Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] 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 [email protected]

Cycle infrastructure planned for south Dublin

13567123

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 14,364 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    [Mannix] Flynn said he was “pro cycling”

    Trump level delusion there - if there's one Dublin councillor synonymous with opposing cycling schemes, it's Mannix Flynn; he's never seen a cycle lane he doesn't hate.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,238 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    I'm hearing from sources that the Govt are going to step in and cancel the proposed Dublin City Council cycle lane "trial" on Strand Road, Sandymount.

    The proposal to start the trial in January is in direct conflict with the emergency Dublin Port Traffic Management Plan, published last week to deal with anticipated widespread congestion at the Port and in the wider City area due to Brexit delays to cargo vehicles. That plan requires the R131 Strand Road to be fully open in both directions.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,103 ✭✭✭daragh_


    'Sources'?


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,673 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    daragh_ wrote: »
    'Sources'?

    As I say to my kids if a newspaper quotes “sources” , it generally means it’s fiction.


  • Registered Users Posts: 661 ✭✭✭work


    Seaswimmer wrote: »
    Full report on the recent consultation re DLR active travel routes..

    Haven't read the entire thing but it appears that it is by no means dead in the water..


    https://dlrcoco.citizenspace.com/infrastructure-climate-change/dlr-safe-walking-cycling-routes-consultation/


    Only saw the link and had a quick read of the summary. I live locally and see these as the most progressive and transformative changes for all infrastructure users to ever be considered in the area, I do not think people understand the significance of this.
    The RTE report on Deansgrange was shocking and really depressed me. Delighted to see DLR seem to be moving forward with this. If they manage it I will have a new found confidence in the council.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 23,238 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    ted1 wrote: »
    As I say to my kids if a newspaper quotes “sources” , it generally means it’s fiction.

    Stay tuned Ted, all will be revealed post-Christmas.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,124 ✭✭✭crisco10


    frash wrote: »

    I'm confused by these numbers..
    The proposed one-way system for Deansgrange Road will not proceed. Alternative routes will be considered. 600 of 639 submissions were opposed or suggested alternatives.

    The closure of Avoca Avenue will not proceed. Alternative traffic calming measures will be considered to ensure safe cycling infrastructure. 499 of 577 submissions opposed

    I was a respondent and was for both of these, was I really only 1 of 39 and 78 respectively? I struggle to believe that given the overall positive response to the consultation.

    I feel mr devlin is over egging the "suggested alternatives" as a negative response...


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭Seaswimmer


    crisco10 wrote: »
    I'm confused by these numbers..



    I was a respondent and was for both of these, was I really only 1 of 39 and 78 respectively? I struggle to believe that given the overall positive response to the consultation.

    I feel mr devlin is over egging the "suggested alternatives" as a negative response...


    Indeed. The summary dosent bear out his figures..


    https://dlrcoco.citizenspace.com/infrastructure-climate-change/dlr-safe-walking-cycling-routes-consultation/results/submissionsandexecutivesrecommendationssummaryreport.pdf


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,124 ✭✭✭crisco10


    Seaswimmer wrote: »

    I think what he has actually done is only look at references to those specific elements of the scheme, and ignore the 3612 (i.e. more than half) of the respondents who were completely supportive of the entire scheme.

    Bonkers. talk about lies damned lies and statistics. (If i'm right in my interpretation, the report doesn't contain a "methodology" section)


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,011 ✭✭✭buffalo


    North Dublin infrastructure - public consultation for R132 closes tomorrow at midnight.

    https://consult.fingal.ie/en/consultation/r132-connectivity-project-non-statutory-consultation

    Even a one line submission of general support helps, or DCC have some suggested points: https://www.dublincycling.com/cycling/r132-connectivity-project-public-consultation

    Your voice helps, especially against the likes of 'Whether we like it or not the economy of this country was built on the Motor Car.'


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭Seaswimmer


    buffalo wrote: »
    North Dublin infrastructure - public consultation for R132 closes tomorrow at midnight.

    https://consult.fingal.ie/en/consultation/r132-connectivity-project-non-statutory-consultation

    Even a one line submission of general support helps, or DCC have some suggested points: https://www.dublincycling.com/cycling/r132-connectivity-project-public-consultation

    Your voice helps, especially against the likes of 'Whether we like it or not the economy of this country was built on the Motor Car.'

    I had a look and made an observation as I have cycled the route intermittently. However I found it vey complex compared to similar consultations on DLR for example. Only 132 submissions whereas a recent DLR one had over 6000...


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,011 ✭✭✭buffalo


    Seaswimmer wrote: »
    I had a look and made an observation as I have cycled the route intermittently. However I found it vey complex compared to similar consultations on DLR for example. Only 132 submissions whereas a recent DLR one had over 6000...

    I do wonder whether the fact that your submission is public makes a difference, or whether that's a reflection of the scheme itself. Turning a coast road into a cycletrack sounds lovely, turning a dual carriageway into one takes a bit more imagination.


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Seaswimmer wrote: »
    Had a walk around the area today and I am a bit more encouraged. It seems like Saba, Tiger Pizza and the Grange pharmacy are the only businesses with the big (A1?) posters. Newsagents, FXB, Fellinis all have very small (A5?) versions.
    But Pure pharmacy, new flower shop,SuperValu, Liberos, the Grange, Insomnia, dry cleaners, Wardrobe shop all have none at present. None of the car dealerships appear to have them either.

    Had a look today, and I could only see the big poster on Tiger Pizza - no sign of anything even in Saba.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,011 ✭✭✭buffalo


    This closes in a few days (Jan 8th): https://consultation.dublincity.ie/traffic-and-transport/strand-road-cycle-trial-beach-road-options/

    It's related to the Strand Road trial:
    During the consultation for the Strand Rd cycle trial we received submissions relating to Beach road:

    * Clarification from the National Transport Authority (NTA) that Beach Rd does not currently need to cater for two way traffic for bus routes
    * Objecting to the removal of the footpath for a cycle lane
    * Concerns from residents of Marine Drive and Leahy’s terrace that vehicles heading to Sean Moore Rd would use these streets

    Why we are consulting

    In response to this DCC are proposing that the layout on Beech Road is as per Strand Road with one lane of outbound traffic, a 2 way cycle lane using what is currently the outbound traffic lane and no changes to the footpath. Details of this and the proposals for the junction with Sean Moore Road are available below along with the modelling data.

    Have your say! Personally I think the more 2way cycle tracks, the better.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,011 ✭✭✭buffalo


    Big chance to give feedback for the Greater Dublin Area to the NTA:
    The National Transport Authority (NTA) has commenced review of the 2016 – 2035 Transport Strategy. This review will assess how the current plan is being implemented and will help guide a strategy update that will set out a transport infrastructure and service investment framework for Dublin, Meath, Kildare and Wicklow until 2042.

    The NTA is now calling on you to help shape the strategic objectives and inform policy direction.

    https://www.nationaltransport.ie/consultations/greater-dublin-area-transport-strategy/


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 6,754 Mod ✭✭✭✭eeeee


    Done :cool:


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 37,091 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle




  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 37,091 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Pretend "pro-cycling" Sandymount group continue to try to stop the development of a safe cycle route so that they can keep their roads congested with cars...
    https://twitter.com/dublincycling/status/1347497316798889985


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 37,091 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    This tweet reminded me of this thread...

    https://twitter.com/adamtranter/status/1347530929816932353


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,945 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    Here's the consultation, a-f*cking-gain

    https://consultation.dublincity.ie/traffic-and-transport/strand-road-cycle-trial-beach-road-options/consultation/intro/

    please submit to make it one way.

    It's amazing what a fancy address can do, they're just kicking the can down the road, at this stage I can't see it going ahead as planned tbh, and if it doesn't, well I can't see the status quo changing in my lifetime.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 22,673 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    Pretend "pro-cycling" Sandymount group continue to try to stop the development of a safe cycle route so that they can keep their roads congested with cars...
    https://twitter.com/dublincycling/status/1347497316798889985

    I’m sure some of their good friends are cyclists. ...


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,364 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    Here's the consultation, a-f*cking-gain

    https://consultation.dublincity.ie/traffic-and-transport/strand-road-cycle-trial-beach-road-options/consultation/intro/

    please submit to make it one way.

    It's amazing what a fancy address can do, they're just kicking the can down the road, at this stage I can't see it going ahead as planned tbh, and if it doesn't, well I can't see the status quo changing in my lifetime.

    this consultation is just for the Beach Road (irishtown) end I think.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,336 ✭✭✭TheW1zard


    Id say anyone that actually lives on the coast road would like to see it 1-way. Its the people that live on the rat runs that dont want it.
    I'm pro 1-way but I dont live in Sandymount!


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,238 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Not a chance this is proceeding now.

    There are some very clear thresholds of scale and financial cost to public projects under a whole host of different legislation, which require them to be submitted to escalating levels of planning approval. This proposal, trial or no trial, should have been subjected to a formal Part VIII process at the very least.

    It would have taken whatever professional advisors the combined local groups have retained, all of about 5 minutes to advise them of that. The referral to An BP will take 2 or 3 months minimum (likely much longer in the current circumstances). Then, if DCC still have any money or pride left, it'll take another 3 or 4 months, minimum, to run a Part VIII process. And THEN, assuming the track as proposed is approved, they'd have to tender for it as a single construction project, not rely on minor works providers, as project splitting to avoid procurement is also illegal! Mind you, when the planning process refers back to long standing S2S objectives, they'll be asked, why aren't you doing this now?

    Anyway, by the time all that happens, I suspect we'll be getting back to more normal patterns of travel and appetites will have changed. Will anyone in DCC lose their job for this rank incompetence? Well, you know the answer to that.....


  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,397 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    There are some very clear thresholds of scale and financial cost to public projects under a whole host of different legislation, which require them to be submitted to escalating levels of planning approval. This proposal, trial or no trial, should have been subjected to a formal Part VIII process at the very least.
    Well, go on. Tell us about the thresholds of scale and financial costs.

    Because it's starting to look like the whole legal argument is based on one sub-article under part 8.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,011 ✭✭✭buffalo


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    Not a chance this is proceeding now.

    There are some very clear thresholds of scale and financial cost to public projects under a whole host of different legislation, which require them to be submitted to escalating levels of planning approval. This proposal, trial or no trial, should have been subjected to a formal Part VIII process at the very least.

    It would have taken whatever professional advisors the combined local groups have retained, all of about 5 minutes to advise them of that. The referral to An BP will take 2 or 3 months minimum (likely much longer in the current circumstances). Then, if DCC still have any money or pride left, it'll take another 3 or 4 months, minimum, to run a Part VIII process. And THEN, assuming the track as proposed is approved, they'd have to tender for it as a single construction project, not rely on minor works providers, as project splitting to avoid procurement is also illegal! Mind you, when the planning process refers back to long standing S2S objectives, they'll be asked, why aren't you doing this now?

    Anyway, by the time all that happens, I suspect we'll be getting back to more normal patterns of travel and appetites will have changed. Will anyone in DCC lose their job for this rank incompetence? Well, you know the answer to that.....

    Why wouldn't it qualify as a section 38 development?


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,238 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    buffalo wrote: »
    Why wouldn't it qualify as a section 38 development?

    No doubt thats DCCs argument.

    I agree with the local groups that the scale and cost exceed the Sec 38 definitions. Its too widescale, too costly and too impactful. It requires a Part 8 environmental report in my view. An BP will adjudicate on that argument.


  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,397 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    No doubt thats DCCs argument.

    I agree with the local groups that the scale and cost exceed the Sec 38 definitions. Its too widescale, too costly and too impactful. It requires a Part 8 environmental report in my view. An BP will adjudicate on that argument.

    Section 38 makes no reference to scale, cost or impact.

    Also, what's a 'Part 8 environmental report?' If an Environmental Impact Assessment or an Appropriate Assessment is required then Part 8 does not apply.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,662 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    TheW1zard wrote: »
    Id say anyone that actually lives on the coast road would like to see it 1-way. Its the people that live on the rat runs that dont want it.
    I'm pro 1-way but I dont live in Sandymount!

    I saw one house on Gilford road, its off the Strand road with a no buses sign in their window, a little ironic as there is an old tram depot on the road :pac:

    That is my thought though, what would roads like Park avenue be like. My kids cycle the "rat runs" to school so curious at least how it will work out, but there does seem to be plans to modify traffic and create bike lanes on some of these roads.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 23,238 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Peregrine wrote: »
    Section 38 makes no reference to scale, cost or impact.

    Also, what's a 'Part 8 environmental report?' If an Environmental Impact Assessment or an Appropriate Assessment is required then Part 8 does not apply.

    I'm paraphrasing. But I'm not the one you need to be arguing this with.

    The local groups that all needed to come together to consider the wider implications on their communities have done so, not just Sandymount, but Irishtown, Merrion, Bath Avenue and so on. They realise that effectively blocking an important cross city regional route without a suitable diversion option is bad news for their villages and streets and that they are being sold a substandard pup.

    The solution to this is to put the cycleway, properly designed and funded, on the Promenade as S2S always envisaged and to carry out village enhancement schemes in Sandymount and Irishtown to discourage extraneous traffic and give them the benefits of a people focussed public realm that has been seen in places like Blackrock.

    The Strand Road "trial" is doomed now in my opinion, one way or another.


Advertisement