Cycle infrastructure planned for south Dublin

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.

daragh_ wrote: »

'Sources'?

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

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.

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

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.'

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.

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.

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.

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

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.

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.....

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?

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.