Cycle infrastructure planned for south Dublin

This is just the Council Executive trying to up the ante and create hysteria, ahead of the yet undetermined public consultation. No surprise that they have pulled the stunt in the middle of bike week for maximum effect.

They should proceed with the uncontentious elements without delay.

Nobody gotcha'd me, cos I don't give a monkeys if they go ahead one way or the other, but its pretty juvenile carry-on from unelected Council officials who will add to the cost of the overall project by their unprofessional actions and thats something I do object to.

Its not a stunt if it falls within the powers of Councillors, its just the law. Its not a stunt if its ordinary people seeking legal recourse, its just the law.

Whats happening here is public officials in DLR (some of whom love a bit of public profile and empire building) acting outside of their obligations as unelected public servants, by adding unnecessarily to the overall cost of the combined project by their actions (temper tantrum), which without good reason is a violation of the Public Spending Code and probably of the terms of contract with the provider(s) doing the work. In other words they are playing with fire.

Was it in a private capacity as a concerned citizen or in your professional capacity as a planning consultant for developers that you spoke with them about it?

Those that complain most shout loudest in politicians ears, and get listened to. Weak minded and easily influenced politicians seem to forget that they disproportionately hear more from people complaining than those in support.

They would still be weak minded. What is your point ?

My point is that they aren't actually weak minded just because you and some others disagree with them, or rather that they disagree with you.

They are representing significant cross sections of their communities, with legitimate concerns. I said before on here, the best thing you can do to prevent any progress, is to dismiss them as cranks, crooks, cronies, luddites, fat cats, blueshirts, or indeed weak minded. It will only entrench opposition.

OK Sorry to keep banging on about it, but I thought that you mentioned before that you don’t live in the DLR council area? If so, why would you go to the bother of speaking to several Councillors there about the conduct of the executive?

Maybe I’m misremembering and you do actually live in DLR?

(I’ll admit that I am a DLR resident directly impacted by these decisions.)

tbh this really brings me back to my earlier point about local residents not having a veto on these projects. And shows that they are right if the intention is to move this to permanent employee's.

I'm directly effected by Deansgrange, as that's my commuting route. It's a greater Dublin issue, not a local one, and should be judged on that, not chipper access.

Given that he is the Director of Infrastructure and hence, the joint shithouser of the piece, he would say that, wouldn't he?

They are directly contradicting their own statement, issued on the withdrawal of the S138, that only the Deansgrange section would be omitted, in order to address a solution for it. From my experience of the type of projects he's talking about, I politely suggest he's talking b0ll0cks.

Let me illustrate. The following is an extract from the post on the Council's website of 16th Sept.

"At the Council meeting on Monday 13 September, the notification under section 138 of the Local Government Act 2001, which related to works for the entire AST project, consisting of all three routes, was withdrawn by the Council Executive."

This is a lie. The S138 notification related only to the Deansgrange element. Why? Because other aspects of the work of the AST project were already underway on the ground, eg Lower Kilmacud Road which is currently excavated! And in any case, a contract for works being constructed on the ground under the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, are neither dependent on nor halted by a S.138 notification by the Council Chief Exec. The S.138 in this instance was being used as an instrument to force a vote, it wasn't a necessity as the funding was grants from the NTA, not Councils own resources. However, that backfired when the Councillors responded with a S.140 that they had the numbers to win.

This is the text of the email sent to Councillors by the Chief Exec when he decided to withdraw the S.138:

"Following the large number of submissions received recently on the Deansgrange element of the Active Schools Travel project, and following discussions with Councillors, it is now proposed to commence a further process of engagement with all stakeholders . All options will be considered before proceeding with the Deansgrange related elements, which form part of two of the proposed Active School Travel routes. All works proposed in relation to the Deansgrange element of the works will be deferred until the engagement process is completed, with a report to issue to the elected members at that time. The report will be completed by January 2022. In the meantime, it is proposed to withdraw the section 138 notice in its current form.”

I'm not sure how many more times he needed to say "deansgrange element", to make people understand that he was talking about the Deansgrange element!

Given the proof from both extracts above that a) the AST project as a whole is not affected by the S.138 one way or the other and that b) they were quite satisfied on Monday night that the Deansgrange element could be further examined in isolation, with revision and further consultation to attempt a solution, I can only reiterate that what Robert Burns is saying now (on his private twitter,no less) and what the Councillors were told yesterday, is total, absolute and complete bullshyt.

No, you misinterpret my feelings, I'm not close enough to it to be angry about it, I'm just feeling intolerant of negligent public servants. This is your taxes just as much as mine that they are playing fast and loose with.

The Councillors are angry about it though, they'll be overturning this stunt next week, as it is as transparent as it is shabby.