Cycle infrastructure planned for south Dublin

TheW1zard · 05-03-2021 02:52PM

First Up wrote: »

Reading maps on the phone can be tricky. I'll try again:
The promenade starts nearly opposite the Gilford Rd junction with Strand Rd. The non-tidal part of the beach is opposite Seafort Avenue and the distance shows on Google Maps at about 370 meters.

Yes, thats longer than the 250 I earlier estimated but hardly an insurmountable engineering challenge or too long to accommodate an alternate flow system. And any delay it would cause would still be easier than a diversion through Sandymount Village or on Londonbridge Rd.

Gilford road to Seafort Avenue is 700m..

Alias G · 05-03-2021 02:53PM

First Up wrote: »

Reading maps on the phone can be tricky. I'll try again:
The promenade starts nearly opposite the Gilford Rd junction with Strand Rd. The non-tidal part of the beach is opposite Seafort Avenue and the distance shows on Google Maps at about 370 meters.

Yes, thats longer than the 250 I earlier estimated but hardly an insurmountable engineering challenge or too long to accommodate an alternate flow system. And any delay it would cause would still be easier than a diversion through Sandymount Village or on Londonbridge Rd.

And what about the other end of Strand Road? The 300 metres approaching Merrion Gates. You seem to be ignoring this portion of the road altogether for some reason.

Dowee · 05-03-2021 02:57PM

First Up wrote: »

Reading maps on the phone can be tricky. I'll try again:
The promenade starts nearly opposite the Gilford Rd junction with Strand Rd. The non-tidal part of the beach is opposite Seafort Avenue and the distance shows on Google Maps at about 370 meters.

Yes, thats longer than the 250 I earlier estimated but hardly an insurmountable engineering challenge or too long to accommodate an alternate flow system. And any delay it would cause would still be easier than a diversion through Sandymount Village or on Londonbridge Rd.

What Google Maps are you using? Mine says 700m

Gilford Rd to Seafort Ave.png

First Up · 05-03-2021 03:07PM

Dowee wrote:

What Google Maps are you using? Mine says 700m

Look at the Steps under Directions On my version the section on Strand Rd is shown at 400m and the promenade starts a bit sooner.

Seth Brundle · 05-03-2021 03:07PM

TheW1zard wrote: »

Gilford road to Seafort Avenue is 700m..

Maybe that was before they moved the streets closer together?

Eamonnator · 05-03-2021 03:08PM

@First Up
I disagree profoundly with most of what you say, But I must say, that I Really admire your tenacity.
As someone with virtually no skin in this particular game, I'm enjoying your contributions.
Keep it up.

Dowee · 05-03-2021 03:11PM

First Up wrote: »

Look at the Steps under Directions On my version the section on Strand Rd is shown at 400m and the promenade starts a bit sooner.

Don't understand what you're saying. Maybe you could share a screenshot of your measurement.

Alias G · 05-03-2021 03:11PM

First Up wrote: »

Look at the Steps under Directions On my version the section on Strand Rd is shown at 400m and the promenade starts a bit sooner.

What version? You haven't presented your map. But please go ahead and give us a good laugh.

And respond with your proposal for the southern portion of the cycle track while you are at it.

CramCycle · 05-03-2021 03:20PM

First Up wrote: »

Look at the Steps under Directions On my version the section on Strand Rd is shown at 400m and the promenade starts a bit sooner.

MOD VOICE: Others are actually providing proof this time, unless you provide it via screenshot of where you are on about, I will have to take it you are trolling.

Brian? · 05-03-2021 03:26PM

Weepsie wrote: »

So when one point fails, onto the next stupid one?

Why wouldn't 60+ years old use it. 60 isn't particularly old. I know quite a few over 70s who cycle either for leisure, exercise and commutting. A neighbour of mine cycled everywhere up until his passing, despite having a car.

Less cars, would make it a lot more appealing for them to cycle too, and with pedal assist and an ever increasing improvement in eBikes it would make sense.

That's before we get to the health benefits

I cycle past people in their 70s and 80s on bikes all the time. A lot of them use e bikes these days. It's the standard in the Netherlands. It keeps people active and healthy

First Up · 05-03-2021 03:31PM

Dowee wrote:

Don't understand what you're saying. Maybe you could share a screenshot of your measurement.

Can't do that on phone. Go into Maps and enter Gilford Rd, then under Directions put Seafort Ave as the starting point. The go into Steps and see how far is the section along Strand Rd.

buffalo · 05-03-2021 03:36PM

First Up wrote: »

Can't do that on phone. Go into Maps and enter Gilford Rd, then under Directions put Seafort Ave as the starting point. The go into Steps and see how far is the section along Strand Rd.

https://lmgtfy.app/?q=how+to+take+a+screenshot+on+my+phone

CramCycle · 05-03-2021 03:37PM

First Up wrote: »

Can't do that on phone. Go into Maps and enter Gilford Rd, then under Directions put Seafort Ave as the starting point. The go into Steps and see how far is the section along Strand Rd.

MOD VOICE: It isn't what you claim, end of discussion. Other posters have put up proof, I have stupidly wasted time double checking. If you disagree come to me with proof via PM but if you post in thread again saying its something it isn't, you will be banned. I have better things to be doing than responding to this.

Dowee · 05-03-2021 03:40PM

First Up wrote: »

Can't do that on phone. Go into Maps and enter Gilford Rd, then under Directions put Seafort Ave as the starting point. The go into Steps and see how far is the section along Strand Rd.

If you click on my link here Gilford Rd to Seafort Ave.png you'll see that's what I've done.

Any chance you're looking at the distance in miles? It's about 0.4 of a mile.

Trudee · 05-03-2021 07:34PM

CramCycle wrote: »

MOD VOICE: It isn't what you claim, end of discussion. Other posters have put up proof, I have stupidly wasted time double checking. If you disagree come to me with proof via PM but if you post in thread again saying its something it isn't, you will be banned. I have better things to be doing than responding to this.

A most unusual way of dealing with First Up posts, from my reading of last few pages of posts from First Up I find it really shocking that you would consider banning him/her for their views, opinions, measurements etc

Alias G · 05-03-2021 07:58PM

Trudee wrote: »

A most unusual way of dealing with First Up posts, from my reading of last few pages of posts from First Up I find it really shocking that you would consider banning him/her for their views, opinions, measurements etc

If he/she actually bothered producing evidence of those measurements or indeed any substantive evidence to back up his/her opinions, then you might have a point. He/she was challenged numerous times to do so and failed to deliver. Others actually went to the effort of measuring the length of the suggested boardwalk, produced clear evidence of it. And yet still FU persists with intentional obfuscation. How to you think non serious and non faithful debating such as that should be tolerated.

CramCycle · 05-03-2021 08:02PM

Trudee wrote: »

A most unusual way of dealing with First Up posts, from my reading of last few pages of posts from First Up I find it really shocking that you would consider banning him/her for their views, opinions, measurements etc

MOD VOICE: Discussion via PM please, do not discuss mod decisions in thread. First Up has been advised of the standard of posting expected. As with all posters, if you make a claim, be prepared to back it up with reasoned discussion and facts. This is for all posters.

Trudee · 05-03-2021 08:09PM

Alias G wrote: »

If he/she actually bothered producing evidence of those measurements or indeed any substantive evidence to back up his/her opinions, then you might have a point. He/she was challenged numerous times to do so and failed to deliver. Others actually went to the effort of measuring the length of the suggested boardwalk, produced clear evidence of it. And yet still FU persists with intentional obfuscation. How to you think non serious and non faithful debating such as that should be tolerated.

Did First Up not agree that the first measurement might have been too short so hardly obfuscation.

Alias G · 05-03-2021 08:21PM

Trudee wrote: »

Did First Up not agree that the first measurement might have been too short so hardly obfuscation.

Nope, he simply underestimated the length again by about 50%. This time extending to 370 metres rather than his original 250. It is quite easily fact checked by anyone with access to Google maps that the distance is approx 750 metres. Pure obfuscation is what he was at all afternoon on this and every other topic he constantly moved the goalposts on, wasting his time and the time of anyone who engaged with him.

CramCycle · 05-03-2021 08:28PM

MOD VOICE: Back on topic, less of this back and forth about a poster. It has been explained, IMO clearly, what's expected of posters. From now on if it's not related to the cycleway ( or related issues), leave it out.

Qrt · 05-03-2021 08:42PM

I, for one, welcome our new ciclista overlords!

Digiteer · 08-03-2021 08:59PM

100%

buffalo · 08-03-2021 09:25PM

From what I've read elsewhere My government sources tell me DCC are now investigating building a flood defence and promenade along this stretch. Cycling and walking facilities would be part of this promenade.

Obviously it'll be years in the building, but that does mean that even if the trial goes ahead and is a success and made permanent, an end will come for the downtrodden citizens of Sandymount.

Although what they do about the section by the Merrion Gates, I don't know. At that stage the gates will probably be closed so often that Strand Road will effectively be a cul-de-sac.

Grassey · 08-03-2021 10:41PM

buffalo wrote:

From what I've read elsewhere My government sources tell me DCC are now investigating building a flood defence and promenade along this stretch. Cycling and walking facilities would be part of this promenade.

But won't this block the view of the gridlocked motorist...

Effects · 09-03-2021 11:27AM

Grassey wrote: »

But won't this block the view of the gridlocked motorist...

It's ok, they'll build it too high at first, then spend half a million to lower it again.

magicbastarder · 09-03-2021 12:44PM

nah, they can just raise the road surface by 40cm to compensate.

Seth Brundle · 09-03-2021 01:06PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

nah, they can just raise the road surface by 40cm to compensate.

That will make it more difficult for the Strand Rd houses to see their sea-view. I propose that the houses should also be raised by 40cm.

buffalo · 09-03-2021 01:07PM

I think this is north Dublin, but sure I'll crowbar it in here anyway:

CatInABox wrote: »

As the first example of a "Dublin Junction", this clearly needs work. Very frustrating that we've decided to ignore what's been happening in other countries and tried to come up with a brand new way of doing it.

https://twitter.com/Feljin_J/status/1368994310012735494

It should be better once the light sequence is fixed to prioritise cyclists, and not have them start at the same time (they can't seriously be planning on keeping it this way, right?), but even so, it's a definite downgrade in safety.

https://twitter.com/Feljin_J/status/1368994310012735494

Effects · 09-03-2021 01:18PM

buffalo wrote: »

I think this is north Dublin, but sure I'll crowbar it in here anyway:

https://twitter.com/Feljin_J/status/1368994310012735494

Is the guy on the bike just doing a U Turn? Am I missing something?

a_squirrelman · 09-03-2021 02:29PM

Effects wrote: »

Is the guy on the bike just doing a U Turn? Am I missing something?

Yeah he is. The design is so so bad.

Cycle infrastructure planned for south Dublin

Comments