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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

DART coming to Maynooth line in 2024

12467…12

Comments

  • #152
    KGLady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 338 ✭✭KGLady


    beauf wrote: »

    Granted the cycling infrastructure and planning is pretty shambolic. But its not impossible for kids to get around cycling, and 25min walk is nothing for kids in secondary school, even after a bus journey. We all did it. The whole world does it. There something wrong with our society that everyone has to be driven everywhere. But thats a larger discussion.

    I agree with you a 25 min walk isn't a hardship for the majority of able bodied healthy kids, but you add in the time it takes to get to your bus stop and its journey time and its overall taking even longer. Walking also takes longer because there are so many estates walled off with no pedestrian access to the main roads meaning a trudge through the entire estate to the front entrance. For the kids coming from Ongar/Clonee D15 end its going to be well over an hour of a LOCAL commute because the planning is so ****e and the school bus needs aren't been fulfilled. The kids going to school in town would get there faster. Or, a parent can drop you Ongar to LCC in 10-20 mins depending on traffic.

    We're not that far at least, my own kid walks it and its 45mins because there's just no practical bus option and the roads are too hazardous for safe cycling. In Clonsilla they also struggle with cars going through reds at the pedestrian lights in the afternoon :mad: The solution really is dedicated school buses for cases where the catchment is wider that the immediate locality. It shouldn't be a logistical nightmare to just get to a school in the area. Everyone else commuting for work and local trips shouldnt have to suffer through lines of cars of kids who's parents don't have another option :(


  • #153
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Well there a bit of social responsibility here. I got a bus sometimes two, and then a walked 20~30 mins to school. Lots of urban kids do this. It wasn't and isn't unusual.
    Its not unusual. We (the adults) have turned this into have to be driven to school.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkVvXVDs5aI&ab_channel=CBSThisMorning
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7YrN8Q2PDU&ab_channel=TheFeedSBS

    The we have decided to live in places where driving is the only option (at least in heads, but sometimes it is the only option). We (the adults) have decided to do that.
    We also over state the dangers. Why do we do that?

    We are not solving these problems. We are creating them, we are sustaining them. We have to take some responsibility here.


  • #154
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    I'm not saying housing isn't an issue, obviously it is.


  • #155
    liamog
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 8,059 Mod ✭✭✭✭liamog


    beauf wrote: »
    Not sure why you are anti train. This thread is about the new Dart. But almost all are focused on still driving everywhere.

    If people won't stop driving, they won't be incentivized out of their car, then won't be discouraged by inconvenience. No one has any interest in alternatives.

    TBH when an alternative like a peak time toll is suggested, you just ignore any alternative than just driving everywhere.

    Hmm, I'm not sure if you are aware but the train line runs in an East West direction, and isn't going to do anything for people in D15 crossing the canal in a North South direction, tolling a suburban bridge is probably one of the craziest ideas I've ever seen on boards.

    I believe I already covered why it's important to get this right in the context of both the rail upgrade and ensuring we don't further isolate D15 neighbourhoods, here's the post in case you missed it https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114722258&postcount=95


  • #156
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    You were making point the the bridge isn't for peak time traffic, that is primary purpose use off peak permeability.
    Which wouldn't be effected by a peak time toll. So you should have no issue with one. So its interesting you do.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    liamog
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 8,059 Mod ✭✭✭✭liamog


    beauf wrote: »
    You were making point the the bridge isn't for peak time traffic, that is primary purpose use off peak permeability.
    Which wouldn't be effected by a peak time toll. So you should have no issue with one. So its interesting you do.

    I believe the point was that it wasn't primarily about peak time traffic relief and that off peak permeability was just as important.
    Can you provide any examples of a time based toll operating on a suburban bridge of the like proposed as a replacement for Coolmine, I've honestly never heard of such a thing, I think it would be a massive waste of resources.

    Why are you so intent in preventing people from crossing the canal and railway at this location?


  • #158
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Why are so focused on peak time traffic, if peak time traffic isn't the most significant issue.

    No ones stopping people crossing the railway or canal, there a massive bridge already there that allows just this.


  • #159
    liamog
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 8,059 Mod ✭✭✭✭liamog


    You are the person focussed on peak time traffic and using it as a justification to cut off access across the canal 24 hours a day.
    You keep bringing the justification to not build a replacement at Coolmine to be their is too much peak time traffic.
    Then when I point out that's not the only reason to replace the crossing you avoid the point.


  • #160
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    liamog wrote: »
    You are the person focussed on peak time traffic and using it as a justification to cut off access across the canal 24 hours a day.
    ....

    When did this new bridge become the ONLY way to cross the Canal and Railway. Is there a new plan we missed.


  • #161
    lucernarian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,235 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    There is a long distance between e.g. castleknock and Dr Troy bridge if Coolmine were closed. It seems like it would be an ideal avenue for local/feeder bus routes if there were was provision made for bikes, pedestrians and vehicles. Would also be nice to see something done about the canal pathway between castleknock and coolmine, which is currently in a dire state.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    lucernarian wrote: »
    There is a long distance between e.g. castleknock and Dr Troy bridge if Coolmine were closed. It seems like it would be an ideal avenue for local/feeder bus routes if there were was provision made for bikes, pedestrians and vehicles. Would also be nice to see something done about the canal pathway between castleknock and coolmine, which is currently in a dire state.

    There's a thread somewhere on boards about that also...

    https://irishcycle.com/2019/03/19/public-urged-to-support-royal-canal-greenway-proposals-as-opposition-mounts-in-dublin-15/


  • #163
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,304 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    liamog wrote: »
    How are you trying to have it both ways, also it's probably worth noting that the current bridge is 1.1km away from the current location when travelled by road rather than bird.

    This is why I think you are just anti car rather than bringing constructive discussion to the concept of a replacement crossing for Coolmine. Your argument against the replacing the crossing is their is too much traffic today on the bridge and existing level crossing. So instead of trying to meet the needs of residents south of the canal, who clearly show a desire to cross the canal, you instead want to isolate them further.

    The ship has long since sailed on us developing this suburb with a high car dependency, by all means propose measures to make it better (Using the Metro West reservation for a BRT would be an idea) but there is no need to cut people off in some misguided attempt to force a modal switch without any plans to provide alternatives.

    That is a very good idea, and would preserve the Metro West alignment into the future.


  • #164
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    lucernarian wrote: »
    There is a long distance between e.g. castleknock and Dr Troy bridge if Coolmine were closed. It seems like it would be an ideal avenue for local/feeder bus routes if there were was provision made for bikes, pedestrians and vehicles. Would also be nice to see something done about the canal pathway between castleknock and coolmine, which is currently in a dire state.

    The plan is to replace the level crossing with a pedestrian and cycle bridge.

    Road bridge into Riverwood 500m away from the existing tiny road bridge.

    https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3778264,-6.4024583,3a,75y,354.2h,70.53t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sseOCnMscOHBSEazPF0NM8w!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DseOCnMscOHBSEazPF0NM8w%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D208.68843%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656


  • #165
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,304 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    beauf wrote: »
    When did this new bridge become the ONLY way to cross the Canal and Railway. Is there a new plan we missed.

    Well, if it isn't the only way across, then it won't be overloaded. You have convinced me of the necessity for this new bridge.


  • #166
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    blanch152 wrote: »
    That is a very good idea, and would preserve the Metro West alignment into the future.

    Maybe they should make the new bridge bus only. :D


  • #167
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Is there anything to be said for canal boats?

    https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3789336,-6.4020716,3a,75y,281.79h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sgjbwxu3WRxdpSm1gbEmojw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dgjbwxu3WRxdpSm1gbEmojw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D181.18086%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656


  • #168
    lucernarian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,235 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    beauf wrote: »
    The plan is to replace the level crossing with a pedestrian and cycle bridge.

    Road bridge into Riverwood 500m away from the existing tiny road bridge.

    https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3778264,-6.4024583,3a,75y,354.2h,70.53t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sseOCnMscOHBSEazPF0NM8w!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DseOCnMscOHBSEazPF0NM8w%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D208.68843%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
    The replacement facility is not ideal for bikes and some pedestrians compared to existing crossing. It's sort of annoying that the road and pedestrian bridge cannot be built in-situ at the crossing.


  • #169
    liamog
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 8,059 Mod ✭✭✭✭liamog


    lucernarian wrote: »
    The replacement facility is not ideal for bikes and some pedestrians compared to existing crossing. It's sort of annoying that the road and pedestrian bridge cannot be built in-situ at the crossing.

    Maybe that is the alternative, instead of building a new bridge through Riverwood, build it over the existing crossing.
    In this diagram, red is the changes and required for a Riverwood bridge, yellow would be a bridge at the same gradient running through Coolmine Rd.

    527706.jpg

    Excuse my mad paint skillz :D


  • #170
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Option 1 and 6 keep it in the same place.

    https://www.irishrail.ie/Admin/getmedia/8b669bab-7b1c-4ef6-9667-d2494faae813/Preliminary-Options-Selection-Report_Main-Report.pdf


  • #171
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    lucernarian wrote: »
    The replacement facility is not ideal for bikes and some pedestrians compared to existing crossing. It's sort of annoying that the road and pedestrian bridge cannot be built in-situ at the crossing.

    It would be better than carrying the bike over the pedestrian bike over bridge in the train station. That was no fun.

    They have some convoluted engineering for the Greenway between Castleknock and Coolmine also.

    Look at the national hospital. Square no, rectangle no, triangle no.
    A freaking oval. If you wanted to a pick a shape that would be the most expensive to build you couldn't go far wrong with an oval.

    None of these people had a lego set as a child.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    Fiddle Castro
    Registered Users Posts: 78 ✭✭Fiddle Castro


    liamog wrote: »
    Maybe that is the alternative, instead of building a new bridge through Riverwood, build it over the existing crossing.
    In this diagram, red is the changes and required for a Riverwood bridge, yellow would be a bridge at the same gradient running through Coolmine Rd.

    527706.jpg

    Excuse my mad paint skillz :D


    This is option 1 and comes with the same problems as Riverwood (Height of bridge, removal of trees, demolition of properties etc.) as well as some of its own like the potential destruction the bridge & that there is
    insufficient room with this option to accommodate dedicated cycle tracks without increasing the overall road
    footprint and impact on the adjacent properties further.


  • #173
    liamog
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 8,059 Mod ✭✭✭✭liamog


    Looks like the main benefit of Option 3 over Option 1 is that a Riverwood bridge can be built to wider standard, as such it can accommodate active travel modes as well as road traffic.
    I wasn't aware that the existing bridge at Coolmine was listed and would cause complications.


  • #174
    Fiddle Castro
    Registered Users Posts: 78 ✭✭Fiddle Castro


    The full details of the options are available here -

    https://www.irishrail.ie/Admin/getmedia/8b669bab-7b1c-4ef6-9667-d2494faae813/Preliminary-Options-Selection-Report_Main-Report.pdf

    Go to page 133 for the options for Coolmine


  • #175
    liamog
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 8,059 Mod ✭✭✭✭liamog


    I think the Clonsilla options were more interesting, would be some good joined up thinking to build the bridge for the future development of Kellystown


  • #176
    cython
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,772 ✭✭✭cython


    Dr_Colossus wrote: »
    New station in Porterstown? surely not as Clonsilla and Coolmine are already pretty close together.

    Back when Metro West was still a thing, there was a plan for a Porterstown station as part of an interchange between that and the train line: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porterstown_station

    I'd agree that the necessity of same in isolation is pretty questionable, but were it ever to be built I couldn't see a scenario where people living near to and currently using either of Clonsilla or Coolmine would be willing to see one of those closed in exchange for Porterstown if the net result was a significantly longer walk or cycle to the station.


  • #177
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,304 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    liamog wrote: »
    Maybe that is the alternative, instead of building a new bridge through Riverwood, build it over the existing crossing.
    In this diagram, red is the changes and required for a Riverwood bridge, yellow would be a bridge at the same gradient running through Coolmine Rd.

    527706.jpg

    Excuse my mad paint skillz :D

    That was examined comprehensively by the study and ruled out for very good reasons.


  • #178
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    They didn't have a yellow pen...


  • #179
    liamog
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 8,059 Mod ✭✭✭✭liamog


    blanch152 wrote: »
    That was examined comprehensively by the study and ruled out for very good reasons.

    It was mostly ruled out because of the listed bridge and inability to provide adequate width for active travel modes.


  • #180
    lucernarian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,235 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    liamog wrote: »
    It was mostly ruled out because of the listed bridge and inability to provide adequate width for active travel modes.
    The old bridge is mostly not visible except from certain specific angles. Normally I'd not want to see destruction of listed buildings but sometimes I want exceptions


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    ciaran76
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,697 ✭✭✭ciaran76


    Kind of lnked to the above.....


    Fingal County Council is proposing to develop the Kellystown Road which will provide a link from Porterstown to Barnhill, to improve road safety & connectivity whilst allowing for the development of a new urban neighbourhood.

    https://consult.fingal.ie/en/consultation/kellystown-road-%E2%80%93-non-statutory-public-engagement


  • #182
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,304 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    liamog wrote: »
    It was mostly ruled out because of the listed bridge and inability to provide adequate width for active travel modes.

    As I said, for very good reasons.


  • #183
    jam_mac_jam
    Registered Users Posts: 4,731 ✭✭✭jam_mac_jam


    Well the option that they are going for is going to knock a house down I would have thought that it would be a worse option.


  • #184
    liamog
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 8,059 Mod ✭✭✭✭liamog


    blanch152 wrote: »
    As I said, for very good reasons.

    Yes, but you could of shared them instead of me having to look them up :D


  • #185
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    ciaran76 wrote: »
    Kind of lnked to the above.....


    Fingal County Council is proposing to develop the Kellystown Road which will provide a link from Porterstown to Barnhill, to improve road safety & connectivity whilst allowing for the development of a new urban neighbourhood.

    https://consult.fingal.ie/en/consultation/kellystown-road-%E2%80%93-non-statutory-public-engagement

    They could have stuck a bridge in there to aid "permeability" :D

    Maybe the idea is to build the neighborhood then put space in for future bridges in afterwards. ;)


  • #186
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    liamog wrote: »
    It was mostly ruled out because of the listed bridge and inability to provide adequate width for active travel modes.

    These paths/lanes of active travel modes.

    There are none on the roads it would be connecting to anyway.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    daymobrew
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,523 ✭✭✭daymobrew


    beauf wrote: »
    These paths/lanes of active travel modes.

    There are none on the roads it would be connecting to anyway.
    Although I don't like Coolmine Road as I experience a lot of close passes by drivers there, I would prefer a bridge over the level crossing without cycle tracks than a wide bridge into Riverwood Court. As you say, the rest of Coolmine Road (and connecting roads) doesn't have cycle tracks so I wouldn't miss what doesn't exist.

    I often use Sheepmoor Lane & Station Court as a peaceful route to/from Blanch Centre. If it was changed to a bridge it would be quite a loss. Coolmine Road would be quieter but nowhere near as peaceful as the other route.


  • #188
    liamog
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 8,059 Mod ✭✭✭✭liamog


    beauf wrote: »
    These paths/lanes of active travel modes.

    There are none on the roads it would be connecting to anyway.

    There is a offline cycleway on St Mochtas Grove, and the works to build the bridge indicate they'd be making changes between the existing Coolmine station roundabout and the current entrance to Riverwood, no doubt this would include extending the cycleway that currently exists on Carpenterstown Park.
    I'd love for them to do some work tying in the St Mochtas cycleway with the path through the park opposite the fire station.


  • #189
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    I'm not going to express a preference lest I be accused of hating bridges, or such.

    Obviously more cycling infrastructure is better.
    Its only noteworthy here in that its used a reason to reject an option, considering there's no rhythm or reason to how its been executed (assassinated even) everywhere else in the area.


  • #190
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    liamog wrote: »
    .... the cycleway that currently exists on Carpenterstown Park....

    What I like on these roundabouts how we have every combination of possible treatment, often different on every road on the junction, but usually different on one side of the road to other.

    no cycleway,
    on path cycle way,
    shared cycle way
    bus lane,
    road,
    path


    The classic disappearing cycle path with no transition to road.
    https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3759208,-6.3954837,3a,75y,79.23h,54.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sO_hWSjkPLdmZb91b8R7E-g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192


  • #191
    liamog
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 8,059 Mod ✭✭✭✭liamog


    beauf wrote: »
    ts only noteworthy here in that its used a reason to reject an option, considering there's no rhythm or reason to how its been executed (assassinated even) everywhere else in the area.

    Could be a sign of good planning, they are at least acknowledging the need to provide cycling infrastructure? The work Fingal did on the cycleway through Hazelbury Park and around the Ongar area was half decent, they've still made a hames of the junctions but it at least show's some desire to improve things.

    I used to cycle from Ongar to the Quays, the worst part of the route was between Coolmine and Castleknock. If they can solve the canal path at Deep Sinking and connect it up with the Coolmine works it would be ideal.
    beauf wrote: »
    The classic disappearing cycle path with no transition to road.
    https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3759208,-6.3954837,3a,75y,79.23h,54.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sO_hWSjkPLdmZb91b8R7E-g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

    That's one of my favourites, cyclepath into a pole!


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    liamog wrote: »
    Could be a sign of good planning, ....

    Thats the last thing its a sign of. :D

    There's about 7 roundabouts in the immediate area, takes real talent not to do even two the same way even by accident. :D


  • #193
    liamog
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 8,059 Mod ✭✭✭✭liamog


    beauf wrote: »
    Thats the last thing its a sign of. :D

    There's about 7 roundabouts in the immediate area, takes real talent not to do even two the same way even by accident. :D

    The good planning is that are considering the cycleways as part of the replacement of the crossing, bad planning would be to ignore them completely and in only look at replacing a level crossing with a replacement road.


  • #194
    VonLuck
    Registered Users Posts: 2,291 ✭✭✭VonLuck


    I would be a bit worried about the proposals for Ashtown. It will direct all traffic away from the main street, which might sound good, but will turn it into a cul-de-sac. I imagine that will negatively affect businesses in the area with no through traffic.


  • #195
    daymobrew
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,523 ✭✭✭daymobrew


    VonLuck wrote: »
    I would be a bit worried about the proposals for Ashtown. It will direct all traffic away from the main street, which might sound good, but will turn it into a cul-de-sac. I imagine that will negatively affect businesses in the area with no through traffic.
    It might make the main street quieter and more pedestrian friendly. This should be a positive thing as every customer is a pedestrian - no drive through businesses in Ashtown.


  • #196
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    liamog wrote: »
    The good planning is that are considering the cycleways as part of the replacement of the crossing, bad planning would be to ignore them completely and in only look at replacing a level crossing with a replacement road.

    I have no objection to having such a feature

    But its tokenism. A cycle lane on a bridge in that location (coolmine crossing) would not connect to anything. As there are no cycle lanes on that road. It seems odd to discard an option for that reason in that context.

    If you are cycling from D15 into the city center the majority of the roads have no cycle lanes. Same if you are cycling around the area. Even where there are lanes Nothing joins up and nothing is to the same design. Lanes stop and start at random. If you are cycling with kids you often find there are significant gaps in your route which are difficult to cross with kids.

    It feels like any time there have budget left over they do a bit of a cycle lane. There is no rhyme or reason to it.

    Some cycle lanes are better than none, certainly. But you can tell who ever creates these things has never cycles on them or talked or got feedback from anyone who does.

    Personally I think it's difficult location to build in. So they looked for an excuse to eliminate it as an option. It's not completely without substance. But it's a very weak argument in the context of what's around it.


  • #197
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,290 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    liamog wrote: »
    Could be a sign of good planning, they are at least acknowledging the need to provide cycling infrastructure? The work Fingal did on the cycleway through Hazelbury Park and around the Ongar area was half decent, they've still made a hames of the junctions but it at least show's some desire to improve things.
    Unfortunately much of this cycling "infrastructure" is designed by people who will never use it and dont ubderstand the needs. Designing cycling infrastructure that is only half decent is simply a waste of money. It will lead to people continuing to cycle on the roads which then pisses off drivers who believe that cyclists should be on that new expensive cycle path. Some of those drivers are likely to punish cyclists for that.
    It is poor planning and really is a box ticking exercise.


  • #198
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    VonLuck wrote: »
    I would be a bit worried about the proposals for Ashtown. It will direct all traffic away from the main street, which might sound good, but will turn it into a cul-de-sac. I imagine that will negatively affect businesses in the area with no through traffic.

    I very rarely go to Ashtown. If I do it's to pop into SuperValu because I'm near by. Or try a different cafe.

    I would have assumed the majority of the foot fall is from the locals. I could be completely wrong..


  • #199
    hotmail.com
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,584 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    Will the Sheephill Lane (I think it's called) reopen after the construction of the bridge?


  • #200
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    hotmail.com wrote: »
    Will the Sheephill Lane (I think it's called) reopen after the construction of the bridge?

    Where is that?


  • #201
    jam_mac_jam
    Registered Users Posts: 4,731 ✭✭✭jam_mac_jam


    beauf wrote: »
    Where is that?

    It's a small laneway that's beside stationcourt. A pedestrian exit to the train station. There is a couple of houses there as well.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement