Cycle infrastructure planned for south Dublin

Larbre34

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Why do you think I'm struggling?
He proudly said it and he is wrong for having done it!

While you're on, maybe you'll provide me with a response to my previously unanswered question about how do you know the details of the plans of the group when you're not a resident there?

The cycling lobby is not the only interest group that takes nationwide input and advice. The combined residents groups have considerable resources at their disposal now. They are also receiving quite a bit of voluntary professional support.

The timings of upcoming actions on the group's part are for a number of very specific reasons. Suffice to say, interesting developments ahead.

buffalo

Larbre34 wrote: »

Suffice to say, interesting developments ahead.

The suspense is unbearable! It's like a murder-mystery novel, when are you going to gather us all in the drawing room?

DoraDelite

Cycle lobby? I'm just a person who lives in a city where I want to feel safe getting around in a sustainable manner. I would like to do it without getting injured or killed or developing health issues from exhaust fumes. I'd like the public space that's currently disproportionately allocated to private car movement and storage to be reallocated for all so that we can develop our communities and make them into places people want to be. I want it not just for myself but for all current and future residents of the city also.

Cycle lobby...yeah.

Peregrine

Larbre34 wrote: »

The cycling lobby is not the only interest group that takes nationwide input and advice. The combined residents groups have considerable resources at their disposal now. They are also receiving quite a bit of voluntary professional support.

The timings of upcoming actions on the group's part are for a number of very specific reasons. Suffice to say, interesting developments ahead.

Any news on how the coalition government is holding up?

Larbre34 wrote: »

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.

Larbre34

DoraDelite wrote: »

Cycle lobby? I'm just a person who lives in a city where I want to feel safe getting around in a sustainable manner. I would like to do it without getting injured or killed or developing health issues from exhaust fumes. I'd like the public space that's currently disproportionately allocated to private car movement and storage to be reallocated for all so that we can develop our communities and make them into places people want to be. I want it not just for myself but for all current and future residents of the city also.

Cycle lobby...yeah.

Good for you.

You won't mind so if such reallocation works go through the proper planning process thats there to govern them in the first place. Right?

Larbre34

Peregrine wrote: »

Any news on how the coalition government is holding up?

No further developments to update you on there, but be sure you'll be the first to know. What I can say is that the legal fund has raised a further €3,500 in the interim.

donvito99

Is there any fund being put together to repair the damage caused by cars parking on the grass at the first car park in Sandymount, abeam the proposed cycle track? I see they've put in skips filled with sand, who pays for that?

I don't agree with the routing but by god I'd love to see a number done on the perpetual NIMBYs.

Seth Brundle

Larbre34 wrote: »

Good for you.

You won't mind so if such reallocation works go through the proper planning process thats there to govern them in the first place. Right?

Just so I'm clear, is the objection against the removal of a lane of traffic or the introduction of a cycleway or against the method used to implement a trial scheme?
You see, the wealthy residents who are funding this campaign seem to want to push infrastructure that we all know won't happen.
They seem content with having large vehicles travelling along the route yet offer a solution that raises traffic issues and risks.
They accompany this with spurious claims of traffic armageddon and mistruths (e.g. the claim that the footpath by the sea is hardly used).
The only reason I can see fo them wanting to oppose this is simply because they don't want to lose the ability to drive around and park wherever they wish!

Larbre34

donvito99 wrote: »

Is there any fund being put together to repair the damage caused by cars parking on the grass at the first car park in Sandymount, abeam the proposed cycle track? I see they've put in skips filled with sand, who pays for that?

I don't agree with the routing but by god I'd love to see a number done on the perpetual NIMBYs.

You're quite right about that, disgraceful behaviour by those driving to the Strand from further away. The Council shouldn't have to cordon off grass from car parking and unfortunately when they have to pay to repair it, we all pay for it.

But on your second point, do you want to see public works projects go through the proper planning procedure, or do you just actually want a 'number done' on those people who do?

Seth Brundle

Larbre34 wrote: »

You're quite right about that, disgraceful behaviour by those driving to the Strand from further away.

How do you know where they were from?

MojoMaker

Seth Brundle wrote: »

The only reason I can see for them wanting to oppose this is simply because they don't want to lose the ability to drive around and park wherever they wish!

That's hardly a revelation in fairness, it didn't take mensa membership to understand it was NIMBY opposition based on reduced local access and the associated imposition on self-entitled residents.

The guff about DCC's alleged planning irregularities, ramming projects through, ecological disasters, discommoded traffic...all merely to screen the above.

donvito99

Larbre34 wrote: »

But on your second point, do you want to see public works projects go through the proper planning procedure, or do you just actually want a 'number done' on those people who do?

The latter. Too many projects which have been through the proper processes have fallen victim to NIMBYIsm. Just look at the eminently sensible Merrion Gates roadbridge project, or the quiet way from Grand Canal Dock to Templeogue. Unhinged, militant NIMBYs are a scourge, far more effective than the cycling "lobby" you point to.

BabysCoffee

DoraDelite wrote: »

Cycle lobby? I'm just a person who lives in a city where I want to feel safe getting around in a sustainable manner. I would like to do it without getting injured or killed or developing health issues from exhaust fumes. I'd like the public space that's currently disproportionately allocated to private car movement and storage to be reallocated for all so that we can develop our communities and make them into places people want to be. I want it not just for myself but for all current and future residents of the city also.

Cycle lobby...yeah.

Yup #BigCycling

Lol

Peregrine

Larbre34 wrote: »

You won't mind so if such reallocation works go through the proper planning process thats there to govern them in the first place. Right?

Larbre34 wrote: »

But on your second point, do you want to see public works projects go through the proper planning procedure, or do you just actually want a 'number done' on those people who do?

Neither you nor any of the opponent groups' representatives have explained why you think the process Dublin City Council are following isn't the proper planning process. You've made vague references to "the thresholds of section 38" while not stating what those thresholds are for everyone to see. You've mentioned other processes without ever explaining how this meets the criteria for those other processes.

You mentioned an environmental impact assessment. DCC asked a planning consultancy called CAAS to carry out a screening report as is the proper process. CAAS does EIAs and and screening reports for EIAs for local authorities all around Ireland. They wrote the EPA's EIA guidelines. And before you say DCC hired them, yes, that's how it works and they have a reputation to uphold. This is the same company that DCC hired to do an EIA screening report for the College Green Plaza for which they were told by CAAS to do an EIA. Here's what their report said:

It is considered that the proposed Trial Cycle Route does not need to be subject to Environmental Impact Assessment and no Environmental Impact Assessment Report is required for it.

They also published a screening report for an Appropriate Assessment. Same thing. No AA required. Here's the report. You also claimed that they were "project splitting" but both screening reports were done on the whole section from Beach Road to the DCC boundary on Merrion Road.

You mentioned a "Part 8 environmental report" which makes no sense. Either it requires an environmental impact assessment report or it can be done through Part 8 of the Planning and Development Regulations. It's one or the other. If it requires an EIA then Part 8 doesn't apply. A cursory read of Section 179 of the Planning and Development Act and Part 8 will confirm this.

You said that it should be done through Part 8 but it does not meet any of the criteria outlined in Part 8. You haven't been able to explain which criteria it meets except some vague claim about "road widening" despite no justifiable definition of road widening under the Roads Act actually being proposed. It's not just that DCC doesn't want to, it would be improper to do it through Part 8.

You can't keep claiming they're breaking the law without any shred of evidence. But, of course, that's the whole tactic. We see right through you though. You have no credibility.

Larbre34

Section 38 ceases to apply if the scale of the proposed local authority road works meet the requirement for Part 8.

The combined Strand Road and Beach Road works meet the requirements for Part 8 under Clauses 2 & 11 of the City Council's own adopted procedures for conducting a Part 8.

The fact that Strand Road and Beach Road were separated as proposals and published individually, in a blatant example of project splitting to avoid these above cited thresholds being exceeded, will form one aspect of the Bord Pleanála referral for determination. In the meantime, legal action will ensure that no further work is proceeded with by the City Council until this determination is received from the Board and until the consequent Part 8 is properly carried out. I see no reason why this process shouldn't be completed by the end of 2021.

When it comes to accusations about credibility, its hard not to look at the procedural conduct of the City Council in this whole matter and question theirs.

As regards CAAS, I know a couple of their people for many years and have a high regard for them. However, as with anything they can only make a recommendation on the back of the quality of the brief they receive, so for whatever reason, in this instance, they are dead wrong.

Peregrine

Larbre34 wrote: »

Section 38 ceases to apply if the scale of the proposed local authority road works meet the requirement for Part 8.

The combined Strand Road and Beach Road works meet the requirements for Part 8 under Clauses 2 & 11 of the City Council's own adopted procedures for conducting a Part 8.

I presume you're referring to article 80 (1) (b) and 80 (1) (k) of the Planning and Development Regulations. Neither of those clauses apply to public transport and cycling projects. I thought you were an expert on Part 8 planning. I don't know what you're looking at but Dublin City Council's "adopted procedures for conducting a Part 8" will be whatever is in Part 8 of the Regulations. Read the whole thing. Don't just look at individual lines. It helps.

And as for road widening in general. That's just nonsense. There's no road widening proposed. Precisely which section is going to be widened?

Larbre34 wrote: »

The fact that Strand Road and Beach Road were separated as proposals and published individually, in a blatant example of project splitting to avoid these above cited thresholds being exceeded, will form one aspect of the Bord Pleanála referral for determination. In the meantime, legal action will ensure that no further work is proceeded with by the City Council until this determination is received from the Board and until the consequent Part 8 is properly carried out. I see no reason why this process shouldn't be completed by the end of 2021.

Stop lying. Beach Road was part of the original Strand Road consultation. Beach Road was done again because there a change was proposed. That's not project splitting. Read the documents, it will help you understand it. Since neither of those clauses are relevant for cycling projects anyway, this is also irrelevant. For the purposes of EIA screening the entire route was looked at together obviously.

Larbre34 wrote: »

As regards CAAS, I know a couple of their people for many years and have a high regard for them. However, as with anything they can only make a recommendation on the back of the quality of the brief they receive, so for whatever reason, in this instance, they are dead wrong.

Well, CAAS have gone to the trouble of preparing a 27 page EIA screening report and a 39 page AA screening report. You can't just say "they are dead wrong" without addressing any of it. Which part is wrong? Which report? Which page? Which line? You must have the all the information yourself or else you wouldn't make a claim like that.

Anyway, so now it requires an environmental impact assessment? So, according to you, it's not a Part 8 process? Which is it? Like I said in my last post and in another reply to you last month, if it requires an environmental impact assessment or an appropriate assessment then a Part 8 doesn't apply. It's a different process. You just said earlier in your post that it meets the requirements for a Part 8!

You said you had experience with this. I worry for your clients.

eeeee

If only you could thank posts twice

buffalo

I've changed my mind, it's not a murder-mystery - it's a gripping courtroom drama!

buffalo

Also, strong tones of...

Peregrine wrote: »

You have no credibility.

You have no authority here Jackie Weaver!

Peregrine wrote: »

Read the whole thing. Don't just look at individual lines.

Read the standing orders - read them and understand them!

:pac::D

Peregrine

I suspect it sounds like gibberish to a lot of people so I will try to explain. Section 38 of the Road Traffic Act 1994 allows the council to carry out road works that don't involve a lot of road widening or have a large impact on the environment. Like junctions, the coastal mobility route in DLR, the Griffith Avenue cycle route etc. All the bollards cycle lanes that have sprung up recently are done through section 38. It's quick and powerful. There's no consultation required but DCC carry out consultations to avoid upsetting people.

Below are the prescribed classes of development under Part 8 of the Planning and Development Regulations. It's a planning process for local authority projects. If the project requires an environmental impact assessment then they can't use this and they have to apply to An Bord Pleanála. The planned Clontarf to Amiens Street project which involves literally rebuilding the entire road from Clontarf to Connolly and stuff like the Royal Canal Greenway etc. are done through Part 8. It's a 20 week process where at the end the councillors vote to grant permission to the council executive to build houses, literal new roads, libraries, bridges etc. Throw in a couple of weeks or months either side of it for design, procurement etc. It takes a long time. And for a long time, this was how local authorities built even minor cycle lanes. Larbre34 seems to saying that it meets the criteria for b and k.

(1) Subject to sub-article (2) and sub-section (6) of section 179 of the Act, the following classes of development, hereafter in this Part referred to as “proposed development”, are hereby prescribed for the purposes of section 179 of the Act—

(a) the construction or erection of a house,

(b) the construction of a new road or the widening or realignment of an existing road, where the length of the new road or of the widened or realigned portion of the existing road, as the case may be, would be—

(i) in the case of a road in an urban area, 100 metres or more, or

(ii) in the case of a road in any other area, 1 kilometre or more,

(c) the construction of a bridge or tunnel,

(d) the construction or erection of pumping stations, treatment works, holding tanks or outfall facilities for waste water or storm water,

(e) the construction or erection of water intake or treatment works, overground aqueducts, or dams or other installations designed to hold water or to store it on a long-term basis,

(f) drilling for water supplies,

(g) the construction of a swimming pool,

(h) the use of land, or the construction or erection of any installation or facility, for the disposal of waste, not being—

(i) development which comprises or is for the purposes of an activity in relation to which a waste licence is required or

(ii) development consisting of the provision of a bring facility which comprises not more than 5 receptables,

(i) the use of land as a burial ground,

(j) the construction or erection of a fire station, a library or a public toilet, and

(k) any development other than those specified in paragraphs (a) to (j), the estimated cost of which exceeds €126,000, not being development consisting of the laying underground of sewers, mains, pipes or other apparatus.

b isn't relevant. Widening a road and repainting a road are two very different things. k? The projected cost is like €150,000 so, yes, but it doesn't matter. You can't just cherry pick lines you like from laws. Like it says at the start, these criteria are all "Subject to sub-article (2) and sub-section (6) of section 179 of the Act". The Act being the Planning and Development Act of 2000. The Act alongside the Regulations quoted earlier pretty much governs planning in Ireland. There's nothing relevant in sub-article 2 but here's sub-section 6 of section 179 of the Act. It lists the type of developments to which Part 8 doesn't apply. Maintenance, works ordered by court, anything that requires an environmental impact assessment etc.

(6) This section shall not apply to proposed development which—

(a) consists of works of maintenance or repair, other than works which would materially affect the character of a protected structure or proposed protected structure,

(b) is necessary for dealing urgently with any situation which the manager considers is an emergency situation calling for immediate action,

(c) consists of works which a local authority is required by or under statute or by order of a court to undertake, or

(d) is development in respect of which an environmental impact statement is required under section 175 or under any other enactment.

However sub-article 6 was amended by section 46 of the Public Transport Regulation Act in 2009. This act was one of the two acts which founded the NTA as we know it today. It inserted the line below into the type of projects listed in section 179 (6) above for which the Part 8 process doesn't apply.

(2) Section 179(6) of the Act of 2000 is amended by inserting after paragraph (b) the following:

“(bb) consists of works, other than works involving road widening, to enhance public bus services or improve facilities for cyclists provided under section 95 (as amended by section 37 of the Road Traffic Act 1994 ) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 or under section 38 of the Road Traffic Act 1994 ,”

And that's why "Clauses 2 & 11" (b and k) of Part 8 don't matter. It's a section 38 project to improve facilities for cyclists, doesn't involve road widening and doesn't require an environmental impact assessment according to independent experts.

p15574

I hope the council's legal team are as familiar with these as you are, Peregrine! (do they need a nudge?)

MojoMaker

It's being used as a screen Peregrine. There is no objective kerfuffle about planning laws, consultations, budgets, EIAs - some of the (older) entitled residents in nearby Sandymount want to preserve unrestricted movement around the general area - driving and parking where they wish. This proposal threatens that and must be defeated.

Go ahead and build your cycle lane and alter traffic flow somewhere else.

Grassey

Larbre34 wrote: »

I see no reason why this process shouldn't be completed by the end of 2021.

So... could we not just go ahead with the temporary 6 month trial in the meantime while ye sort out the bees in your bonnet? See what the outcome is, and whatnot?

It should be completed by 3rd quarter 2021....

hesker

buffalo wrote: »

I've changed my mind, it's not a murder-mystery - it's a gripping courtroom drama!

I’m not sure. Someone definitely got murdered in that post.

Seth Brundle

https://twitter.com/SusanTheSilent/status/1361982522717052929

Larbre34

That's very bad for the Council.

NTA are saying what they prefer is a comprehensive solution from Sean Moore Road to Merrion Gates, that can include a promenade section as part of proper planning.

Serious ammunition for the local groups seeking a planning process determination.

Seth Brundle

Larbre34 wrote: »

That's very bad for the Council.

NTA are saying what they prefer is a comprehensive solution from Sean Moore Road to Merrion Gates, that can include a promenade section as part of proper planning.

Serious ammunition for the local groups seeking a planning process determination.

Are you reading a different letter to the one I see?

Larbre34

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Are you reading a different letter to the one I see?

You and I will never agree on this. But as we've been saying all along, there are arguments to made on both sides and it will come down to An BP and probably the High Court to make the ultimate call.

I'm confident that what will happen is the scheme will be halted and referred back for a full Part 8 to be carried out, but I'm ready for it to go the other way too and for the trial to proceed in March.

The question is, are you prepared for it to go against you and this to be halted at birth?

ted1

Larbre34 wrote: »

That's very bad for the Council.

NTA are saying what they prefer is a comprehensive solution from Sean Moore Road to Merrion Gates, that can include a promenade section as part of proper planning.

Serious ammunition for the local groups seeking a planning process determination.

My take is that the NTA are saying there was a plan to build a fly over but the locals objected, and further plans would take a decade to implement because of local objections. So this is the plan that we are going with

BabysCoffee

I'm seeing some blinkered viewpoints on here. Some posters should consider taking the blinkers off and make assessments about whether they want to be on the right side of history.

Change is afoot......or maybe abike or awheel?