Cycle infrastructure planned for south Dublin

ted1

tomasrojo wrote: »

Dundrum Main Street was a fairly major two-way thoroughfare though.

Grafton street was major thorough before DCC pedestrianised it.

Weepsie

Peregrine wrote: »

These planning regulations? :pac:


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/order-halting-works-on-sandymount-cycleway-issued-by-high-court-1.4495901

Any judge worth their salt would be disregarding those "safety" concerns. If it were not covid, they'd try something else.

Peregrine

Peregrine wrote: »

The two-way track would mean cyclists were only one metre apart, the submission, made by Farry Town Planning Ltd on behalf of Mr Flynn states. “This would in our opinion facilitate the transmission of air-borne droplets to a greater degree than exists under the present layout,” it said.

“We believe that this proposal would increase transmission rates.”


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/order-halting-works-on-sandymount-cycleway-issued-by-high-court-1.4495901

They are making an excellent case to remove all traffic lanes on the strand road. :pac:

Larbre34

It would be delusional for anyone to hold on to the belief that this was purely down to Mannix Flynn.

Larbre34

ronoc wrote: »

To be honest it's a pity there was a stay on the works but I think their grounds for overturning the council decision are pretty weak.

But I think also that is the noisey minority's objective. Delay, pointless consultation, obstruct and kick it into touch and hope it goes away. I'm optimistic there is sufficient pressure on the council by pro groups to get this over the line.

Pressure one way or the other on the Council is irrelevant. Its in the hands of the High Court now.

tomasrojo

Larbre34 wrote: »

It would be delusional for anyone to hold on to the belief that this was purely down to Mannix Flynn.

I think people assume (rightly or wrongly) that it's mostly down to well-heeled nimbyists, but Flynn relentlessness on this subject is certainly an asset.

Larbre34

tomasrojo wrote: »

Dundrum Main Street was a fairly major two-way thoroughfare though.

Not since the bypass was opened in the early 2000s. One way vehicle access is sufficient for the Main Street and has been supported strongly by local groups. Again, had this been the approach with Sandymount village, we'd be having a different conversation today.

Larbre34

Larbre34 wrote: »

Pressure one way or the other on the Council is irrelevant. Its in the hands of the High Court now.

Their case is pretty weak and there will likely be another delaying tactic after this. They are hoping the council will take the path of least resistance and quietly abandon the project.

tomasrojo

Larbre34 wrote: »

Not since the bypass was opened in the early 2000s. One way vehicle access is sufficient for the Main Street and has been supported strongly by local groups. Again, had this been the approach with Sandymount village, we'd be having a different conversation today.

The Dundrum Main Street layout change was quite strongly opposed locally, as well as supported. I don't know enough about the layout of Strand Road/Sandymount to comment on the viability of different routes, but I assume they'd all have been met with opposition, because every change like this is.

Larbre34

ronoc wrote: »

Their case is pretty weak and there will likely be another delaying tactic after this. They are hoping the council will take the path of least resistance and quietly abandon the project.

Don't forget An Bord Pleanála will issue a determination on the planning process that should have gone along with this. The High Court will likely defer to that and it will take a lot longer than April.

So, if the Council's scheme is sustainable in principle, it should withstand a proper planning process. If it doesn't, then back to the drawing board.

And what I mean by sustainable in this case, is not to be based on temporary artificial traffic data, but to hold up against a baseline from normal times. That should be the yardstick for something as radical and highly impactful as this.

Do I think after all the jigs and reels it will ever be built? No, I dont. I think the only game in town is the Promenade route.

tomasrojo

Larbre34 wrote: »

Don't forget An Bord Pleanála will issue a determination on the planning process that should have gone along with this. The High Court will likely defer to that and it will take a lot longer than April.

It's not clear from the news reports that ABP has to rule on it. Has a decision been made on that? I mean by someone who isn't you?

Larbre34

Larbre34 wrote: »

Don't forget An Bord Pleanála will issue a determination on the planning process that should have gone along with this. The High Court will likely defer to that and it will take a lot longer than April.

So, if the Council's scheme is sustainable in principle, it should withstand a proper planning process. If it doesn't, then back to the drawing board.

And what I mean by sustainable in this case, is not to be based on temporary artificial traffic data, but to hold up against a baseline from normal times. That should be the yardstick for something as radical and highly impactful as this.

Do I think after all the jigs and reels it will ever be built? No, I dont. I think the only game in town is the Promenade route.

This is not what was decided today.

The applicants attempted to block the works at the last minute with an ex parte application to halt works pending a judical review of the case. This was not granted and the hearing was today with both parties. They judge granted the halt today pending the outcome of the judicial review.

They don't have much of a leg to stand on in this review but they are just using any delaying tactic at this stage.

Thelonious Monk

Well at least if it goes ahead in April the weather might be nicer, and it could look like a resounding success if it's thronged with families on bikes every day. Mannix's nightmares being realised.

Seth Brundle

Larbre34 wrote: »

I think the only game in town is the Promenade route.

:rolleyes:

Larbre34

ronoc wrote: »

This is not what was decided today.

The applicants attempted to block the works at the last minute with an ex parte application to halt works pending a judical review of the case. This was not granted and the hearing was today with both parties. They judge granted the halt today pending the outcome of the judicial review.

They don't have much of a leg to stand on in this review but they are just using any delaying tactic at this stage.

Did I say anything was decided today?

Larbre34

Seth Brundle wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Get used to it.

Larbre34

Larbre34 wrote: »

Did I say anything was decided today?

I'm sorry, I mistakenly assumed you were making an argument in good faith.

markpb

Larbre34 wrote: »

Don't forget An Bord Pleanála will issue a determination on the planning process that should have gone along with this. The High Court will likely defer to that and it will take a lot longer than April.

I'm going to take that with a pinch of salt. It's barely 24 hours since you were confident that the injunction would involve telling DCC to restore all the changes (vandalism apparently) they had already made. That has not happened. Before that you were confidently asserting that TII would tell DCC to stop the project because the port and Brexit or something. Then something about a school blocking the project because you think truck drivers can't turn right. Those did not happen. And let's not forget this:

Larbre34 wrote: »

Besides, the case has been taken by two individuals, not the organisation(s) who raised the 21k. I have no knowledge directly, but that funding could be paying planning consultants or other indirect costs around the issue and make no direct impact on legal costs.

Larbre34 wrote: »

At the discretion of the legal team, some issues were put into the JR request, other issues directly related to planning regs are in the Section 5 to An Bord Pleanála. All aspects will be reviewed in these combined processes.

Which is it, you're not involved at all or you're aware of decisions that the legal team made? Your previous claims that you just want the council to follow due process are very laudable. The NIMBYs taking/supporting the court case are doing the same. They're concerned about due process, about poor cyclists getting covid, about the transparency behind a public consultation process and who knows what else. It would be a lot easier to believe if you and they came out and said they don't want the cycle lane there. Everything else is muck being flung at a wall.

Weepsie

Larbre34 wrote: »

Not since the bypass was opened in the early 2000s. One way vehicle access is sufficient for the Main Street and has been supported strongly by local groups. Again, had this been the approach with Sandymount village, we'd be having a different conversation today.

There was plenty against Dundrun changes too that were local. As happens a few people changed their tune when they saw the world didn't implode following nthe changes. Even with the bypass, it was a busy route

There was plenty of local support for sandymount too.

Thelonious Monk

So is the S2S plan or whatever scuppered by this now? Were there ever any plans on how they'd tackle this stretch before covid?

tomasrojo

markpb wrote: »

It would be a lot easier to believe if you and they came out and said they don't want the cycle lane there. Everything else is muck being flung at a wall.

It is a recurring phenomenon, along with "We're totally in favour of encouraging cycling and walking, but ...". There doesn't seem to be any sign that the groups set up to oppose these schemes are in favour of schemes of that type in any meaningful way. It's mostly about loss of parking, loss of right to drive in a particular direction, or in other cases, not this one, keeping people from outside the neighbourhood out.

Thelonious Monk

This is gas

https://twitter.com/DublinPedaller/status/1365307117880639490

PaulieC

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

This is gas

https://twitter.com/DublinPedaller/status/1365307117880639490

There is a house on strand road with a big sign saying "strand road two way not D4 throughway" and a link to a website which I thinks is called sandymountcycle4all.ie. What could it all mean?

tomasrojo

It is bad if you're Mannix Flynn.

It seems clear enough though that, mixed in with some weak and bad-faith arguments, this is probably closer to the heart of the objections: that once it goes in they won't be able to get rid of it.

Larbre34

tomasrojo wrote: »

It is bad if you're Mannix Flynn.

It seems clear enough though that, mixed in with some weak and bad-faith arguments, this is probably closer to the heart of the objections: that once it goes in they won't be able to get rid of it.

I wouldn't deny that at all.

In setting no metrics for success, actually no metrics at all, through their shambolic process, the CC set it up as a fait accompli. Only a fool would buy that this was ever going to be a trial.

Peregrine

PaulieC wrote: »

There is a house on strand road with a big sign saying "strand road two way not D4 throughway" and a link to a website which I thinks is called sandymountcycle4all.ie. What could it all mean?

Does the sign have planning permission? Was there an environmental impact assessment done?

thebaz

Having been following this , well at a distance , why is Mannix involved ?

I thought he lived in city centre , or does he now live in Sandymount ?

tomasrojo

Larbre34 wrote: »

I wouldn't deny that at all.

In setting no metrics for success, actually no metrics at all, through their shambolic process, the CC set it up as a fait accompli. Only a fool would buy that this was ever going to be a trial.

I've some sympathy for that position; I mean for any theoretical permanent change to an area. So far though, the feedback to most of these schemes around Dublin have been net-positive. At least as far as I'm aware. I don't really know what DCC had planned to measure success or failure of this scheme, but they've used surveys in the aftermath of other schemes:
https://irishcycle.com/2018/06/16/bollards-in-drumcondra-stopping-rat-running-should-be-kept-says-local-residents-and-report/

Weepsie

Youd be shocked, shocked, just how many permissions for retention for things like driveways, alterations to garages and extensions without planning permission have seemingly been applied for in sandymount over the last few years, given how vigoursly they follow the rules.

It's quite a few

tomasrojo

thebaz wrote: »

Having been following this , well at a distance , why is Mannix involved ?

I thought he lived in city centre , or does he now live in Sandymount ?

I suppose it is a Dublin City Council area, and he's a Dublin City councillor. But his interest does seem to arise from his general dislike of cycling infrastructure, and maybe cyclists.

I mean, this was quite a stretch, when talking about a rave in Oliver Bond flats:

Cllr Flynn said it wasn't up to gardai to police last night's scenes as it took place in a Dublin City Council controlled housing estate. He said: "This is not something new. Dublin City Council reneged and betrayed and didn’t do their care of duty to the residents here. They refused to turn up last night to deal with this issue. It’s their estate - they’re responsible for the management of that estate 24 hours a day - not An Garda Siochana. An Garda Siochana have enough things to do. And the guards didn’t want to exacerbate the situation. And remember - Dublin City Council, which gets a billion euros of your money, just seems to be obsessed about putting cycle tracks down on the city when they’re unnecessary.

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/dublin-street-party-oliver-bond-18967696