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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

S2S Cycleway - northside

Options
2456756

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,332 ✭✭✭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."


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,250 ✭✭✭markpb


    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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,332 ✭✭✭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?:confused:


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,050 ✭✭✭buffalo


    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. :D


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,969 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,332 ✭✭✭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. :D


    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 :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,050 ✭✭✭buffalo


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,332 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,208 ✭✭✭HivemindXX


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,332 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,050 ✭✭✭buffalo


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,618 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭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!


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,618 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,332 ✭✭✭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.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,618 ✭✭✭✭mrcheez


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 865 ✭✭✭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?


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Stollaire wrote: »
    Thanks.

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

    Not yet.

    Bar the bridge, which shows two-way.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,618 ✭✭✭✭mrcheez


    So, despite the 3km section of bike path (along the section between Clontarf and Raheny - joining Wooden Bridge to the causeway) that was supposed to be started before the end of the year, having been tossed around various departments/managers, I got confirmation from the NTA that this will finally be started "early 2014"

    If anyone's interested :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 377 ✭✭Jocry


    mrcheez wrote: »
    So, despite the 3km section of bike path (along the section between Clontarf and Raheny - joining Wooden Bridge to the causeway) that was supposed to be started before the end of the year, having been tossed around various departments/managers, I got confirmation from the NTA that this will finally be started "early 2014"

    If anyone's interested :)

    Suuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre it will be, I'll believe it when I see it :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,969 ✭✭✭hardCopy


    Jocry wrote: »
    Suuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre it will be, I'll believe it when I see it :rolleyes:

    I'll believe it when I've cycled on it!


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,854 ✭✭✭Rogue-Trooper


    mrcheez wrote: »
    I got confirmation from the NTA that this will finally be started "early 2014"

    So I guess in the meantime we'll just have to try not 'tramline' on the giant cracks in the 'cycle lane' along that stretch...............


  • Registered Users Posts: 767 ✭✭✭duffyshuffle


    I emailed the council about that stretch and encourage every else to, I told them someone will fall and sue or injure themselves/die which doesn't seem unlikely given the crazy state of the road, took me about two mins, contact on the DCC website


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,618 ✭✭✭✭mrcheez


    I emailed the council about that stretch and encourage every else to, I told them someone will fall and sue or injure themselves/die which doesn't seem unlikely given the crazy state of the road, took me about two mins, contact on the DCC website

    I very much doubt they'll upgrade the cycle path on the road if they're going to be adding a new path on the coast-side, but I agree more people need to get in contact with the NTA (who are handling the S2S now) and make sure that "early 2014" doesn't mean "late 2017"


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,618 ✭✭✭✭mrcheez


    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?

    So.. eh... when should I start to harangue the NTA about the delay in starting work on the "completion of the Dublin Bay cycle path"?

    For the record the article posted in the Irish Times was posted on Apr 2013 with title "Work to start on Dublin Bay cycle path" (it's now found via archive.org https://web.archive.org/web/20130519234027/http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/work-to-start-on-dublin-bay-cycle-path-1.1390672)
    This first section will close the 2km gap in the current promenade and cycle path running from Clontarf to Sutton.

    reckon if I wait until April, that will be embarrassing enough for them?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,141 ✭✭✭Doctor Bob


    AFAIK, the section of the NTA that was in charge of the project (NTA Design Section, formerly the QBN Project Office) was recalled to DCC - their actual employer - late last year. The project is still being funded by the NTA, but I suspect that responsibility for the design and construction has returned to DCC.

    Also, I think construction can only happen during specific windows, i.e. outside the breeding/feeding season for certain types of birds, so I'd still expect that it will begin in 'early 2014', but that might mean March rather than early January.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,050 ✭✭✭buffalo


    Anyone care to start a pool* as to whether that section will be postponed in favour of flood defence works, given the state of the place over the last couple of weeks?


    edit: *no pun consciously intended


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,618 ✭✭✭✭mrcheez


    I got a reply to this...

    "Design drawings and contract documents are currently being finalised. Pending confirmation of funding, it is hoped to proceed to tender in Spring 2014, with a view to starting construction in mid-2014. The provisional construction programme is approximately 15 months however seasonal restrictions on carrying out work within the lagoon may impinge on this."

    So it's only going TO TENDER in Spring 2014, then 15 months development time (or probably longer with flooding/weather problems in the meantime).

    Ah well, gonna have to stick to the Howth Road for next few years I guess.


Advertisement