Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

S2S Cycleway - northside

Options
1…4546485051…56

Comments

  • Options
    #1412
    cdaly_
    Registered Users Posts: 6,440 ✭✭✭cdaly_


    I see two issues that will affect cyclists.
    1. The crossings of the cycle lane will allow a swift entrance/exit with flow unless it is configured to force a slow down. Hopefully an elevated cycle track with ramp edges along with a forced right-angle approach would deal with this. We'll need to see the plans.
    2. The illuminated sign, poorly placed will be a visual distraction and an excuse for SMIDSY. If it is elevated and illuminated only at the upper part (4.5m high?) it should be ok. If it's a full height sign it would be a big problem.


  • Options
    #1413
    cdaly_
    Registered Users Posts: 6,440 ✭✭✭cdaly_


    Effects wrote: »
    Cycle path at the baths:
    VRVqbZC.png

    That sweeping turn in is really bad. At the moment drivers are slowed down by the bollards but once they're gone it would be pretty much unrestricted.

    Can the planning office specify a configuration in the permission?


  • Options
    #1414
    Effects
    Registered Users Posts: 9,761 ✭✭✭Effects


    I had a close enough call only last week when a driver did a uturn straight to exit without looking.

    As they are planning to have entry at one point, and exit at the other, it means the size of the entrances can be reduced somewhat.
    Although they will need to be wide enough for delivery trucks.


  • Options
    #1415
    mrcheez
    Registered Users Posts: 13,657 ✭✭✭✭mrcheez


    Effects wrote: »
    Although they will need to be wide enough for delivery trucks.

    ... and Mattress Mick cars of course


  • Options
    #1416
    cdaly_
    Registered Users Posts: 6,440 ✭✭✭cdaly_


    Effects wrote: »
    size of the entrances can be reduced somewhat.
    Although they will need to be wide enough for delivery trucks.

    If they are configured so that you can only enter at right angles to the cycle path and have a ramp you'll still be able to enter with a truck. Just not at speed.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1417
    Effects
    Registered Users Posts: 9,761 ✭✭✭Effects


    Here's a brief look at the plans:

    zqbscNa.jpg



    https://imgur.com/gallery/cZ4zVmy


  • Options
    #1418
    brocbrocach
    Registered Users Posts: 890 ✭✭✭brocbrocach


    As bad as it could be.
    Straightaway they've added two additional crossing points to the cycleway. The new exit and the pedestrian path at the entrance.
    Not to even mention the kink in the cycleway. Judging that kink against the far more gradual deviance around the carpark at Vernon Avenue, it will need slowing down to about 5 km/h coming from Fairview direction, no exaggeration.
    That new exit will be a problem with drivers looking over right shoulder at traffic, inching out onto cycleway.


  • Options
    #1419
    mrcheez
    Registered Users Posts: 13,657 ✭✭✭✭mrcheez


    brocbrocach wrote: »
    As bad as it could be.
    Straightaway they've added two additional crossing points to the cycleway. The new exit and the pedestrian path at the entrance.
    Not to even mention the kink in the cycleway. Judging that kink against the far more gradual deviance around the carpark at Vernon Avenue, it will need slowing down to about 5 km/h coming from Fairview direction, no exaggeration.
    That new exit will be a problem with drivers looking over right shoulder at traffic, inching out onto cycleway.

    What are the bets they stick a hazardous sign right smack in the middle of that cycle lane kink as they did opposite the bus depot ?


  • Options
    #1420
    brocbrocach
    Registered Users Posts: 890 ✭✭✭brocbrocach


    Yep, although at least the sightlines should be clear to see any oncoming cyclists.


  • Options
    #1421
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,795 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    is the cycleway on their land on public land? if the latter, how can they apply for permission to modify something they don't own?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1422
    Ferris
    Registered Users Posts: 2,283 ✭✭✭Ferris


    brocbrocach wrote: »
    That new exit will be a problem with drivers looking over right shoulder at traffic, inching out onto cycleway.

    This. Its really difficult to exit the baths in a car. You're looking for traffic in 3 lanes of roadway (buslane), pedestrians and two lanes of cyclists. Its more difficult to exit the current carpark safely than to enter it.

    This 'carpark' needs a complete redesign with 1 entrance / exit and a more gently deviated cycleway to allow vehicles to negociate the cycleway and then the roadway, both at right angles. Needless to day bikes / pedestrians should have right of way!


  • Options
    #1423
    mr spuckler
    Registered Users Posts: 3,108 ✭✭✭mr spuckler


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    is the cycleway on their land on public land? if the latter, how can they apply for permission to modify something they don't own?

    It's on their land unfortunately.
    brocbrocach wrote: »
    As bad as it could be.
    Straightaway they've added two additional crossing points to the cycleway. The new exit and the pedestrian path at the entrance.
    Not to even mention the kink in the cycleway. Judging that kink against the far more gradual deviance around the carpark at Vernon Avenue, it will need slowing down to about 5 km/h coming from Fairview direction, no exaggeration.
    That new exit will be a problem with drivers looking over right shoulder at traffic, inching out onto cycleway.

    Those crossing points already exist, you can enter / exit at both ends of the car-park today. The ped path crossing of the cycle track at the entrance also exists today, although obviously in a different layout.

    I'm actually pleasantly surprised that they seem to have elevated the cycle track where it crosses the roadway. That's the only positive that I see though, the chicane is awful as is the configuration of the exit which would result in cars being stopped on the cycle track as they wait to exit.


  • Options
    #1424
    brocbrocach
    Registered Users Posts: 890 ✭✭✭brocbrocach


    mr spuckler wrote: »

    Those crossing points already exist, you can enter / exit at both ends of the car-park today. The ped path crossing of the cycle track at the entrance also exists today, although obviously in a different layout.


    Isn't the proposed exit blocked by bollards as it stands? A few hardy souls make it out there but not many.
    You're right about the pedestrian way I suppose although the current layout makes it very clear that the cycletrack has right of way.


  • Options
    #1425
    mr spuckler
    Registered Users Posts: 3,108 ✭✭✭mr spuckler


    brocbrocach wrote: »
    Isn't the proposed exit blocked by bollards as it stands? A few hardy souls make it out there but not many.
    You're right about the pedestrian way I suppose although the current layout makes it very clear that the cycletrack has right of way.

    You can get out through the bollards fairly easily, someone was doing so this evening on my home, with the rear end of their car blocking my side of the cycle track.
    You would certainly assume that both ends would become more accessible as a result of whatever work is approved - which raises another point for my submission, being the impact on the cycle track during construction works...


  • Options
    #1426
    Effects
    Registered Users Posts: 9,761 ✭✭✭Effects


    They also omitted the width of the current track in the plans. Which makes me think they plan on making it smaller that it currently is.


  • Options
    #1427
    mr spuckler
    Registered Users Posts: 3,108 ✭✭✭mr spuckler


    Effects wrote: »
    They also omitted the width of the current track in the plans. Which makes me think they plan on making it smaller that it currently is.

    It's really annoying that the drawings aren't online yet, in order to be able to drill into it properly. Even the picture you posted on the previous page doesn't allow you to zoom in without blurring some of the text.

    Is it your picture? If so can you read the width of the track on the drawings? I can measure the existing tomorrow!

    I can see though that the width of the exit is proposed to be 9.5m and the entrance 8.5m. Seems like a lot for a one-way system!


  • Options
    #1428
    downtheroad
    Registered Users Posts: 2,888 ✭✭✭downtheroad


    The audacity of this guy to apply for more planning permission after breaching the terms of his original planning. The council should shut his business until he opens the pool to the public.


  • Options
    #1429
    Effects
    Registered Users Posts: 9,761 ✭✭✭Effects


    mr spuckler wrote: »
    If so can you read the width of the track on the drawings? I can measure the existing tomorrow!

    It looks to be 2.73m wide on the plans.


  • Options
    #1430
    Effects
    Registered Users Posts: 9,761 ✭✭✭Effects


    downtheroad wrote: »
    The audacity of this guy to apply for more planning permission after breaching the terms of his original planning. The council should shut his business until he opens the pool to the public.

    Have a read of this article: https://dublininquirer.com/2019/10/30/a-renewed-effort-for-more-public-swimming-at-clontarf-baths
    The council granted the project planning permission subject to three conditions. These conditions were followed by the statement: “Reason: To ensure that the restaurant/café bar remains subsidiary to the main use of the site for swimming”.

    That statement was the council explaining why it had required the three conditions – it wasn’t in itself a condition, Downey said. And while conditions are enforceable, reasons for conditions are not, he said.
    John Downey, Planning Enforcement Officer wrote:
    The use of the baths is as per arrangements granted by An Bord Pleanala under the original permission for the redevelopment of the baths insofar as access arrangements for use of the pool are managed through Clontarf Swimming Club. There was no commitment given beyond this in the permissions granted for the development and nowhere was public access indicated specifically in the permissions granted.


  • Options
    #1431
    mr spuckler
    Registered Users Posts: 3,108 ✭✭✭mr spuckler


    There's a pattern alright.
    Meanwhile, documents obtained by Noteworthy show that planning disputes over several parts of the development – including the opening of the pool – had already been unfolding behind the scenes.

    One Dublin City Council site inspection revealed the closed-in areas of the restaurant were now around 100 sq m – or nearly 30% – larger than the authorised floorspace due to changes to formerly outdoor areas.

    https://www.thejournal.ie/clontarf-baths-development-4625138-May2019/

    And of course they subsequently approved retention of the additional space.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1432
    ED E
    Registered Users Posts: 36,167 ✭✭✭✭ED E


    He's a cowboy.

    Bring it into compliance or flatten it. Never gonna happen though.


  • Options
    #1433
    mrcheez
    Registered Users Posts: 13,657 ✭✭✭✭mrcheez


    Something big going down opposite Kilbarrack section currently.

    Loads of Gardai and promenade closed off to bikes for about 1km


  • Options
    #1434
    Mec-a-nic
    Registered Users Posts: 407 ✭✭Mec-a-nic


    mrcheez wrote: »
    Something big going down opposite Kilbarrack section currently.

    Loads of Gardai and promenade closed off to bikes for about 1km

    The driver of white Renault Van managed to drive south down the S2S just before 7pm and near the junction of the Howth road an a woman in her 30s was struck and died on scene. DFB along with Coast Guard helicopter searched the water.

    Anyone in the location tonight between 6:45 and 7:30pm are asked to talk to Gardai - https://www.independent.ie/incoming/woman-30s-dies-after-being-struck-by-a-van-in-dublin-39015833.html


  • Options
    #1435
    whodafunk
    Registered Users Posts: 548 ✭✭✭whodafunk


    I was playing Astro closeby and saw the rescue helicopter fly over closeby and heard all the activity. A tragic accident by the sounds of things.


  • Options
    #1436
    Grassey
    Registered Users Posts: 2,393 ✭✭✭Grassey


    mrcheez wrote:
    What are the bets they stick a hazardous sign right smack in the middle of that cycle lane kink as they did opposite the bus depot ?

    Sure there is one labelled there middle of the track at the exit... Why break form


  • Options
    #1437
    mrcheez
    Registered Users Posts: 13,657 ✭✭✭✭mrcheez


    Mec-a-nic wrote: »
    The driver of white Renault Van managed to drive south down the S2S just before 7pm and near the junction of the Howth road an a woman in her 30s was struck and died on scene. DFB along with Coast Guard helicopter searched the water.

    Anyone in the location tonight between 6:45 and 7:30pm are asked to talk to Gardai - https://www.independent.ie/incoming/woman-30s-dies-after-being-struck-by-a-van-in-dublin-39015833.html

    Jesus!!


  • Options
    #1438
    garrettod
    Registered Users Posts: 2,428 ✭✭✭garrettod


    Effects wrote: »
    They're already in breech of their original planning by not opening the swimming baths to the public, a condition of their permission.

    Correct.

    As I recall, they are also in breach with regards to the "glass" enclosed area to the rear of their building, which overlooks the pool.

    No sign of anyone enforcing the terms of the planning permission on them either ... I wonder if this is down to incompetence, corruption, or something else that I can't think of right now ?

    Thanks,

    G.



  • Options
    #1439
    mr spuckler
    Registered Users Posts: 3,108 ✭✭✭mr spuckler


    garrettod wrote: »
    Correct.

    As I recall, they are also in breach with regards to the "glass" enclosed area to the rear of their building, which overlooks the pool.

    No sign of anyone enforcing the terms of the planning permission on them either ... I wonder if this is down to incompetence, corruption, or something else that I can't think of right now ?

    I think both have now been accepted by the planning authorities judging by what I was reading yesterday.


  • Options
    #1440
    mr spuckler
    Registered Users Posts: 3,108 ✭✭✭mr spuckler


    whodafunk wrote: »
    A tragic accident by the sounds of things.

    I'm hearing a lot of this and can't fathom it at all based on what I saw of the aftermath at 9pm last night.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1441
    mrcheez
    Registered Users Posts: 13,657 ✭✭✭✭mrcheez


    mr spuckler wrote: »
    I'm hearing a lot of this and can't fathom it at all based on what I saw of the aftermath at 9pm last night.

    It sounds like a terrible incident but I'm surprised that there was no mention of it on RTE news this morning (the only traffic incident mentioned was the one in Limerick).

    From what I've heard the driver had a seizure or something similar, then the deceased was pushed into the sea which is why the entire stretch was being searched (possibly they were pulled out by the current).

    Pretty shocking. I had passed that point 10 minutes earlier and potentially had even passed the pedestrian in question.


Advertisement