Dun Laoghaire Traffic & Commuting Chat

GT89

Larbre34 wrote: »

Last I heard it was to be September, but I doubt that somehow.

The building works are turning into quite an eyesore. Even before covid some of the days I've been there never seemed to be much work going on there from an outsiders view.

Mav11

https://www.dlrcoco.ie/en/news/general-news-public-consultation-press-releases/‘summer-streets’-initiative-supports-outdoor

Bit underwhelming imho. There’s lots of scope to do stuff in Dun Laoghaire itself, but this initiative only seems to include a few hundred meters in Cabinteely village.

Larbre34

From the content:


"Further similar works to provide people-friendly public spaces and support outdoor dining are planned for other parts of the County, including Stepaside, Monkstown, and Dún Laoghaire, and we continue to receive requests through our dedicated online portal (Reallocation of Outdoor Space) for various locations throughout the County."

Mav11

Larbre34 wrote: »

From the content:


"Further similar works to provide people-friendly public spaces and support outdoor dining are planned for other parts of the County, including Stepaside, Monkstown, and Dún Laoghaire, and we continue to receive requests through our dedicated online portal (Reallocation of Outdoor Space) for various locations throughout the County."

I saw that. Details of “Further similar works” must be a state secret. It is the middle of May after all. Would it be that difficult to provide some details, if they have them?

Seems to me to be more of a PR BS press release than actual plans.

Larbre34

Of course it is.

Maybe Cabinteely is the only place where the businesses can agree among themselves what they want.

For every hospitality business looking for one of these schemes, theres a non hosp business bemoaning it.

Just look at the Capel Street and Merrion Row plans in Dublin City. Massively watered down due to discontent.

Larbre34

Larbre34 wrote: »

Just look at the Capel Street and Merrion Row plans in Dublin City. Massively watered down due to discontent.

Have you got a source for this? I've been following both and haven't seen any massive discontent, or claims by DCC that they had received/faced such.

Mav11

Larbre34 wrote: »

Of course it is.

Maybe Cabinteely is the only place where the businesses can agree among themselves what they want.

That's a very fair point, which if true is a pity, because the initiative has great potential.

Larbre34

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Have you got a source for this? I've been following both and haven't seen any massive discontent, or claims by DCC that they had received/faced such.

My source is business contacts within 'Dublin Town', the City BID.

Its evident from the design of both the schemes I mention, that they have been massively curtailed from what was originally envisaged and what many hospitality businesses were agitating for.

Zaney

Mav11 wrote: »

I saw that. Details of “Further similar works” must be a state secret. It is the middle of May after all. Would it be that difficult to provide some details, if they have them?

Seems to me to be more of a PR BS press release than actual plans.

The works in Cabinteely announced 17th May and to be completed 7th June. Seems to me there have been actual
plans for a while, just keeping them secret except to a select number of businesses.

I don’t object to the proposals, but I do object to this pretence of “temporary”. They look far from “temporary”. Even reference to “throughout the summer and beyond”

Larbre34

Well thats an interesting point alright.

Dublin City Council currently await a Court hearing in June, specifically about the Strand Road cycleway proposal in Sandymount, but the substantive issue is to do with the nature of "temporary" Covid measures.

The Government said last year 'just go and build stuff', but unfortunately that doesn't comply with any planning law and no legislative change was introduced to allow for these measures. And so, many Councils like DLR have opened themselves up to legal action for not carrying out the planning procedures that they are obliged to for local authority works of various sorts. These procedures are dictated by criteria like scope, impact, monetary value etc.

In my opinion, the more things open up and more closely resemble the normal we knew up to 2019, the more the Councils will be taken to task by businesses not in the hospitality sector and by local residents experiencing adverse effects from outdoor entertainment (including drinking in public) that has no planning approval.

markpb

Larbre34 wrote: »

In my opinion, the more things open up and more closely resemble the normal we knew up to 2019, the more the Councils will be taken to task by businesses not in the hospitality sector and by local residents experiencing adverse effects from outdoor entertainment (including drinking in public) that has no planning approval.

That would be a spectacularly childish reaction from those businesses. Things won’t be like ‘there normal we knew in 2019’ for a long time, possibly not this year. And even if they were, it would be ignoring the decimating impact the last 15 months have had on the hospitality sector.

If a behavioural problem arises from people spending more time outdoors, the correct response is to try to fix it, either socially or by law enforcement. The wrong response would be to criticise the council for trying to facilitate those businesses in the first place and using court cases to try to roll back those public realm improvements.

Mav11

markpb wrote: »

That would be a spectacularly childish reaction from those businesses. Things won’t be like ‘there normal we knew in 2019’ for a long time, possibly not this year. And even if they were, it would be ignoring the decimating impact the last 15 months have had on the hospitality sector.

If a behavioural problem arises from people spending more time outdoors, the correct response is to try to fix it, either socially or by law enforcement. The wrong response would be to criticise the council for trying to facilitate those businesses in the first place and using court cases to try to roll back those public realm improvements.

I think that the issue here is not a behavioural problem or a matter for law enforcement. It is perhaps a perception among non hospitality businesses that efforts to help the hospitality sector will by extension hinder their businesses.

So take for example Cabinteely or Blackrock villages, by increasing the amount of space for outdoor dining, bikes or socialising etc., the perception among other retail units is that access is being limited to their premises, thus reducing trade. You have to remember this sector has also suffered badly over the past 15 months.

I can see how the council has to thread a very fine line between competing interests in these matters. Maybe bringing in "temporary" changes is one way to stave off such potential conflict?

JayRoc

Mav11 wrote: »

I think that the issue here is not a behavioural problem or a matter for law enforcement. It is perhaps a perception among non hospitality businesses that efforts to help the hospitality sector will by extension hinder their businesses.

So take for example Cabinteely or Blackrock villages, by increasing the amount of space for outdoor dining, bikes or socialising etc., the perception among other retail units is that access is being limited to their premises, thus reducing trade. You have to remember this sector has also suffered badly over the past 15 months.

I can see how the council has to thread a very fine line between competing interests in these matters. Maybe bringing in "temporary" changes is one way to stave off such potential conflict?

It's a fair point, and I can only speak to one of the two examples given
.

But the business owners on Blackrock main street (that are not hospitality) have done very well out of the more pedestrian-friendly layout. I don't know of one who wants to change it.

Edit: I mentioned the businesses other than hospitality because those guys have barely been open in the last year.

Cyrus

JayRoc wrote: »

It's a fair point, and I can only speak to one of the two examples given
.

But the business owners on Blackrock main street (that are not hospitality) have done very well out of the more pedestrian-friendly layout. I don't know of one who wants to change it.

Edit: I mentioned the businesses other than hospitality because those guys have barely been open in the last year.

I presume it's those not on the main street that suffer.

Mav11

Cyrus wrote: »

I presume it's those not on the main street that suffer.

I'm only speculating but I suspect retail businesses where access is further restricted.

JayRoc

Cyrus wrote: »

I presume it's those not on the main street that suffer.

What businesses are you referring to, in Blackrock, that have been negatively affected by the recent changes?

Mav11

JayRoc wrote: »

It's a fair point, and I can only speak to one of the two examples given
.

But the business owners on Blackrock main street (that are not hospitality) have done very well out of the more pedestrian-friendly layout. I don't know of one who wants to change it.

Edit: I mentioned the businesses other than hospitality because those guys have barely been open in the last year.

And perhaps that is why these measures have to be brought in under the guise of "temporary" measures initially, to show that all businesses will benefit?

JayRoc

Mav11 wrote: »

I'm only speculating but I suspect retail businesses where access is further restricted.

What access? I genuinely don't understand this point. I am in this village every day and access to shops and businesses is at a peak

starbaby2003

JayRoc wrote: »

What access? I genuinely don't understand this point. I am in this village every day and access to shops and businesses is at a peak

I second this. I have never seen Blackrock as busy. The change in layout has rejuvenated the village.

ted1

Mav11 wrote: »

I
the perception among other retail units is that access is being limited to their premises, thus reducing trade.

Perception and reality is two different things. Reducing traffic flow makes towns and villages more welcoming and encourages people to walk about and visit shops.

Mav11

JayRoc wrote: »

What access? I genuinely don't understand this point. I am in this village every day and access to shops and businesses is at a peak

Ok. There could be a general fear (justified or not) among existing businesses that restricted access for cars, which could for example make it harder for those with limited mobility or other issues such as parents with young kids, would result in reduced footfall and thus damage business.

Mav11

ted1 wrote: »

Perception and reality is two different things. Reducing traffic flow makes towns and villages more welcoming and encourages people to walk about and visit shops.

Maybe that is why the council uses "temporary" measures, to show that perception and reality are different???? I'm only guessing, not arguing!!!

JayRoc

Mav11 wrote: »

Ok. There could be a general fear (justified or not) among existing businesses that restricted access for cars, which could for example make it harder for those with limited mobility or other issues such as parents with young kids, would result in reduced footfall and thus damage business.

That's my point though (and I totally understand what you're saying in terms of perception); there are the same amount of parking spaces in the area as far as I know, I am positive that there has not been a loss of a single handicapped parking space in all of the village, and the foot traffic is the best it could be given the pandemic.

If someone has driven to Blackrock and wants to visit a shop or business they will simply have to walk from wherever they park their car and so far, it seems, that is working out fine.

Mav11

JayRoc wrote: »

That's my point though (and I totally understand what you're saying in terms of perception); there are the same amount of parking spaces in the area as far as I know, I am positive that there has not been a loss of a single handicapped parking space in all of the village, and the foot traffic is the best it could be given the pandemic.

If someone has driven to Blackrock and wants to visit a shop or business they will simply have to walk from wherever they park their car and so far, it seems, that is working out fine.

Its not me you have to convince, I'm convinced already. I think it is a great idea and the area has benefited enormously as a result.

But maybe if you start at post 2166 by Labre34 you'll see that the conversation is about managing non hospitality retailer expectations and reducing conflict, not whether it is a good idea or not.

JayRoc

Mav11 wrote: »

Its not me you have to convince, I'm convinced already. I think it is a great idea and the area has benefited enormously as a result.

But maybe if you start at post 2166 by Labre34 you'll see that the conversation is about managing non hospitality retailer expectations and reducing conflict, not whether it is a good idea or not.

I get you


As I said, non-hospitality retail is in favour of it. Certainly the ones I know.

JayRoc

It actually looks like we're all in agreement here. Could be a first for this thread!

Larbre34

I'd be in favour of it all personally, but it's worth bearing in mind that not all the proposed locations have the same going for them as Blackrock; alternative routes, plenty of parking available nearby, excellent public transport.

Certainly in the context of what I've been hearing in the City Centre, its not a matter of what looks nice for the summer, its a matter of whats legal or not and what 'temporary' actually means.

It'll probably turn out excellent in some spots and be an unmitigated failure in others, but keep an eye on the June court case, if it goes against the City Council, it could be curtains for all of these schemes nationwide. At the very least they may have to remove them until planning procedures have been satisfied.

Before you condemn potential objectors though, consider if tomorrow your neighbour carried out work that firstly restricted the access you had enjoyed previously, took over the street outside your house for their own purposes and subjected you to late night noise and activity where none existed before, all without planning permission. Thats where the bar is set.

Zaney

Dun Laoghaire’s own bye laws prohibit the consumption of alcohol on roads and in public places. So if these measures are “temporary” and the areas are still designated as roads, how is any of this legal unless the businesses are conditioned to only serve food and not alcohol in these “temporary” facilities?

Mav11

JayRoc wrote: »

It actually looks like we're all in agreement here. Could be a first for this thread!

Could be the ruination of the thread

JayRoc

Zaney wrote: »

Dun Laoghaire’s own bye laws prohibit the consumption of alcohol on roads and in public places. So if these measures are “temporary” and the areas are still designated as roads, how is any of this legal unless the businesses are conditioned to only serve food and not alcohol in these “temporary” facilities?

It'e illegal to drink alchohol in public places in DLRCC. That included any of the new amenities like the increased public seating etc.

However if a licensed premises has been given permission to, say, put extra tables outside their establishment where there has been more space deliberately allocated by the council for them to trade, it is considered a part of the licensed premises and perfectly legal for people to have a pint at one of their tables.


TLDR-

Pint at at table outside a pub: grand. Cans sitting on a bench on the street: not grand.