Clontarf bike lane - what a shambles

Alanstrainor

The section without the capping is further north outside St.Annes park. Which I think is where this whole wall height problem is.

cdaly_

The current method of waterproofing the gaps is with sandbags.

mr spuckler

Vizzy wrote: »

Is that a pic of the current set-up ? cos there is capping on the wall and I got the impression from the discussion thus far that when the capping was to be installed that it would be over the permitted height in the planning permission and that was the reason that the wall now needs to be lowered.
If the wall is to prevent flooding there will have to be some way of "waterproofing " the gaps i.e. flood gates that can be removed.

As regards the drains backing up, they may simply be "existing drains" and not form part of the flood relief scheme.
Did the road flood during heavy rain previously ?

Another issue to note is that once the wall stops the sea from flooding the area, it also stops water escaping the other way unless there is proper drainage/valves/pumping in place

the "€5m cycleway" as it is often referred to was actually a 3 pronged project. 1) a complete rebuild of the roadway, 2) drainage and flood prevention works and 3) new paths and cycleway.

Mercian Pro

mr spuckler wrote: »

the "€5m cycleway" as it is often referred to was actually a 4 pronged project. 1) a complete rebuild of the roadway, 2) drainage and flood prevention works and 3) new paths and cycleway.

....4) installation of a major new water main.

mr spuckler

Mercian Pro wrote: »

....4) installation of a major new water main.

there was always going to be something i couldn't think of

ted1

Mercian Pro wrote: »

mr spuckler wrote: »

the "€5m cycleway" as it is often referred to was actually a 4 pronged project. 1) a complete rebuild of the roadway, 2) drainage and flood prevention works and 3) new paths and cycleway.

....4) installation of a major new water main.

5) reduction of wall height
6) PR spin

CramCycle

ted1 wrote: »

5) reduction of wall height
6) PR spin

That is part of the €7.5million cycle path :pac:

LennoxR

Question: Will the wall fiasco mean the cycle lane is closed again during work on lowering it?

odyssey06

LennoxR wrote: »

Question: Will the wall fiasco mean the cycle lane is closed again during work on lowering it?

I don't think that's been publicly declared by DCC, but I can't see how they could do the works to the wall (and remember it includes applying the finishing which was never done) without closing the path, at least in part.

mr spuckler

LennoxR wrote: »

Question: Will the wall fiasco mean the cycle lane is closed again during work on lowering it?

I previously asked the guys at Clontarf.ie - who had been providing really good and thorough updates on the S2S - to ask this question of the council. they promised that they would but haven't published an answer to date...

expectationlost

mr spuckler wrote: »

I previously asked the guys at Clontarf.ie - who had been providing really good and thorough updates on the S2S - to ask this question of the council. they promised that they would but haven't published an answer to date...

the guys at clontarf.ie are the reason the wall is being lowered

mr spuckler

expectationlost wrote: »

the guys at clontarf.ie are the reason the wall is being lowered

i think there are several reasons, but thanks for the simplification

Mercian Pro

LennoxR wrote: »

Question: Will the wall fiasco mean the cycle lane is closed again during work on lowering it?

The Part 8 Planning Report says the selected contractor will have to produce a traffic management plan on how pedestrians and cyclists will be affected but, you'll be glad to hear, motor traffic on the road will not be affected. It is estimated that the work will take 6-8 weeks but there could be interruptions if the birds in the lagoon are disturbed! Given how long the original contract overran, it will be interesting to see if the 6-8 week programme is achieved.

magicbastarder

as someone commented on twitter, could they not just spend the €500k buying booster seats for motorists?

John_Rambo

magicbastarder wrote: »

as someone commented on twitter, could they not just spend the €500k buying booster seats for motorists?

Yeah, fair enough, but if the wall somehow, magically obstructed the views of cyclists, walkers and buses and left a perfect view for motorists there would be similar outrage, from similar well educated, well healed people of the same ilk spitting bile about the motorists getting a favorable view of the bay on their way in to work.

The fact remains, DCC F'd up.

Unfortunately it was DCC and not a developer that F'd up.

Fortunately locals spotted the F'up.

It has to be fixed.

Unfortunately the tax payer pays for DCC's f'k up.

We can split hairs and argue what road user deserves the view and further split the cyclist/motorist debate, but the fact remains that DCC agreed that the sight lines throughout the North Bay area wouldn't be affected and they renaeged on that deal.

It speaks for itself that they're fixing it now.

buffalo

John_Rambo wrote: »

We can split hairs and argue what road user deserves the view and further split the cyclist/motorist debate, but the fact remains that DCC agreed that the sight lines throughout the North Bay area wouldn't be affected and they renaeged on that deal.

There's no cyclist/motorist debate here. There's a common sense vs pandering to motorists debate.

odyssey06

magicbastarder wrote: »

as someone commented on twitter, could they not just spend the €500k buying booster seats for motorists?

I will gladly withdraw my objection if they upgrade my ancient hatchback to an SUV with a higher seat!

* Objection has been made for the purposes of this post only.

recedite

Mercian Pro wrote: »

It is estimated that the work will take 6-8 weeks but there could be interruptions if the birds in the lagoon are disturbed!

Has anybody asked these birds whether they want a view of the cars speeding past? Disturbing their peace and tranquility

HivemindXX

John_Rambo wrote: »

Yeah, fair enough, but if the wall somehow, magically obstructed the views of cyclists, walkers and buses and left a perfect view for motorists there would be similar outrage, from similar well educated, well healed people of the same ilk spitting bile about the motorists getting a favorable view of the bay on their way in to work.

If that somehow happened, those cyclists, pedestrians and bus passengers who demanded a flood defence was reduced at a cost of hundreds of thousand would be idiots, the same as the idiots who are currently objecting. As someone already said this isn't a motorist v cyclist issue, it's a normal person v idiot issue.

The wall is not broken. The only thing broken is the fact that apparently these ridiculous people can't simply be ignored.

John_Rambo

HivemindXX wrote: »

If that somehow happened, those cyclists, pedestrians and bus passengers who demanded a flood defence was reduced at a cost of hundreds of thousand would be idiots, the same as the idiots who are currently objecting. As someone already said this isn't a motorist v cyclist issue, it's a normal person v idiot issue.

The wall is not broken. The only thing broken is the fact that apparently these ridiculous people can't simply be ignored.

Calm down on the name calling! Nobody demanded flood defenses on this stretch of the coast. The planning permission stated that no sight lines would be affected. The sight lines have been affected for cyclists, walkers and runners in the park as well as motorists. Human beings did complain! Call them what you want, motorists, cyclists, bus users etc... But the fact remains that DCC built the wall to high and they got called out on it by locals and people that care for the area.

It's a stunning part of the country, one of the only city Unesco Biosphere in Europe and the view of the bay in integral to the Biosphere.

You can't just build walls higher than planning in areas of beauty, be it Kerry, Donegal, the Shannon or Dublin.

Mercian Pro

John_Rambo wrote: »

The fact remains, DCC F'd up.

Agreed - they should have ignored the well orchestrated objections of the Clontarf Residents Association. This is the same residents association that has blocked much needed flood protection measures elsewhere on the Clontarf seafront.

DCC obtained Part 8 and Bord Pleanala approval for a 4.25m OD wall opposite St Anne's in Dec 2011 and again, for the as built scheme, in April 2013. Both these approvals involved public consultation. Only when the wall was partially built in line with this approval did the residents kick up a fuss. Under pressure from local Councillors, DCC appointed Dr Jimmy Murphy of UCC to review the design criteria used. Most other experts considered had been involved in the earlier designs and had to be excluded. He agreed the height was justified based on analyses of extreme weather conditions but acknowledged that views from the roadway would be restricted. He proposed a compromise wall height of 3.95m OD that allows for flooding of the road in extreme events but won't affect any private properties. This height was subsequently found to be too low to prevent pedestrians falling over the wall so a finished height of 4.06m OD in places is now proposed.

The original approved finish of the wall was concrete render similar to most of the sea wall nearer to Fairview. Again, under pressure from local Councillors, the residents association and the Environmental Liaison Committee (with resident associations well represented), DCC agreed to apply blue limestone "stick-a-stone" to mimic the genuine stone walls of the park opposite.

Welcome to the wonderful world of local democracy where NIMBYism is King.

CramCycle

John_Rambo wrote: »

The sight lines have been affected for cyclists, walkers and runners in the park

I don't think it does but thats just me.

It's a stunning part of the country, one of the only city Unesco Biosphere in Europe and the view of the bay in integral to the Biosphere.

I would disagree with this, being able to see the biosphere does'nt contribute to it, its nice but it doesn't affect, much like looking at a tree falling in the forest, if you don't see it, doesn't mean it will stay standing.

magicbastarder

my wife used to work in a section of DCC where they took phone calls from outraged clontarf residents who would ring up and object when large sandbags were placed in advance of expected storm surges. i suspect she has little sympathy for many of them.

odyssey06

Mercian Pro wrote: »

DCC obtained Part 8 and Bord Pleanala approval for a 4.25m OD wall opposite St Anne's in Dec 2011 and again, for the as built scheme, in April 2013. Both these approvals involved public consultation. Only when the wall was partially built in line with this approval did the residents kick up a fuss...
The original approved finish of the wall was concrete render similar to most of the sea wall nearer to Fairview. Again, under pressure from local Councillors, the residents association and the Environmental Liaison Committee (with resident associations well represented), DCC agreed to apply blue limestone "stick-a-stone" to mimic the genuine stone walls of the park opposite.

The residents only kicked up a fuss after the wall was built because the public consultation was no such thing. It was a sham exercise. It was in no meaningful sense of the word a consultation.

Condition 3 of the planning permission for the wall specifies a natural stone or stone pattern finish... it was not invented by locals.

The Clontarf Residents Association doesnt have the power to invent requirements to get DCC to spend 500k...
There are only 6 councillors for Clontarf but 31 voted for the works.

Its not nimbyism which is about diverting unwelcome projects elsewhere ... here everyone is well aware there is no elsewhere that this can be kicked to... we cant build a wall in ringsend to protect clontarf for example.
Its about the people who live in an area having a proper input into decisions that impact them.

odyssey06

Clonmels new flood defences are built to a 1 in 100 year flood event standard. No one accuses them of nimbyism... I think some people have a chip on their shoulder when it comes to Clontarf.

ford2600

odyssey06 wrote: »

Clonmels new flood defences are built to a 1 in 100 year flood event standard. No one accuses them of nimbyism... I think some people have a chip on their shoulder when it comes to Clontarf.

Clonmel's wall along the Quay has destroyed the aesthetic amenity of a river side walk in the town centre in order to protect the town. The projecting vertical Beams for the extension are particularly ugly.

The much more expensive option of glass, as used for sections in Waterford, should have been used along the New Quay.

I spent 8 years living about 5m from the sea; it's majestic. The smell, the sound, the wildlife, the view. Taking away the view, while some may view as trivial, is a loss. I had a happy house once I kept the hedge cut 😀

ted1

They used glass on the dodder flood wall in ballsbridge.

odyssey06

ted1 wrote: »

They used glass on the dodder flood wall in ballsbridge.

Apparently at present glass defences are ok for river protection but cant handle wave surges from the sea.
Plus significant extra cost.

That may change by the time higher defences are needed across Clontarf and Dublin in general.

magicbastarder

from a david mcwilliams article in the IT (it's not about the sea wall, this is just a preamble):

“If the Dutch lived in Ireland they’d feed the world, but if the Irish lived in Holland, they’d drown.”

This old joke came to mind when reading about Clontarf this week. Rather than address the fundamental problem of too many cars on the road at rush hour, Dublin City Council will seek to make the daily “traffic-jam experience” more bearable by lowering the sea wall to improve motorists’ view of Dublin Bay.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/david-mcwilliams-ireland-is-at-risk-of-dutch-disease-1.3352272
(link is subscriber-only)

Wishbone Ash

Do people actually need to look at the sea? I don't think I ever think of looking at it when I'm on the Clontarf track.

I lived in two houses with sea views and I'd say I looked at it about once per year. It all in people's heads.