Cycle infrastructure planned for south Dublin

buffalo

Larbre34 wrote: »

She is of course. She needs to express it as a view though, a hope, an aim, not a definite. She is misleading people and could end up looking very silly.

As opposed to someone who listed a six month trial of a cycle track beside the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement as reasons why the Green Party will fall apart? :pac:

Larbre34

buffalo wrote: »

As opposed to someone who listed a six month trial of a cycle track beside the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement as reasons why the Green Party will fall apart? :pac:

Stay tuned bro.

Peregrine

buffalo wrote: »

As opposed to someone who listed a six month trial of a cycle track beside the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement as reasons why the Green Party will fall apart? :pac:

Don't forget the central government stepping in and stopping it because of Brexit. Any day now..

ted1

Larbre34 wrote: »

She is of course. She needs to express it as a view though, a hope, an aim, not a definite. She is misleading people and could end up looking very silly.

As could you. Im still awaiting Dublin port and the government to pipe up. You said it was being cancelled as it strategic route for Brexit.
Of course hers is a view.

Seth Brundle

Larbre34 wrote: »

She is of course. She needs to express it as a view though, a hope, an aim, not a definite. She is misleading people and could end up looking very silly.

Hang on. Nothing has changed unless I'm mistaken. The project is going ahead and whilst a there is a pending case, no outcome has been made to show that she is misleading people.
You on the other hand...

Thelonious Monk

In other South Dublin news, work began on the south quays today between Merchant and Usher Quay for new cycling infra. Mannix must have missed this one.

Fighting Tao

Larbre34 wrote: »

The design, scale and impact of R131 Strand Road/Beach Road is in a different universe from the Grangegorman filter. You really must be more honest in what you are trying to convince people of.

The ‘R’ in R132 stands for regional. It is not a ‘N’ national road and the way it is used at present is like a national road. It was never designed for the traffic it currently takes. Therefore, putting the ‘regional’ back in R131 makes sense. It will lesson the traffic and make it a more friendly environment for everyone.

Seth Brundle

https://twitter.com/ccferrie/status/1363187816046473217?s=19

Larbre34

Those comments evidently predate the initiation of the court action.

However, its a telling line in the article, that the City Council said the work was exempt from Planning Permission because of Government advice etc.

Unfortunately for the Council, no Government can come out and verbally set aside bits of the law, crisis situation or not. As you'll have seen, every aspect of Covid restrictions this past year - fines for movement or travel, setting up quarantine hotels, the forced closure of various customer facing businesses - all required legislation or statutory instruments, stemming either from the Health Act of last March, or specific to their sector.

And so, if anything is likely to kill the Sandymount "trial", its this carelessness by the Government, compounded by the City Council and the NTA being over zealous.

What I mean by that is, where there is general acceptance of sensible (temporary) measures, that aren't too expensive or impactful, and nobody crys foul, then they'll go ahead and if successful for a post Covid world, they can be formally adopted later.

The snag is, when they are challenged, as this project has now been, the planning laws still apply as recourse for those who object. The City Council know this as well as anyone, they are just trying to style it out and hope the opposition goes away. It isn't going to.

The very best that can come of this for the Council, is a slap on the wrist and a direction to carry out the Part 8, using baseline data from normal times, not the pandemic era. At worst, they'll be warned off ever revisiting it again.

Cosmos7

Yawn. No one gove a **** about the council getting the cones out until rich people might be inconvenienced. Then rich people share crying to their friends in the judiciary

Cosmos7

'Impact splitting'

ted1

Larbre34 wrote: »

The very best that can come of this for the Council, is a slap on the wrist and a direction to carry out the Part 8, using baseline data from normal times, not the pandemic era.

Do you not understand, there is no more normal.

The world has changed. Working from home is here to stay.

Cosmos7

The traffic is terriblle

Cosmos7

Withdraw and apologise for any suggestion that the ducks in a row lads have any influence over our judiciary

Larbre34

Cosmos7 wrote: »

Withdraw and apologise for any suggestion that the ducks in a row lads have any influence over our judiciary

As in suggest that lawyers don't influence judges?

Go to bed.

Larbre34

ted1 wrote: »

Do you not understand, there is no more normal.

The world has changed. Working from home is here to stay.

You can't say that it will. I can't say that it won't.

But, until such time as the Oireachtas changes the planning laws, nothing has changed about how public works projects get approved.

Cosmos7

I understand that cycling and walking isnt for everyone but I do struggle to understand why people as intelligent and informed as you obviously are so hostile to initiatives which might make cycling and walking a bit more easy. Especially when objections to such initiatives seem to be based on on the impacts of car driving.

MojoMaker

Especially when you don't live in the area, have no connection to it, and aren't impacted by it one way or the other.

Larbre, yourself as an cyclist and a frequent recent poster in the cycling forum, I can't fathom these views on this or any other aspect of pro-cycling initiatives around the city. It's almost as if you're against this cycle lane for reasons you're not disclosing. Nobody is swallowing the "keeping DCC in line" nonsense, so in the interest of full disclosure, why are you so anti-traffic reduction and cycling promotion? And why, if challenging the councils of Dublin is your bag, do you not give two hoots about the works going on around the rest of the city?


What is is about Sandymount specifically that has you so militantly against this initiative?

Larbre34

I support many of the cycling measures being put in. The Quays and Dame Street are excellent, cars should be reduced in priority there.

But Strand Road is simply insane. Its the removal of an arterial route, designated Regional, with a lack of suitable alternatives and the imposition of chaotic diverted traffic into narrow, winding local roads. Its the diversion of two bus routes away from amenities and customers that they serve. Its stark staring mental and I believe its going to be stopped from happening.

Fighting Tao

Larbre34 wrote: »

I support many of the cycling measures being put in. The Quays and Dame Street are excellent, cars should be reduced in priority there.

But Strand Road is simply insane. Its the removal of an arterial route, designated Regional, with a lack of suitable alternatives and the imposition of chaotic diverted traffic into narrow, winding local roads. Its the diversion of two bus routes away from amenities and customers that they serve. Its stark staring mental and I believe its going to be stopped from happening.

Yes regional road, not national. Therefore it should not be a major route. You are very quick to call it regional but appear to lack understanding of regional and national roads.

PaulieC

MojoMaker wrote: »

Larbre, yourself as an cyclist and a frequent recent poster in the cycling forum, I can't fathom these views on this or any other aspect of pro-cycling initiatives around the city. It's almost as if you're against this cycle lane for reasons you're not disclosing.

It's almost like everyone who was ever on a bike doesn't have to have the same militant pro-cycling, anti-motorist views that seem to be required in this forum. Not every cycle infrastructure project is the right one and they don't have to be championed regardless of their quality simply because they are cycling related.

magicbastarder

PaulieC wrote: »

the same militant pro-cycling, anti-motorist views that seem to be required in this forum.

ye wha? there's maybe eight or ten people active in this thread. it's deathly dull at times, the majority of people who post to this forum aren't found here.

buffalo

PaulieC wrote: »

It's almost like everyone who was ever on a bike doesn't have to have the same militant pro-cycling, anti-motorist views that seem to be required in this forum. Not every cycle infrastructure project is the right one and they don't have to be championed regardless of their quality simply because they are cycling related.

I don't know about anybody else, but I am interested in seeing a trial go ahead to see if all these horrific side effects are realised. I suspect that - in common with closing roads around the world - traffic evaporation will be seen, and the net effect will be a positive one. Does that make me militant and anti-motorist?

buffalo

PaulieC wrote: »

It's almost like everyone who was ever on a bike doesn't have to have the same militant pro-cycling, anti-motorist views that seem to be required in this forum. Not every cycle infrastructure project is the right one and they don't have to be championed regardless of their quality simply because they are cycling related.

Also, I'm interested in your choice of words - pro-cycling, but anti-motorist. Don't the cyclists deserve to be treated as people?

PaulieC

buffalo wrote: »

I don't know about anybody else, but I am interested in seeing a trial go ahead to see if all these horrific side effects are realised. I suspect that - in common with closing roads around the world - traffic evaporation will be seen, and the net effect will be a positive one. Does that make me militant and anti-motorist?

I am interested too to see how it goes. It's unfortunate the way it's coming about as it's never going to be accepted by the locals who will use it as a scapegoat for every traffic issue for the next x years.

I should have said that not all militant posters in here but a lot. It's basically the complete opposite of what's going on in the community/area forums, albeit with less bad language and personal insults

Larbre34

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Yes regional road, not national. Therefore it should not be a major route. You are very quick to call it regional but appear to lack understanding of regional and national roads.

At one point friend, I worked on the redesignation of national and regional routes when the motorway network was developed. I'd suggest its yourself who hasn't a clue.

With the exception of short sections of the N11 and N31, the highest designation of arterial route within the M50 now is Regional. Regional routes *ARE* major routes.

PaulieC

PaulieC wrote: »

I am interested too to see how it goes. It's unfortunate the way it's coming about as it's never going to be accepted by the locals who will use it as a scapegoat for every traffic issue for the next x years.

I should have said that not all militant posters in here but a lot. It's basically the complete opposite of what's going on in the community/area forums, albeit with less bad language and personal insults

This happened on Monday night after some preliminary work was done at the roundabout on beach road 😂

Fighting Tao

Larbre34 wrote: »

At one point friend, I worked on the redesignation of national and regional routes when the motorway network was developed. I'd suggest its yourself who hasn't a clue.

With the exception of short sections of the N11 and N31, the highest designation of arterial route within the M50 now is Regional. Regional routes *ARE* major routes.

Just because some are, doesn’t mean they all should be.

Larbre34

Oh man I laughed at that.

I did drive along there Friday evening and its quite a bit easier to negotiate without the mini roundabouts and traffic islands. Hopefully when the trial is cancelled for good, they don't reinstall them.

Larbre34

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Just because some are, doesn’t mean they all should be.

How is that relevant?