Cycle infrastructure planned for south Dublin

Larbre34 · 21-02-2021 05:51PM

Peregrine wrote: »

There is no on-street parking on this route.

If you take a look at magicbastarder's post above, that links to a google street view, you'll see thats an incorrect statement.

Yes, the section by the mechanic's place shows parking against a continuous white line in part, but those cars adjacent to the broken white line are parked absolutely legally.

Those homeowners should know if they will lose that parking option.

Type 17 · 21-02-2021 05:56PM

Peregrine wrote: »

There is no on-street parking on this route.

Huh? - There are loads of cars parked on various sections of the road (and footpath) between St Johns Road (Martello tower) and Leahys Terrace (the National School).

magicbastarder · 21-02-2021 05:58PM

maybe (s)he meant there's none in the plan?

Larbre34 · 21-02-2021 06:01PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

maybe (s)he meant there's none in the plan?

Well thats another massive problem with the plan if that proves to be the case.

Type 17 · 21-02-2021 06:04PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

maybe (s)he meant there's none in the plan?

Ok, that makes more sense
However, this means that there will be hell to pay, as there are loads of sections where there are no driveways - DCC have allowed this issue to fester, as there are loads of areas with double-yellows, but they magically disappear in other places, and cars are allowed to park on the footpath seemingly without any risk of being clamped:

https://goo.gl/maps/cnNyr2dCs2chn1LS6

magicbastarder · 21-02-2021 06:05PM

why, so people will be prevented from parking on the path?

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.330444,-6.2091942,3a,75y,305.71h,63.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUa6G2KriPocZBEE7FBXtKw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

magicbastarder · 21-02-2021 06:05PM

huh, great minds...

Type 17 · 21-02-2021 06:06PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

huh, great minds...

Indeed

Peregrine · 21-02-2021 06:20PM

Larbre34 wrote: »

If you take a look at magicbastarder's post above, that links to a google street view, you'll see thats an incorrect statement.

Yes, the section by the mechanic's place shows parking against a continuous white line in part, but those cars adjacent to the broken white line are parked absolutely legally.

I suppose it's semantics. They're parked on the side of the road but they're not designated as on-street parking spaces. DCC intentionally didn't designate them as parking spaces to avoid people claiming their parking was removed in the future (but not now). Generally a parking space for residents permit parking or pay & display is what's considered on-street parking.

Most of the cars parked on the side of the Beach Road are legally parked but the vast majority on Strand Road are illegally parked.

Larbre34 wrote: »

Those homeowners should know if they will lose that parking option.

They won't. There won't be parking spaces marked in but there will still be enough width to park a car at the vast majority of places where there was before. All the illegal parking will continue to be illegal and will likely be ignored. Effectively, not much change.

Larbre34 · 21-02-2021 06:51PM

Peregrine wrote: »

They're parked on the side of the road but they're not designated as on-street parking spaces. DCC intentionally didn't designate them as parking spaces to avoid people claiming their parking was removed in the future (but not now). Generally a parking space for residents permit parking or pay & display is what's considered on-street parking.

All of this is nonsense.

PaulieC · 21-02-2021 08:21PM

Larbre34 wrote: »

All of this is nonsense.

Dearie me. I hope, for their sake, that this is not the strongest part of their complaint
https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2021/0221/1198466-cycle-lane-dublin/

markpb · 21-02-2021 08:23PM

PaulieC wrote: »

Dearie me. I hope, for their sake, that this is not the strongest part of their complaint
https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2021/0221/1198466-cycle-lane-dublin/

Maybe they have a point. We might have to restrict both lanes to walking and cycling then

Peregrine · 21-02-2021 08:28PM

Larbre34 wrote: »

All of this is nonsense.

You left out the part where I said it was largely semantics. DCC refers to it as "informal parking". Needless to say, I don't consider every carriageway with a broken white line and no double yellows to be on-street parking. It's problematic because when I extend that definition, it would mean if cycle lanes were introduced on a road like this then it could be claimed that on-street parking was removed. Or that this road with a broken white line and an advisory cycle lane has on-street parking because it's completely legal to park on it just like Strand Road.

I'm not saying it's illegal but I don't buy that definition. I'll freely admit that I didn't realise others did. Since there's no legal definition of on-street parking and I did say it was largely semantics, I'm not really sure what we're going to argue about here.

The issue was whether there would be changes to parking (on-street, informal, whatever) on Strand Road/Beach Road and the answer is no.

Fighting Tao · 21-02-2021 08:48PM

Larbre34 wrote: »

How is that relevant?

It’s very relevant. That road should be a regional road and should not be used as a national route. It is heavily used by vehicles that should be using national routes and motorways. I’d be quite certain that there are many regional roads where there is no alternative and so there is little option than to have an overly busy regional road. You seem to want Strand road to be a national road for some weird reason.

So what is your skin in the game? You come across like you are directly involved in the high court action.

Larbre34 · 21-02-2021 09:17PM

Fighting Tao wrote: »

So what is your skin in the game? You come across like you are directly involved in the high court action.

No, I'm not. In fact only two people are directly involved in the Court action, excluding legal team.

I've given a few informal pointers to friends who live in the area, but no more than that, no paid work or formal advice.

I read that latest news report, I knew the application to An BP was due, but that argument about the social distancing is daft, I would never have raised it and in PR terms it undermines the substantive issues.

p15574 · 22-02-2021 09:59AM

PaulieC wrote: »

Dearie me. I hope, for their sake, that this is not the strongest part of their complaint
https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2021/0221/1198466-cycle-lane-dublin/

Jesus, they're really grasping at straws now. Are they suggesting that all roads in the country should now be shut down to extend each path into the middle to allow for proper social distancing?

Seth Brundle · 22-02-2021 11:01AM

Larbre34 wrote: »

I read that latest news report, I knew the application to An BP was due, but that argument about the social distancing is daft, I would never have raised it and in PR terms it undermines the substantive issues.

You mean this new argument in favour of social distancing doesn't work with their previous suggestion of removing one footpath for the cycle lane?

Face it, the residents arguments are simply a ruse to be able to continue to use their cars. It has little to do with concerns about traffic on adjoining streets or anything else.
This latest justification to block a trial for safer travel is unbelievably pathetic and shows how badly thought out their approach is.
However, I'd like to suggest that maybe we should listen to their concerns and assist social distancing by removing traffic altogether - would that appease them?

Larbre34 · 22-02-2021 01:12PM

Ignore the rest of the noise and the social media nonsense and look at the law.

A Part 8 was required. The City Council didn't carry one out. At best for them, the High Court will delay things until An BP have made their determination that the Part 8 must be done. Then the City Council will either do one or it won't.

If it doesn't, the project ends there. If it does, its a 6 to 9 month process, minimum and a Part 8 scheme can only be approved by a vote of the City Council, which it will not. At most, 20 votes out of 63.

So, any way you slice it, no cycletrack.

Plastik · 22-02-2021 01:29PM

In your opinion. The Council say a Part 8 wasn't required. We will see whose opinion the High Court side with.

Make sure and do continue to post back here in the thread if the High Court don't find in your favour.

Larbre34 · 22-02-2021 01:36PM

The Council's approach was based on "the Government said go and build temporary Covid mobility things", which in fairness, the Government did say.

Unfortunately for everyone, including the Government, they didn't change any laws to allow it, and "cos I said so" doesn't really stand up in court once challenged.

I'm ready for this to go against me alright, but I'm pretty confident it won't. Are you?

Type 17 · 22-02-2021 01:39PM

Gonna be messy if it gets stopped - DCC are currently ripping out traffic islands/roundabout at Roslyn Park, and have closed a lane in each direction on Merrion Road at Merrion gates, to start the changes there (southbound traffic from Strand Road will be allowed turn right, to go northbound).

buffalo · 22-02-2021 02:09PM

Larbre34 wrote: »

A Part 8 was required. The City Council didn't carry one out. At best for them, the High Court will delay things until An BP have made their determination that the Part 8 must be done.

So, any way you slice it, no cycletrack.

Unless you got yourself a seat on the High Court while I wasn't looking, its [sic] just bonkers talk from you and people should inform themselves of where things are at rather than listening to you.

Larbre34 · 22-02-2021 02:16PM

Type 17 wrote: »

Gonna be messy if it gets stopped - DCC are currently ripping out traffic islands/roundabout at Roslyn Park, and have closed a lane in each direction on Merrion Road at Merrion gates, to start the changes there (southbound traffic from Strand Road will be allowed turn right, to go northbound).

They know full well what they're at.

If its called off, they'll have to reinstate it all.

Peregrine · 22-02-2021 02:34PM

Larbre34 wrote: »

Ignore the rest of the noise and the social media nonsense and look at the law.

A Part 8 was required. The City Council didn't carry one out. At best for them, the High Court will delay things until An BP have made their determination that the Part 8 must be done. Then the City Council will either do one or it won't.

If it doesn't, the project ends there. If it does, its a 6 to 9 month process, minimum and a Part 8 scheme can only be approved by a vote of the City Council, which it will not. At most, 20 votes out of 63.

So, any way you slice it, no cycletrack.

You are aware that the application for judicial review is arguing that it required an environmental impact assessment? If it requires an EIA then it can't be a Part 8 application. The people asking for the judicial review don't agree with you. You can't both be right.

Larbre34 · 22-02-2021 03:33PM

Peregrine wrote: »

You are aware that the application for judicial review is arguing that it required an environmental impact assessment? If it requires an EIA then it can't be a Part 8 application. The people asking for the judicial review don't agree with you. You can't both be right.

As I understand it, the case is asking for an injunction on further works proceeding so that An Bord Pleanála can make a determination on whether the development is exempt. That determination would specify if a Part 8, EIA or whatever level of application would have to be carried out, in the event it is not exempt development. (spoiler, it is not) I know various media reports are fixating on an EIA, but they are missing some of the specifics when they say that.

In any case, Village Magazine are reporting in the last few minutes that the High Court has granted the petitioners leave to challenge the project.

I imagine they will now immediately lodge the Section 5 application with An BP and that at the full Court hearing an injunction will be granted against further works until that determination is received, probably by mid-summer due to An BP backlog.

So with reference to an earlier post, every bit of concrete torn up by the City Council from this moment on, will likely have to be replaced exactly as it was by the end of the week.

Thelonious Monk · 22-02-2021 03:36PM

Our hero doesn't mind vans driving on footpaths I bet

https://twitter.com/Kev_OMahony/status/1363842997985681412

a_squirrelman · 22-02-2021 03:36PM

Larbre34 wrote: »

....will likely have to be replaced exactly as it was by the end of the week.

You seem waaaaaaay too excited about this.

a_squirrelman · 22-02-2021 03:40PM

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Our hero doesn't mind vans driving on footpaths I bet

https://twitter.com/Kev_OMahony/status/1363842997985681412

And Mannix has taken in a base salary of 17k per year for his part time job of saying no to absolutely everything.

Nearly €200,000, fair play to him I guess.

Thelonious Monk · 22-02-2021 03:43PM

So how long does this mean it'll be postponed for? Not that I really thought it was ever going to happen in the first place. It's just annoying that nothing ever changes.

Larbre34 · 22-02-2021 03:44PM

a_squirrelman wrote: »

You seem waaaaaaay too excited about this.

No, excitement is not what I would call it.

Disgust at the blatant waste of my taxes and presumably yours in the process would be more accurate.

Cycle infrastructure planned for south Dublin

Comments