Contact councillors for Liffey Cycleway today/tomorrow

Chuchote

Tomorrow is the Transport Meeting of Dublin City Council, when the councillors debate whether to choose Option 7 for the Liffey Cycleway (just bicycles and buses) or the more expensive and kludgy Option 8 (bicycles, buses and cars).

Email and/or text your councillors to ask them to choose Option 7.

You'll find their contact details here (choose your area and you'll get all your local councillors):

https://www.dublincity.ie/councilmeetings/mgFindMember.aspx

Here's a piece on why Option 8 isn't a good choice:

http://liffeycycle.com/

Annie get your Run

Done. Am not hopeful though.... Was tempted to tell them where they could shove their boardwalk!!!

tomasrojo

Yeah, sent off an email to the committee members. Least I could do. Option 8 is bad.

There's no way those boardwalks aren't going to be used by pedestrians either (the other boardwalks along the Liffey are for pedestrians), which would make an awful lot of the route de facto shared space.

Chuchote

A boardwalk is kind of an insane idea. Used to cycle along the current boardwalk in the early morning to get to work a few years ago, always meditatively mooching the idea that if the boards were slippy enough I could go over the rail and land in the water, if water indeed is what the Liffey is at that point.

mcgratheoin

Got email from Ciaran Cuffe about this - looks like he's in favour of the clunky boardwalk option - if that's what it ends up being I'll still be using the bus lane...

Chuchote

Here's the emails - you have to break them up into three lots as here to send them:

Chris Andrews <chris.andrews@dublincity.ie>, Chris Binchy <Kieran.Binchy@dublincity.ie>, Paddy Bourke <pbourkelabour@eircom.net>, Janice Boylan <janice.boylan@dublincity.ie>, Tom Brabazon <tom.brabazon@dublincity.ie>, Christy Burke <christy.burke@dublincity.ie>, Cathleen Carney-Boud <cathleen.boud@dublincity.ie>, Brendan Carr <brendan.carr@dublincity.ie>, Aine Clancy <aine.clancy1@gmail.com>, Anthony Connaghan <cllranthony.connaghan@dublincity.ie>, Patrick Costello <patrick.costello@dublincity.ie>, David Costello <davidpcostello@gmail.com>, Ciaran Cuffe <ciaran.cuffe@dublincity.ie>, Hazel De Nortuin <hazel.denortuin@dublincity.ie>, Daithi De Roiste <daithi.deroiste@dublincity.ie>, Daithi Doolan <daithi.doolan@dublincity.ie>, Pat Dunne <pat.dunne1@dublincity.ie>, Gaye Fagan <gaye.fagan@dublincity.ie>, Anne Feeney <anne.feeney@dublincity.ie>, Declan Flanagan <declan.flanagan@dublincity.ie>, Mannix Flynn <mannix.flynn@dublincity.ie>, Mary Freehill <freehill@eircom.net>,

Gary Gannon <gary.gannon@dublincity.ie>, Alison Gilliland <alison.gilliland@dublincity.ie>, Paul Hand <phand@dublincity.ie>, Deirdre Heney <heneydm@gmail.com>, Jane Horgan Jones <horganjones.jane@gmail.com>, Vincent Jackson <vincent.jackson@dublincity.ie>, Andrew Keegan <andrew.keegan@dublincity.ie>, Teresa Keegan <teresa.keegan@dublincity.ie>, Greg Kelly <gregkelly1916@gmail.com>, Frank Kennedy <frank.kennedy@dublincity.ie>, Dermot Lacey <dermot.lacey@labour.ie>, Micheal Mac Donncha <mmacdonncha@gmail.com>, Tina MacVeigh <tina.macveigh@dublincity.ie>, Sean Paul Mahon <seanpaul.mahon@dublincity.ie>, Ray McAdam <raymcadam@gmail.com>, Paul McAuliffe <paul.mcauliffe@dublincity.ie>, Paddy McCartan <cllrpatmccartan@gmail.com>, Ruairi McGinley <ruairi.mcginley@dublincity.ie>, Seamus McGrattan <seamus.mcgrattan@dublincity.ie>, Ray McHugh <ray.mchugh@dublincity.ie>, Andrew Montague <andrewmontague@eircom.net>,

Edel Moran <edel.moran@dublincity.ie>, Rebecca Moynihan <rebecca.moynihan@votelabour.ie>, Michael Mullooly <Michael.mullooly@dublincity.ie>, Emma Murphy <emma.murphy@dublincity.ie>, Criona Ni Dhalaigh <criona.nidhalaigh@dublincity.ie>, Naoise O Muiri <campaign@naoise.ie>, Michael O'Brien <mobrien@dublincity.ie>, Claire O'Connor <claire.oconnor@dublincity.ie>, Damien O'Farrell <damianofarrell@gmail.com>, Ciaran O'Moore <ciaran.omoore@dublincity.ie>, Larry O'Toole <larry.otoole@dublincity.ie>, Cieran Perry <cieran.perry@dublincity.ie>, Noeleen Reilly <noeleen.reilly@dublincity.ie>, Nial Ring <nialring@eircom.net>, Eilis Ryan <eilisryan.mail@gmail.com>, Norma Sammon <norma.sammon@dublincity.ie>, Paddy Smyth <paddy.smyth@dublincity.ie>, Sonya Stapleton <sonya.stapleton@dublincity.ie>

Annie get your Run

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Got email from Ciaran Cuffe about this - looks like he's in favour of the clunky boardwalk option - if that's what it ends up being I'll still be using the bus lane...

He is! which surprised me... I'll be with you in the bus lane and if they vote option 8 I think I'll leave my wallet at home and spend my euro's elsewhere as I won't be giving a red cent to the greedy business lobby who are pushing this agenda..

mcgratheoin

Annie get your Run wrote: »

He is! which surprised me...

I think that it shows how local issues trump everything for politicians. His rationale in the email was that this option

will ensure that our community is protected from additional car traffic.

It's basic nimbyism - although the Green Party claim to be the most bike friendly party, it doesn't work out like that if there might be any local opposition from constituents.

Chuchote

mcgratheoin wrote: »

I think that it shows how local issues trump everything for politicians. His rationale in the email was that this option
It's basic nimbyism - although the Green Party claim to be the most bike friendly party, it doesn't work out like that if there might be any local opposition from constituents.

It's also inaccurate. In city after city the same howl is raised - "But it'll send the traffic into the back streets!"

And if this were accurate I'd be totally against it. But it's not.

In city after city - including Dublin with the pedestrianisation of city centre streets like Grafton Street and Henry Street - nothing of the kind happened. The expected ballooning of traffic in surrounding streets never occurred.

Funny thing is that Ciaran Cuffe has a pinned tweet:

mcgratheoin

Sent him this

Dear Ciaran,

Thank your for your update on this issue, I am given to understand that this new boardwalk proposal is your preferred option.

I would implore you to re-consider your opposition to the original plan. The original proposal had the major benefit of moving private vehicular traffic in favour of public transport and cycling. While over 50% of the road space along the north quays is dedicated to the 30% of traffic in private vehicles it is difficult to argue that Dublin has any credibility as a city promoting sustainable travel. This amended plan appears to have catered entirely to the business and private vehicle lobby by essentially removing cyclists from the roads. The message sent out, either intentionally or accidentally, by this design is that cyclists have no place on public roads and must be removed, ostensibly for their own safety, but in reality to appease drivers.
In addition;
usage of the cycling lanes on the boardwalk by pedestrians (? la the Phoenix Park) would seem inevitable,
the additional unwarranted cost to the exchequer is excessive and will provide ammunition to the anti-cycling lobby regarding the cost of providing cycling infrastructure and
it seems unlikely (given the current levels of compliance with speed limits, yellow boxes and traffic signals on the north quays) that a new more complicated set of traffic management would improve the area as a route for any of the 4 stakeholder groups (private vehicles, public transport, cyclists and pedestrians).

I'm afraid I cannot agree with your assertion that this proposal provides a quality cycle route and should this plan be adopted I believe that significant numbers of cyclists will continue to use the bus lanes as at present.

Regards etc...

papu

done

Chuchote

The Liffey Cycleway could be almost like this

https://twitter.com/CitizenW0lf/status/859345256374050816

ThisRegard

That dog has more sense than many people by keeping out of the cycle lane and staying on the pedestrian side. And there's some great amount of pixels and FPS's in that vid.

magicbastarder

i hope to get time to send the mails later - but that option is worse than the current situation in that it will end up being 'job done' for the next 5 years if it goes ahead.

Chuchote

magicbastarder wrote: »

i hope to get time to send the mails later - but that option is worse than the current situation in that it will end up being 'job done' for the next 5 years if it goes ahead.

And then they'll be pointing at it and saying "We build cycle lanes and cyclists won't use them"! And then it will be expensively replaced with Option 7 anyway!

Annie get your Run

Chuchote wrote: »

And then they'll be pointing at it and saying "We build cycle lanes and cyclists won't use them"! And then it will be expensively replaced with Option 7 anyway!

That's pretty much what I said in my email!!

Corca Baiscinn

magicbastarder wrote: »

i hope to get time to send the mails later - but that option is worse than the current situation in that it will end up being 'job done' for the next 5 years if it goes ahead.

It will be worse than that, it will be an expensive project so your grandchildren will be lumped with it!

It's not the boardwalk as such that's the biggest problem in so far as they could say they's put a suitable surface on it, and not even the concept of shared space tho' that's not ideal. It's the tiny allocation of shared space, not even 2.85m when you allow for being out from the quay wall and not falling off the kerb. That plus the numerous conflict points with pedestrians plus the awkwardly staggered junctions at the bridges make it impractical and unsafe.

The posters who say it wont be used are dead right so our rational choice will be portrayed as ingratitude for the wonderful expensive facility we have been gifted.

Great people here are emailing but get on to your other cycling buddies too!

mcgratheoin

Chuchote wrote: »

And then they'll be pointing at it and saying "We build cycle lanes and cyclists won't use them"! And then it will be expensively replaced with Option 7 anyway!

Plus "cycle lanes are too expensive - look at the cost of the north quays!"

The big issue in my mind here is that once again an attempt to promote sustainable transport has been hijacked by the motoring lobby. The "solution" as it will probably be implemented is to take cyclists off the road, thus reinforcing the idea that roads are for cars and cars alone. There was a real chance here for Dublin to make a statement about the future direction of transport within the city centre and to prioritise cycling, walking and public transport at the expense of private car usage. Had the original plan gone ahead, then there would have been 4 - 5 lanes of traffic dedicated to sustainable transport from Heuston station to the Point (2/3 on the quays and 2 on the luas line).
I'm worried that we'll see the same wrangling over College Green followed by the same abdication of civic responsibility by our public representatives and the same retardation of Dublin's urban development.

papu

From all the Cllrs I emailed , I only got a response from Christy Burke and Dermot Lacey.

Cllr Burke said he supported Option 7 , but they would debate it and vote together on Monday as indp party. I sent him another email asking him to reconsider Option 7 for a variety of reasons and to be fair he responded

Dermot Lacey said he will be listening to the debate tomorrow and will vote next Monday, did not give what his voting preference was.

Annie get your Run

papu wrote: »

From all the Cllrs I emailed , I only got a response from Christy Burke and Dermot Lacey.

Cllr Burke said he supported Option 7 , but they would debate it and vote together on Monday as indp party. I sent him another email asking him to reconsider Option 7 for a variety of reasons and to be fair he responded

Dermot Lacey said he will be listening to the debate tomorrow and will vote next Monday, did not give what his voting preference was.

Same two people that responded to me with similar responses although Cllr Burke just said he wasn't part of the vote tomorrow.

papu

Annie get your Run wrote: »

Same two people that responded to me with similar responses although Cllr Burke just said he wasn't part of the vote tomorrow.

Yeah neither of them have a vote tomorrow as they are not members of the the Traffic Committee, but they have a vote at the full council meeting.

Annie get your Run

Got a similar reply from Ciaran Cuffe as previous poster, also replied back asking him to reconsider his position and that many regulars wouldn't use the board walk & stick to the bus lanes. His argument was something is better than nothing & not wanting to loose momentum. I argued that something, in this case, isn't better than nothing. It seems there's zero appetite in the council to approve option 7..

Chuchote

I got replies from Ciaran Cuffe, and replied back saying there wasn't a similarly forecasted boom in car traffic in NYC or in Dublin when major streets were pedestrianised; and from Christy Burke saying he wasn't a member of the S p c (?) and the issue will come up in a full city council meeting next Monday; and from Ray McAdam, who again said "huge volumes" of traffic would be bounced through to Stoneybatter; I replied to this as above.

If the council votes for Option 8 as feared, is there any way to override this decision?

Corca Baiscinn

Chuchote wrote: »

I got replies from Ciaran Cuffe, and replied back saying there wasn't a similarly forecasted boom in car traffic in NYC or in Dublin when major streets were pedestrianised; and from Christy Burke saying he wasn't a member of the S p c (?) and the issue will come up in a full city council meeting next Monday; and from Ray McAdam, who again said "huge volumes" of traffic would be bounced through to Stoneybatter; I replied to this as above.

If the council votes for Option 8 as feared, is there any way to override this decision?

SPC is Strategic Policy Committee. They cover different policy areas so not all councillors would be on the Transport one but it will move on to them. Re: could one object to Option 8 if it's voted through? I believe that because of the boardwalk element it would have to go to An Bord Pleanala and I guess one can object then. I would hope that Dublin Bus would certainly object as it will be adversly affected by the change and also that the NTA would because their objective to get Public Transport moving well in the city would also be made more difficult

Chuchote

Deedsie wrote: »

Sent individual emails to the transport committee members and also emailed the entire council with Chuchote's handy email lists.

Option 8 is a terrible decision if that is what they go for.

Oh, well done on the individual members. Do you have a list of the Transport Committee members?

Corca Baiscinn wrote: »

SPC is Strategic Policy Committee. They cover different policy areas so not all councillors would be on the Transport one but it will move on to them. Re: could one object to Option 8 if it's voted through? I believe that because of the boardwalk element it would have to go to An Bord Pleanala and I guess one can object then. I would hope that Dublin Bus would certainly object as it will be adversly affected by the change and also that the NTA would because their objective to get Public Transport moving well in the city would also be made more difficult

An Bord Pleanála pay a lot more attention to associations objecting to a plan than they do to individuals, so it might be worth putting an observation then an objection in as Irish Cycling or whatever.

It would also be worth gathering witness from other countries on the main matter that worries the councillors - and it is creditable in them to be worried about this, even if they're wrong - the fear that traffic will be diverted in large amounts to small residential streets.

Corca Baiscinn

Chuchote wrote: »

Oh, well done on the individual members. Do you have a list of the Transport Committee members?

It's online if you google Dublin City Council Transport SPC. would put it up but I don't know how!



An Bord Pleanála pay a lot more attention to associations objecting to a plan than they do to individuals, so it might be worth putting an observation then an objection in as Irish Cycling or whatever.

So could we be the Boards.ie Cycling Forum Society! Galway Cycling Campaign were successful in their appeal to BP re planning permission granted by City Council re entry to Parkmore Business Park which was unsafe for cyclists and didn't respect design guidelines.

PS PS Apologies! Realised I don't know how to differentiate the quote font from the reply font either!

It would also be worth gathering witness from other countries on the main matter that worries the councillors - and it is creditable in them to be worried about this, even if they're wrong - the fear that traffic will be diverted in large amounts to small residential streets.

Yes, agreed we should do that too

Annie get your Run

Chuchote wrote: »

Oh, well done on the individual members. Do you have a list of the Transport Committee members?

It's here I did the same, emailed them individually and then block emailed the remainder from the lists you posted above.

HivemindXX

I emailed the three people off the list who I thought were the most likely to actually care about the downsides of this. So far Ciaran Cuffe is the only one to reply and he is in favour of option 8, primarily based on complaints of residents. I replied that if option 7 is unacceptable to the locals this does not make option 8 worth doing. Doing absolutely nothing would be better than option 8.

I occurred to me afterwards the locals got one of the earlier options blocked as well. The one that would have sent busses and bicycles down that way. I remember the inflammatory posters. Maybe option 7 combined with making all the surrounding minor roads no through roads by blocking them in the middle would make them happy.

It also occurred to me that a before and after survey should be done. Whatever we end up with we should know what the effect is. If we get option 8 as seems likely will this increase or decrease the flow of busses and bicycles. What is the traffic flow on the local problem areas currently and how is it affected afterwards. In other words we should know for a fact if the scheme we get is a success or a failure. We should not have to rely on anecdotes and vague feelings which allow people to claim whatever they want. The council should commission this but they probably won't. If someone wanted to crowd fund such a survey I would certainly be willing to donate.

tomasrojo

I suspect at this stage that HivemindXX is right, and leaving the road as it is would be better than Option 8.

Though, set against that, DublinTown says that Option 8 would be "an excellent cycle route"

Despite business groups first pressuring the council to allow cars to remain on Bachelor’s Walk and now also allowing cars to remain on Eden Quay, DublinTown said it “still has concerns regarding the proposed changes to Eden Quay and the process being used to make these changes.” The group said: “We are not convinced that the right process is being used and we will be seeking significant clarification in relation to this.”

boobycharlton

Money.

amyplify

Guys, who created the liffeycycle[dot]com site? I've emailed because I'm very invested in the outcome but people need this to be as easy as possible so I would suggest a cut and paste email template...

magicbastarder

there's mention earlier in the thread about certain councillors not voting tomorrow because they're not on the transport committee; who is?

i.e. who is best to mail tonight (not that i expect they'll read my mails in the morning)?

tomasrojo

amyplify wrote: »

Guys, who created the liffeycycle[dot]com site? I've emailed because I'm very invested in the outcome but people need this to be as easy as possible so I would suggest a cut and paste email template...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=103390115&postcount=48

magicbastarder

aha! question answered.

magicbastarder

mail sent - knocked out in a hurry, conscious i didn't 'big up' option 7 enough:

"Councillor, I am writing to you in relation to the Liffey Cycle Route plan, albeit as someone who fortunately does not have to cycle along the quays, and as someone breathing a sigh of relief that I won't have to cycle the proposed 'Option 8' route which I believe may be the current favourite option.

However, I am a commuting cyclist (Dublin 9 to Dublin 18, so crossing the Liffey rather than cycling along it) who cannot but benefit from an increased presence and visibility of cyclists on Dublin streets, which I believe helps normalise and 'de-dangerise' what is an efficient and healthy mode of transport. But looking at the proposed option 8, I can see no benefit in this plan, especially as a result of how the proposed plan deals with junctions; I am just a little tired at this point of cycling infrastructure which does great work for cyclists as long as you're *not* near a junction, but simply throws its hands in the air in defeat when encountering one.

It's worth stressing that junctions are generally the danger point for cyclists, and the map of the proposed plan at one junction (attached) seems perverse in its willingness to make life difficult and dangerous for cyclists. The cyclist is swung from what appears to be a boardwalk - so as to ensure they're not in the 'mental radar' of any motorists on the quays - across a pedestrian footpath (!), out in front of motorists who were not fully aware of your presence, through the junction, and has to then do the converse of the previous manouevre to remove themselves from in front of the cars - who they're quite possibly going faster than anyway. I cannot think of a worse way of designing a junction for cyclists which would not make me look like I was being absurd for the sake of it.

However, I think the issue which riles me most - but is harder to articulate as it's a little more ideological - is the clearly implied conclusion that motorists are somehow more highly valued than cyclists. I can assure you, that when I am driving, I do not value myself more highly than when I do when on the bike. I would urge you to take this approach into consideration when evaluating the proposals for the Liffey cycle route - to view the traffic flow not as a flow of vehicles, but as a flow of people, and reach the logical conclusion about what is safest, healthiest, and most efficient use of the space available.

I am sure you will also be receiving representations from businesses (such as the ones mentioned publically from the Dublin Convention Centre and Point Village); not to denigrate their business concerns, I would hope that Dublin will be seen as a city with the best interests of its inhabitants at heart, with the interests of those businesses serving the same goals, rather than the converse.

Thank you for your time in reading to this point - there are many more issues facing cyclists in Dublin, but I appreciate the demands on your time mean they will probably have to wait for another day."

magicbastarder

to be fair to ciaran cuffe, he's responded with what seems to be an email either cleverly constructed, or one which is a direct reply to me.

Smokeyskelton

This appears to be the list of the councillors on the Transportation SPC:

http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-your-council-strategic-policy-committee-corporate-policy-group/transport-traffic

I just emailed those on the committee as I don't have time to email all councillors this evening.

magicbastarder

as the email from ciaran cuffe seemed to be a direct response to my email, i don't want to quote it fully here, but he did say that most emails he is receiving are concerns from local residents, and non-local cyclists.

and this is a large part of the issue. many (most?) people using the quays - if they're writing to their local politicians - will not be writing to politicians who will be worried about canvassing votes in that area. and that's a difficult square to circle. if i lived in smithfield, i wouldn't be worried about cycling into the city centre. you'd walk it in the same time it'd take to find a safe place to lock your bike.

HivemindXX

magicbastarder wrote: »

as the email from ciaran cuffe seemed to be a direct response to my email, i don't want to quote it fully here, but he did say that most emails he is receiving are concerns from local residents, and non-local cyclists.

Hopefully this doesn't indicate an attitude that ignores the concerns of non-local cyclists. As you correctly point out we are the commuters that will have to actually use this route.

Yes, don't put in a route that will be bad for the locals. Although I don't agree that option 7 is particularly bad. As we've seen discussed it is very unlikely that all these cars will suddenly start driving through quiet residential streets as a result of option 7. Anything that increases traffic on the quays, for example those new buildings down in docklands, will have the same effect. The quays are jammed in the morning, the overflow is already going wherever it is going to go. However, if the decision is that option 7 is too bad for the locals then that's fine.

This does not mean option 8 should be implemented. This is a bad design. I can't believe anyone can look at the design of the junction for Mellow's Bridge and claim this is a good solution for cyclists or pedestrians. Dublin Town obviously defies belief. I think the opinion of the people who will actually be using this route should be listened to and should in fact be the main concern. Option 7 was killed because local residents thought it would be bad for them, ably helped by Dublin Town. Actual commuters should be able to kill option 8 on the same basis. It is bad for us. It will cause conflict and endanger us.

Apparently it is politically impossible to remove cars from the quays. Fine. Appallingly backward in this day and age, but fine. Either come up with a solution that improves the situation for public transport, cyclists and pedestrians taking that principle ("First, harm no cars") in to account or do nothing. I'm like a broken record but I feel I have to keep saying it. Don't make things worse. Option 8 is worse than nothing.

Personally I dislike two way cycle lanes and they are, in my opinion, a particularly bad idea on the one way system on the quays. My preferred plan out of the initial four was option four. This was a one way segregated cycle lane on each side of the quays. Perhaps this could be revisited instead of incrementally building on an option that has been rejected multiple times now. Maybe the river side footpaths could be eliminated to create space to allow the cars and busses to shove over and create a one way segregated cycle lane on the building side. The boardwalk could still be put in for pedestrians, although I don't see very many pedestrians on the river side. This was suggested as part of option 1. I guess the south quays are a sticky problem with the way they switch from two lanes to three and back again. Perhaps this is an opportunity to grasp that nettle and sort it out. Something that improves things, anything that improves things, would be better than making things worse.

I'm not sure I understand the benefits of option 8 anyway. I think the downsides are painfully obvious, but what are the upsides? For cyclists I guess this is that we are segregated except when we are dumped back out in to traffic at junctions (like every other cycle lane). It seems like this does nothing positive for pedestrians so they only have "massively increased conflict with cyclists" on their feature list. Does it do anything to improve things for busses, coaches and taxis? It seems like business as usual except you are relying on private cars to play nice and not block the yellow box at the pinch points. Is that right? Who exactly is this thing helping? Is it just supposed to be cyclists?

magicbastarder

HivemindXX wrote: »

Hopefully this doesn't indicate an attitude that ignores the concerns of non-local cyclists. As you correctly point out we are the commuters that will have to actually use this route.

ciaran cuffe lives in stoneybatter. i'd say he's getting it in the ear from his neighbours.

Corca Baiscinn

HivemindXX wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand the benefits of option 8 anyway. I think the downsides are painfully obvious, but what are the upsides? For cyclists I guess this is that we are segregated except when we are dumped back out in to traffic at junctions (like every other cycle lane). It seems like this does nothing positive for pedestrians so they only have "massively increased conflict with cyclists" on their feature list. Does it do anything to improve things for busses, coaches and taxis? It seems like business as usual except you are relying on private cars to play nice and not block the yellow box at the pinch points. Is that right? Who exactly is this thing helping? Is it just supposed to be cyclists?

Option 8 seems to have been conjured up as a solution to two problems, Firstly as you say "harm no cars" so don't send them on a diversion;secondly and perhaps more understandably, allay the concerns of the Stoneybatter residents re having diverted traffic sent up their way. so the answer to you r question is drivers and residents. I guess it was meant to benefit cyclists too as the planners are saying, "Look you can have your Phoenix Park to the Point cycle route along the quays but you have to compromise a little bit on the section around Ellis Quay". So to people who don't cycle, it seems grand, everybody happy.
As you and so many here are saying of course the compromise is unworkable for all the reasons stated. since the plan emerged on Friday last and there has only been one normal working day since I don't think its reasonable to expect people to have digested the issues raised and to make a rational decision this afternoon.
However, to those saying the cause is lost and option 8 it is, don't forget that that will involve ABP so there will still be time to make objections and I would hope that cyclists doing so would be joined by pedestrian and PT interests. One of the SPC members for eg represents blind people

magicbastarder

HivemindXX wrote: »

Hopefully this doesn't indicate an attitude that ignores the concerns of non-local cyclists.

an argument for a publically elected mayor of dublin?
i see this as an infrastructural issue, an issue that should serve the city as a whole, but it's not best served by being decided by councillors.

and i don't mind councillors being focussed on the local issues of their constituents, that's their job - the concern here is that this is not a local issue for local people.

fat bloke

I got what appears to be a direct response to my mail too, but he's hardly emailing everyone individually is he?

He thanked me for being direct.... which I was. Which would at least lead me to believe he read it!

magicbastarder

i get the impression he's a bit outnumbered in the council.

robyntmorton

As chair of the transport SPC, there is a lot of doublethink being practised by Cuffe...

http://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-city-traffic-plans-3368958-May2017/

Councillor Ciar?n Cuffe, chair of the Transportation SPC and the Green Party’s transport spokesperson, has criticised the development.
“People need to access the city centre but these measures will delay bus users at the expense of car drivers.
There is a real danger that we’re being too generous to the car driver and in doing so discriminating against those who use public transport. Bus and tram users should not be treated like second-class citizens.

robyntmorton

Cuffe was a good representative during his time in DLRCC, but he is trying to be all things to all groups here, and it is not going to work.

magicbastarder

who'd be a politician, eh?

Annie get your Run

fat bloke wrote: »

I got what appears to be a direct response to my mail too, but he's hardly emailing everyone individually is he?

He thanked me for being direct.... which I was. Which would at least lead me to believe he read it!

He's definitely responding individually, I've had 3 emails from him now (in response to my responses). He's also definitely outnumbered on the council but I don't think that's a reason to vote for option 8 and I said as much to him. My preference would be nothing rather than option 8 and come back to it again. I'm guessing the vote will unanimously be option 8 though If it is can we organise a protest??

Corca Baiscinn

robyntmorton wrote: »

As chair of the transport SPC, there is a lot of doublethink being practised by Cuffe...

http://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-city-traffic-plans-3368958-May2017/

Not sure it can be called doublethink or speaking out of both sides of his mouth as think that comment mainly relates to the Eden Quay about turn. but yes, there is an element of inconsistency as buses will also be delayed at Ellis Quay. I suppose there's more diappointment re someone you thought was on your side appearing not to be than over someone like Mannix Flynn who we never expected to be supportive. councillor Paddy smyth of FG is a geat cycling advocate too and like Ciaran gets it in the neck for it. it will be interesting to hear what he has to say on the topic.
Meeting will be livestreamed for anyone who's free but I think there's another topic first so probably get to Options 7/8 around 4 30

HivemindXX

fat bloke wrote: »

I got what appears to be a direct response to my mail too, but he's hardly emailing everyone individually is he?

He thanked me for being direct.... which I was. Which would at least lead me to believe he read it!

I don't know about everyone but he certainly seems to be replying directly to multiple people here including me. In fact he sent me three mails yesterday since I replied twice with the last one being around midnight. I cannot fault his work ethic or willingness to engage with the public. I don't make a habit of emailing public representatives but I have done so a few times over the decades and this is the first time I remember getting a reply that didn't seem to be a form letter or a formulaic brush off written by a secretary. "The minister values your concerns and is working to...blah blah blah".

I sympathise with his position. He has been trying to get this thing done for a very long time now and this looks like the final version. One that is finally acceptable to the residents of Stoneybatter etc and the car fans in Dublin Town and the car parks. This should be enough to get past councillors like Mannix Flynn and Nial Ring who seem to just hate cyclists.

It is difficult to accept and perhaps difficult to notice, but the forces arrayed against this plan, who were always against it, have chipped away at it and option 8 may be acceptable to them but it is no longer acceptable to the people it is supposed to be helping. They need to go back to the drawing board and start again, or back to a previous idea like option 4 and try to make that work. If they can't then they should drop the idea completely. Maybe in a few years (who am I kidding) the idea of a congestion charge will be acceptable and Stoneybatter will accept taking cars off the quays in combination with a big reduction in car traffic via the congestion charge. The people behind Dublin Town can eat a bag of dicks.

magicbastarder

Corca Baiscinn wrote: »

I suppose there's more diappointment re someone you thought was on your side appearing not to be

i'd be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. there's an element of realpolitik involved here, and there's a damn good chance that pushing for option 7 would result in precisely nothing being done.

there's a difference in someone not being on your side, and them not being able to deliver what you'd like them to, or having to compromise on that.