Cycle infrastructure planned for south Dublin

PaulieC

Brian? wrote: »

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.

Living locally, I think the same, but not everyone has the luxury of being within walking distance. The majority of events on the Three Arena are fine, but any gigs aimed at kids/teenagers are usually a problem as it means lots of parents dropping their kids outside, causing a backup. Similarly for "old people" acts, where people drive and park under the Gibson.

Brian?

PaulieC wrote: »

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...

You're right, they should whole ass it and turn the entire stretch of road into a cycle lane.

PaulieC

Brian? wrote: »

You're right, they should whole ass it and turn the entire stretch of road into a cycle lane.

hilarious

Peregrine

For the last time, this is fully in compliance with planning laws. It's not an emergency COVID-19 power. This could have been done at any point over the last ten years and it would have complied with planning laws. The relevance to COVID is the need to provide alternatives to free up space on limited public transport.

If you're referring to "proper planning" in a more subjective sense then building a boardwalk on a UNESCO world heritage site while a flyover is built to retain the road for motor traffic and to minimise any disruption sustainable transport and the use of the coast as an amenity would cause to motor traffic can hardly be called "proper planning".

PaulieC

Peregrine wrote: »

For the last time, this is fully in compliance with planning laws. It's not an emergency COVID-19 power. This could have been done at any point over the last ten years and it would have complied with planning laws. The relevance to COVID is the need to provide alternatives to free up space on limited public transport.

If you're referring to "proper planning" in a more subjective sense then building a boardwalk on a UNESCO world heritage site while a flyover is built to retain the road for motor traffic and to minimise any disruption sustainable transport and the use of the coast as an amenity would cause to motor traffic can hardly be called "proper planning".

This is one of the great problems that (mainly) SM has caused: absolute polarity of opinion with no place for middle ground or compromise on either side.

It's absolutely possible to be pro cycle lane and still be concerned about how the changes are going to affect the area. It doesn't have to be a f*ck the cyclists or f*ck the locals question.

The use of rhetoric here is needless.

strandroad

PaulieC wrote: »

Living locally, I think the same, but not everyone has the luxury of being within walking distance. The majority of events on the Three Arena are fine, but any gigs aimed at kids/teenagers are usually a problem as it means lots of parents dropping their kids outside, causing a backup. Similarly for "old people" acts, where people drive and park under the Gibson.

Three Arena and GCD are served by Dart, Luas and bus so people who choose to drive there choose to be in this traffic...

Peregrine

PaulieC wrote: »

This is one of the great problems that (mainly) SM has caused: absolute polarity of opinion with no place for middle ground or compromise on either side.

It's absolutely possible to be pro cycle lane and still be concerned about how the changes are going to affect the area. It doesn't have to be a f*ck the cyclists or f*ck the locals question.

The use of rhetoric here is needless.

I don't agree with any insults used earlier but you don't get to throw out phrases like "half-assed" and "side stepping proper planning" and then take the moral high ground by condemning polarity and rhetoric.

PaulieC

Peregrine wrote: »

I don't agree with any insults used earlier but you don't get to throw out phrases like "half-assed" and "side stepping proper planning" and then take the moral high ground by condemning polarity and rhetoric.

In what way is a trial project carried out in times of reduced volumes and without visible and transparent success metrics not half-assed ?

Look, I get that this is what cyclists want, but I also have sympathy for those who have to deal with the consequences. If there are no consequences, then great, everyone is happy.

markpb

Brian? wrote: »

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.

That’s a naive argument. Rail lines serve areas, transport networks serve cities. It’s quite possibly for someone in Dublin to live nowhere near the dart line so the existence of a dart station near Lansdowne road is irrelevant. Luas to the Point is slightly better because the two Luas lines now connect but again, there is a lot of the city nowhere near a Luas line. You could argue that someone could drive to the Dart or Luas and continue their journey by rail but that’s not always an efficient journey.

markpb

markpb wrote: »

That’s a naive argument. Rail lines serve areas, transport networks serve cities. It’s quite possibly for someone in Dublin to live nowhere near the dart line so the existence of a dart station near Lansdowne road is irrelevant. Luas to the Point is slightly better because the two Luas lines now connect but again, there is a lot of the city nowhere near a Luas line. You could argue that someone could drive to the Dart or Luas and continue their journey by rail but that’s not always an efficient journey.

Buses

DoraDelite

PaulieC wrote: »

In what way is a trial project carried out in times of reduced volumes and without visible and transparent success metrics not half-assed ?

Look, I get that this is what cyclists want, but I also have sympathy for those who have to deal with the consequences. If there are no consequences, then great, everyone is happy.

The trial is starting in times of reduced traffic which I think is the best time to start as it gives it time to bed in with the least amount of impact. Google maps/waze etc gets updated so it's not erroneously directing traffic there. When things get back to "normal" traffic counts can be measured throughout. I would include people walking and cycling as traffic also in this.

You will see what the outcome is then rather than not trying this trial and predicting chaos when you have no idea if that will be the case.

Larbre34

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.
.

Hold on to your hat.

If anyone is wondering why the local groups have beem silent on this since Monday, there is a reason for it.

The warchest is now at 16.5k and a court petition will be lodged the instant the preparatory works commence on the ground. Thats for many sound reasons.

Put it this way, Moyross is the first, CETA will be 2 and Strand Road / Beach Road will be the hat-trick for Mr Ryan in this period. Out of necessity, the Govt will hold together, but I'm not sure the same will be said for his party.

PaulieC

DoraDelite wrote: »

The trial is starting in times of reduced traffic which I think is the best time to start as it gives it time to bed in with the least amount of impact. Google maps/waze etc gets updated so it's not erroneously directing traffic there. When things get back to "normal" traffic counts can be measured throughout. I would include people walking and cycling as traffic also in this.

You will see what the outcome is then rather than not trying this trial and predicting chaos when you have no idea if that will be the case.

I don't have any idea what's going to happen, no one does. One side says carnage, the other says traffic will disappear. It will be somewhere inbetween. The issue about the "trial" is that there are no published metrics by which success or failure is measured.

Larbre34

Larbre34 wrote: »

Hold on to your hat.

If anyone is wondering why the local groups have beem silent on this since Monday, there is a reason for it.

The warchest is now at 16.5k and a court petition will be lodged the instant the preparatory works commence on the ground. Thats for many sound reasons.

Put it this way, Moyross is the first, CETA will be 2 and Strand Road / Beach Road will be the hat-trick for Mr Ryan in this period. Out of necessity, the Govt will hold together, but I'm not sure the same will be said for his party.

My aren't we very full of ourselves

Peregrine

Larbre34 wrote: »

Hold on to your hat.

If anyone is wondering why the local groups have beem silent on this since Monday, there is a reason for it.

The warchest is now at 16.5k and a court petition will be lodged the instant the preparatory works commence on the ground. Thats for many sound reasons.

Put it this way, Moyross is the first, CETA will be 2 and Strand Road / Beach Road will be the hat-trick for Mr Ryan in this period. Out of necessity, the Govt will hold together, but I'm not sure the same will be said for his party.

I'm sure they're having an emergency cabinet meeting about it as we speak. Maybe they'll start by discussing why their plans to "step in" and cancel the project using Brexit like your "sources" claimed in December never materialised.

Get a grip.

buffalo

Larbre34 wrote: »

Put it this way, Moyross is the first, CETA will be 2 and Strand Road / Beach Road will be the hat-trick for Mr Ryan in this period. Out of necessity, the Govt will hold together, but I'm not sure the same will be said for his party.

That's right, the Green Party are famously divided on *checks notes*...cycle lanes?

Larbre34

buffalo wrote: »

That's right, the Green Party are famously divided on *checks notes*...cycle lanes?

Slightly obtuse from you there. I'm referring to when the trial is halted by FF/FG and in common with Moyross and CETA, and indeed the Phoenix Park situation last summer, Ryan has no choice but to swallow it.

ted1

Larbre34 wrote: »

Slightly obtuse from you there. I'm referring to when the trial is halted by FF/FG and in common with Moyross and CETA, and indeed the Phoenix Park situation last summer, Ryan has no choice but to swallow it.

It’s not coming from Ryan. It’s local government

Larbre34

ted1 wrote: »

It’s not coming from Ryan. It’s local government

All politics are local dear boy.

And as we've seen, local issues are among those driving divisions within the Greens.

DCC wouldn't be taking these proposals forward without the necessary exchequer funding from Eamon Ryan's department to pay for it.

markpb

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Buses

Do you see the 151 carrying many passengers after a concert in the Point?

Larbre34

Larbre34 wrote: »

All politics are local dear boy.

And as we've seen, local issues are among those driving divisions within the Greens.

DCC wouldn't be taking these proposals forward without the necessary exchequer funding from Eamon Ryan's department to pay for it.

Someone really has an overinflated sense of self-importance

Here's what I see happening;
- the works starting
- the works finishing
- people using the cycle lanes and footpaths and remaining car lane

Somewhere in there might be a mild disruption when ye spend 20k in the courts only to be told the council are within their remit to proceed as they have done and then life will go on.

What will not be happening however;
- ABP (lol) stopping the works
- the courts preventing the completion of the works

Btw, while you may have 20k to cover your costs, expect the council to appoint every member of their legal team and then some, if this does go to court. Also, you may get your wish and they could add additional parties including the Dept of Transport, Environment etc etc. In other words, expect a hefty bill for costs if this does go before the courts

I'm actually looking forward to seeing how this plays out.

markpb

Larbre34 wrote: »

Hold on to your hat.

If anyone is wondering why the local groups have beem silent on this since Monday, there is a reason for it.

The warchest is now at 16.5k and a court petition will be lodged the instant the preparatory works commence on the ground. Thats for many sound reasons.

Put it this way, Moyross is the first, CETA will be 2 and Strand Road / Beach Road will be the hat-trick for Mr Ryan in this period. Out of necessity, the Govt will hold together, but I'm not sure the same will be said for his party.

You’re terribly well versed on the plan for someone who claimed to have nothing to do with it and no connection to the area or its residents?

Didn’t you previously claim that TII were going to order DLR to revert the CMR because it affected the N31, that the government were going to order DCC to stop their plans because it affected a route to/from the port and also because of Brexit and that a school couldn’t be built because trucks couldn’t turn right?

p15574

Larbre34 wrote: »

Slightly obtuse from you there. I'm referring to when the trial is halted by FF/FG and in common with Moyross and CETA, and indeed the Phoenix Park situation last summer, Ryan has no choice but to swallow it.

Given that voters are overwhelmingly in favour of the trial, I doubt if any politician would want to be seen to be interfering with a popular project in favour of wealthy locals. Locals who are terrified that the trial will be such a resounding success that there will be no going back to when children, families, women and the elderly couldn't enjoy Sandymount strand without being in fear of their lives.

Larbre34

p15574 wrote: »

Given that voters are overwhelmingly in favour of the trial, I doubt if any politician would want to be seen to be interfering with a popular project in favour of wealthy locals. Locals who are terrified that the trial will be such a resounding success that there will be no going back to when children, families, women and the elderly couldn't enjoy Sandymount strand without being in fear of their lives.

You're correlating a cohort of cycling zealots nationwide that voted in these online consultations with a constituency of voters in a particular place and thats entirely wrong. These consultations are no better than a Joe Duffy text poll, 'text Y for local misery or N for sanity'.

If the Council wanted this to have any credibility, they would have held an offical plebiscite, of the kind they are well used to holding for the extension of parking controls into areas, and got the real concerns of locals. But no, that wouldn't have helped them railroad this through in any way.

What locals are terrified of, is that these undemocratic methods are being used by the same people who will dress up any outcome as success and leave the so-called trial in place indefinitely, having not gone through statutory planning and without any metrics ever have being mentioned in advance as objectives for the Council.

Its 'nod and wink' stuff and if the shoe was on the other foot, if this was being used to plough a road through a bird sanctuary or some such, you guys would be apoplectic.

Your comment about the current access to seafront at Strand Road leaving people "in fear of their lives" is pathetic.

PaulieC

Larbre34 wrote: »

Your comment about the current access to seafront at Strand Road leaving people "in fear of their lives" is pathetic.

It's only women, children, old people and families that will be in fear for these lives. You can see it right now, walk up the strand and the men are all fine, no fear, but the non-men snowflakes are all huddled together, terrified. It really is only a temporary cycle lane that can free these people from their lives of abject terror.

buffalo

Larbre34 wrote: »

If the Council wanted this to have any credibility, they would have held an offical plebiscite, of the kind they are well used to holding for the extension of parking controls into areas, and got the real concerns of locals. But no, that wouldn't have helped them railroad this through in any way.

But I thought this road was a major access route? To quote the Irish Times...

Strand Road is a vital route for traffic in and out of the city centre, to the Port Tunnel, to Dublin airport, to Dublin seaport, to the M4 West and to Northern Ireland.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/why-is-dublin-city-council-so-determined-to-ruin-sandymount-1.4438748

So you'd have to include the west and the Northern Ireland in your plebiscite, and everywhere in between.

PaulieC

buffalo wrote: »

But I thought this road was a major access route? To quote the Irish Times...



https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/why-is-dublin-city-council-so-determined-to-ruin-sandymount-1.4438748

So you'd have to include the west and the Northern Ireland in your plebiscite, and everywhere in between.

I had to laugh at that quote when I read it first. Strand Road is a vital road to get to the M4. In fairness, he threw everything into that opinion piece...

Peregrine

Larbre34 wrote: »

You're correlating a cohort of cycling zealots nationwide that voted in these online consultations with a constituency of voters in a particular place and thats entirely wrong. These consultations are no better than a Joe Duffy text poll, 'text Y for local misery or N for sanity'.

If the Council wanted this to have any credibility, they would have held an offical plebiscite, of the kind they are well used to holding for the extension of parking controls into areas, and got the real concerns of locals. But no, that wouldn't have helped them railroad this through in any way.

What locals are terrified of, is that these undemocratic methods are being used by the same people who will dress up any outcome as success and leave the so-called trial in place indefinitely, having not gone through statutory planning and without any metrics ever have being mentioned in advance as objectives for the Council.

Its 'nod and wink' stuff and if the shoe was on the other foot, if this was being used to plough a road through a bird sanctuary or some such, you guys would be apoplectic.

Your comment about the current access to seafront at Strand Road leaving people "in fear of their lives" is pathetic.

Aren't you the same guy who was telling me (a non-local) about how the locals were selfish for wanting to reduce traffic in the Phoenix Park, that they were trying to keep the park to themselves and that everyone should have a say in traffic restrictions there? Yes, that was you.

But opinion on the city's coastal amenities should require, what, local voter registration?

Locals wanting lower traffic volumes in a park is selfish. Non-locals wanting lower traffic volumes along the coast is also selfish. I'm starting to think your issue isn't with how local people are. You'll dress it up however you like to oppose everything.

Larbre34

You're all engaging in the same meaningless double speak as the Council.

The local consultation bit is simple. Do you want the traffic from a nearby regional road diverted through your narrow neighbourhood streets, or not?

Anyway, I'm wasting my breath with you lot. Injunction incoming from the combined local groups, try not to burst a blood vessel when it stops the trial before it starts eh? Nobody can say they weren't warned.

Brian?

PaulieC wrote: »

Living locally, I think the same, but not everyone has the luxury of being within walking distance. The majority of events on the Three Arena are fine, but any gigs aimed at kids/teenagers are usually a problem as it means lots of parents dropping their kids outside, causing a backup. Similarly for "old people" acts, where people drive and park under the Gibson.

People drive for all manner of reasons. It rarely makes it right.