Cycle infrastructure planned for south Dublin

magicbastarder

Larbre34 wrote: »

My concerns are proper planning, due process and a demand for joined up thinking

it's also great the way traffic moving around our city has had this much focus before now. it takes a cycle lane to make the good burghers of sandymount show interest in traffic flows.

Larbre34

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's also great the way traffic moving around our city has had this much focus before now. it takes a cycle lane to make the good burghers of sandymount show interest in traffic flows.

Obviously Sandymount is the live issue here, but its merely symptomatic.

AndrewJRenko

Larbre34 wrote: »

The Council intend to proceed with it, and with Strand Road in the same style, but they will be injuncted by local community groups, so it isn't going ahead, basically.

Interesting how you've managed to decide the outcome of the injunction hearing. Do you have a crystal ball?

You still haven't explained why construction traffic must have two way access.

Larbre34

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Interesting how you've managed to decide the outcome of the injunction hearing. Do you have a crystal ball?

You still haven't explained why construction traffic must have two way access.

So that either coming, or going, it does not have to traverse the entirely unsuitable local streets away from the Coast.

You know, the sort of traffic that Regional Roads like the R131 Strand Road / Beach Road are designated for.

The injunction won't be a difficult sell to the High Court. Simply put, An Bord Pleanála are mid-process in determining a Section 5 declaration in respect of the Strand Road proposals. In my experience, the scale of those works alone exceed the threshold for holding a Part VIII.

Not only that, the Council are engaged in blatant and entirely improper project splitting, in terms of treating Strand Road and Beach Road proposals separately, in order to reduce the scope and costs of each and attempt to get both under a Part VIII threshold. They are, of course, one continuous route and should be treated in the planning and contracting process as such. I expect An BP to skewer the City Council executive on that point.

So, its not a matter of a crystal ball but one of looking at statutory obligations and failings. If the City Council attempt to start work on the ground with either or both of these phases, I'd be absolutely shocked if any injunction applied for on the above grounds is not granted.

Peregrine

Larbre34 wrote: »

The injunction won't be a difficult sell to the High Court. Simply put, An Bord Pleanála are mid-process in determining a Section 5 declaration in respect of the Strand Road proposals. In my experience, the scale of those works alone exceed the threshold for holding a Part VIII.

If you say that ABP are mid-process in determining a section 5 referral then you must be able to link to the case on their website. When was it submitted?

And don't say you don't know because you're not involved. You don't get to say ABP are in the middle of looking at a case that's not in the public domain and then say you don't know anything about the case. You either know both or you don't know either.

Larbre34 wrote: »

Not only that, the Council are engaged in blatant and entirely improper project splitting, in terms of treating Strand Road and Beach Road proposals separately, in order to reduce the scope and costs of each and attempt to get both under a Part VIII threshold. They are, of course, one continuous route and should be treated in the planning and contracting process as such. I expect An BP to skewer the City Council executive on that point.

Beach Road was explicitly included in the original Strand Road proposal. It was in the consultation. A second consultation for Beach Road was initiated (completely non-statutory) because they proposed a change to the first proposal on Beach Road. They weren't done separately. For someone so concerned about this project and so confident about receiving an injunction, you're not very up to date.

https://consultation.dublincity.ie/traffic-and-transport/strand-road-trial-cycle-route/

And for the umpteenth time, which scope and costs threshold of a part 8 are you talking about?

ted1

Larbre34 wrote: »

I have no connection to it, locally or otherwise, other than a few professional contacts living in the area.

My concerns are proper planning, due process and a demand for joined up thinking between the countless agencies and authorities that have various and conflicting responsibilities in the area of roads, traffic and transport in this City.

For instance, the 24hr HGV ban mentioned above. The City Council are full of good intentions, but, it should be made very clear to everyone that heavy vehicles with legitimate business in the area (waste collection, deliveries, accessing owner premises, servicing construction sites etc) will all be perfectly entitled to traverse these roads if Strand Road is out of action in one direction.

I refer back to the matter discussed yesterday, the Roslyn Park school site, if Strand Road is restricted and a HGV limit is in place through Sandymount and Ringsend /Irishtown is narrow and traffic calmed and Bath Avenue has a width restriction on the bridge, how in the name of **** is that developer going to get on with its legitimate business in a safe manner?

There are many people pulling figures clean out of their arse on this, the City Council and Ciaran Ferrie are but two. A whole new traffic assessment will need be to be carried out with all the variables that were previously omitted and all the new factors that keep being added.

The council had no problem giving this development planning with access through a residential area as opposed to off the main road.

https://www.abingdonshd.ie/sites/default/files/docs/Architects%20Design%20Statement.pdf

Or this development with access through a housing estate.

http://stepasideparkd18.ie/

AndrewJRenko

Larbre34 wrote: »

So that either coming, or going, it does not have to traverse the entirely unsuitable local streets away from the Coast.

You know, the sort of traffic that Regional Roads like the R131 Strand Road / Beach Road are designated for.

They don't 'have to' traverse local streets. They can stick to the main roads in a loop. It might impact their journey by a couple of minutes.

buffalo

Larbre34 wrote: »

In my experience, the scale of those works alone exceed the threshold for holding a Part VIII.

I'm still wondering what this experience is of yours... it's increasingly looking like it's entirely made up to sound authoritative.

Peregrine

Work on Strand Road to start on March 1 with advance works starting next week.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/sandymount-s-strand-road-to-be-one-way-from-march-1st-1.4479285?mode=amp

DoraDelite

Peregrine wrote: »

Work on Strand Road to start on March 1 with advance works starting next week.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/sandymount-s-strand-road-to-be-one-way-from-march-1st-1.4479285?mode=amp

Great news for a Monday!

loyatemu

Lawyers! Sharpen your pencils!

Thelonious Monk

It's worth having a look at the DCC Facebook page on this. Well if you enjoy hurting yourself. The comments.

https://www.facebook.com/DublinCityCouncil/photos/a.394578949624/10159819026564625/

A noisy minority in the area tried every trick in the book to stop this trial. Delighted it's going ahead.

buffalo

magicbastarder wrote: »

Strand Road cycleway

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/strand-road-cycleway-1.4461475

Delighted to see this going ahead. I'm awaiting to see what the results of the trial are, because objectors will be able to take a position of "this isn't a success" no matter what.

Results good (little traffic disruption, lots of people cycling): this isn't a real trial due to Covid, we should cancel it and try again in 2022 (or never).

Results bad (some traffic disruption, few people cycling): this trial is a shambles, we should cancel it and never try again.

I'll add it to the list in the letter above.

Thelonious Monk

Yes unfortunately any time there's heavy traffic in the village or in Ballsbridge etc the cycle lane will get the blame.
It's amazing reading the Facebook comments, people freaking out because they'll have to drive an extra 2 minutes. If you really are a local I can't see why you wouldn't welcome this.

PaulieC

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Yes unfortunately any time there's heavy traffic in the village or in Ballsbridge etc the cycle lane will get the blame.
It's amazing reading the Facebook comments, people freaking out because they'll have to drive an extra 2 minutes. If you really are a local I can't see why you wouldn't welcome this.

Unfortunately this trivialises the situation completely. I don't know if you ever use Strand Road, but in "normal" times it regularly backs up. Add in any sort of event in Three Arena, Aviva or even port induced heavy traffic and the whole approach to the area gets blocked up. This includes Sandymount and approaches like Bath Ave/Serpentine/Lansdowne Road. I think that residents are right to be worried that closing off the main northbound approach to the East Link will cause that traffic to divert through routes that can't handle the volume.

I'm not a NIMBY and generally favour good cycling infrastructure, but not at the huge cost that this will incur to the area. I'll be delighted to be proven wrong, but I can't see any proposed metrics that will enable the success or otherwise of this enterprise to be measured accurately and in a qualitative way. Six months from March is not going to be a realistic measure because traffic will not have returned to normal levels and large events will still not be happening.

DoraDelite

PaulieC wrote: »

Unfortunately this trivialises the situation completely. I don't know if you ever use Strand Road, but in "normal" times it regularly backs up. Add in any sort of event in Three Arena, Aviva or even port induced heavy traffic and the whole approach to the area gets blocked up. This includes Sandymount and approaches like Bath Ave/Serpentine/Lansdowne Road. I think that residents are right to be worried that closing off the main northbound approach to the East Link will cause that traffic to divert through routes that can't handle the volume.

I'm not a NIMBY and generally favour good cycling infrastructure, but not at the huge cost that this will incur to the area. I'll be delighted to be proven wrong, but I can't see any proposed metrics that will enable the success or otherwise of this enterprise to be measured accurately and in a qualitative way. Six months from March is not going to be a realistic measure because traffic will not have returned to normal levels and large events will still not be happening.

I understand the fear of some alright but it's not based on any understanding of modal shift and how that all work. I believe a number of right turns into Sandymount are being made illegal so this would suggest that some of the traffic will not be going through the village. A number of disingenuous protestors declined suggestions of modal filters in some areas (not sure what was proposed) of Sandymount also which says a lot about their intentions.

At the end of the day, this is a trial and if we don't trial this type of infrastructure we will never get to see the outcome of how traffic will really disperse here. The assumption that every single vehicle that used the Strand road previously will now go through Sandymount is just baseless and the trail will prove this. If it needs to be extended to "normal times" traffic levels then so be it.

A couple of things from my own perspective, even though I walk/cycle most places, for years I was one of those "but where will the traffic go". I realised in the last few years that we have been pretty much brainwashed into "car is king" even for those who don't own cars. My walk to work pre-covid was constantly littered with cars all over footpath and fumes that would knock a horse to the point that it was actually a misery doing that walk.

I live on a street that had a modal filter put in a few years ago and the predictions of the sky falling in and the surrounding streets being affected didn't materialise, there was a few months of adjustment and since that the levels on the other roads as the same as before.

Also on the same street which was free parking until recently, it was always jammed with cars parked. Once residential/pay parking came in before Christmas, the street has been at least 60% empty, so it has been free storage for years for cars that weren't even owned by people living on the street. It was an eye opener but it shows that a lot of city centre residents don't own cars but suffer from the impact of "car is king" as a transport policy. By the way, the street is busier than ever but the majority of the traffic is now pedestrian and cycling which is great to see.

Those two experiences above on my own street have made me see how the space should be for people, the sky won't fall in and people love the alternative to private cars.

silverharp

I'm a short walk form the Green , originally while saying its probably worth a shot was a but skeptical of what the unintended consequences would be. Firstly my kids tend to cycle (weather permitting) to school in Clonskeagh so roads like Park Avenue,Sydney Parade, Nutley are crucial and was afraid roads like Gilford Rd and Park avenue would become rat runs or if they are driven that it would add to the commute. Same in the evening, they might need to be driven to sports etc not in the locality.
They do seem to be changing layouts and adding in new cycling routes so hoping it works out

Type 17

While I support the trial, and want to see it succeed, I'm wondering how they will handle traffic from south Dublin for the Tom Clarke bridge (East Link)? While there may be a lot of traffic evaporation, the TCB and Port Tunnel are an attractive route for many drivers (if you are happy to pay the two tolls, you can go from Ballsbridge/Merrion to the Airport in under 15 minutes).

If traffic can't turn at Merrion Gates, the next available right turn is Serpentine Avenue (opposite the RDS, down the side of the former AIB Bankcentre), continuing on to Tritonville Road. This is a route with a 3.5 ton weight limit, a 30km/h speed limit and has ramps on some of it (on Tritonville Road). Additionally, there is a level crossing which is exactly halfway between two stations (Sandymount and Lansdowne Road), which leads to long waiting times as, for safety, the gates are lowered before trains reach the stations, meaning their stopped time is added to this level crossing wait-times. This means that often the gates are left down for two (and sometimes three!) train to pass at a time, and/or are lowered only 30 seconds or so after being raised, before all waiting traffic has has a chance to cross. I can see this becoming a serious logjam if traffic volumes increase.

I grew up in Sandymount, and I don't see local traffic being badly affected, and there won't be much benefit in trying to take short cuts through most parts of the area because, on reaching the Strand Road, you will be directed south, so that's unlikely to be an issue, but there may well be complaints from those in the Serpentine Ave/Tritonville Road area, who will likely see a big increase in congestion and jams when two larger vehicles meet on the narrower sections of Tritonville Road.

strandroad

It seems that people are forgetting about the Dart gates, how unreliable Strand Road is as a route and how it becomes less reliable with every increase in rail frequency. I would never choose it as a route to the airport for that reason so it's surprising to see the airport access mentioned: first of all the gates are down a lot of the time and then all you need to miss your flight is for some moron to drive into the gates (as they do regularly) and block the entire area. Same for gigs really but then you're only late.

buffalo

Type 17 wrote: »

I can see this becoming a serious logjam if traffic volumes increase.

But this is exactly when traffic evaporation kicks in. A few stubborn people keep to the same route and tolerate the delays, but for others the logjam is too much and they reroute around - e.g. onto the M50 - or they switch their mode of transport - e.g. get the Aercoach and sleep for the journey. Or they don't make the journey (not likely if they're going to catch a flight, but for other things they might not bother).

Type 17

buffalo wrote: »

But this is exactly when traffic evaporation kicks in. A few stubborn people keep to the same route and tolerate the delays, but for others the logjam is too much and they reroute around - e.g. onto the M50 - or they switch their mode of transport - e.g. get the Aercoach and sleep for the journey. Or they don't make the journey (not likely if they're going to catch a flight, but for other things they might not bother).

Hopefully...

loyatemu

people going to the airport from south Dublin might previously have used the East Link and port tunnel, chances are a lot of this traffic will take the M50 instead now (which is good all round, better to have traffic using the motorway than going through residential areas).

Type 17

Type 17 wrote: »

Hopefully...

Hope isn't required.

Any stretch of road has a finite amount of hourly/daily capacity. Once that capacity is filled, there is no more, which leads to the scenarios outlined in buffalo's post.

This has been proven and shown the world over, time and again, study after study.

PaulieC

I genuinely hope that all of the optimism is proven well founded. I suspect the results will land somewhere in the middle, but that's to be expected with the half-assed approach the DCC are taking.

MojoMaker

That sounds like parrot-speak to be honest.

When larbre34 was pressed on this "half-assed" approach he brought out some undiluted nonsense, culmintating in the promise of an injunction.

"Half-assed" starts to seem a lot like code for "not wanted by an angry few".

The majority of participants that had any interest in engaging with the consultation voted for this effort to go ahead.

Thelonious Monk

there are people on facebook freaking out saying they are locals and why wasn't there any consultation on this, seriously.

ted1

I reckon it all stems from the locals blocking the flyover that would have closed Merrion Gate. Had they not been so fast to oppose that , they wouldn’t have this.
Hope they learnt a good lesson.

** However, the authority has warned that traffic congestion at Merrion Gates is likely to worsen and a solution will have to be found in the future.**


https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/merrion-gates-closure-plan-shelved-1.3518469%3fmode=amp

Brian?

PaulieC wrote: »

Unfortunately this trivialises the situation completely. I don't know if you ever use Strand Road, but in "normal" times it regularly backs up. Add in any sort of event in Three Arena, Aviva or even port induced heavy traffic and the whole approach to the area gets blocked up. This includes Sandymount and approaches like Bath Ave/Serpentine/Lansdowne Road. I think that residents are right to be worried that closing off the main northbound approach to the East Link will cause that traffic to divert through routes that can't handle the volume.

I'm not a NIMBY and generally favour good cycling infrastructure, but not at the huge cost that this will incur to the area. I'll be delighted to be proven wrong, but I can't see any proposed metrics that will enable the success or otherwise of this enterprise to be measured accurately and in a qualitative way. Six months from March is not going to be a realistic measure because traffic will not have returned to normal levels and large events will still not be happening.

I think it's ridiculous that anyone would drive tongue 3 Arena or Landsdown road. Both are well served by Luas and Dart.

People need to get over this notion that driving is the best option.

PaulieC

MojoMaker wrote: »

That sounds like parrot-speak to be honest.

When larbre34 was pressed on this "half-assed" approach he brought out some undiluted nonsense, culmintating in the promise of an injunction.

"Half-assed" starts to seem a lot like code for "not wanted by an angry few".

The majority of participants that had any interest in engaging with the consultation voted for this effort to go ahead.

Thank you for being so bloody insulting.

The scheme, by definition, is half-assed. It was supposed to be a separate cycle lane built on the outside of the seawall and incorporating closure of Merrion Gates etc. But that was blocked, so this is brought in under the umbrella of Covid, sidestepping proper planning. And for a trial, does not specify the exit criteria by which the success or failure will be judged.

Such a scheme is nothing more than half-assed. It doesn't mean it's not wanted and won't be a success, but without the existence of transparent qualitative and quantitative measurements, success or failure can be claimed by both those who espouse and those who oppose it.

As for the angry locals, very difficult to engage with them either way as they have their minds made up and just insult you if your opinion isn't the same as theirs. In a pretty large FB group, there were posts up with links for them to go and oppose the scheme. No dissention allowed. A bit like this forum, I guess, but for the opposite outcome...