Cycle infrastructure planned for south Dublin

CHESSMUTANT

Larbre34 wrote: »

Think a wee word will have to be had with the Assistant Commissioner for Roads Policing about the Council abusing road works speed limits.

That's some real Walter Mitty **** right there.

magicbastarder

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

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.

hang on, you don't care about commercial car parks being built without planning permission (in fact, through lying on a planning application), and lack of progress is now DCC's fault for objecting over someone else trying to corrupt the planning process?
this is *strange*.

Kermit.de.frog

The car park is there already. The developers have an agreement with CIE and were told specifically by ABP planning for the car park was not required as it is an existing use.

It's back in the courts and they'll decide.

What evidence do you have of corruption?

Weepsie

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The car park is there already. The developers have an agreement with CIE and were told specifically by ABP planning for the car park was not required as it is an existing use.

It's back in the courts and they'll decide.

What evidence do you have of corruption?

There is a car park there. It's nearly all that is there really. What they are planning is very different in terms of how different car parks can be.

It was an afterthought and tacked on after everything was done and submitted and given permission for.

They were making a material change to entire block.

If they wanted to put a car park as is, then have at, but that's not what they did

Peregrine

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The car park is there already. The developers have an agreement with CIE and were told specifically by ABP planning for the car park was not required as it is an existing use.

It's back in the courts and they'll decide.

What evidence do you have of corruption?

So they should have applied for planning permission for the car park. What they did was apply for fast track planning permission for a strategic housing development and tried to sneak a large commercial car park into it. The court ruled that it's not allowed. It would be like applying for a strategic housing development and trying to sneak in an office building without permission or something. There's a small amount of other use development permitted but a large car park exceeded that limit.

Kermit.de.frog

An Bord Pleanala said they did not have to apply for planning permission. The inspector dealing with the case also said the same thing.

It's back before the courts. They were given leave to appeal on 3 substantive but technical legal points and it will be interesting to see how the court rules on that.

You use words like "sneak" things in to suit your own agenda in my view.

Peregrine

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

An Bord Pleanala said they did not have to apply for planning permission. The inspector dealing with the case also said the same thing.

It's back before the courts. They were given leave to appeal on 3 substantive but technical legal points and it will be interesting to see how the court rules on that.

You use words like "sneak" things in to suit your own agenda.

When the judge says the developer took an informed decision to not include the car park, I think it's completely fair to use words like "sneak".

Here's what the judge said:

In this case, Oxley clearly took an informed decision to deliberately not include an application for use of the deck as a car park. The reason for that appears to be obvious. Had such an application been made, the Board would have been forced to conclude that the proposed development did not fall within the ambit of “strategic housing development” as defined"

It is indeed on appeal but I don't know why you're telling me, you're the one who keeps bringing it up.

Weepsie

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

An Bord Pleanala said they did not have to apply for planning permission. The inspector dealing with the case also said the same thing.

It's back before the courts. They were given leave to appeal on 3 substantive but technical legal points and it will be interesting to see how the court rules on that.

You use words like "sneak" things in to suit your own agenda.

Then why did they originally have to apply for one for 58 spaces?

They had planning permission for a very specific one, and then changed it all after he fact and rather than doing their due diligence went well they said that's okay

They tried pulling a fast one.

buffalo

A fun thought experiment - imagine we actually put pedestrians and cyclists first, instead of just saying it in the pages of DMURS. Apologies for caps, but that's how it is on the page:

IMAGINE PLANNING AND OPERATING THE STREETS NETWORK WHERE THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT DRIVING AND CAR PARKING IS BANNED AND EVERY CHANGE HAS TO GO THROUGH A STATUTORY AND CONSULTATIVE PROCESS.

Streets would be for walking and cycling only from day one and any moves to change this arrangement would be subject to the local highway authority having to public a traffic order proposing the change to the status quo, people would have a statutory right to object in writing.

https://therantyhighwayman.blogspot.com/2021/03/turn-it-on-its-head.html

tomasrojo

CramCycle wrote: »

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.

Yeah, very relevant, I think. The only argument so far I'd have some sympathy for is the idea that the changes won't be undone, even if they don't work all that well. It would be a stronger claim with this evidence.

CramCycle

MOD VOICE: A reminder to all posters, unless you can back up your claims with some sort of evidence or theory, or even a loose link to the real world, then what you have is only an idea. This is fine and great for discussion but if people counter that idea with facts, validated theories etc. you need to up your game if you disagree, doubling down and not engaging is not a discussion.

magicbastarder

i don't know if this is relevant, but it somehow seems appropriate:

https://twitter.com/buitengebieden_/status/1370720527631978496

AndrewJRenko

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.

You're not seriously pretending that those new apartments would have been bought by locals, are you?

yascaoimhin

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.

They broke the law. End of discussion. Get over it.

Thelonious Monk

Saw this on Twitter, cars going 70km in the new 30 zone. Not surprised at all but it makes you think what's the point in these things if there's zero enforcement. More bicycles than I thought too.

https://twitter.com/glutenfreeMark/status/1371418601182363652/photo/1

Seth Brundle

^^^

buffalo

If anyone is interested in the source data: https://telraam.net/en/location/9000001682

A bit about the project: https://www.dublininquirer.com/2021/03/03/dubliners-collect-their-own-data-on-neighbourhood-traffic

Larbre34

You could make the same case to protect cyclists on any route, anywhere. And they should be protected.

The best way to do that is separate and segregated cycling routes. If you shut down one lane of Strand Road to vehicular traffic, you expose cyclists on the diversion routes to intensified risk. Six of one, half dozen of the other.

Fighting Tao

Larbre34 wrote: »

You could make the same case to protect cyclists on any route, anywhere. And they should be protected.

The best way to do that is separate and segregated cycling routes. If you shut down one lane of Strand Road to vehicular traffic, you expose cyclists on the diversion routes to intensified risk. Six of one, half dozen of the other.

If only we had a way of ensuring that one route such as strand road would protect cyclists with a segregated lane as you wish.

Other roads could follow, or maybe you heard of traffic evaporation....it has been mentioned here quite a bit....the other roads won’t be as busy as you claim!

Fighting Tao

Fighting Tao wrote: »

maybe you heard of traffic evaporation

Doesn't exist, not on Strand Rd.....its a special place

CramCycle

Larbre34 wrote: »

You could make the same case to protect cyclists on any route, anywhere. And they should be protected.

The best way to do that is separate and segregated cycling routes. If you shut down one lane of Strand Road to vehicular traffic, you expose cyclists on the diversion routes to intensified risk. Six of one, half dozen of the other.

The main road will be the Merrion Road, which at peak times won't move any faster so no real increase in risk. If they introduced average speed cameras across the city, this would help lower the number of drag racers on this road at night. This said, this route already has a bus lane for most of it.

Last point though, just o be clear, the cycle route is not the only reason for this, it is a good idea anyway for reasons described multiple times in thread.

Larbre34

I think given the unique circumstances of the current public health emergency, that we can say for certain as a matter of economic necessity, traffic levels in this City absolutely will increase again. I would say traffic evaporation is negated in the situation of an artificially low base level, so lets stop talking about it and deal with practicalities on the ground, as real and as predictable as everyone ignoring that 30 kph limit on SR.

I'd have to say though, given the timelines that now look likely, it should be in the cycling lobby's interest to see the cycleway tested against normal traffic levels, because to pass muster, I think its going to have to get through a standard planning process, i.e., Part 8, and not as some sort of murky Covid measure. (if the City Council decide to persist with it at all after the judicial review)

CramCycle

Larbre34 wrote: »

I think given the unique circumstances of the current public health emergency, that we can say for certain as a matter of economic necessity, traffic levels in this City absolutely will increase again. I would say traffic evaporation is negated in the situation of an artificially low base level, so lets stop talking about it and deal with practicalities on the ground, as real and as predictable as everyone ignoring that 30 kph limit on SR.

Your view then is that traffic is either so low in the area that moving it elsewhere will have no real impact, or it is significant, in which case, established and validated theories will play out. A study would help validate your ideas, whatever they are, as its hard to tell what you are saying here.

Larbre34

A study yes, in the form of a Part 8 report, a trial no.

Seaswimmer

Larbre34 wrote: »

A study yes, in the form of a Part 8 report, a trial no.

What happens if for example (hypothetical) the court were to grant DCC full permission for its proposal....but not as a trial.
So we get the cycle lanes, one way system and all associated works but that it is permanent.
And then if things were as bad as people are predicting there is no going back.
Is this not a risk for the people who are opposed to the scheme.
We can plan and carry out studies until the cows come home but at some stage we either have to put in some permanent infrastructure and see what happens, do nothing, or ideally have a trial and revert back if things go pear shaped.
it would seem to me that most objectors want to do nothing and keep the status quo (until 2027 when the Merrion Gates level crossing is gone)

Effects

Larbre34 wrote: »

You could make the same case to protect cyclists on any route, anywhere. And they should be protected.
The best way to do that is separate and segregated cycling routes. If you shut down one lane of Strand Road to vehicular traffic, you expose cyclists on the diversion routes to intensified risk. Six of one, half dozen of the other.

More cyclists will cycle the trial segregated route, rather than the 'congested' route you mention.

I think you'll agree that the best thing to do is to build the trial route, and keep it, until such time as they get around to building the segregated route closer to the sea, or where ever else is suitable along that stretch of road.

It's already a dangerous road for cyclists, due to motorists breaking the law on a daily basis.

Larbre34

No, the imposition on local areas is too great, they should get on with the sea defences and associated cycleway asap.

Chips Lovell

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Saw this on Twitter, cars going 70km in the new 30 zone. Not surprised at all but it makes you think what's the point in these things if there's zero enforcement. More bicycles than I thought too.

Sounds like a case for Cycling Mickey!

Larbre34

Seaswimmer wrote: »

What happens if for example (hypothetical) the court were to grant DCC full permission for its proposal....but not as a trial.
So we get the cycle lanes, one way system and all associated works but that it is permanent.
And then if things were as bad as people are predicting there is no going back.
Is this not a risk for the people who are opposed to the scheme.
We can plan and carry out studies until the cows come home but at some stage we either have to put in some permanent infrastructure and see what happens, do nothing, or ideally have a trial and revert back if things go pear shaped.
it would seem to me that most objectors want to do nothing and keep the status quo (until 2027 when the Merrion Gates level crossing is gone)

The Court can't do that.

They can either agree that the Council's current plan is legitimate and let the trial proceed or they can say it requires a full planning process, by the numbers, from square one, to comply with the law.

Either way, if the Council want a permanent fixture, they need a Part 8, now or after a trial. Kr at least on the face of it. The lack of trust around the so-called trial is a big motivator of the residents' opposition. No metrics, no parameters, no thresholds. As I said, if this is a good idea, it should pass the statutory tests. They can do that after the Court case or at some other point in the future, or not at all. Either way, the notion of a trial is dead.

Fighting Tao

Larbre34 wrote: »

The Court can't do that.

They can either agree that the Council's current plan is legitimate and let the trial proceed or they can say it requires a full planning process, by the numbers, from square one, to comply with the law.

Either way, if the Council want a permanent fixture, they need a Part 8, now or after a trial. Kr at least on the face of it. The lack of trust around the so-called trial is a big motivator of the residents' opposition. No metrics, no parameters, no thresholds. As I said, if this is a good idea, it should pass the statutory tests. They can do that after the Court case or at some other point in the future, or not at all. Either way, the notion of a trial is dead.

Nah. Lack of trust is due to lies and sensational from your crew.