Cycle infrastructure planned for south Dublin

magicbastarder

https://twitter.com/DonnachaCurley/status/1365612224165933059

Larbre34

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Yes. The court action ensured that 5 axles can drive right through Sandymount for another while. Some locals and yourself must be delighted to have trucks in the village.

They should be allowed on Strand Road, not through the back streets unless they have business to conduct. Banning heavy vehicles from a Regional route would have been stupid.

Fighting Tao

Larbre34 wrote: »

They should be allowed on Strand Road, not through the back streets unless they have business to conduct. Banning heavy vehicles from a Regional route would have been stupid.

Not stupid at all when they have access to the port tunnel. Who in the right mind would allow them through residential areas when they can avoid them?

Larbre34

ted1 wrote: »

Why would they ? It’s only suspended. It’s the route they’ll use in Future

You're worse than Trump over the election Ted.

I'm aware there is a process to be gone through, but I believe the following is going to happen.

The Court and An BP in some combination will find that the City Council acted improperly and will compel them to conduct a Part 8 (most likely) or other appropriate assessment. That takes us into May, or even later, depending on BPs timeline.

Then, the City Council will have to draw up the considerable report required by a Part 8 (including new baseline data) before it is published for consultation. That involves far more background work than they put forward heretofore. However, there must be a question mark over whether the Council do choose to go forward with it again, as by May or June, we expect that restrictions will be lifting and traffic patterns may be returning to more normal patterns, raising a serious question over the Covid justification.

But, you might argue and you'd be correct, the Council can proceed with a Part 8 irrespective of Covid, based on the cycleway being an appropriate proposal for the long term use of the R131. If they do that, the Part 8 will end up before the full City Council membership to vote on. I don't think it will pass regardless (it might get 25 of 63 votes on a good day)

And so Ted, if you think either a trial or the permanent installation of a cycleway on a traffic lane of Strand Road / Beach Road is going to proceed, I would respectfully suggest you are dreaming.

And so, given the very long lead time before this is ultimately put to bed, I'd expect the buses to revert to their normal routing without delay.

Thelonious Monk

Larbre is right imo, I wasn't going to believe this was happening until I cycled on it myself, but it definitely wont go ahead now.
We sometimes forget how carcentric this country is.

ted1

Larbre34 wrote: »

They should be allowed on Strand Road, not through the back streets unless they have business to conduct. Banning heavy vehicles from a Regional route would have been stupid.

No it wouldn’t, we built a tunnel so they can go via the M50. Unless they have a specific reason for not using it. That’s what they should use

ted1

Larbre34 wrote: »

You're worse than Trump over the election Ted.

I'm aware there is a process to be gone through, but I believe the following is going to happen.

The Court and An BP in some combination will find that the City Council acted improperly and will compel them to conduct a Part 8 (most likely) or other appropriate assessment. That takes us into May, or even later, depending on BPs timeline.

Then, the City Council will have to draw up the considerable report required by a Part 8 (including new baseline data) before it is published for consultation. That involves far more background work than they put forward heretofore. However, there must be a question mark over whether the Council do choose to go forward with it again, as by May or June, we expect that restrictions will be lifting and traffic patterns may be returning to more normal patterns, raising a serious question over the Covid justification.

But, you might argue and you'd be correct, the Council can proceed with a Part 8 irrespective of Covid, based on the cycleway being an appropriate proposal for the long term use of the R131. If they do that, the Part 8 will end up before the full City Council membership to vote on. I don't think it will pass regardless (it might get 25 of 63 votes on a good day)

And so Ted, if you think either a trial or the permanent installation of a cycleway on a traffic lane of Strand Road / Beach Road is going to proceed, I would respectfully suggest you are dreaming.

And so, given the very long lead time before this is ultimately put to bed, I'd expect the buses to revert to their normal routing without delay.

Trump ? You are the one giving out saying they should have stopped the count...
You’ve made lots of wild claims which have just been fictional. Whatever happened the government stepping in and stopping the scheme as the route is needed for BREXIT.

Pinch Flat

First Up wrote: »

Oh I'm sure you suffer no end but that has nothing to do with the plans for Sandymount, which is what we are talking about.

Well it does. The plan is to make it more accessible for cyclists. At the moment they have to share the roads with motorised traffic. Look I get this can be a difficult pill for some to swallow. If you rely on your car for every single journey and can't see alternatives beyond this, the proposal is going to appear like a travesty

AndrewJRenko

First Up wrote: »

Of course they are but they are not being inconvenienced.

Not being inconvenienced, eh?

https://twitter.com/robertburns73/status/1340648194003378176
https://twitter.com/CitizenW0lf/status/1331729635369947138

I couldn't find the tweet I really wanted, showing the Sandymount driver very nearly taking out a child cycling earlier this year with a dangerous overtake.

Fighting Tao

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I couldn't find the tweet I really wanted, showing the Sandymount driver very nearly taking out a child cycling earlier this year with a dangerous overtake.

This? https://twitter.com/alandub13/status/1331596920448487425?s=21

First Up

Pinch Flat wrote:

Well it does. The plan is to make it more accessible for cyclists. At the moment they have to share the roads with motorised traffic.

Then make it more accessible (and safer) for cyclists by building a cycle path over a few hundred meters of beach.

Larbre34

Robert Burns is the director of traffic in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown. He absolutely has a vested interest in justifying his own work and in encouraging these schemes in other areas. As an official rather than an elected person, I think he should stay in his own lane, pun intended, but DLR seem happy to involve themselves in this mess, which is interesting considering the outcome of the Court case affects the basis on which they installed their measures too.

Seth Brundle

First Up wrote: »

Then make it more accessible (and safer) for cyclists by building a cycle path over a few hundred meters of beach.

Why on earth was this not thought of before now?

First Up

Seth Brundle wrote:

Why on earth was this not thought of before now?

Probably because it didn't fit with Keegan's agenda which is mostly to inconvenience motorists.

Weepsie

Larbre34 wrote: »

Robert Burns is the director of traffic in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown. He absolutely has a vested interest in justifying his own work and in encouraging these schemes in other areas. As an official rather than an elected person, I think he should stay in his own lane, pun intended, but DLR seem happy to involve themselves in this mess, which is interesting considering the outcome of the Court case affects the basis on which they installed their measures too.

Why didn't mannix stay in his own lane then. He wasn't voted in by Sandymount residents?

Weepsie

That video had quite a few illegally parked cars. Shocked, absolutely shocked I am, given how much we now users of this road insist on all proper procedure being followed!!

I am not shocked. People who worry of minutae are the people looking for the loopholes to show why it doesn't apply to them

Larbre34

Weepsie wrote: »

Why didn't mannix stay in his own lane then. He wasn't voted in by Sandymount residents?

Correct, he was voted in by the good people of the South East Inner City, including Ringsend.

As I've said a few times, there seems to be a deliberate narrative, here and on other social media, to paint this as the SUV drivers of Sandymount v The World. In fact, the opposition to the Council's design was even bigger and louder in Ringsend, Irishtown, Bath Avenue and Londonbridge. Individuals and associations from those areas worked closely with STC and SAMRA in supporting a case.

So lets put to bed for good any notion that Flynn had no basis for getting involved.

Larbre34

Larbre34 wrote: »

Correct, he was voted in by the good people of the South East Inner City, including Ringsend.

As I've said a few times, there seems to be a deliberate narrative, here and on other social media, to paint this as the SUV drivers of Sandymount v The World. In fact, the opposition to the Council's design was even bigger and louder in Ringsend, Irishtown, Bath Avenue and Londonbridge. Individuals and associations from those areas worked closely with STC and SAMRA in supporting a case.

So lets put to bed for good any notion that Flynn had no basis for getting involved.

There's only one problem with your narrative, history

Weepsie

So why do you have a problem with someone from outside dcc who would of course have an interest in it as it's a.comtuting route for swathes of people from dlr, and why was it raised as a problem that people from outside Sandymount showed a huge amount of support for the plans, when you are so happy to highlight those from outside of the area not supporting them.

Mannix with 7% of the vote, his vote is falling every election to, and a Green candidate with more than 4 times that show the actual appetite of the electorate. They want greener, non car centric solutions. It's been on the cards for bloody years and people pretend it's a surprise.

You're being a hypocrite on this matter. Nothing less

Eamonnator

Weepsie wrote: »

So why do you have a problem with someone from outside dcc who would of course have an interest in it as it's a.comtuting route for swathes of people from dlr, and why was it raised as a problem that people from outside Sandymount showed a huge amount of support for the plans, when you are so happy to highlight those from outside of the area not supporting them.

Mannix with 7% of the vote, his vote is falling every election to, and a Green candidate with more than 4 times that show the actual appetite of the electorate. They want greener, non car centric solutions. It's been on the cards for bloody years and people pretend it's a surprise.

You're being a hypocrite on this matter. Nothing less

Last time out, he got in by 8 votes.

Thelonious Monk

Has anyone listened to this from earlier today?

https://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/newstalk-breakfast-with-susan-keogh/strand-road-cycleway-dispute-with-hazel-chu-mannix-flynn

It will actually hurt me to listen to Mannix so I can't do it myself

Larbre34

Weepsie wrote: »

You're being a hypocrite on this matter. Nothing less

I'm really not. It just helps you get your head around this disappointment to believe that I am.

Peregrine

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Has anyone listened to this from earlier today?

https://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/newstalk-breakfast-with-susan-keogh/strand-road-cycleway-dispute-with-hazel-chu-mannix-flynn

It will actually hurt me to listen to Mannix so I can't do it myself

Hazel came across well. Mannix raved on about consultation, environmental impact and something about railroading. The host called the argument about the lack of face masks on the computer generated image nonsense. Mannix claimed it wasn't and that it was actually a very valid point and moved on. He seemed embarrassed about his own application.

Weepsie

Larbre34 wrote: »

I'm really not. It just helps you get your head around this disappointment to believe that I am.

On this particular point, you very much appear to be. You can't be so dismissive of others because they're outside their lane ( as you put it,) and so gung ho about the support of a counsellor who has object to every cycling initiative ever it seems, supported the ripping out if one of the most vibrant night spots in the city ( despite wanting to establish a proper night time economy apparently) so it can be replaced by a hotel, yet then opposed a hotel given permission elsewhere in a long derelict site., .

He's sought to leave the council at the last 4 elections too so I wonder really how genuine any of his concerns are.

He seems to want to join any cause that puts it those in power, but very much wants a seat at the table too.

Larbre34

Yeah but at the end of the day, Mannix Flynn is an elected Councillor of an area affected by this scheme. He has every right to do what he's done. I'm simply defending that right. It doesn't make me a hypocrite.

If I was on the SUV owners forum and they were saying Hazel Chu or Claire O'Connor had no right to get involved in this just because they didn't like what they stand for, I'd be defending their right to and you'd be the first ones backing me up.

This is your echo chamber boss, it doesn't make me a hypocrite.

Seth Brundle

First Up wrote: »

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Why on earth was this not thought of before now?

Probably because it didn't fit with Keegan's agenda which is mostly to inconvenience motorists.

Knowledge is wonderful!
In terms of a development at the biosphere reserve:

Any interference in going into the bay, particularly in our area with the high designation that this particular area has, can only be done based on the principle of no other possible alternative and an overriding need.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/no-sandymount-cycle-path-until-2026-if-alternative-plan-pursued-council-1.4455743?mode=amp

Seth Brundle

Larbre34 wrote: »

If I was on the SUV owners forum and they were saying Hazel Chu or Claire O'Connor had no right to get involved in this just because they didn't like what they stand for, I'd be defending their right to and you'd be the first ones backing me up.

I haven't seen you post anything defending the view held by the majority of councillors though. Did I miss something?

Weepsie

Dlr is also affected by this scheme so the dlr person very much has a right to voice their concern as much as mannix.

So yes. You seem to believe that one person outside of the electoral area can have no opinion on it, but those that support your view on it can. That's hypocritical. You know it is.

By thinking otherwise it's reverting back to the inward ****e that prevents any sort of progress, the same type of crap that is being seen in parts of glasnevin, clontarf etc

Move the goalposts again if you like, but it won't change anything.

PaulieC

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Not being inconvenienced, eh?

https://twitter.com/robertburns73/status/1340648194003378176
https://twitter.com/CitizenW0lf/status/1331729635369947138

I couldn't find the tweet I really wanted, showing the Sandymount driver very nearly taking out a child cycling earlier this year with a dangerous overtake.

The first video looks perfectly fine to me. Nothing untoward. Tweeter seems a bit sensitive.

Larbre34

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I haven't seen you post anything defending the view held by the majority of councillors though. Did I miss something?

Thats just it boss. The majority of Councillors opposed Strand Road.

I'm not here to defend any one of them one way or the other, I'm just explaining reality. Its something we need to circle back to in here every so often, just so we know which way is North.