Contact councillors for Liffey Cycleway today/tomorrow

amyplify

Guys, who created the liffeycycle[dot]com site? I've emailed because I'm very invested in the outcome but people need this to be as easy as possible so I would suggest a cut and paste email template...

magicbastarder

there's mention earlier in the thread about certain councillors not voting tomorrow because they're not on the transport committee; who is?

i.e. who is best to mail tonight (not that i expect they'll read my mails in the morning)?

tomasrojo

amyplify wrote: »

Guys, who created the liffeycycle[dot]com site? I've emailed because I'm very invested in the outcome but people need this to be as easy as possible so I would suggest a cut and paste email template...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=103390115&postcount=48

magicbastarder

aha! question answered.

magicbastarder

mail sent - knocked out in a hurry, conscious i didn't 'big up' option 7 enough:

"Councillor, I am writing to you in relation to the Liffey Cycle Route plan, albeit as someone who fortunately does not have to cycle along the quays, and as someone breathing a sigh of relief that I won't have to cycle the proposed 'Option 8' route which I believe may be the current favourite option.

However, I am a commuting cyclist (Dublin 9 to Dublin 18, so crossing the Liffey rather than cycling along it) who cannot but benefit from an increased presence and visibility of cyclists on Dublin streets, which I believe helps normalise and 'de-dangerise' what is an efficient and healthy mode of transport. But looking at the proposed option 8, I can see no benefit in this plan, especially as a result of how the proposed plan deals with junctions; I am just a little tired at this point of cycling infrastructure which does great work for cyclists as long as you're *not* near a junction, but simply throws its hands in the air in defeat when encountering one.

It's worth stressing that junctions are generally the danger point for cyclists, and the map of the proposed plan at one junction (attached) seems perverse in its willingness to make life difficult and dangerous for cyclists. The cyclist is swung from what appears to be a boardwalk - so as to ensure they're not in the 'mental radar' of any motorists on the quays - across a pedestrian footpath (!), out in front of motorists who were not fully aware of your presence, through the junction, and has to then do the converse of the previous manouevre to remove themselves from in front of the cars - who they're quite possibly going faster than anyway. I cannot think of a worse way of designing a junction for cyclists which would not make me look like I was being absurd for the sake of it.

However, I think the issue which riles me most - but is harder to articulate as it's a little more ideological - is the clearly implied conclusion that motorists are somehow more highly valued than cyclists. I can assure you, that when I am driving, I do not value myself more highly than when I do when on the bike. I would urge you to take this approach into consideration when evaluating the proposals for the Liffey cycle route - to view the traffic flow not as a flow of vehicles, but as a flow of people, and reach the logical conclusion about what is safest, healthiest, and most efficient use of the space available.

I am sure you will also be receiving representations from businesses (such as the ones mentioned publically from the Dublin Convention Centre and Point Village); not to denigrate their business concerns, I would hope that Dublin will be seen as a city with the best interests of its inhabitants at heart, with the interests of those businesses serving the same goals, rather than the converse.

Thank you for your time in reading to this point - there are many more issues facing cyclists in Dublin, but I appreciate the demands on your time mean they will probably have to wait for another day."

magicbastarder

to be fair to ciaran cuffe, he's responded with what seems to be an email either cleverly constructed, or one which is a direct reply to me.

Smokeyskelton

This appears to be the list of the councillors on the Transportation SPC:

http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-your-council-strategic-policy-committee-corporate-policy-group/transport-traffic

I just emailed those on the committee as I don't have time to email all councillors this evening.

magicbastarder

as the email from ciaran cuffe seemed to be a direct response to my email, i don't want to quote it fully here, but he did say that most emails he is receiving are concerns from local residents, and non-local cyclists.

and this is a large part of the issue. many (most?) people using the quays - if they're writing to their local politicians - will not be writing to politicians who will be worried about canvassing votes in that area. and that's a difficult square to circle. if i lived in smithfield, i wouldn't be worried about cycling into the city centre. you'd walk it in the same time it'd take to find a safe place to lock your bike.

HivemindXX

magicbastarder wrote: »

as the email from ciaran cuffe seemed to be a direct response to my email, i don't want to quote it fully here, but he did say that most emails he is receiving are concerns from local residents, and non-local cyclists.

Hopefully this doesn't indicate an attitude that ignores the concerns of non-local cyclists. As you correctly point out we are the commuters that will have to actually use this route.

Yes, don't put in a route that will be bad for the locals. Although I don't agree that option 7 is particularly bad. As we've seen discussed it is very unlikely that all these cars will suddenly start driving through quiet residential streets as a result of option 7. Anything that increases traffic on the quays, for example those new buildings down in docklands, will have the same effect. The quays are jammed in the morning, the overflow is already going wherever it is going to go. However, if the decision is that option 7 is too bad for the locals then that's fine.

This does not mean option 8 should be implemented. This is a bad design. I can't believe anyone can look at the design of the junction for Mellow's Bridge and claim this is a good solution for cyclists or pedestrians. Dublin Town obviously defies belief. I think the opinion of the people who will actually be using this route should be listened to and should in fact be the main concern. Option 7 was killed because local residents thought it would be bad for them, ably helped by Dublin Town. Actual commuters should be able to kill option 8 on the same basis. It is bad for us. It will cause conflict and endanger us.

Apparently it is politically impossible to remove cars from the quays. Fine. Appallingly backward in this day and age, but fine. Either come up with a solution that improves the situation for public transport, cyclists and pedestrians taking that principle ("First, harm no cars") in to account or do nothing. I'm like a broken record but I feel I have to keep saying it. Don't make things worse. Option 8 is worse than nothing.

Personally I dislike two way cycle lanes and they are, in my opinion, a particularly bad idea on the one way system on the quays. My preferred plan out of the initial four was option four. This was a one way segregated cycle lane on each side of the quays. Perhaps this could be revisited instead of incrementally building on an option that has been rejected multiple times now. Maybe the river side footpaths could be eliminated to create space to allow the cars and busses to shove over and create a one way segregated cycle lane on the building side. The boardwalk could still be put in for pedestrians, although I don't see very many pedestrians on the river side. This was suggested as part of option 1. I guess the south quays are a sticky problem with the way they switch from two lanes to three and back again. Perhaps this is an opportunity to grasp that nettle and sort it out. Something that improves things, anything that improves things, would be better than making things worse.

I'm not sure I understand the benefits of option 8 anyway. I think the downsides are painfully obvious, but what are the upsides? For cyclists I guess this is that we are segregated except when we are dumped back out in to traffic at junctions (like every other cycle lane). It seems like this does nothing positive for pedestrians so they only have "massively increased conflict with cyclists" on their feature list. Does it do anything to improve things for busses, coaches and taxis? It seems like business as usual except you are relying on private cars to play nice and not block the yellow box at the pinch points. Is that right? Who exactly is this thing helping? Is it just supposed to be cyclists?

magicbastarder

HivemindXX wrote: »

Hopefully this doesn't indicate an attitude that ignores the concerns of non-local cyclists. As you correctly point out we are the commuters that will have to actually use this route.

ciaran cuffe lives in stoneybatter. i'd say he's getting it in the ear from his neighbours.

Corca Baiscinn

HivemindXX wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand the benefits of option 8 anyway. I think the downsides are painfully obvious, but what are the upsides? For cyclists I guess this is that we are segregated except when we are dumped back out in to traffic at junctions (like every other cycle lane). It seems like this does nothing positive for pedestrians so they only have "massively increased conflict with cyclists" on their feature list. Does it do anything to improve things for busses, coaches and taxis? It seems like business as usual except you are relying on private cars to play nice and not block the yellow box at the pinch points. Is that right? Who exactly is this thing helping? Is it just supposed to be cyclists?

Option 8 seems to have been conjured up as a solution to two problems, Firstly as you say "harm no cars" so don't send them on a diversion;secondly and perhaps more understandably, allay the concerns of the Stoneybatter residents re having diverted traffic sent up their way. so the answer to you r question is drivers and residents. I guess it was meant to benefit cyclists too as the planners are saying, "Look you can have your Phoenix Park to the Point cycle route along the quays but you have to compromise a little bit on the section around Ellis Quay". So to people who don't cycle, it seems grand, everybody happy.
As you and so many here are saying of course the compromise is unworkable for all the reasons stated. since the plan emerged on Friday last and there has only been one normal working day since I don't think its reasonable to expect people to have digested the issues raised and to make a rational decision this afternoon.
However, to those saying the cause is lost and option 8 it is, don't forget that that will involve ABP so there will still be time to make objections and I would hope that cyclists doing so would be joined by pedestrian and PT interests. One of the SPC members for eg represents blind people

magicbastarder

HivemindXX wrote: »

Hopefully this doesn't indicate an attitude that ignores the concerns of non-local cyclists.

an argument for a publically elected mayor of dublin?
i see this as an infrastructural issue, an issue that should serve the city as a whole, but it's not best served by being decided by councillors.

and i don't mind councillors being focussed on the local issues of their constituents, that's their job - the concern here is that this is not a local issue for local people.

fat bloke

I got what appears to be a direct response to my mail too, but he's hardly emailing everyone individually is he?

He thanked me for being direct.... which I was. Which would at least lead me to believe he read it!

magicbastarder

i get the impression he's a bit outnumbered in the council.

robyntmorton

As chair of the transport SPC, there is a lot of doublethink being practised by Cuffe...

http://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-city-traffic-plans-3368958-May2017/

Councillor Ciar?n Cuffe, chair of the Transportation SPC and the Green Party’s transport spokesperson, has criticised the development.
“People need to access the city centre but these measures will delay bus users at the expense of car drivers.
There is a real danger that we’re being too generous to the car driver and in doing so discriminating against those who use public transport. Bus and tram users should not be treated like second-class citizens.

robyntmorton

Cuffe was a good representative during his time in DLRCC, but he is trying to be all things to all groups here, and it is not going to work.

magicbastarder

who'd be a politician, eh?

Annie get your Run

fat bloke wrote: »

I got what appears to be a direct response to my mail too, but he's hardly emailing everyone individually is he?

He thanked me for being direct.... which I was. Which would at least lead me to believe he read it!

He's definitely responding individually, I've had 3 emails from him now (in response to my responses). He's also definitely outnumbered on the council but I don't think that's a reason to vote for option 8 and I said as much to him. My preference would be nothing rather than option 8 and come back to it again. I'm guessing the vote will unanimously be option 8 though If it is can we organise a protest??

Corca Baiscinn

robyntmorton wrote: »

As chair of the transport SPC, there is a lot of doublethink being practised by Cuffe...

http://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-city-traffic-plans-3368958-May2017/

Not sure it can be called doublethink or speaking out of both sides of his mouth as think that comment mainly relates to the Eden Quay about turn. but yes, there is an element of inconsistency as buses will also be delayed at Ellis Quay. I suppose there's more diappointment re someone you thought was on your side appearing not to be than over someone like Mannix Flynn who we never expected to be supportive. councillor Paddy smyth of FG is a geat cycling advocate too and like Ciaran gets it in the neck for it. it will be interesting to hear what he has to say on the topic.
Meeting will be livestreamed for anyone who's free but I think there's another topic first so probably get to Options 7/8 around 4 30

HivemindXX

fat bloke wrote: »

I got what appears to be a direct response to my mail too, but he's hardly emailing everyone individually is he?

He thanked me for being direct.... which I was. Which would at least lead me to believe he read it!

I don't know about everyone but he certainly seems to be replying directly to multiple people here including me. In fact he sent me three mails yesterday since I replied twice with the last one being around midnight. I cannot fault his work ethic or willingness to engage with the public. I don't make a habit of emailing public representatives but I have done so a few times over the decades and this is the first time I remember getting a reply that didn't seem to be a form letter or a formulaic brush off written by a secretary. "The minister values your concerns and is working to...blah blah blah".

I sympathise with his position. He has been trying to get this thing done for a very long time now and this looks like the final version. One that is finally acceptable to the residents of Stoneybatter etc and the car fans in Dublin Town and the car parks. This should be enough to get past councillors like Mannix Flynn and Nial Ring who seem to just hate cyclists.

It is difficult to accept and perhaps difficult to notice, but the forces arrayed against this plan, who were always against it, have chipped away at it and option 8 may be acceptable to them but it is no longer acceptable to the people it is supposed to be helping. They need to go back to the drawing board and start again, or back to a previous idea like option 4 and try to make that work. If they can't then they should drop the idea completely. Maybe in a few years (who am I kidding) the idea of a congestion charge will be acceptable and Stoneybatter will accept taking cars off the quays in combination with a big reduction in car traffic via the congestion charge. The people behind Dublin Town can eat a bag of dicks.

magicbastarder

Corca Baiscinn wrote: »

I suppose there's more diappointment re someone you thought was on your side appearing not to be

i'd be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. there's an element of realpolitik involved here, and there's a damn good chance that pushing for option 7 would result in precisely nothing being done.

there's a difference in someone not being on your side, and them not being able to deliver what you'd like them to, or having to compromise on that.

magicbastarder

HivemindXX wrote: »

I don't make a habit of emailing public representatives but I have done so a few times over the decades and this is the first time I remember getting a reply that didn't seem to be a form letter or a formulaic brush off written by a secretary.

cllr. andrew montague gave me very good responses to a couple of issues i raised, and seems to be a cyclist also.

Chuchote

There's only one solution - a cycling flyover, above the traffic and its pollution

Corca Baiscinn

Chuchote wrote: »

There's only one solution - a cycling flyover, above the traffic and its pollution

Proper order...sure we're onlya nuisance to all other road users but pray tell,do you envisage a pulley system for the steep ramp up to the flyover or will we just zoom up!

Chuchote

Corca Baiscinn wrote: »

Proper order...sure we're onlya nuisance to all other road users but pray tell,do you envisage a pulley system for the steep ramp up to the flyover or will we just zoom up!

Annie get your Run

HivemindXX wrote: »

It is difficult to accept and perhaps difficult to notice, but the forces arrayed against this plan, who were always against it, have chipped away at it and option 8 may be acceptable to them but it is no longer acceptable to the people it is supposed to be helping. They need to go back to the drawing board and start again, or back to a previous idea like option 4 and try to make that work. If they can't then they should drop the idea completely..

This, absolutely this. There is zero point in spending taxpayers money on an option that is not workable for the users. I said as much in my reply to him. We will be villains then for not using the lovely cycle lane they spent money on. If option 8 is voted through we all need to email them again and say we won't use it - before one hole is dug or line painted on the road.

magicbastarder

i got a short and to the point email from councillor horgan jones that she will be supporting option 7.

Corca Baiscinn

Well done all! Beidh L? Eile ag an bPaorach! I wasn't able to listen to the Livestream but the fact that Option 8 wasn't approved gives us breathing space and time to have a plan of campaign as it were.

Chuchote

Perhaps, but it gives breathing space. The most important thing is to find actual figures on what happened elsewhere - what was the effect on neighbouring streets when cycleways were made.

IrishCycle has an interesting piece

http://irishcycle.com/2017/03/19/heres-why-claims-about-the-liffey-cycle-route-are-scaremongering/

A plan to remove car traffic from Ellis Quay and Arran Quay — which allows for walking, cycling and bus priority along the quays — is the main point of contention. But what exactly are the public figures who oppose the route saying and is there any substance to it?

The two main people who have criticised the project are: Cllr Ray McAdam (Fine Gael) and Janice Boylan (Sinn Féin). There’s also the former Dublin Central Labour TD and current chairman of Stoneybatter Pride of Place, Joe Costello.

Cllr Ray McAdam has said on his website: “I will continue to lead the resistance to any proposal associated with the Liffey Cycle Route that will have a detrimental impact on Stoneybatter, Church Street, Arbour Hill, Montpelier, Infirmary Road and Phibsborough.” But what’s the bases for this and is he mainly worried about local car users?

(snip of quotes from councillors warning traffic will go into Stoneybatter, etc)

The problem with the above statements is that they are not factual. First, the council is not proposing that all of the traffic will divert up any one route — on his own website, Cllr McAdam quotes a response from the city council, which states: “…it is not considered that all of the cars that currently use this section will divert to the north side with some diverting earlier, some to the South and some to alternative modes.”

Cllr Boylan’s suggestion that the traffic will go via the “small village of Stoneybatter” is something Cllr McAdam also seems to have implied and the Dublin People newspaper reported that Joe Costello said “extra traffic will split the village of Stoneybatter”. Why would traffic which currently uses Ellis Quay (which is east of Blackhall Place) go via Stoneybatter and Mannor Street (which are northwest of Blackhall Place) when it’s nearly the oppsite direction?

It's a long piece, which merits close reading, with good figures, including the traffic now being 400 cars an hour at peak, not the 600 the councillors have worried about.

ThisRegard

Pay Kenny dealing with it now.