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

Cycle infrastructure planned for south Dublin

19899101103104119

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,393 ✭✭✭Grassey


    Nah. Most of us stay in the traffic lane as that roundabout is horrible to negotiate if you stay in the cycle lane.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,229 ✭✭✭Economics101


    My original post (#3171) was in large measure a complaint about badly-designed and even dangerous provision for cyclists. Bad design can lead to congestion and risky situations for everyone, motorists and cyclists. I see that the conversation has now turned into some kind of anti-car thing. A huge amount of travel in Dublin is by car because of (a) bad public transport, (b) the need to carry home a lot of shopping, (c). long or awkward journeys which are virtually impossible by bus, bicycle or walking and (d) the increasing number of seniors who in many cases are not into cycling or long-distance walking. Motorists don't drive just for the hell of it.

    I almost regret drawing attention to cyclist-unfriendly roadworks!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,165 ✭✭✭buffalo


    And that's why I didn't disagree with your original post. :) However, the logical fallacy that a bottleneck creates 'traffic' and therefore creates pollution needs to be shot down. People driving creates pollution (and traffic), and bottlenecks discourage people from driving - or lack of bottlenecks encourage people to drive, rather than cycle or walk. Nobody is saying all journeys must be by car, just more than currently. And surprisingly, you can carry shopping on your bike!



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 29,621 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    and e) laziness and f)comfort and isolation


    I would never dream of suggesting there are not multiple valid reasons for driving. But I also absolutely refute any suggestion that all motorists have significant barriers to using other forms of travel. Considering the amount of trips of <2km and <5km conducted by car, it is clear that many motorists do, in fact, drive just for the hell of it.

    The oft trotted out trope is that cycle infrastructure causes "havok" for those who must drive. The reality is that those who don't have to drive but choose to is causing havok for those who must drive.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,466 ✭✭✭McGrath5


    Honestly, I'm not joking. I use that roundabout almost daily, be it walking, cycling or in the car and the only thing creating the so called jam is the motorists. The roundabout used to have have 2 lanes on approach, but the actual throughput was only 1 vehicle at a time therefore the capacity has remained unchanged. It's far safer from a vulnerable road user perspective now, traffic has to slow down to an appropriate speed given it is a high density area with a large secondary and primary school nearby.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 312 ✭✭Dowee


    I'm pretty sure at the time it was being built (and causing a lot of angst amongst locals) that the SDCC specifically stated that two of the intended purposes or the roundabout were to slow cars down in the area and to make driving a less attractive option, while encouraging cycling. As a resident of Knocklyon I can assure you that the cause of traffic jams in the area is due to huge amount of wholely unncessary journeys taken by people, for school drop offs, to GAA and other sport training, to Super Valu etc, not any cycleway or roundabout.

    The "enhanced cycleway" is poorly designed in my opinion as it is a shared pedestrian and cyclist space and forces those on bikes to become pedestrians and cross at the pedestrian lights at junctions. So it is not surprising that many (including myself on many occasions) choose not to use it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,229 ✭✭✭Economics101


    So SDCC create a traffic jamming roundabout to reduce car journeys. To quote Dowee: "As a resident of Knocklyon I can assure you that the cause of traffic jams in the area is due to huge amount of wholely unncessary journeys taken by people". How do you know that the journeys are "wholely unnecessary"? This smacks of arrogance, and reminds me of the attitude of people who are supposed to be public servants, but who want to dictate to us all the time. If you want to curb car journeys, then carbon taxes, congestion charging, parking regulations/charging are ample instruments to hand.

    Creating congestion may deter the amount of car usage, but is also worsens CO2 emissions per km travelled. Only if the former outweighs the latter is there an overall reduction in emissions. Furthermore traffic congestion has a cost in terms of wasted time. People are not generally driving cars for fun, in which case time costs might not matter.

    Finally anyone who is so keen to promote cycling (which I support), would do better to draw attention to the SDCC's atrocious performance on Grange road, which was the reason I got involved in this discussion in the first place.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 683 ✭✭✭ARX



    It's not that the journeys are unnecessary. Few people make journeys with no objective. But when you see your neighbour driving 400 metres to the shop to buy a bag of sausage rolls, or a dozen or so of your colleagues (in their 20s without any health issues I'm aware of) driving 2km (along a well-lit road with footpaths) from the Dublin apartment complex they live in to the office where they will be sitting down all day (and then will then sit in traffic on the way home for longer than it would take to walk) or you listen to those same colleagues moaning because they have lost the use of the car park immediately outside the building and will in future have to use the one across the road and it's so far to walk, then you get the feeling that there are a lot of people who will drive rather than walk or cycle for every journey, no matter how short.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,253 ✭✭✭Thinkingaboutit


    The roundabout where the fatality occurred has been re-ordered with a wide single lane for cars and a lane protected by soft bollards with crossing for peds and cyclists a little bit before and after the roundabout. It's good enough, and most, barring the occasional angry baldy driving a German car, most respect it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,666 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    In the office today - Deansgrange - the complete footpath blocked (no chance of a wheelchair or buggy making it), and road down to one lane, at two different spots by lorries before the cemetery. Between there and Temple Hill lots of vehicles either deliberately or ignorantly narrowing the opportunity to filter left. It needs serious action there to make it safe infrastructure to encourage cycling - you'd want to be reasonably confident around there anyway.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 312 ✭✭Dowee


    As better described above by ARX, I should have said "unnecessary journeys by car", as opposed to unnecessary in general. A specific example might help to explain what I mean. My kids often partake in sports in the evening in St Colmcilles Secondary school, right beside the offending roundabout. I live about 1.5km - 2km from it. I cycle or walk there with them. I'm in the massive minority of parents that do that with their kids, most drive. I also live further away from the school than most in the groups my kids are in.

    Every time we are there it is absolute mayhem getting out of the carpark (for the people in cars that is, we breeze past on our bikes however), because there are far too many cars in it. No doubt some of the parents had to drive (young babies, disabilities etc) but plenty of them did not have to drive, they could walk or cycle. If all of those that can walk and cycle, do so, it lessens congestion for all, especially those who have no other choice. My views on this subject have nothing to do with arrogance, they are based on seeing the broader picture. Ensuring our roads are designed to efficiently move the increasing numbers of cars on them is not THE solution to traffic congestion, there are many more factors to it, one of which is reducing the number of cars on the road in the first place.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,834 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Now you know why so many of the locals were so resistant to the new facility - because it would make it more difficult for them to park illegally, endangering cyclists and pedestrians.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,912 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,171 ✭✭✭Rechuchote


    They're asking for submissions on the cycle lane - or rather on making Dean's Grange one-way, as they're putting it; the address to send your points in to is chiefexecutive@dlrcoco.ie



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,666 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    @Rechuchote do you have a link - can't see it on the website?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,116 ✭✭✭bazermc


    Nice cycle Lane and Lane blockers outside Spar in Kimainham just before the Jail. Was a nightmare along there with cars pulled up



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 42,935 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,395 ✭✭✭cletus


    I posted what I believe is a smaller one here a number of months ago.


    *Edit* this one might be a bit longer, actually



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 42,935 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Dublin City Council recently opened a cycle lane along a stretch of road in Kilmainham that is known by anyone familiar with the area for illegal parking. A week later the local Spar has let go of some staff allegedly as a direct result of the new cycle lane...

    Politicans being populist, local SF rep Daithí Doolan soon decided to try and "resolve" the "situation" to the council...

    image.png

    Apparently the owner of the shop recently opened a cafe around the corner...




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,860 ✭✭✭Duckjob


    "Hmmm.... I need to get rid of some people. What can I find to blame and take the anger away being directed to me ?". <Looks out window>

    Sounds like a case of "wake up and smell the misdirection"...



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 683 ✭✭✭ARX


    Whoever runs that Twitter account appears to be an astonishingly aggressive person.




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,860 ✭✭✭Duckjob


    "I've been inundated with messages asking how emergency services are going to get down scr Kilmainham due to new poles inserted. @Pidge

    was asked but refused to answer. Residents are trapped in their homes due to this @1rorycowan

    are you affected by this as well?"



    Slight penchant for hyperbolae and melodramatics as well it seems....



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,912 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    It's really remarkable how the same hysterical claims are made every time "a parking space" (real or informally established by everyone turning a blind eye) is lost.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,994 ✭✭✭Seaswimmer


    List of alternative options for the proposed part of the DLR Active Travel route on Deansgrange road..



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,496 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Whose document is this and what is the context?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,994 ✭✭✭Seaswimmer


    I believe it is a DLRCC document. I received it via a local resident, however it was issued to her following a recent meeting between DLR and the Deansgrange Business group.. It seems to have come out of DRLs commitment to go back and look at alternative route options. The business groups preferences are option 4 (Fintans Park/Villas) or Option 6 through the cemetery.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,614 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    Option 6 comes out top in the assessment, but I'd imagine it would take a lot longer to implement and open a whole new can of worms by going through the cemetery?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,994 ✭✭✭Seaswimmer


    To be honest I cant see it being a runner. They havent said whereabouts in the cemetery it will go so it could possibly be a long detour. From the beginning of the cemetery to exiting it is probably only about 400 or 500 metres so probably easier just to stay on the road rather than coming into conflict with cemetery visitors. To my knowledge most graves run right up to the wall so I have really no idea where they intend to route it. It is only a point ahead of the original option (one way) on the scoring with the other options a good bit back..



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,496 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Meantime the noble Borough of Royal Kingstown has published a another scheme, this time for Upper Glenageary Road.

    Its a segregated two-way scheme, but keeps two way vehicular traffic going at the same time, so its unlikely to ruffle too many feathers unless someone complains about restricted access.

    I note they are persisting with delivery under Section 38, which seems mental to me, considering there remains such a huge question mark over its limits and limitations, but there you go.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,666 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    I don't know the cemetery, but it seems a convoluted route (probably could be part of bus connects!). Quite pointed that they call out the need for a council vote - I'd suggest more voters, over a wider area, will be put out by the cemetery than they would by the one way. So we'll have wasted all this time to go for the original option 🙄



Advertisement