work out. I have long been in favour of cycle paths by the seafront, its a leisure area albeit there is st davids which brings a lot of passing traffic. When my own kids were younger i always thought a stretch of cycle paths was needed, kids can now cycle along with their parents in both directions which was up to now not possible. I do have a bit of sympathy for those elderly or disabled parkers who park and view the sea. There will be a parking stretch on left hand side beside davids so this may help.

pixbyjohn

clocha_liatha wrote: »

kids can now cycle along with their parents in both directions which was up to now not possible

A great point, never even considered that

recedite

Taltos wrote: »

Suggest you have a browse through here: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/si/0294.html#zzsi294y1964a16

The 1964 edition of the statute book! Why is it even on the internet

But the rule change of 2012 could possibly be the reason for having the cyclists ride on the RHS of the cycle path. It could be interpreted as a contra-flow cycle path if they were travelling on the LHS, and therefore mandatory to use it.
Cycling in the same direction as the vehicular traffic in an adjacent lane is not inherently safer than cycling in the opposite direction IMO. The advice for pedestrians walking on roads is to always face oncoming traffic. That way you can see whats coming at you.

Cookie_Monster

matt-dublin wrote: »

More importantly why make cycling lanes when cyclists NEVER FCUKING USE THEM.....

exactly, there's a perfectly good road right there, of course cyclists will not use it. Why not put in a strip of grass and plant some trees and benches and what not and make it look nice rather than the horrible black and grey nothingness that's there now.

pixbyjohn

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

exactly, there's a perfectly good road right there, of course cyclists will not use it. Why not put in a strip of grass and plant some trees and benches and what not and make it look nice rather than the horrible black and grey nothingness that's there now.

Reminds me of that song Joe Dolan sang

"The town I came from was quiet and small
We played in the meadows where the grass grew so tall
In summer the lilacs would grow everywhere
The laughter of children would float in the air

As I grew older I had to roam
Far from my family, far from my home
Into the city, where lives can be spent
Lost in the shadows of tar and cement."

It is a great pity to lose a lot of the grass margins along the seafront surely.

bido

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Reminds me of that song Joe Dolan sang

"The town I came from was quiet and small
We played in the meadows where the grass grew so tall
In summer the lilacs would grow everywhere
The laughter of children would float in the air

As I grew older I had to roam
Far from my family, far from my home
Into the city, where lives can be spent
Lost in the shadows of tar and cement."

It is a great pity to lose a lot of the grass margins along the seafront surely.

John It's true It's true It's true.......:D:D

Fiachra2

John. Nobody ever has (nor ever should) win an argument by quoting Joe Dolan songs!!

Totally agree though. This was a crazy piece of work utterly lacking in taste. However would we expect anything else from WCC?

clocha_liatha

I often wonder why there isnt more done by way of public demonstration re the mess that is the harbour surroundings, granted the harbour itself whilst not being the most aesthetically pleasing on the eye at least will be a functioning harbour soon hopefully with boats,! Politicians will only take notice when people vote with their feet, guboh? Has there ever been a public meeting or demo to say enough is enough re the debacle that was foisted on us.

pixbyjohn

Fiachra2 wrote: »

John. Nobody ever has (nor ever should) win an argument by quoting Joe Dolan songs!!

Totally agree though. This was a crazy piece of work utterly lacking in taste. However would we expect anything else from WCC?

We are a very complacent race of people

Charlie-Bravo

Had a nice walk down by the harbour and around the new (partially) finish cycle track. It's nice and smooth...I reckon it would be great for rolling blading on. But nobody roller blades anymore. So instead of Sunset Strip, we can call it Sunrise Strip - Original eh?

glenjamin

Yea, let's waste thousands on a needless cycle track yet there's not even a pathway across Three Trouts Bridge. Safety first?!?

Fiachra2

Indeed lets cut carers allowances ,special needs teachers, nurses and Garda salaries and impose property tax and OAP's but make sure to leave plenty of money for cycle lanes and speed ramps in Greystones!

Jimjay

I was down there at the weekend and saw 6 different groups/couples of cyclists using the lanes, even though they are not even finished. Its going to be really good when done. It looks like ghere will also be some parking facing on that side near parts of the unfinished bits.

recedite

glenjamin wrote: »

Yea, let's waste thousands on a needless cycle track yet there's not even a pathway across Three Trouts Bridge. Safety first?!?

There is a plan in place to widen that bridge and put in a footpath, I presume the work will start "soon".

Apart from that, the most valuable extra piece of infastructure would have been a combined pedestrian/cycle route along the three trouts stream from Charlesland estate to the beach, round the back of the new plastics factory. Its only a few hundred metres and would be really beneficial.
BTW cyclists don't need dual carriageways; a single cycle lane separated from a single pedestrian lane would be sufficient.

Zoo4m8

Taltos wrote: »

Suggest you have a browse through here: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/si/0294.html#zzsi294y1964a16

I too used to regularly cycle that stretch as a kid and never had an issue with it. To be honest though - if it encourages more leisurely cycles out then great - we just need to keep an eye out during the summer time for young kids running in front of the bikes or the odd dog.

The pedestrian crossings will be a great advantage here as well. But I am going to hold off my full judgement on this stretch until we see the final parking arrangements.
My OH was horrified at the loss of parking - but lets wait and see.

Anyone else here remember the seasonal changes to the road - summertime - 1 way; off summer two way flow of traffic Funtimes...

Just came across this post and it reminded me that I'd forgotten all about this unique arrangement in local traffic management... I seem to remember one or two heated arguments between drivers who had forgotten the change over dates!

Incidentally , why do the new cycle lanes just end at the hotel ( apologies if this was raised elsewhere ) how are northbound cyclists supposed to proceed? On the narrow path by the harbour? On the road against the flow of traffic? Or left up the terrace? Goodness help any visitor.
As a piece of official vandalism of a terrific amenity this has to be up there with all the other nonsense that has gone on in this town over the last few years.

Sorry, I've got a bit carried away here, but as a p.s., an elderly person who used the seafront to park and walk a little on a Sunday asked a member of the local talking shop ( sorry town commission ) where he could park now was told " the new parking area at the harbour"! Obviously it escaped this gentleman s notice that the new car park is now used as an overflow for the Beach House and during the summer as a park for motohomes.
Talking of which, how about a serviced, supervised site for these vehicles on some of the wasteland we are left with at the harbour, or would something of that nature just be too much of a stretch on official imagination....