Cycle infrastructure planned for south Dublin

Larbre34

CramCycle wrote: »

Again, your missing my point, hopefully not intentionally. Forget the cycle lane. A one way road there is good for locals, regardless of transport mode, it is good for noise and air pollution reduction. The bike lane is a nice addition at the same time but really incidental. It doesn't close the bridge, it doesn't stop access to the port, but you already know this.

What about the impact on other routes that must take the displaced traffic? What about the narrow unsuitable routes that would end up with East Link traffic?

Everyone's mistake here has been to ignore the consequences of this whole plan from the start.

tomasrojo

Larbre34 wrote: »

Everyone's mistake here has been to ignore the consequences of this whole plan from the start.

The modelling suggests that the consequences are net beneficial, and the trial is to see how well the modelling fits the outcome?

That's the impression I got from most of this thread and the reporting.

Weepsie

Larbre34 wrote: »

What about the impact on other routes that must take the displaced traffic? What about the narrow unsuitable routes that would end up with East Link traffic?

Everyone's mistake here has been to ignore the consequences of this whole plan from the start.

Again a trial might have shown a negative impact but becauae of backwards, anti-progressive arseholes like flynn we'll just not know.

Working from home is here to stay for many companies too so the expected traffic evaporation on top.of this would account for some of the hos issues you raise

CramCycle

Larbre34 wrote: »

What about the impact on other routes that must take the displaced traffic? What about the narrow unsuitable routes that would end up with East Link traffic?

Everyone's mistake here has been to ignore the consequences of this whole plan from the start.

And several people have put up links to literature into where measurement of displaced traffic is observed. There will initially be an increase in traffic in the adjoining areas but typically what happens is that the increase in traffic in nearby areas (and there are often decreases as well) is not equivalent to the amount of traffic that stops using the original area. Nuremberg ran a closed road trial for a year, overall the city had a huge decrease in overall traffic, and the increase in traffic in adjoining roads was less than 30% of the amount of traffic that was removed in the first place, in fact several streets had a decrease in traffic overall.

There is a nice review by Cairns et al (2002) that shows with multiple case studies that when you reduce road space for motorised vehicles, even in just one small area, it leads to a drastic reduction in overall traffic volumes in the area. Memory tells me they analysed over 60 sufficiently powered studies which all lead to the same conclusion.

Your mistake here would not to be accept the possibility that the consequences for this move would be positive not only in the immediate area but far further than that. It is negligent not to run the trial when you look at the potential consequences.

First Up

CramCycle wrote:

Again, your missing my point, hopefully not intentionally. Forget the cycle lane. A one way road there is good for locals, regardless of transport mode, it is good for noise and air pollution reduction. The bike lane is a nice addition at the same time but really incidental. It doesn't close the bridge, it doesn't stop access to the port, but you already know this.

So you have ideological objections to motorised transport. We all get that but motor transport also contributes to wealth creation, living standards, employment, choice and quality of life. We would miss it.

8,000 - 10,000 such vehicles cross the East Link northbound each weekday. Even without "uneccessary" journeys, that's fair bit of traffic and they all have to use Sean Moore Rd to get to it.

Do you accept that closing access to the Sean Moore Rd. from Strand Rd will cause those using it to take other routes? Have the implications of that been estimated and assessed? Have any of those affected been consulted?

You are quick to criticise motorists but that seems to be as far as you have got. Do you agree that DCC should be doing more than just hoping the problem will go away?

CramCycle

First Up wrote: »

So you have ideological objections to motorised transport. We all get that but motor transport also contributes to wealth creation, living standards, employment, choice and quality of life. We would miss it.

Not at all and I am not sure why you are trying to polarise the discussion like that. Please discuss the points rather than trying to paint it as a personal issue. I drive regularly, for both personal and work reasons. I am thinking of the benefits to the locals and city in general from moves like this. It will affect me as I would have driven this route at night on occasion but I also realise that a) its not a huge time differential and b) indications are that the slight negatives for a small number of people (who will also benefit from the positives) are outweighed by the positives for locals and the city in general.

8,000 - 10,000 such vehicles cross the East Link northbound each weekday. Even without "uneccessary" journeys, that's fair bit of traffic and they all have to use Sean Moore Rd to get to it.

The SPAR plan for Dublin port will reduce East Link usage, outside of the Strand Road plans by 25% although I haven't read the full report but it would appear that the Port plan to remove all heavy goods vehicles from the East Link bridge. The DART+ plan will close the Merrion gates in a few years completely. As mentioned, all journeys seem essential until they aren't, traffic evaporation shows that "essential" journeys are not as large a % as one might think and that many of these have alternatives.

Do you accept that closing access to the Sean Moore Rd. from Strand Rd will cause those using it to take other routes? Have the implications of that been estimated and assessed? Have any of those affected been consulted?

Its almost as if running a trial that was well highlighted might have been the perfect way to assess it as you seem unable to accept well understood and widely accepted traffic theory.

You are quick to criticise motorists but that seems to be as far as you have got. Do you agree that DCC should be doing more than just hoping the problem will go away?

I have not criticised motorists, I would appreciate that you stick to the discussion rather tha off topic mud slinging. I would hope that DCC would run a trial to see if its as good an idea as it sounds on paper. I would have to query the mindset of someone who can't see the use of a trial.

Thelonious Monk

I believe basing our society around cars has reduced standard of living overall and people and the environment would be in far better shape if we moved away from using them so much

First Up

CramCycle wrote:

I have not criticised motorists, I would appreciate that you stick to the discussion rather tha off topic mud slinging. I would hope that DCC would run a trial to see if its as good an idea as it sounds on paper. I would have to query the mindset of someone who can't see the use of a trial.

You don't think references to noise and air pollution and safety infer criticism of motorists?

I have already said a trial will be a good idea when everything can be trialled, including how DCC handles the impact traffic diverted off Strand Rd. There is no evidence they have even thought about it, judging from Keegan's comments.

I referred previously to Keegan justifying road closures and other measures as "temporary", only for them to become permanent without proper oversight or justification. I strongly suspect he was trying something similar here and I'm happy that he didn't get away with it.

By all means let's find ways to increase bicycle usage and safety - including on Strand Rd. Just do it properly and not treat it as warfare as many posters here are doing.

magicbastarder

https://twitter.com/dublincycling/status/1370746553594433543

CramCycle

First Up wrote: »

You don't think references to noise and air pollution and safety infer criticism of motorists?

No, it's a statement of fact not criticism. I am not sure where you get criticism from. You seem to be misunderstanding me for the purpose of creating conflict where none exists.

I have already said a trial will be a good idea when everything can be trialled, including how DCC handles the impact traffic diverted off Strand Rd. There is no evidence they have even thought about it, judging from Keegan's comments.

For a variety of reasons, you cannot trial everything at once and to attempt to do so is to invite failure in the trial. You can't separate out what has worked and what has hasn't, nor can you identify what needs to be done and what should be avoided. If you can't grasp this then there simply is nothing that you are going to understand as this is a basic enough premise. You run the trial, either it creates problems elsewhere and in the location. In which case you learn from it and revert back to an earlier state. It makes it better on location but worse elsewhere, in which case you see are there measures to improve the issues elsewhere (or revert). Finally there are benefits there and elsewhere, in which case, job done for now but you keep under review. It's not rocket science, it's just science and engineering and at a very basic level.

I referred previously to Keegan justifying road closures and other measures as "temporary", only for them to become permanent without proper oversight or justification. I strongly suspect he was trying something similar here and I'm happy that he didn't get away with it.

Can you post links or examples?

By all means let's find ways to increase bicycle usage and safety - including on Strand Rd. Just do it properly and not treat it as warfare as many posters here are doing.

Again, please stop trying to drag this down to a personal debate, and stick to the discussion and facts, otherwise people will start to believe you are being disingenuous.

tomasrojo

Roisín Ingle gently correcting some other things he said.
https://mobile.twitter.com/roisiningle/status/1370754430593826820

First Up

CramCycle wrote:

No, it's a statement of fact not criticism.

When there is no mention of any of the benefits, it's criticism.

CramCycle wrote:

you cannot trial everything at once and to attempt to do so is to invite failure in the trial. You can't separate out what has worked and what has hasn't, nor can you identify what needs to be done and what should be avoided.

You don't need a trial for Strand Rd. You need it for the traffic and other roads affected by the diversion of 8,000 or so vehicles. Again, there has been no mention of any of that, other than Keegan's assurance that it won't be the end of the world.

CramCycle wrote:

Can you post links or examples?

I won't divert the thread. I can PM you if you are really interested.

CramCycle wrote:

Again, please stop trying to drag this down to a personal debate, and stick to the discussion and facts, otherwise people will start to believe you are being disingenuous.

Heaven forbid such an open minded audience would think that.

tomasrojo

First Up wrote: »

I won't divert the thread. I can PM you if you are really interested

Seems very relevant to me. Post away, I think.

(I mean, in the thread.)

Weepsie

First Up wrote: »

When there is no mention of any of the benefits, it's criticism.

Like how you ignore the benefits of the trial, cycleway and just mention every problem, imagined or otherwise?

First Up

Weepsie wrote:

Like how you ignore the benefits of the trial, cycleway and just mention every problem, imagined or otherwise?

You mean just count the bicycles on Strand Rd and ignore everything else?

AndrewJRenko

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/proposed-cycling-lane-causing-fear-and-loathing-in-dublin-4-1.4509818?mode=amp

Without a hint of irony, Manics tells us "This is not about a well-to-do-area......You're going to see challenges from Clontarf, Malahide, Donnybrook, Booterstown Ave, Blackrock, out as far as Dun Laoghaire". He truly is the defender of the underdog.

Larbre34

Weepsie wrote: »

Like how you ignore the benefits of the trial, cycleway and just mention every problem, imagined or otherwise?

The problem is, nobody trusts the City Council that this will be a trial. The way they've conducted themselves in this whole affair demonstrates a complete lack of regard for good practice for infrastructure planning for citizens and for elected reps. Thats why we a where we are, awaiting a judicial review.

I remain of the view that the Court will mandate a Part 8 be carried out. Part 8 makes no provision for trials, either something passes muster, or it doesn't, so I think this notion of a trial still being possible needs to be forgotten.

But thats not a terrible thing for the cycling lobby. It means if its a legitimate and appropriate design and it gets through the Part 8, it can be installed permanently. High stakes indeed.

Seth Brundle

Larbre34 wrote: »

The problem is, nobody trusts the City Council that this will be a trial.

When was the vote held?

Larbre34 wrote: »

But thats not a terrible thing for the cycling lobby.

Who exactly are the cycling lobby or are you simply using a stupid and lazy generalisation?

Kermit.de.frog

magicbastarder wrote: »

https://twitter.com/dublincycling/status/1370746553594433543

I have no issue with this cycle lane and I hate NIMBYism, however the group tweeting that deprived a North Dublin community of hundreds of homes recently on Sheriff St no less (one of the most deprived places in the country) through the courts on a technicality. A disgraceful, shameful act in a housing crisis.

What goes around comes around. They are in no position to talk about vexatious ludicrous but impactful court cases when they do the same themselves.

I have no sympathy for them. That's the game they want to play but the problem is everyone can play it as they see now.

All these court cases from nimbys are ludicrous. The system needs reform.

tomasrojo

This "you can't trust them" argument can be used to oppose anything though. But, as I said, it has been said or implied that there is clear evidence of a failed trial being made permanent, so rather than hypotheticals, let's see the links to those trials.

magicbastarder

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I have no issue with this cycle lane and I hate NIMBYism, however the group tweeting that deprived a North Dublin community of hundreds of homes recently on Sheriff St no less

i'll just use someone else's post about this as it was already addressed in the thread.

Peregrine wrote: »

They took legal action against An Bord Pleanála who allowed Ballymore and Oxley to illegally build a large non-residential car park as part of a residential development without including it for consideration in the application. The judge found that they "took an informed decision to deliberately not include" it as part of the application to get around SHD legislation.

Far from your depriving poverty stricken areas of much needed luxury apartments narrative. In stark contrast to this case, they outlined why they thought the law was broken from the start. And they were right. The blame for that residential development being delayed lies with the developers who took the informed decision to break the law and ABP for allowing them — not the people who called them out on it.

Larbre34

Seth Brundle wrote: »

When was the vote held?

Who exactly are the cycling lobby or are you simply using a stupid and lazy generalisation?

That day you were out.

Yes.

Weepsie

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I have no issue with this cycle lane and I hate NIMBYism, however the group tweeting that deprived a North Dublin community of hundreds of homes recently on Sheriff St no less (one of the most deprived places in the country) through the courts on a technicality. A disgraceful, shameful act in a housing crisis.

What goes around comes around. They are in no position to talk about vexatious ludicrous but impactful court cases when they do the same themselves.

I have no sympathy for them. That's the game they want to play but the problem is everyone can play it as they see now.

All these court cases from nimbys are ludicrous. The system needs reform.

Yeah we already went over this. They were not homes intended for those who really need them and never were.

A city centre apartment complex doesn't need a 100+ parking garage either.

In fact it was likely the parking was for commercial use rather than for residents and was tacked on last minute.

There was no objection to the apartment, but for the absolutel p!ss taking without any consultation and trying to fly this one by hoping noone would notice.

They are very different things.


Putting in equitable and easier transport links opens up wider parts of the city and country to each other. It means getting from a suburb into the city is easier. It means building homes in places maybe deemed too far for some because viable.


I have a serious issue with the bus connects objectors near me on the poor excuse of saving trees. They fail to see the huge benefits it brings to communities like ballymun, swords and beyond.

Kermit.de.frog

Well it's back in the courts again on appeal.

Suffice to say advocate groups need to be careful with the optics of their actions.

In my view that was a needless, spiteful, harmful action by a group looking for publicity. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's dreadful optics.

If you want support pick your battles carefully.

I'm all for improved infrastructure for cyclists and I think the complaints here are sheer NIMBY but it is hypocritical to cry about people running to courts with vexatious claims.

I'll leave it at that.

Larbre34

Kermit, what commonality are you trying to create between pro cycling posters here or cycling campaign groups and a planning/housing issue?

I mean I've been crossing swords with folk here on the Strand Road scheme for a few months, and we agree on little, but I'm not going to try and blame them for the invasion of Poland. What sense is anyone supposed to make of what you're saying?

Weepsie

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Well it's back in the courts again on appeal.

Suffice to say advocate groups need to be careful with the optics of their actions.

In my view that was a needless, spiteful, harmful action by a group looking for publicity. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's dreadful optics.

If you want support pick your battles carefully.

I'm all for improved infrastructure for cyclists and I think the complaints here are sheer NIMBY but it is hypocritical to cry about people running to courts with vexatious claims.

I'll leave it at that.

It's not dreadful optics at all. Only dreadful to those, like you who are completely misrepresenting what the objection actually i

Luxury apartments dumped on top of an area that you have described as deprived ( and I know it all too well as I have worked in the area for a decade and now work with a lot of community groups in the area) won't do a huge amount to benefit the locals who need it most and will just create further inequality and division to be honest

Kermit.de.frog

Weepsie wrote: »

It's not dreadful optics at all. Only dreadful to those, like you who are completely misrepresenting what the objection actually i

Luxury apartments dumped on top of an area that you have described as deprived ( and I know it all too well as I have worked in the area for a decade and now work with a lot of community groups in the area) won't do a huge amount to benefit the locals who need it most and will just create further inequality and division to be honest

That's your opinion. It's that opinion that has the city the kip it is because everyone objects to everything and nothing gets done.

And you're wrong about that development. It included a new GAA club, other facilities and social housing units. You present everything as if if it's not a new Ballymun you are not interested and use it as a stick to hold Dublin back.

The car park is fine with me. Very few other people will care.

It's terrible everyone holding progress back. It's hard to have sympathy when you engage in it too.

Kermit.de.frog

Larbre34 wrote: »

Kermit, what commonality are you trying to create between pro cycling posters here or cycling campaign groups and a planning/housing issue?

I mean I've been crossing swords with folk here on the Strand Road scheme for a few months, and we agree on little, but I'm not going to try and blame them for the invasion of Poland. What sense is anyone supposed to make of what you're saying?

Because a tweet was shared from a cycling group that only a few months ago went to court themselves over some parking spaces and cost a community much needed investment.

Same group is now complaining about others going to court against the cycle lane they support with vexatious objections.

They have that right to go to court. Complaining about it is hypocritical in my view.

It's the system that tolerates these hold ups that needs changing.

CramCycle

First Up wrote: »

When there is no mention of any of the benefits, it's criticism.

No its not. There are benefits to reducing traffic in that area which I have listed. There are benefits to society of motor vehicles but none of them are affected by this so mentioning them would be misleading.

You don't need a trial for Strand Rd. You need it for the traffic and other roads affected by the diversion of 8,000 or so vehicles. Again, there has been no mention of any of that, other than Keegan's assurance that it won't be the end of the world.

First of all, it isn't 8000 vehicles at the minute, and pre covid it was typically less than 8000 daily from the last count I found, as in over 24 hours, it is most likely far less at the minute. Either way, as repeatedly explained to you multiple times, with papers to validate the theory, it won't lead to 8000 cars somewhere else. That said, and this is the honest unbiased truth, that is why you run a trial. While all indications are as I have said, you need a trial to validate that this scheme isn't the exception to the rule.

I won't divert the thread. I can PM you if you are really interested.

I'd welcome them but they won't divert the thread, in fact if they back up your statements you really should put them in thread.

Heaven forbid such an open minded audience would think that.

Irony aside, you will find that I have made a discussion based on the facts and published academic papers. If i thought it made sense to leave the strand road 2 way, I would support it, I would also support it if the trial finds it is a terrible idea. Thats how reasonable people hae a discussion, when evidence disagrees or reinforces a viewpoint, you reassess and see where if you stand makes sense.

Here are two starters for you, the 2nd is what is known as a review paper that has surmised the findings of multiple case studies and academic papers.

https://ec.europa.eu/environment/pubs/pdf/streets_people.pdf
https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/disappearing_traffic_cairns.pdf

Weepsie

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

That's your opinion. It's that opinion that has the city the kip it is because everyone objects to everything and nothing gets done.

And you're wrong about that development. It included a new GAA club, other facilities and social housing units. You present everything as if if it's not a new Ballymun you are not interested and use it as a stick to hold Dublin back.

The car park is fine with me. Very few other people will care.

It's terrible everyone holding progress back. It's hard to have sympathy when you engage in it too.

Also all of the studio apartments were under the minimum required size, though not sure if that was raised or objected to.

When a planner / developer is doing everything they can to ignore these sorts of things, they should be held to a higher accountability, because we have in our recent past have had developers cobble these places together, ignore planning laws and standards and wash their hands of all issues afterwards.


The plans make very, very vague promises of community use in one of the blocks. Drawings have GAA club front and centre though. If their masterplan or any other docs went into any sort of detail about this, I'd believe them, but they don't and with this wholly unnecessary commercial carpark they've shown they are willing to try and pull a fast one at any time