Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Cycle infrastructure planned for south Dublin

Options
12357…123

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    PaulieC
    Registered Users Posts: 6,190 ✭✭✭PaulieC


    buffalo wrote: »
    I feel like the councillors pushing it should be censured for wasting time - pure stalling tactics. I presume once the letter is written, they'll ask for the trial to be delayed pending a response?

    Well that's not gonna happen. In fact, given the councillors involved, I'd be surprised if they are not very closely aligned with the concerned residents groups (who, of course, are very "pro cycling")


  • Options
    #123
    Fred Cryton
    Registered Users Posts: 975 ✭✭✭Fred Cryton


    buffalo wrote: »
    While I obviously respect democratic process, this request to revisit a plan from five years ago that was investigated and then evaluated as infeasible is nonsense. Has anything since then changed, bar the need to reduce polluting motor traffic becoming even more urgent?

    I feel like the councillors pushing it should be censured for wasting time - pure stalling tactics. I presume once the letter is written, they'll ask for the trial to be delayed pending a response?






    Hilarious. You think the citizens of Sandymount and their driving habits are a massively urgent determining factor in GLOBAL climate patterns.



    Childish.


  • Options
    #124
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,982 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    Not sure that interest groups can 'checkmate' anyone.

    If any checkmates arise, it'll be in a hearing room at An Bord Pleanála or a chamber of the High Court.
    My checkmate remark was more directed towards the residents who believe that their plan is the solution when in fact it apparently can't go ahead if there are alternatives (which is what is being proposed by the council).


  • Options
    #125
    buffalo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,059 ✭✭✭buffalo


    Fred Cryton wrote: »
    Hilarious. You think the citizens of Sandymount and their driving habits are a massively urgent determining factor in GLOBAL climate patterns.



    Childish.

    Do you want to address anything actually in my post?


  • Options
    #126
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 23,849 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    My checkmate remark was more directed towards the residents who believe that their plan is the solution when in fact it apparently can't go ahead if there are alternatives (which is what is being proposed by the council).

    The narrative that it is either the Council's 'Strand Road' plan, or the previous complex and costly major plan, is wrong.

    What the likes of Councillors Lacey and Geoghegan are proposing is a simple cycleway on the Promenade side, for whatever distance that can be provided for, not the bells and whistles of flyovers, level crossing closures and so on.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    PaulieC
    Registered Users Posts: 6,190 ✭✭✭PaulieC


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    What the likes of Councillors Lacey and Geoghegan are proposing is a simple cycleway on the Promenade side, for whatever distance that can be provided for, not the bells and whistles of flyovers, level crossing closures and so on.

    All while knowing that it's not a simple thing to provide likely won't ever be done.


  • Options
    #128
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 23,849 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    PaulieC wrote: »
    All while knowing that it's not a simple thing to provide likely won't ever be done.

    Well then someone in the Council executive would want to get their thinking cap on and solve this problem of their own making, because as of now, no Strand Road and no flyover whizz bang project.


  • Options
    #129
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    there is that word likely in there, will believe it when I see it I guess

    https://twitter.com/IrishCycle/status/1349394239088693255

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #130
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 23,849 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    There'll be an high court injunction sought, if An Bord Pleanála aren't given time to consider this properly as they would all other local authority works of this scale, i.e. not while DCC are steamrolling due process and building it anyway.


  • Options
    #131
    Peregrine
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    I'm paraphrasing. But I'm not the one you need to be arguing this with.
    You made some false statements about section 38 and part 8. I was asking you to back them up. If you don't want to back them up, that's fine but you can't just claim that Dublin City Council are breaking the law and not be asked to explain how it's against the law.

    I would ask this STC crowd who are claiming it requires planning permission but they don't put their name to anything and they haven't offered much in the way of an explanation for why they think it requires planning permission either.
    Larbre34 wrote: »
    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.
    You're talking as if this is the first time there's been a similar proposal under section 38. 90%+ of cycling infrastructure in Dublin is built using section 38. Including the interim Liffey Cycle Route. Localised measures, you say? The full council voted overwhelmingly to ask the executive to use section 38 to build a 5km cycle route right in the middle of city using bollards like the ones on Strand Road.

    Council approves trial Liffey cycle route along Dublin's quays
    https://www.thejournal.ie/liffey-cycle-route-vote-dublin-city-council-5029469-Mar2020/
    Does that sound like any other proposal to you? If the same councillors are now telling the people of Sandymount that they're special and that the temporary bollards near their house requires planning permission then I'm sorry to break it to them but the councillors are just telling them what they want to hear to get some votes.

    Here are some of the "localised measures" that were carried out under section 38 last year:

    Coastal Mobility Route (DLR, 3.6km):
    KDmLzuw.png

    Carysfort Avenue (DLR, 1km):
    nngqmjD.png

    Griffith Avenue (Dublin City Council, 3.5km):
    qlCczBF.png

    qHxJ2rhl.png

    Interim Liffey Cycle Route (Dublin City Council, over 4km when finished):
    uxESbisl.png

    Hartstown Road (Fingal County Council, 3km):
    yGdOENYl.png

    Benildus Avenue (750m), Constitution Hill (250m), Goatstown Road (1.2km) all finished as above. In the last year.
    Larbre34 wrote: »
    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.

    What's the issue here? The road isn't being widened or realigned. Reallocating existing road space doesn't qualify as widening or realigning. Reallocating space using road markings, bollards and other materials comes under section 38. If the legal argument is that the provision of cycle lane markings and bollards changes the underlying fabric of the road then I'm afraid that argument will be dead on arrival. The regulation makes no reference to 'underlying fabric' of the road for starters. The question is, is it being widened or realigned? No. Even if it is widened at short sections, it won't add up to be anywhere near 100 metres so it would still be within section 38.

    Here's what's allowed under section 38. I've emboldened the measures that will likely be used for this and emboldened and italicised road widening. Road markings, bollards etc. are mentioned separately to road widening because, well, they're not road widening.
    and includes for the purposes of the above the provision of traffic signs, road markings, bollards, posts, poles, chicanes, rumble areas, raised, lowered or modified road surfaces, ramps, speed cushions, speed tables or other similar works or devices, islands or central reservations, roundabouts, modified junctions, works to reduce or modify the width of the roadway and landscaping, planting or other similar works. ]


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,982 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Letter in yesterday's Irish Times...
    Cycleway consultation
    Sir, – In “Sandymount residents seek Bord Pleanála intervention in cycle trial” (News, January 11th), you state that 56 per cent of respondents of the public consultation responded strongly in favour of proceeding with the Strand Road cycle trial.

    Unfortunately the consultation was flawed from the start.

    No traffic modelling or planning was carried out in advance of proposing this scheme. The information was only provided after the consultation had closed and the widespread adverse impacts identified.

    Voting was mainly done online, which allowed certain lobby groups to skew results by promoting it heavily for their members to vote. There was no mechanism to record where respondents were from, or their interest in the scheme.

    The public were not asked to either approve or disapprove the scheme; instead they were asked to share concerns or suggestions for the scheme.

    It is interesting to note that the article mentions the desire to “reduce the current community divisions”. This will be almost impossible to achieve because any mitigation measures proposed by Dublin City Council will pit street against street and neighbour against neighbour. Closing one road to traffic will simply push it into the next road. – Yours, etc,

    ALAYNA JOSEPH,
    Sandymount,
    Dublin 4.
    https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/cycleway-consultation-1.4457568

    Note that Ms. Joseph has written to the IT on this topic a few times...
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115389218&postcount=1439
    She must really be "pro-cycling"!

    Two replies today...
    Cycleways and public consultation
    Sir, – Much ink has been spilt over the proposed six-month trial of a cycleway on Strand Road in the Sandymount area of Dublin. Your most recent correspondent Alayna Joseph (Letters, January 14th) laments that Dublin City Council’s public consultation for the trial “was flawed from the start”, while noting that 56 per cent of respondents to the consultation strongly support the trial. I would suggest that the council has bent over backwards to take on board public opinion, including those of local residents.

    Since the council announced the proposed trial last year, it held a public consultation from August to September 2020. After the initial consultation, in October the council engaged with some Sandymount-based residents under the “STC” umbrella group to review their alternative proposal, and indeed the council published their suggested idea on the Dublin City Council website. In November, a formal presentation to councillors regarding that STC proposal occurred, with responses from the National Transport Authority and the council relating to the proposal. In addition, Hazel Chu, the Lord Mayor of Dublin, facilitated a forum with stakeholders to discuss the proposals even further.

    To me it sounds like politicians and Dublin City Council officials have made serious attempts to engage with these particular residents and listen to their concerns. However, Strand Road is a public road, it is not the exclusive domain of some residents in Sandymount, hence the general public consultation. Whether it is online, on paper or in person, the general public has a right to engage and it appears it has engaged on this particular trial proposal. Under the regulations Dublin City Council is working under, it can decide to accept or ignore the feedback, but it would generally be in its best interests to work with the feedback it has.

    Ultimately the council is the authority that is charged with managing this public space in the best interest of the public, and I wish all concerned well with the proposed trial. – Yours, etc,

    TERRY O’FLOINN,
    Bolquère, France.

    A chara, – In a letter arguing against the Strand Road cycleway, a correspondent argues that “Closing one road to traffic will simply push it into the next”. The idea that there is some fixed quantity of traffic that can only be moved from one place to the next is simply wrong. Ireland has spent decades attempting to solve traffic problems by building more roads. Private car ownership has trebled in the last 30 years, far faster than population growth, because when we build for cars, people use cars. The opposite is also true. When we build alternatives to cars – good public transport and safe cycleways – people use them instead. The Strand Road cycleway will not simply redirect traffic, it will reduce traffic. Reducing traffic will reduce pollution, reduce emissions, and improve public health. Build it. – Is mise,

    RAY CUNNINGHAM,
    Walkinstown, Dublin 12.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/cycleways-and-public-consultation-1.4458593


  • Options
    #133
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 23,849 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Peregrine wrote: »
    You made some false statements about section 38 and part 8

    In your fit of pique, your completely ignore what I said in my post about Part 8 v Section 38, that there is an argument to be made and that you and I will be on opposite sides of it. It'll be the job of An BP to decide it.

    I'll give you 10/10 for presentation, but I'm wondering who you went to so much trouble to convince, me or yourself?

    Yes, I'm fully aware that various cycle priority measures have been implemented around the City and Counties under Section 38 provisions, but even you have to admit, those examples you present are to a huge variety of scale and impact.

    And that fact makes my argument for me. Part 8 requirement for the larger scale works, has never been TESTED. And my long experience of these things tells me there is a case to be made for it.

    If the case is proven, it puts not only Strand Road in question, but also the existence of Seapoint-Dun Laoghaire, while others like the works you show in Hartstown would probably be fine under S.38.

    Its clear enough from Dublin City Council's vexed pronouncements during this week that they are concerned about this argument and that they have ants in their pants to press ahead with Strand Road, before somebody stops them. After all, it is in the finest of Irish tradition, to always ask for forgiveness never for permission.

    An Bord Pleanála will decide this. If they are given time to do so with due process, so much the better, then the decision will come and it will be either good news or bad news, for each of us.

    However, if DCC persist with attempts to, quite literally, to steamroll this one through in advance of An BP issuing an adjudication, they will be injuncted, putting any measures at all for Strand Road off, indefinitely. I suspect however, thats something you already know without me explaining it.


  • Options
    #134
    buffalo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,059 ✭✭✭buffalo


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    I'll give you 10/10 for presentation, but I'm wondering who you went to so much trouble to convince, me or yourself?

    What befuddled logic is this?

    "Your argument is so well presented and convincing that you must not believe it yourself".

    Perhaps you could provide us with some examples from your long experience? Or will that merely demonstrate that you're only trying to convince yourself that you're right?


  • Options
    #135
    Thelonious Monk
    Registered Users Posts: 13,917 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    I found this Tweet funny with all the Sandymount stuff going on

    https://mobile.twitter.com/foodsecurity_IE/status/1350029829618413571


  • Options
    #136
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,982 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    https://twitter.com/DublinCommuters/status/1350129676040216581?s=19


  • Options
    #137
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 23,849 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    DCC basically shooting themselves in the foot there. They've conceded some elements of a Part 8 process by getting the assessments done.

    But, you can't 'half do' a Part 8. You either do it, fully and officially, or you fail to do it and get challenged for your failure. I honestly don't know what they're afraid of, if they stand over this plan, then put it properly to planning scrutiny.


  • Options
    #138
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,531 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    I honestly don't know what they're afraid of
    What are you/STC afraid of in going ahead with a trial?


  • Options
    #139
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 23,849 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    What are you/STC afraid of in going ahead with a trial?

    I have no connection with STC and I don't live in the area. My own concern, as a business owner in and a citizen of this City is the segregation, isolation and creeping exclusivisation of parts of it, down to an over zealous bureaucracy and special interest lobbies, using the excuse of a temporary crisis situation to bring about big changes in an unchecked and improper manner.

    What I'm afraid of, and it seems to be a widely held fear, that if these measures are installed as a so-called trial, that this Council executive will turn themselves inside out to dress any outcome at all up as a success and the scheme will never be rescinded, even in the face of widespread anger and opposition.

    If these measures are legitimate in a Pandemic (when we're all supposed to be bloody well staying at home anyway) they will be legitimate at any time, for all time and should stand up to planning scrutiny intended to adjudicate on them.

    I've said before and discussed with local reps in Sandymount and elsewhere, what is to be become of the large scale housing developments under design for the Irish Glass Bottle site and Poolbeg peninsula, that have already factored in Strand Road as a regional road and public transport access route? Its a massively important issue and one that has not been properly addressed, but would be in a Part 8.

    So my question is, what is the City Council so afraid of in putting their own "unorthodox" (their words) plan through proper approval procedures?


  • Options
    #140
    Thelonious Monk
    Registered Users Posts: 13,917 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    Maybe most of the people in that housing development wont use cars, given their close proximity to everything? They might walk or cycle to places instead of taking the car if it's too much hassle? I live way further out from city centre and I don't use a car very often.
    We have to stop designing cities around cars, it isn't working out.


  • Options
    #141
    strandroad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,676 ✭✭✭strandroad


    Thelonious Monk wrote: »
    Maybe most of the people in that housing development wont use cars, given their close proximity to everything? They might walk or cycle to places instead of taking the car if it's too much hassle? I live way further out from city centre and I don't use a car very often.
    We have to stop designing cities around cars, it isn't working out.

    Won't they also have a Luas extension?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    donvito99
    Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    My own concern, as a business owner in and a citizen of this City is the segregation, isolation and creeping exclusivisation of parts of it, down to an over zealous bureaucracy and special interest lobbies, using the excuse of a temporary crisis situation to bring about big changes in an unchecked and improper manner.

    Drivers not having unfettered access to all parts of the city despite lots of roads in the city already excluding other road users = racism basically.


  • Options
    #143
    Thelonious Monk
    Registered Users Posts: 13,917 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    strandroad wrote: »
    Won't they also have a Luas extension?

    Havent heard about that but yes even now Luas and dart stations and a quick bus to the airport via the tunnel are walking distance. If you're worried about car traffic maybe live elsewhere. I would love to live in that development regardless of one way roads nearby, but obviously will be way beyond my paygrade and dont qualify for social.


  • Options
    #144
    donvito99
    Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    an over zealous bureaucracy
    "Over zealous bureaucracy" = the will of those elected by Dubliners to the City Council.


  • Options
    #145
    Weepsie
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 19,932 Mod ✭✭✭✭Weepsie


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    I have no connection with STC and I don't live in the area. My own concern, as a business owner in and a citizen of this City is the segregation, isolation and creeping exclusivisation of parts of it, down to an over zealous bureaucracy and special interest lobbies, using the excuse of a temporary crisis situation to bring about big changes in an unchecked and improper manner.

    What about the private business owners who for years successfully lobbied to resist and change and made the city all the worse for it, ignoring all the studies done elsewhere showing the net gains brought about to small businesses by making cities more cycle centric etc etc.

    You are feigning concern imo, just as busines oweners in the past have,

    If you're so concerned with segration, you should want less road space given over to the use of private vehicles, as they are the biggest and most wasteful users on our public roads ultimately making a vast amount of space unusable for most people.


  • Options
    #146
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 23,849 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    donvito99 wrote: »
    "Over zealous bureaucracy" = the will of those elected by Dubliners to the City Council.

    No, it isn't. The executive are the unelected permanent officials, headed by Chief Exec, Owen Keegan. The majority of the local (elected) Councillors are at odds with the executive over this, as the Councillors have no function to approve Section 38 measures, which in my opinion is why the executive are attempting to use it.


  • Options
    #147
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 23,849 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    donvito99 wrote: »
    Drivers not having unfettered access to all parts of the city despite lots of roads in the city already excluding other road users = racism basically.

    The other roads in the City that exclude vehicular traffic are, by their nature, City Centre streets that are ideal for pedestrianisation and creating ambient social and commercial spaces in the open air.

    The fact that Strand Road bears no resemblance to those streets, in profile or in purpose, only supports my argument further.


  • Options
    #148
    sy_flembeck
    Registered Users Posts: 885 ✭✭✭sy_flembeck


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    If these measures are legitimate in a Pandemic (when we're all supposed to be bloody well staying at home anyway) they will be legitimate at any time, for all time and should stand up to planning scrutiny intended to adjudicate on them.

    We're all entitled to exercise outdoors up to 5km from our houses


  • Options
    #149
    markpb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,255 ✭✭✭markpb


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    The other roads in the City that exclude vehicular traffic are, by their nature, City Centre streets that are ideal for pedestrianisation and creating ambient social and commercial spaces in the open air.

    The fact that Strand Road bears no resemblance to those streets, in profile or in purpose, only supports my argument further.

    The other roads that exclude vehicular traffic..... all four of them. It’s hardly precedent setting.
    sy_flembeck wrote: »
    We're all entitled to exercise outdoors up to 5km from our houses

    Some of us still have to go to work and public transport has been decimated. It’s another red herring by Larbre to try to make out that these measures are all about giving cyclists a fun cycle lane.


  • Options
    #150
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 23,849 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    markpb wrote: »
    Some of us still have to go to work and public transport has been decimated. It’s another red herring by Larbre to try to make out that these measures are all about giving cyclists a fun cycle lane.

    The numbers evident on the Seapoint-Dun Laoghaire cyclelane that I see at different times every single day, make me think thats exactly what it is going to be.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,982 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    The numbers evident on the Seapoint-Dun Laoghaire cyclelane that I see at different times every single day, make me think thats exactly what it is going to be.
    Coincidentally I'm just after seeing this tweet...

    https://twitter.com/glutenfreeMark/status/1350465343471419397?s=19


Advertisement