Cycle infrastructure planned for south Dublin

Just saw that. Very disappointing but nothing good comes easy.

Seaswimmer wrote: »

Full report on the recent consultation re DLR active travel routes..

Haven't read the entire thing but it appears that it is by no means dead in the water..


https://dlrcoco.citizenspace.com/infrastructure-climate-change/dlr-safe-walking-cycling-routes-consultation/

I had a skim last week. My favourite highlighted comment:

I am
absolutely in favour of
safe infrastructure for cyclists,
but not at the expense of other
road users and pedestrians

ummm... I think you may need to look up the definition of 'absolute'.

Seth Brundle wrote: »

:rolleyes:
Cycle paths could ‘destroy’ Sandymount

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/cycle-paths-could-destroy-sandymount-1.4436759

The gruesome twosome: Flynn and Lacey pretending be in favour of cycle infrastructure but, as usual, not here and not now. Or, as Lacey puts it, not without more engagement.

CapnHex wrote: »

Haven’t these guys seen the success of Seapoint Ave. Maybe I’m in the minority but that is transformative, to see what segregation means. Small kids cycling at ease with parents or siblings, a truly pleasant experience.

Speaking of which, I came across a motorist tootling down the segregated part of the old Dun Leary Road this evening. I suspect he came out of the garage, there's just enough space to squeeze between the poles at that point. I must have a look tomorrow and see if he took out the pole at the other end of that stretch.

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.

buffalo wrote: »

You're the one saying that it's your opinion, are you not going to stand by it?

Why won't this work with the current proposed trial design?

I stand by it absolutely. Section 38 works are fine for localised measures, like putting in a few ramps, or a signalised crossing or a junction improvement, not a fundamental and widely impactful alteration plan like the Strand Road proposal is.

Dublin City Council's own explanatory document on the Part 8 process says the following

"Heading: Types of Development that require the Part 8 Procedures...

... 2. The construction of a new road or the widening or realignment of an existing road, where the length of new road or of the widened or realigned road is 100 metres or more."

I don't need to tell anyone that the length of road subject to this proposal exceeds 1,200 metres. The argument is - and I will be on one side and you the other - that because they aren't proposing to change the underlying fabric of the road, that Part 8 does not apply. Thats what An Bord Pleanála will have to adjudicate. I'm not sure if Part 8 has been tested quite like this, but I do know it makes no provision for temporary works or so-called trials.

Its worth bearing in mind too, that when Section 38 is mentioned, DCCs own executive referred to the proposal as "unorthodox". Hardly a forthright argument for measures that are notionally best practice.

As for Sandymount getting a village scheme, AND Strand Road being reduced to one way? In my example of Blackrock village, they were able to make the main street one-way and reclaim road space for pedestrian, cycle and social distancing use, precisely because the Blackrock Bypass exists as an alternative. Strand Road is that alternative for Sandymount. Heavy vehicles that have legitimate business in the area, deliveries, construction carriers, bin trucks, they're all entitled to gain access, in some manner. The residents groups argue that a combination of all these proposals turn their district into something of an island, interfering with the amenity of their properties and so on.

As I say, these are arguments, they will now happen before An BP, probably also at City Council level once again and maybe even before the Courts at some point.

They may find that my interpretation of things and the advice the combined residents groups have received is wrong, to some degree, but my experience tells me they will not.

strandroad wrote: »

You're supposed to exercise within 5km and some people will still drive... to exercise?

I live a couple of clicks from the Phoenix Park. I drove there to run yesterday, because a) the streets near me are wide and busy with pedestrians so its hard to distance and b) because I bloody like running there.

While those cars shouldn't be parked on the grass at Sandymount, it does go to show, the space they take up would make a perfect two-way cycletrack.

silverharp wrote: »

I think a longer term solution is a dedicated cycle path on the inside of the sea wall on the Strand road and extend it out to Blackrock, it could be combined with flood defense work and a better route to the lighthouse, as it is, its a bit of a mess.

The route to the lighthouse is a bit of a mess ? Why so ?