Comment & Analysis: Dublin City Council is planning a cycle path on Fitzwilliam Quay in Ringsend in Dublin, but for the street section of the street, there’s no need for it.
This is the cycle track that planned:
But the cycle path is not needed here.
The below photo shows where I stopped for about 10 minutes — about two metres out from the parked car beside me and there was no issue. It’s so quiet that there’s no issue with motorists driving around me. I’ve visited it around rush hour and asked readers about it, and it doesn’t seem to get that much busier.
And this is why it’s so quiet — the street has modal filter bollards at one end to stop rat running:
The primary sources of (light) traffic on the street are the apartment blocks, the on-street parking, a body repair business, a taxi rank and some loading — this really does not amount to much traffic, and it means it is the kind of street where people can cycle on the carriageway:
The section in question is the second shared line shown at the top of this image:
Around half of the section is along the carriageway (shown here with a yellow box around it). Just to be clear: The other half just south of it creates a valuable line and separates people walking and cycling, and it should be built:
There will still need to be short sections of cycle paths at both ends to link with the to-be-built path south of this section and further plans to have bridges and ramps to link into the Docklands, and a cycle path could provide protection from turning vehicles at the modal filter bollards, but for the ~200 metres along most of the street, a cycle path isn’t needed here.
The width of the planned cycle path was not included in the consultation drawings. If the council presses ahead with building a cycle path, the width should be at least 3.5 metres and closer to 4 metres. This kind of width would mean that this social cycling would actually be possible comfortably and that the path would be more accesible to all users, including trikes and adapted cycles:
But, if there’s no cycle path, does that mean keeping the car parking? Dublin City Council’s parks department has said it is looking for areas to green under the city’s greening strategy. The benefits of greening, which could include bioswales along here, would include:
- Increasing biodiversity is especially important to add to the linear greenery along the river, allowing more of a corridor for biodiversity.
- Reducing the polluted rainwater runoff reaching the Dodder (and in turn the Liffey and Dublin Bay); bioswales allow water to soak into the ground and filter out pollution.
- Slow/hold water runoff, which is especially important in an area like this when there’s a flood risk.
- Softening the look of the area, including the imposingly high river wall.
- Improve human health — urban greenery is linked to improved mental well-being, reduced stress, enhanced social interaction, and reduced air pollution.
And, of course, it’s a good idea for the Dodder Greenway project to, where possible, enhance greenery along the river route.
Given that it’s already generally agreed to remove the parking, using it for greenery would be a much better use.
Okay so I kind of agree with this article but I cycle this route daily, and the most important part of this project is the new crossing at ringsend bridge, this means cyclists can avoid turning right across Ringsend Bridge which can be quite dangerous, I think the cycle path is just really to connect this crossing properly to the greenway.
I live in the area. I cycle on that street daily. I strongly disagree with this article. The bike lane is needed and very welcome. One regularly has to swerve around cars pulling out of the parking and the underground parking when cycling down that street, it is unsafe and needs a bike lane. In addition, the bridge into Ringsend is a death trap for cyclists. These plans provide a crossing of sorts, helping a little bit. The car parking on this street is disgusting and the street would be greatly enhanced with a bike lane. Granted, this may not be the most important bike lane in Dublin but it is needed, welcome and will make cyclists life safer. The sooner this is constructed the better.
Hi CJ, Re “The car parking on this street is disgusting and the street would be greatly enhanced with a bike lane” — as covered in more detail above, “Given that it’s already generally agreed to remove the parking, using it for greenery would be a much better use.”
More greenery would be far more visually appealing than a cycle path and would offer more enhancement to the street overall for the reasons outlined above.
Re motorists “pulling out of the parking and the underground parking when cycling down that street” — the reality is that on-street parking and underground car parks will have to be interacted with across the city. Generally, only main roads will get cycle paths.
The article also outlines how sections of cycle paths would still be needed at both ends, one of those ends is leading up to the crossing. There’s no suggestion in the article of not building the crossing at Bridge St / Ringsend Bridge.
One of the popular free parking areas close to town. Often see cars waiting in the morning for, perhaps, residents to leave for work. Also a common place to see camper vans parked for a few days. I agree it’s a safe and uncongested area to cycle.
I guess how can parking be removed without putting some obstacle in it’s place, whether a cycle lane or a line of planters, otherwise parking cars just continues.
Sounds like they want to make an extended unbroken cycle path, which is a welcome change from some of the others DCC and SDCC have established (it’s cynical but I’m highly reluctant to use the word built).
Yes it’s unnecessary for this section but the infrastructure and amenities may change here in future and establishing it now means it’s there in the long term. I also get that it may be a box ticking exercise, but it’s a welcome change none the less and I’d like to see more commitment to extended unbroken cycle paths.