Bicycles, Phoenix Park and traffic

KevRossi

beauf wrote: »

Well its a park not a public road.
Do they have to consult with anyone if they close a gate.
I have no idea I'm just asking.

OPW run the Park and can open and close gates as they see fit. They even have their own policing crew in there - Park Rangers. You are obliged to follow their instructions whilst in there. They can close Chesterfield Ave. as well as they see fit.

Totally different kettle of fish to what they do on Strand Rd.

magicbastarder

Larbre34 wrote: »

local authorities and bodies like the OPW absolutely can't just do what they like overnight.

you have a fierce quare understanding of the word 'overnight'.

Thelonious Monk

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/phoenix-park-traffic-parking-plans-are-flawed-says-varadkar-1.4511794

So Leo wont let this happen now either. I think really the best we can hope for is that as private car ownership continues to soar, the city becomes so gridlocked that even Mannix etc will agree it can't carry on this way. Space is limited in the city but they put private cars first, so it can only lead to disaster.

beauf

LOL. Never seen quare written before only spoken So had to look it up.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Quare Not entirely sure why it returned vaxhole in that.

Larbre34

magicbastarder wrote: »

you have a fierce quare understanding of the word 'overnight'.

What? I'm quoting beauf and disagreeing with him.

beauf

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/phoenix-park-traffic-parking-plans-are-flawed-says-varadkar-1.4511794

So Leo wont let this happen now either. I think really the best we can hope for is that as private car ownership continues to soar, the city becomes so gridlocked that even Mannix etc will agree it can't carry on this way. Space is limited in the city but they put private cars first, so it can only lead to disaster.

I thought he was national politician first and a local one a very distant second.

Larbre34

Varadkar is representing his constituents, and fair dues. I had much that conversation with Senator Currie so I'm glad they've come together to represent people's concerns.

Thelonious Monk

Larbre34 wrote: »

Varadkar is representing his constituents, and fair dues. I had much that conversation with Senator Currie so I'm glad they've come together to represent people's concerns.

Do you not think we should be moving away from basing society around private cars? It is not sustainable. Access needs to be restricted more and more in the city.

Larbre34

beauf wrote: »

I thought he was national politician first and a local one a very distant second.

He's both equally. And it's very much Emer Currie doing the local engagement on this.

I don't think that should be the case by the way, I think we should have list system so he could only represent national issues, but thats not the Constitution we have, so....

Larbre34

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Do you not think we should be moving away from basing society around private cars? It is not sustainable. Access needs to be restricted more and more in the city.

Absolutely. However that's not what the FG reps are saying.

They are saying what I thought from the beginning, that the preferred option will cause chaos outside the Park in residential areas.

Bikes and walking should still be the priority in the Park, they should implement option 7b for the shared orbital route and all gates open on an alternate in/out pattern. There is no need to impose congestion on neighbourhoods in the vicinity.

Thelonious Monk

So how do we stop all this car usage that has cars parked wherever they want all over the city and parks etc choked with cars?
It cant be done without upsetting some people, eggs and omelette and all that.

Larbre34

beauf wrote: »

Well its a park not a public road.
Do they have to consult with anyone if they close a gate.
I have no idea I'm just asking.

They tried it. Some of us got that overturned, saying they had extinguished rights of way without consultation and that they would have to publish new byelaws etc to make such impactful changes. We were proven right when the OPW rescinded the closures.

This current consultation is an effort to address all of these issues for the future with public input and thats fair enough.

beauf

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

So how do we stop all this car usage that has cars parked wherever they want all over the city and parks etc choked with cars?
It cant be done without upsetting some people, eggs and omelette and all that.

You need to discourage from taking cars when they don't need to.

But that doesn't mean you have to make it nightmare for journeys that require a car.

beauf

Larbre34 wrote: »

They tried it. Some of us got that overturned, saying they had extinguished rights of way without consultation and that they would have to publish new byelaws etc to make such impactful changes. We were proven right when the OPW rescinded the closures.

This current consultation is an effort to address all of these issues for the future with public input and thats fair enough.

Was it actually challenged in court or simply public pressure.

Weepsie

Larbre34 wrote: »

Varadkar is representing his constituents, and fair dues. I had much that conversation with Senator Currie so I'm glad they've come together to represent people's concerns.

He's representing some of them. But not all. Much like 7% of the vote Mannix flynn is representing constituents of an area he does not represent.

It's not so long that I remember meeting him in Ashington promising everything in the world for cycling infrastructure. He's a massive spoofer and will always sway with whatever gets him through the next couple of weeks.

People don't want alternatives, but they want quicker commutes in their cars. It doesn't compute. Far too many 3-4 car households now too.

Larbre34

beauf wrote: »

Was it actually challenged in court or simply public pressure.

There was no need to challenge it in Court, their statutory obligations were pointed out to them, they backed down.

Thelonious Monk

I live in Dublin 5 and the streets here are like a scrap yard now. Seems to be at least 2 cars per household and trucks and vans parked all over the footpaths. So depressing.

Weepsie

Larbre34 wrote: »

They tried it. Some of us got that overturned, saying they had extinguished rights of way without consultation and that they would have to publish new byelaws etc to make such impactful changes. We were proven right when the OPW rescinded the closures.

This current consultation is an effort to address all of these issues for the future with public input and thats fair enough.

That wasn't the OPW's decision. That was the choice of Patrick O'Donovan. It went against all the advice from officials.

It's already in their bye laws that the commisioners of the OPW can change the opening hours of the gates, and what vehicles can access the park.

You need to stop making sh!te up

Larbre34

KevRossi wrote: »

OPW run the Park and can open and close gates as they see fit.

Not the case.

Yes, they can carry out emergency actions at the direction of the Guards or other temporary measures for event management etc, but they can't make permanent changes as they see fit.

MojoMaker

Larbre34 wrote: »

We were proven right when the OPW rescinded the closures.

Proven right me hole. Got what you wanted, sure.

Huge political pressure was put upon the OPW to accede to influential locals.

Was a real low point of 2020.

Larbre34

MojoMaker wrote: »

Proven right me hole. Got what you wanted, sure.

Huge political pressure was put upon the OPW to accede to influential locals.

Was a real low point of 2020.

I won't deny pressure was applied locally, with good reason, they created an awful mess with their knee jerk reaction, both within and around the Park. Absolutely unnecessary.

But had OPW been within their rights, they could've immediately made it permanent. They weren't and so they didn't. And if a Minister can't direct a body under his or her remit to conduct itself appropriately then I don't know why we have Ministers.

beauf

Do you have any links to this that specifically talk about these statutory obligations in the Park.

Larbre34

Weepsie wrote: »

That wasn't the OPW's decision. That was the choice of Patrick O'Donovan. It went against all the advice from officials.

It's already in their bye laws that the commisioners of the OPW can change the opening hours of the gates, and what vehicles can access the park.

You need to stop making sh!te up

As my Granny would say, the lies will choke you!

Cite it there for me, good man. And if you're going to quote Section 3.2, or Section 10 b, c don't bother, it doesn't cover the gates or rights of way, that was a key issue last year.

Furthermore-

"2.—The management and control of the Park shall continue to be vested in the Commissioners, but such management and control and all other duties and powers imposed on or vested in the Commissioners in relation to the Park by this Act or otherwise shall be performed and exercised by the Commissioners subject to and in accordance with the general directions of the Minister."

Stop accusing me of making shyte up when your own grasp of the facts is very tenuous.

beauf

Larbre34 wrote: »

...don't bother, it doesn't cover the gates or rights of way, that was a key issue last year....

... Can you link to anywhere this Right of way is clarified ..

beauf

Larbre34 wrote: »

As my Granny would say, the lies will choke you!

Cite it there for me, good man. And if you're going to quote Section 3.2, or Section 10 b, c don't bother, it doesn't cover the gates or rights of way, that was a key issue last year.

Furthermore-

"2.—The management and control of the Park shall continue to be vested in the Commissioners, but such management and control and all other duties and powers imposed on or vested in the Commissioners in relation to the Park by this Act or otherwise shall be performed and exercised by the Commissioners subject to and in accordance with the general directions of the Minister."

Stop accusing me of making shyte up when your own grasp of the facts is very tenuous.

All that says is Minister dictates to the OPW. Which we know already.

Larbre34

Yeah we do know.

Public rights of way are covered by the Roads Act of 1993, there is a long convoluted process involved in extinguishing them. Suffice to say it is not satisfied by the OPW locking a gate and throwing away the key.

beauf

I can find no links to back up the premise that it was right way over the ministers orders that rolled back the OPW.

You've provided no links either.

magicbastarder

does a public right of way guarantee that the *public* can use it, or that *motorists* can use it?

Larbre34

magicbastarder wrote: »

does a public right of way guarantee that the *public* can use it, or that *motorists* can use it?

It depends what the established use over the servient land.

Larbre34

beauf wrote: »

I can find no links to back up the premise that it was right way over the ministers orders that rolled back the OPW.

You've provided no links either.

I didn't.

And yet here we are.