Cycle infrastructure planned for south Dublin

Grassey · 26-02-2021 12:37AM

Larbre34 wrote:

To be paying contractors through the nose, with taxpayers money, to.. .

Sit idle waiting for the court to say carry on lads, sorry for the delay, thanks for hanging on while I dealt with this storm in a teacup would be a waste of money also.

magicbastarder · 26-02-2021 12:57AM

Larbre34 wrote: »

they've known since Monday that by this weekend, they'll either be able to carry on, or they'll be halted for a number of months

To be paying contractors through the nose, with taxpayers money, to do be digging up today what they may well have reinstate after tomorrow

forgive me if i'm misremembering your previous statements, i may be confusing you with someone else; but you're a businessperson IIRC?

if i engage the services of someone to dig up a road or otherwise engage in civil engineering works, who schedule staff and equipment for such works, is suggesting a *three day* advance warning of such action enough to allow the works to be halted at no cost to the taxpayer; is this how such contracts work?
i mean, if i engage someone to carry out works costing five or six figures, can i on a whim of a few day's notice tell them to stop, without them charging me for such little notice of cessation of works?

further, if i incur costs running to (say) five figures for temporary cessation of those works, and then find out i am given the green light to proceed, can i apply to whomever took the case deemed inadequate by the courts, for them to refund me the money wasted by an unnecessary cessation? if not, who should i blame for the waste of taxpayer's money?

Larbre34 · 26-02-2021 02:39AM

Depends how they engaged the contractor.

But work of this type is generally off the minor works lists, in which case its day rate stuff anyway and if the Contractor gets a lot of work that way from DCC then a) they would otherwise be engaged elsewhere fixing footpaths or doing permanent reinstatements and b) no contractor with half a brain is going to piss off their biggest meal ticket by complaining about getting messed about for a few days.

In any case, thats not the biggest money headache facing the Council, its the fact that its going to cost €250,000 (even before the Parks Depts latest additions) and they've exceeded the value threshold for carrying out a Part 8 process by 100%!! Absolute banana republic carry-on.

Anyway, we'll see what the Judge makes of it tomorrow.

site_owner · 26-02-2021 11:37AM

10 minutes to go, any solicitors on here that can watch the stream and put an end to the suspense?

Effects · 26-02-2021 12:15PM

CramCycle wrote: »

I thought some had been removed a good while ago, not that they made much of a difference bar one positive that people did slow, slightly, while driving over them.

I saw them working on them last week, and again this week.

You can see it here as well: https://www.instagram.com/p/CLuKXQbMoQE/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

site_owner · 26-02-2021 01:47PM

All works stayed pending hearing in April

Larbre34 · 26-02-2021 02:17PM

Yeah, look, we are where we were always going to be on this, the conduct of the City Council throughout saw to that.

Also today you'll have seen an FoI outcome released by the residents groups, throwing the whole "consultation" process into question. Believe me when I say this, we are ALL better served by a statutory planning process, the parameters are there for a reason and it gives legitimacy to public works schemes like this.

I am beyond disgusted with every move of DCC here. Financially, administratively, operationally, they have come up well short as a local authority and I suggest they should be the focus of any ire here, not residents or Councillors or drivers or cyclists. I mean ripping up the traffic islands and mini roundabouts up to yesterday when the writing was on the wall was just vandalism. They also removed the pedestrian protection railings from in front of the primary school, which of course is due to reopen on Monday. At the very least I hope they'll have someone down there this afternoon to replace them in time, but what kind of City Council staff are we actually dealing with here....

magicbastarder · 26-02-2021 02:22PM

the traffic islands should never have been put there in the first place, cycle lane or no. most of the near misses i've had cycling on that road are due to the islands (and stupid drivers).

tomasrojo · 26-02-2021 02:24PM

How is the behaviour of DCC different from DLRCC anyway? They did hasty emergency cycling and walking infrastructure as well, with minimal consultation, with the option of undoing after the trial. Dundrum Main Street was altered pretty comprehensively.

magicbastarder · 26-02-2021 02:30PM

some more detail:

Order halting works on Sandymount cycleway issued by High Court
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/order-halting-works-on-sandymount-cycleway-issued-by-high-court-1.4495901

whether or not it's an accurate representation of what was actually presented in court, the article would suggest a large part of the argument put forward was that the cycle path is not covid compliant.

tomasrojo · 26-02-2021 02:34PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

some more detail:

Order halting works on Sandymount cycleway issued by High Court
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/order-halting-works-on-sandymount-cycleway-issued-by-high-court-1.4495901

whether or not it's an accurate representation of what was actually presented in court, the article would suggest a large part of the argument put forward was that the cycle path is not covid compliant.

I can see from the way it's presented there why some people are saying the case is very weak. The env. impact and covid-compliant bits are grasping at straws. The only bit that seems relevant to me is the notion that it's not temporary and that it's intended to be part of a network. I presume if the project is ultimately halted it'll be on those grounds.

EDIT: If this is drawn out long enough, the justification of covid emergency measures might also no longer be applicable, I suppose. Vaccination effects of transmission seem to be towards the more optimistic end of projections.

ted1 · 26-02-2021 02:40PM

Larbre34 wrote: »

Yeah, look, we are where we were always going to be on this, the conduct of the City Council throughout saw to that.

Also today you'll have seen an FoI outcome released by the residents groups, throwing the whole "consultation" process into question. Believe me when I say this, we are ALL better served by a statutory planning process, the parameters are there for a reason and it gives legitimacy to public works schemes like this.

I am beyond disgusted with every move of DCC here. Financially, administratively, operationally, they have come up well short as a local authority and I suggest they should be the focus of any ire here, not residents or Councillors or drivers or cyclists. I mean ripping up the traffic islands and mini roundabouts up to yesterday when the writing was on the wall was just vandalism. They also removed the pedestrian protection railings from in front of the primary school, which of course is due to reopen on Monday. At the very least I hope they'll have someone down there this afternoon to replace them in time, but what kind of City Council staff are we actually dealing with here....

all that happened is that they were told to stop till April, no wrong doing was found to be have done

site_owner · 26-02-2021 02:41PM

Larbre34 wrote: »

Also today you'll have seen an FoI outcome released by the residents groups, throwing the whole "consultation" process into question.

What time / where is this being released?

CramCycle · 26-02-2021 02:45PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

some more detail:

Order halting works on Sandymount cycleway issued by High Court
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/order-halting-works-on-sandymount-cycleway-issued-by-high-court-1.4495901

whether or not it's an accurate representation of what was actually presented in court, the article would suggest a large part of the argument put forward was that the cycle path is not covid compliant.

I'd love to see Mr. Flynn's degree in virology or epidimiology as he appears to be assigning characteristics to the council that he himself suffers from in spades in regards dubious-ness.

Regardless, the council claim they got independent advice, for all claiming they ran rampant. So if it turns out they were in the wrong, then I presume they will be taking those consultants to task. They obviously feel confident they are in the right, hence continuing the work and to be honest, based on the Times article, it sounds Mr. Flynn is reaching. Certainly, he doesn't seem to grasp that either a) if not a success it will return to the status quo before the measure and b) if it is a success it won't.

Peregrine · 26-02-2021 02:50PM

Larbre34 wrote: »

In any case, thats not the biggest money headache facing the Council, its the fact that its going to cost €250,000 (even before the Parks Depts latest additions) and they've exceeded the value threshold for carrying out a Part 8 process by 100%!! Absolute banana republic carry-on.

Amazing how this iron-clad gotcha legal argument of yours isn't even featuring in the plaintiffs' challenge.

It's almost as if it's written in primary legislation, in no uncertain terms, that this cost threshold isn't relevant for cycling and public transport projects. This has already been explained to you.

tomasrojo · 26-02-2021 02:52PM

CramCycle wrote: »

Certainly, he doesn't seem to grasp that either a) if not a success it will return to the status quo before the measure and b) if it is a success it won't.

c) He doesn't want to take a chance on it being a success. He has a vision of the future, and it's a boot (possibly cleated, with socks adjusted to the correct height) stamping on a human face - forever.

Larbre34 · 26-02-2021 03:01PM

Peregrine wrote: »

Amazing how this iron-clad gotcha legal argument of yours isn't even featuring in the plaintiffs' challenge.

It's almost as if it's written in primary legislation, in no uncertain terms, that this cost threshold isn't relevant for cycling and public transport projects. This has already been explained to you.

Yeah good man, thanks.

At the discretion of the legal team, some issues were put into the JR request, other issues directly related to planning regs are in the Section 5 to An Bord Pleanála. All aspects will be reviewed in these combined processes.

CramCycle · 26-02-2021 03:02PM

tomasrojo wrote: »

c) He doesn't want to take a chance on it being a success. He has a vision of the future, and it's a boot (possibly cleated, with socks adjusted to the correct height) stamping on a human face - forever.

To be fair I find the fact that the Gardai weren't measuring sock height during Covid checkpoints a bigger crime than those breaching other public health guidance. Shows where their priorities really lie.

Larbre34 · 26-02-2021 03:02PM

site_owner wrote: »

What time / where is this being released?

RTE news online since this morning.

fat bloke · 26-02-2021 03:02PM

Seeing as cyclists aren't welcome, I wonder... if we all took to driving over and back the road for a month or so...:pac:

Fighting Tao · 26-02-2021 03:07PM

fat bloke wrote: »

Seeing as cyclists aren't welcome, I wonder... if we all took to driving over and back the road for a month or so...:pac:

That is just a normal day there. Pre-covid traffic was often blocked from the Liffey right to Merrion gates in the afternoon/evenings. It was never as bad heading southbound for some reason.

Seems like a few people love the smell of car fumes.

Thelonious Monk · 26-02-2021 03:07PM

I might drive over and do laps of Sandymount village all day tomorrow. Traffic will be chaos there tomorrow anyway with the nice weather.

ted1 · 26-02-2021 03:08PM

fat bloke wrote: »

Seeing as cyclists aren't welcome, I wonder... if we all took to driving over and back the road for a month or so...:pac:

I’ll be cycling in the primary position on strand road in Future

tomasrojo · 26-02-2021 03:08PM

Larbre34 wrote: »

RTE news online since this morning.

Is it this?
https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2021/0225/1199438-sandymount-cycleway/

Larbre34 · 26-02-2021 03:11PM

tomasrojo wrote: »

Is it this?
https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2021/0225/1199438-sandymount-cycleway/

Tis

ted1 · 26-02-2021 03:12PM

Larbre34 wrote: »

RTE news online since this morning.

I see nothing wrong with the consultation, NTA asked for it to be extended and more people supported it.

tomasrojo · 26-02-2021 03:13PM

It's not about Strand Road though.

tomasrojo · 26-02-2021 03:14PM

I'm not following this closely enough maybe, but the Beach Road consultation doesn't seem to blow the Strand Road story wide open, as they say in newspaper-drama movies.

Thelonious Monk · 26-02-2021 03:18PM

As I said earlier, the people supporting the locals here would not be supporting the locals wanting the Phoenix Park gates closed, even though it could lead to more traffic in surrounding areas.
Basically people want to be able to drive everywhere with no constraints.

tomasrojo · 26-02-2021 03:19PM

It's a local road, for local people. Except it has an R in front of it.

Cycle infrastructure planned for south Dublin

Comments