S2S Cycleway - northside

mrcheez

According to http://www.clontarf.ie/news/s2s-cycleway-information-meeting works must begin before the summer as otherwise it'll be shelved for another year.

So by my reckoning we should start to see some builders in the area in the next month or so.

Anyone got an update on whether this is starting this year?

buffalo

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/work-to-start-on-dublin-bay-cycle-path-1.1390672

Work on the construction of the Sutton to Sandycove cycleway (S2S) around Dublin Bay is to get under way more than a decade since planning for the route began.

This first section will close the 2km gap in the current promenade and cycle path running from Clontarf to Sutton.

This will also mean that cyclists can avoid the piece of road mentioned latterly in this thread.

detones

Wonder did DCC or whatever consultant they paid a fortune to considered diverting the cycle path up causeway road through the island and back on at Wooden bridge. The only real pinch point would be the bridge but I'm sure a solution for less than 14 million could have been found. The current proposed idea of reducing the road width for 600k seems a real compromise and i can't see how it won't adversely affect traffic.

Stollaire

Is there any clue to what is proposed between the East Wall road & Guild Street/North Quays?

Rogue-Trooper

buffalo wrote: »

This will also mean that cyclists can avoid the piece of road mentioned latterly in this thread.

I'm sure it will also mean that during construction, that piece of road will be even more lethal than it currently is.

Then again, I suppose you can't have an omelette without breaking eggs.......

buffalo

detones wrote: »

The current proposed idea of reducing the road width for 600k seems a real compromise and i can't see how it won't adversely affect traffic.

If it's wide enough for two cars/buses, grand. I'd be for removing the on-street parking - never understand how we as a society so easily accept people using public roads for storage of their private cars for hours/days/weeks. Though I suppose they do pay road tax.

edit: also, compromise is a good thing, no?

mrcheez

buffalo wrote: »

If it's wide enough for two cars/buses, grand.

Buses don't go up that far do they?

buffalo

mrcheez wrote: »

Buses don't go up that far do they?

The 130 seems to.

buffalo

Cross-post alert! http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0513/392082-cllrs-vote-to-treble-dublin-bikes-scheme/

Dublin City Councillors have approved construction of another section of the Dublin Bay cycleway and a trebling of the Dublin Bikes Scheme.

Two kilometres of cycletrack will be added at Clontarf at a cost of around €600,000.

This will provide a continuous 8 km cycleway from Sutton to Fairview.

BofaDeezNuhtz

buffalo wrote: »

never understand how we as a society so easily accept people using public roads for storage of their private cars for hours/days/weeks. Though I suppose they do pay road tax.

I've highlighted the parts that might help you understand :rolleyes:

buffalo

Suzuki_TL1000R wrote: »

I've highlighted the parts that might help you understand :rolleyes:

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic. If I left my private couch on the public road outside my house, it wouldn't be tolerated. Likewise if I occupied a car parking space with my bike...

On-street parking uses up valuable space that could be used by moving traffic, as well as creating hazards for pedestrians trying to cross the road, and cyclists with the danger of being doored. Look at doozerie's latest post for illegal on-street/on-path parking that seems to be tolerated by society and Gardaí as a necessary evil, despite endangering lives.

If we removed the on-street parking along the coast road, there'd be plenty of room for the desired cycleway.

Raam

buffalo wrote: »

If we removed the on-street parking along the coast road, there'd be plenty of room for the desired cycleway.

Where should all those people who have no driveways park?

buffalo

Raam wrote: »

Where should all those people who have no driveways park?

Car parks. Or let them build a driveway.

Or don't get something that you have nowhere to put.

Raam

buffalo wrote: »

Car parks. Or let them build a driveway.

Or don't get something that you have nowhere to put.

Which car park? I don't see why they should have to pay for a driveway.
They have somewhere to put it right now.

I commute on this stretch of road every day. I don't see what the fuss is all about to be honest.

buffalo

Raam wrote: »

Which car park? I don't see why they should have to pay for a driveway.
They have somewhere to put it right now.

I commute on this stretch of road every day. I don't see what the fuss is all about to be honest.

I don't know which car park, it's not my car - whatever suits the owner.

Where's the fuss? detones said he didn't think 3m each way was very wide, and I pointed out that if they removed the parked cars, there'd be more space. Is that not logical?

Raam

buffalo wrote: »

I don't know which car park, it's not my car - whatever suits the owner.

Where's the fuss? detones said he didn't think 3m each way was very wide, and I pointed out that if they removed the parked cars, there'd be more space. Is that not logical?

There would be more space but I don't see it as a fair solution.

markpb

Raam wrote: »

There would be more space but I don't see it as a fair solution.

People living in many apartment blocks are not automatically allowed to park their cars outside their apartment - they had to purchase a parking space from the developer. It's not very fair but there is precedent. Public roads are for the public, not for people's private use.

Raam

markpb wrote: »

People living in many apartment blocks are not automatically allowed to park their cars outside their apartment - they had to purchase a parking space from the developer. It's not very fair but there is precedent. Public roads are for the public, not for people's private use.

The houses which have no drives... who should they purchase their car parking spots from?

markpb

Raam wrote: »

The houses which have no drives... who should they purchase their car parking spots from?

Why did they purchase a house and a car when they have nowhere to park it? The state makes no promise that on-street parking will always be available, there have been numerous instances of it being suspended or removed to facilitate roadworks, utility works, the introduction of bus lanes, the widening of the road, etc.

mrcheez

Looking at the section of road in question it seems pretty clear that they'll need to retain on-road parking.

I imagine what will happen will be to pave over the bike lane on the right and widen it by 1/2 foot (or cut into the pedestrian path). Will be a tight squeeze for 2-way bike traffic, but it seems that the road would still have plenty of room for cars

Pigeon Reaper

All of those houses have access to a back lane and many had garages when originally built.

Raam

This plan says, amongst other things, that there will be a loss of 7 parking spaces. Dunno if that is the plan which is to be implemented.
http://www.dublincity.ie/RoadsandTraffic/MajorTransportProjects/Pages/SuttontoSandycoveCyclewayandFootwayInterimWorksScheme.aspx

Raam

More info in this one...
http://www.dublincity.ie/RoadsandTraffic/MajorTransportProjects/Documents/1001.pdf

Says some spaces are gained in some sections and some are lost.

buffalo

Raam wrote: »

More info in this one...
http://www.dublincity.ie/RoadsandTraffic/MajorTransportProjects/Documents/1001.pdf

Says some spaces are gained in the some sections and some are lost.

A toucan crossing at Woodenbridge... why couldn't they put in a zebra crossing and give priority to pedestrians?

Pigeon Reaper

I thought with the new guidelines they had to do this. They probably haven't updated the plans yet.

mrcheez

Pigeon Reaper wrote: »

All of those houses have access to a back lane and many had garages when originally built.

You're right... hmm, time to clear out the garages methinks

valleyoftheunos

Is this parking conversation a troll? People pay for on street parking or obtain and pay for permits, also its fairly handy to be able to park in a public place when you are visiting somewhere don't you think? or should we all have private driveways doted about the city? What a load of nonsense.

valleyoftheunos

On Topic, I'm looking forward to this new cycleway, will be a nice spin from end to the other, and thank goodness the piece of road at the wooden bridge will be dealt with.

buffalo

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

Is this parking conversation a troll? People pay for on street parking or obtain and pay for permits, also its fairly handy to be able to park in a public place when you are visiting somewhere don't you think? or should we all have private driveways doted about the city? What a load of nonsense.

Just because it's "handy" doesn't mean it's the best way of doing things. Private driveways and garages, public car parks, and proper parking/loading bays all have a part to play. As well as encouraging people to cycle or use public transport.

The problem with on-street parking is most apparent when the bus lane on the Camden-Georges Street stretch is full of parked cars in the evening, and traffic is bumper to bumper. There's not enough room for a cyclist to get by, never mind about the congestion it's causing. A little further out, look at Ranelagh. Here's a wonderful village, stuffed full of parked cars instead of having wider paths for people to enjoy. Or this example near Terenure: http://goo.gl/maps/UOkGJ - edit: that's a so-called mandatory cycle track, with parking spots overlaid. The clearway only applies at certain times... what's the point of that cycle lane at all?

If you're heading somewhere that requires you to bring a car, that destination should have ample parking - like a school, say. If there's not enough parking, more should be provided, or alternatives to avoid clogging up the roads.

valleyoftheunos

buffalo wrote: »

Just because it's "handy" doesn't mean it's the best way of doing things. Private driveways and garages, public car parks, and proper parking/loading bays all have a part to play. As well as encouraging people to cycle or use public transport.

The problem with on-street parking is most apparent when the bus lane on the Camden-Georges Street stretch is full of parked cars in the evening, and traffic is bumper to bumper. There's not enough room for a cyclist to get by, never mind about the congestion it's causing. A little further out, look at Ranelagh. Here's a wonderful village, stuffed full of parked cars instead of having wider paths for people to enjoy. Or this example near Terenure: http://goo.gl/maps/UOkGJ

If you're heading somewhere that requires you to bring a car, that destination should have ample parking - like a school, say. If there's not enough parking, more should be provided, or alternatives to avoid clogging up the roads.

What about my friend's house? his house requires me to travel by car. Must he provide multiple parking spaces if he wants a guest to arrive by car? Am I not allowed travel by car to place if private parking is not provided?


Get some perspective man, you're talking complete tosh.

Incidentally I've lived in Ranelagh my entire life, we need more parking there not wider paths.

buffalo

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

What about my friend's house? his house requires me to travel by car. Must he provide multiple parking spaces if he wants a guest to arrive by car? Am I not allowed travel by car to place if private parking is not provided?

What is it about his house that requires you to travel by car? Is it in some quantum zone that will only accept a four-wheeled private vehicle?

valleyoftheunos

buffalo wrote: »

What is it about his house that requires you to travel by car? Is it in some quantum zone that will only accept a four-wheeled private vehicle?

It is of a distance from my house which precludes walking or cycling and is not serviced by public transport. Also it is my entirely legally held right to travel by whichever lawful means I choose. I choose to travel by my "four-Wheeled private vehicle."

markpb

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

What about my friend's house? his house requires me to travel by car. Must he provide multiple parking spaces if he wants a guest to arrive by car? Am I not allowed travel by car to place if private parking is not provided?

What if he has 2 on-street parking spaces and you're the third car to arrive? What do you do then?

valleyoftheunos

markpb wrote: »

What if he has 2 on-street parking spaces and you're the third car to arrive? What do you do then?

I find the nearest available space, what else would I do?

galwaycyclist

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

It is of a distance from my house which precludes walking or cycling and is not serviced by public transport. Also it is my entirely legally held right to travel by whichever lawful means I choose. I choose to travel by my "four-Wheeled private vehicle."

No. You have a right to walk, cycle or use a horse to go anywhere you like on a public right of way.

You have no right to take a motor-vehicle anywhere on any public road. At the discretion of the state, you may apply for a permission (licence) to use a motor-vehicle under the terms of the Motor Car Act of 1903 and its successor acts.

Driving a car is inherently unlawful unless you have a permission - you have no right to drive anywhere.

buffalo

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

It is of a distance from my house which precludes walking or cycling and is not serviced by public transport. Also it is my entirely legally held right to travel by whichever lawful means I choose. I choose to travel by my "four-Wheeled private vehicle."

I'm not denying you can choose how to travel, but that's my point - it's a choice. Not a requirement. If you choose to travel by private car to somewhere that doesn't have proper parking, that's your choice. I just don't see why I have to put up with your car on the road when you've made that choice. I'm aware that it's sanctioned and your entirely legally held right to do so in certain places, but I don't understand why.

Here's another prime example of bad on-street parking: http://goo.gl/maps/cNgBF The Audi has pulled in to let the Google car pass. It works wonderfully as a traffic-calming measure, but add a slow cyclist and you suddenly have impatient motorists revving their engines and overtaking dangerously.

Also I'd be interested to know what distance is too far for bike, as judging by any thread on here entitled, "Will I able to cycle from x to y?", the answer is usually in the positive.

hardCopy

Nobody on that stretch pays for parking, it's free, there are no permits for residents.

If people lose parking they will just park around the corner. This arrangement is common in many parts of Dublin, for example, Philipsburg Avenue has no paid parking but there are more houses than spaces, you just drive around until you find a space and then walk the few metres to the house. Most houses at the lower end of the road have no off-street parking.

It will be an imposition on the residents and will probably cause some resentment of the new route. C'est la vie.

Also, I'm pretty sure at least one of those garages has been converted into accommodation since the Google streetview images were taken.

valleyoftheunos

buffalo wrote: »

I'm not denying you can choose how to travel, but that's my point - it's a choice. Not a requirement. If you choose to travel by private car to somewhere that doesn't have proper parking, that's your choice. I just don't see why I have to put up with your car on the road when you've made that choice. I'm aware that it's sanctioned and your entirely legally held right to do so in certain places, but I don't understand why.

Here's another prime example of bad on-street parking: http://goo.gl/maps/cNgBF The Audi has pulled in to let the Google car pass. It works wonderfully as a traffic-calming measure, but add a slow cyclist and you suddenly have impatient motorists revving their engines and overtaking dangerously.

Also I'd be interested to know what distance is too far for bike, as judging by any thread on here entitled, "Will I able to cycle from x to y?", the answer is usually in the positive.

Cars and vehicles are of great benefit and utility (you may not agree of course and you may not like it but society wouldn't function without them), it increases that benefit and utility to allow people to park in certain public places (just as it increases public utility to prevent parking in certain places), ultimately to the benefit of everyone. Being able to park outside their home means people are better able to travel and be more productive, being able to park outside places of business means increased economic activity. These are just representative of the reasons why you should "Put up" with my or anyone else's car on the road.

I'm not suggesting People should be allowed park badly so your example with the Audi is not entirely relevant, I am staggered by the suggestions on this thread that the very concept of parking vehicle's on the street is somehow unreasonable or unjustified.

As for the too far question, if I'm transporting a fancy and expensive birthday cake 100 meters might be too far where as, if I were trialing some sweet new gear 100Kms might not be far enough

buffalo

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

I'm not suggesting People should be allowed park badly so your example with the Audi is not entirely relevant, I am staggered by the suggestions on this thread that the very concept of parking vehicle's on the street is somehow unreasonable or unjustified.

But the Audi isn't restricted by people parking badly, it's restricted by perfectly legal and sanctioned on-street parking. Therefore, on-street parking is a clear nuisance in this instance. It's a nuisance to some level in most instances, but sometimes it's worth the level of nuisance it creates to have it rather than a multi-level car park. Sometimes it's driver behaviour combined with the parking that makes it hazardous. My main point is that it should be examined with a critical eye, and not just thought of as an automatic entitlement.

Those on the coast road who turned their garages into mews, that was their choice. If after this development they have to park their car 500 metres away, I have little sympathy.

valleyoftheunos

I'm sorry that you feel inconvenience by on street parking but as you yourself have pointed out, that inconvenience is borne out by the necessary utility on street parking provides.

The fact is that onstreet parking is regarded with a critical eye, a highly critical eye, that's what double yellow lines were invented for. To take the example you gave earlier of Ranelagh, there is very limited parking on the mainstreet of the village during the Day, parking only becomes available in the evening, the same is true all over Dublin City and the country.

I would suggest that the level of inconvenience that you actually have to "put up with" because of this, is in fact minimal, particularly in residential circumstances. On street parking in appropriate areas is a public amenity, one that you choose not to avail of.

I have no issue with parking being prevented on the strand road where necessary, what I do find bizarre is the suggestion that the ownership and use of vehicles should be restricted to those who are in a position to store them privately at all times.

HivemindXX

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

I have no issue with parking being prevented on the strand road where necessary, what I do find bizarre is the suggestion that the ownership and use of vehicles should be restricted to those who are in a position to store them privately at all times.

That would be a bizarre suggestion. Is anyone making it?

It is a simple fact that on street parking is a privilege not a right. As you correctly pointed out it can be taken away by a couple of yellow lines. Some people seem to have a problem accepting this. Whether the on street parking should be removed in this specific case is debatable but whether it would be legal to do so is not.

valleyoftheunos

HivemindXX wrote: »

That would be a bizarre suggestion. Is anyone making it?

It is a simple fact that on street parking is a privilege not a right. As you correctly pointed out it can be taken away by a couple of yellow lines. Some people seem to have a problem accepting this. Whether the on street parking should be removed in this specific case is debatable but whether it would be legal to do so is not.

As is my reading of the thread, yes repeatedly. A coupekl of posters seemed to be of the opinion that parking private motor vehicles in public areas should not be permitted in any circumstances.

buffalo

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

As is my reading of the thread, yes repeatedly. A coupekl of posters seemed to be of the opinion that parking private motor vehicles in public areas should not be permitted in any circumstances.

I don't think anyone suggested that public car parks should be abolished.

mrcheez

buffalo wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/work-to-start-on-dublin-bay-cycle-path-1.1390672



This will also mean that cyclists can avoid the piece of road mentioned latterly in this thread.

so... eh... when exactly is "work to start" on this?

monument

Was there another thread on this?

Wrote about excessive shared use: http://cyclingindublin.com/2013/02/20/sutton-to-sandycove-cycleway-at-bull-island-has-a-silly-amount-of-unneeded-shared-use/

Stollaire wrote: »

Is there any clue to what is proposed between the East Wall road & Guild Street/North Quays?

There's two projects planned to sort this:

(1) A cycleway between the end of the current canal route in the Docklands (Spencer Dock area) and the canal bridge on North Strand Road, plus:

(2) one of these options:

[a] Two way cycleway one one side of North Strand Road.

[b.] Cycle lanes / tracks on both sides.

A extra bridge is already in the process of being planned at the North Strand Road can bridge to deal with the main pinch point. The extra bridge will take pedestrians and the space gained from removing the current footpath will be given over to one of the above options (a or b).

buffalo wrote: »

A toucan crossing at Woodenbridge... why couldn't they put in a zebra crossing and give priority to pedestrians?

Because the junction needs to be traffic light controlled to allow cars out of the beach etc. Zebra crossing don't work well mixed directly with traffic light controlled traffic!

mrcheez

Sorry I should have been more specific ... when is work to start on the Bull Wall to Wooden Bridge section as the article I quoted said

It is expected the Bull Wall to Wooden Bridge path will take nine to 12 months to complete and should be finished in 2014.

Hence work should be commencing around now?

valleyoftheunos

I've seen no sign of even the scantest preparations out that way so I wouldn't hold yer breath. Happy to be wrong though.

monument

mrcheez wrote: »

Sorry I should have been more specific ... when is work to start on the Bull Wall to Wooden Bridge section as the article I quoted said

Hence work should be commencing around now?

Work is expected to start this year. I don't think an exact start date has been made public. It has planning, and, I think, funding also but am open to correction as I can't check right now.

It's the same section I complain about having too much shared use in the link at the top of my post above -- the design is worse than the current sections along the coast, or at least the sections south of the wodden bridge.

mrcheez

anything is better than the current setup, but I agree it's mad to mix pedestrians and cycle lanes

Stollaire

monument wrote: »

There's two projects planned to sort this:

(1) A cycleway between the end of the current canal route in the Docklands (Spencer Dock area) and the canal bridge on North Strand Road, plus:

(2) one of these options:

[a] Two way cycleway one one side of North Strand Road.

[b.] Cycle lanes / tracks on both sides.

A extra bridge is already in the process of being planned at the North Strand Road can bridge to deal with the main pinch point. The extra bridge will take pedestrians and the space gained from removing the current footpath will be given over to one of the above options (a or b).

Thanks.

This would be really great!
Are there any plans available?

monument

Stollaire wrote: »

Thanks.

This would be really great!
Are there any plans available?

Not yet.

Bar the bridge, which shows two-way.