Cycle infrastructure planned for south Dublin

Fighting Tao · 27-02-2021 06:24PM

Larbre34 wrote: »

I think there's some confusion.

The 5-axle ban extension is off.

Yes. The court action ensured that 5 axles can drive right through Sandymount for another while. Some locals and yourself must be delighted to have trucks in the village.

buffalo · 27-02-2021 07:36PM

Larbre34 wrote: »

Nope.

I'd be happy if the City Council followed the law. An elected Mayor could be held to account directly for that. Keegan can't.

Whats happened the last few weeks and months is an abuse of process on the part of the Council.

So you'd be okay with Keegan as Mayor, because he could then be held to account?

magicbastarder · 27-02-2021 07:39PM

https://twitter.com/DonnachaCurley/status/1365612224165933059

Larbre34 · 27-02-2021 08:07PM

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Yes. The court action ensured that 5 axles can drive right through Sandymount for another while. Some locals and yourself must be delighted to have trucks in the village.

They should be allowed on Strand Road, not through the back streets unless they have business to conduct. Banning heavy vehicles from a Regional route would have been stupid.

Fighting Tao · 27-02-2021 08:18PM

Larbre34 wrote: »

They should be allowed on Strand Road, not through the back streets unless they have business to conduct. Banning heavy vehicles from a Regional route would have been stupid.

Not stupid at all when they have access to the port tunnel. Who in the right mind would allow them through residential areas when they can avoid them?

Larbre34 · 27-02-2021 08:25PM

ted1 wrote: »

Why would they ? It’s only suspended. It’s the route they’ll use in Future

You're worse than Trump over the election Ted.

I'm aware there is a process to be gone through, but I believe the following is going to happen.

The Court and An BP in some combination will find that the City Council acted improperly and will compel them to conduct a Part 8 (most likely) or other appropriate assessment. That takes us into May, or even later, depending on BPs timeline.

Then, the City Council will have to draw up the considerable report required by a Part 8 (including new baseline data) before it is published for consultation. That involves far more background work than they put forward heretofore. However, there must be a question mark over whether the Council do choose to go forward with it again, as by May or June, we expect that restrictions will be lifting and traffic patterns may be returning to more normal patterns, raising a serious question over the Covid justification.

But, you might argue and you'd be correct, the Council can proceed with a Part 8 irrespective of Covid, based on the cycleway being an appropriate proposal for the long term use of the R131. If they do that, the Part 8 will end up before the full City Council membership to vote on. I don't think it will pass regardless (it might get 25 of 63 votes on a good day)

And so Ted, if you think either a trial or the permanent installation of a cycleway on a traffic lane of Strand Road / Beach Road is going to proceed, I would respectfully suggest you are dreaming.

And so, given the very long lead time before this is ultimately put to bed, I'd expect the buses to revert to their normal routing without delay.

Thelonious Monk · 27-02-2021 09:07PM

Larbre is right imo, I wasn't going to believe this was happening until I cycled on it myself, but it definitely wont go ahead now.
We sometimes forget how carcentric this country is.

ted1 · 27-02-2021 09:13PM

Larbre34 wrote: »

They should be allowed on Strand Road, not through the back streets unless they have business to conduct. Banning heavy vehicles from a Regional route would have been stupid.

No it wouldn’t, we built a tunnel so they can go via the M50. Unless they have a specific reason for not using it. That’s what they should use

ted1 · 27-02-2021 09:19PM

Larbre34 wrote: »

You're worse than Trump over the election Ted.

I'm aware there is a process to be gone through, but I believe the following is going to happen.

The Court and An BP in some combination will find that the City Council acted improperly and will compel them to conduct a Part 8 (most likely) or other appropriate assessment. That takes us into May, or even later, depending on BPs timeline.

Then, the City Council will have to draw up the considerable report required by a Part 8 (including new baseline data) before it is published for consultation. That involves far more background work than they put forward heretofore. However, there must be a question mark over whether the Council do choose to go forward with it again, as by May or June, we expect that restrictions will be lifting and traffic patterns may be returning to more normal patterns, raising a serious question over the Covid justification.

But, you might argue and you'd be correct, the Council can proceed with a Part 8 irrespective of Covid, based on the cycleway being an appropriate proposal for the long term use of the R131. If they do that, the Part 8 will end up before the full City Council membership to vote on. I don't think it will pass regardless (it might get 25 of 63 votes on a good day)

And so Ted, if you think either a trial or the permanent installation of a cycleway on a traffic lane of Strand Road / Beach Road is going to proceed, I would respectfully suggest you are dreaming.

And so, given the very long lead time before this is ultimately put to bed, I'd expect the buses to revert to their normal routing without delay.

Trump ? You are the one giving out saying they should have stopped the count...
You’ve made lots of wild claims which have just been fictional. Whatever happened the government stepping in and stopping the scheme as the route is needed for BREXIT.

Pinch Flat · 27-02-2021 09:31PM

First Up wrote: »

Oh I'm sure you suffer no end but that has nothing to do with the plans for Sandymount, which is what we are talking about.

Well it does. The plan is to make it more accessible for cyclists. At the moment they have to share the roads with motorised traffic. Look I get this can be a difficult pill for some to swallow. If you rely on your car for every single journey and can't see alternatives beyond this, the proposal is going to appear like a travesty

AndrewJRenko · 27-02-2021 09:49PM

First Up wrote: »

Of course they are but they are not being inconvenienced.

Not being inconvenienced, eh?

https://twitter.com/robertburns73/status/1340648194003378176
https://twitter.com/CitizenW0lf/status/1331729635369947138

I couldn't find the tweet I really wanted, showing the Sandymount driver very nearly taking out a child cycling earlier this year with a dangerous overtake.

Fighting Tao · 27-02-2021 09:52PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I couldn't find the tweet I really wanted, showing the Sandymount driver very nearly taking out a child cycling earlier this year with a dangerous overtake.

This? https://twitter.com/alandub13/status/1331596920448487425?s=21

First Up · 27-02-2021 09:59PM

Pinch Flat wrote:

Well it does. The plan is to make it more accessible for cyclists. At the moment they have to share the roads with motorised traffic.

Then make it more accessible (and safer) for cyclists by building a cycle path over a few hundred meters of beach.

Larbre34 · 27-02-2021 10:02PM

Robert Burns is the director of traffic in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown. He absolutely has a vested interest in justifying his own work and in encouraging these schemes in other areas. As an official rather than an elected person, I think he should stay in his own lane, pun intended, but DLR seem happy to involve themselves in this mess, which is interesting considering the outcome of the Court case affects the basis on which they installed their measures too.

Seth Brundle · 27-02-2021 10:02PM

First Up wrote: »

Then make it more accessible (and safer) for cyclists by building a cycle path over a few hundred meters of beach.

Why on earth was this not thought of before now?

First Up · 27-02-2021 10:10PM

Seth Brundle wrote:

Why on earth was this not thought of before now?

Probably because it didn't fit with Keegan's agenda which is mostly to inconvenience motorists.

Larbre34 · 27-02-2021 10:43PM

Weepsie wrote: »

Why didn't mannix stay in his own lane then. He wasn't voted in by Sandymount residents?

Correct, he was voted in by the good people of the South East Inner City, including Ringsend.

As I've said a few times, there seems to be a deliberate narrative, here and on other social media, to paint this as the SUV drivers of Sandymount v The World. In fact, the opposition to the Council's design was even bigger and louder in Ringsend, Irishtown, Bath Avenue and Londonbridge. Individuals and associations from those areas worked closely with STC and SAMRA in supporting a case.

So lets put to bed for good any notion that Flynn had no basis for getting involved.

27-02-2021 10:49PM

Larbre34 wrote: »

Correct, he was voted in by the good people of the South East Inner City, including Ringsend.

As I've said a few times, there seems to be a deliberate narrative, here and on other social media, to paint this as the SUV drivers of Sandymount v The World. In fact, the opposition to the Council's design was even bigger and louder in Ringsend, Irishtown, Bath Avenue and Londonbridge. Individuals and associations from those areas worked closely with STC and SAMRA in supporting a case.

So lets put to bed for good any notion that Flynn had no basis for getting involved.

There's only one problem with your narrative, history

Eamonnator · 27-02-2021 11:16PM

Weepsie wrote: »

So why do you have a problem with someone from outside dcc who would of course have an interest in it as it's a.comtuting route for swathes of people from dlr, and why was it raised as a problem that people from outside Sandymount showed a huge amount of support for the plans, when you are so happy to highlight those from outside of the area not supporting them.

Mannix with 7% of the vote, his vote is falling every election to, and a Green candidate with more than 4 times that show the actual appetite of the electorate. They want greener, non car centric solutions. It's been on the cards for bloody years and people pretend it's a surprise.

You're being a hypocrite on this matter. Nothing less

Last time out, he got in by 8 votes.

Thelonious Monk · 27-02-2021 11:25PM

Has anyone listened to this from earlier today?

https://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/newstalk-breakfast-with-susan-keogh/strand-road-cycleway-dispute-with-hazel-chu-mannix-flynn

It will actually hurt me to listen to Mannix so I can't do it myself

Larbre34 · 27-02-2021 11:27PM

Weepsie wrote: »

You're being a hypocrite on this matter. Nothing less

I'm really not. It just helps you get your head around this disappointment to believe that I am.

Peregrine · 27-02-2021 11:48PM

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Has anyone listened to this from earlier today?

https://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/newstalk-breakfast-with-susan-keogh/strand-road-cycleway-dispute-with-hazel-chu-mannix-flynn

It will actually hurt me to listen to Mannix so I can't do it myself

Hazel came across well. Mannix raved on about consultation, environmental impact and something about railroading. The host called the argument about the lack of face masks on the computer generated image nonsense. Mannix claimed it wasn't and that it was actually a very valid point and moved on. He seemed embarrassed about his own application.

Larbre34 · 28-02-2021 01:06AM

Yeah but at the end of the day, Mannix Flynn is an elected Councillor of an area affected by this scheme. He has every right to do what he's done. I'm simply defending that right. It doesn't make me a hypocrite.

If I was on the SUV owners forum and they were saying Hazel Chu or Claire O'Connor had no right to get involved in this just because they didn't like what they stand for, I'd be defending their right to and you'd be the first ones backing me up.

This is your echo chamber boss, it doesn't make me a hypocrite.

Seth Brundle · 28-02-2021 01:15AM

First Up wrote: »

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Why on earth was this not thought of before now?

Probably because it didn't fit with Keegan's agenda which is mostly to inconvenience motorists.

Knowledge is wonderful!
In terms of a development at the biosphere reserve:

Any interference in going into the bay, particularly in our area with the high designation that this particular area has, can only be done based on the principle of no other possible alternative and an overriding need.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/no-sandymount-cycle-path-until-2026-if-alternative-plan-pursued-council-1.4455743?mode=amp

Seth Brundle · 28-02-2021 01:17AM

Larbre34 wrote: »

If I was on the SUV owners forum and they were saying Hazel Chu or Claire O'Connor had no right to get involved in this just because they didn't like what they stand for, I'd be defending their right to and you'd be the first ones backing me up.

I haven't seen you post anything defending the view held by the majority of councillors though. Did I miss something?

PaulieC · 28-02-2021 01:26AM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Not being inconvenienced, eh?

https://twitter.com/robertburns73/status/1340648194003378176
https://twitter.com/CitizenW0lf/status/1331729635369947138

I couldn't find the tweet I really wanted, showing the Sandymount driver very nearly taking out a child cycling earlier this year with a dangerous overtake.

The first video looks perfectly fine to me. Nothing untoward. Tweeter seems a bit sensitive.

Larbre34 · 28-02-2021 01:39AM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I haven't seen you post anything defending the view held by the majority of councillors though. Did I miss something?

Thats just it boss. The majority of Councillors opposed Strand Road.

I'm not here to defend any one of them one way or the other, I'm just explaining reality. Its something we need to circle back to in here every so often, just so we know which way is North.

AndrewJRenko · 28-02-2021 01:51AM

PaulieC wrote: »

The first video looks perfectly fine to me. Nothing untoward. Tweeter seems a bit sensitive.

Would you put a ten year old relative of yours out to cycle in those conditions?

Seth Brundle · 28-02-2021 02:11AM

Larbre34 wrote: »

Thats just it boss. The majority of Councillors opposed Strand Road.

Can you show me something that confirms the majority of DCC councillors opposed this project?

Larbre34 · 28-02-2021 02:40AM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Can you show me something that confirms the majority of DCC councillors opposed this project?

Take a look at the videos of the recent South East area Committees.

I know for a fact the opposition group secured the support of all bar one of the Pembroke LEA Councillors (Green) and all bar two of the SEIC LEA Councillors (Green and one non-committal). That adds up to 7/10 opposed.

Now, the way local politics works in Ireland, for the bigger parties, is as follows. An issue in a particular LEA is lead by the Councillor and party members in that area. If that issue comes to a full vote of the Council, the other party members vote with their colleague and so they can rely on that member when its their turn.

Of course the Councils also have some independent and single issue members and they are courted as needed. So, and I mentioned this earlier, on its very best day, this project would receive 25 of 63 votes in a full vote of the Council, because in line with their local Councillors, FF, FG, Labour and a good chunk of Indos who will back Mannix, are all opposed.

You don't have to believe me, but tune into the South East Area Committee online on the evening of 8th March, you'll get the idea. It'll be a juicy one too.

Also, if by some miracle a Part 8 on this ever comes before the Council for a final vote, you'll see the dice fall much as I have described.

Neither the residents groups nor Mannix Flynn hung their ass out in the breeze over this without being sure of the numbers they had behind them, so to speak. Believe that.

Cycle infrastructure planned for south Dublin

Comments