Cycle infrastructure planned for south Dublin

Larbre34

Fighting Tao wrote: »

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

You'll keep telling yourself that no doubt, but blindsiding elected Councillors and communicating the scheme as a fait accompli by newspaper adverts is no way to manage an impactful public project. It was an arrogance typical of Keegan's executive unfortunately.

I think the fact the High Court determined there was a prima facie case to proceed to judicial review shows your claim of sensationalism is nonsense. But whatever helps get you over your disappointment I guess.

Weepsie

If counsellors were blindsided after several months of public consultation, they have no business being in government

These plans have been doing the rounds for a long time

Peregrine

Larbre34 wrote: »

You'll keep telling yourself that no doubt, but blindsiding elected Councillors and communicating the scheme as a fait accompli by newspaper adverts is no way to manage an impactful public project. It was an arrogance typical of Keegan's executive unfortunately.

This is false. The scheme was announced in a weekly report sent from the Chief Executive's office to all councillors on Friday August 7th 2020 at 12:54pm. The report contained several mobility related updates and was in the same format as previous weekly updates since COVID began. It was discussed by people on social media on Friday night (but not shared by any Dublin City Council accounts). The media reported it on Saturday.

It's obvious that a lot of councillors didn't see it but anyone who says councillors weren't told is lying.

Weepsie

Plus strand road was earmarked for a Greenway by he NTA in 2013 if not earlier

Peregrine

Peregrine wrote: »

This is false. The scheme was announced in a weekly report sent from the Chief Executive's office to all councillors on Friday August 7th 2020 at 12:54pm. The report contained several mobility related updates and was in the same format as previous weekly updates since COVID began. It was discussed by people on social media on Friday night (but not shared by any Dublin City Council accounts). The media reported it on Saturday.

It's obvious that a lot of councillors didn't see it but anyone who says councillors weren't told is lying.

I should add that these weekly reports to councillors were also used to announce the Griffith Avenue cycle route, Parnell Square contraflow, Werburgh Street contraflow, updates on the Grafton Street area pedestrianisation trials, updates on the interim Liffey cycle route implementation and several smaller interventions. Basically everything mobility related that was done between April and the end of the year was communicated through these weekly reports.

For some reason, it wasn't good enough for Sandymount.

Effects

Weepsie wrote: »

Plus strand road was earmarked for a Greenway by he NTA in 2013 if not earlier

And in an old report I had a look at, some of the mockup photos were done in 2007/2008. How long should it take to get something like this done.

Fighting Tao

Larbre34 wrote: »

You'll keep telling yourself that no doubt, but blindsiding elected Councillors and communicating the scheme as a fait accompli by newspaper adverts is no way to manage an impactful public project. It was an arrogance typical of Keegan's executive unfortunately.

I think the fact the High Court determined there was a prima facie case to proceed to judicial review shows your claim of sensationalism is nonsense. But whatever helps get you over your disappointment I guess.

Others have proved my comment to be correct. Can you please start being honest about the situation? If you don’t know something, it is ok.

I’m starting to think this thread should be in the conspiracy theory forum because of the amount of falsehoods and misrepresentations being put forward by you and your group.

beauf

I'm all for improving the cycling infrastructure. But this seems to the most controversial, and contested way of doing it. I wish them well.

Fighting Tao

beauf wrote: »

I'm all for improving the cycling infrastructure. But this seems to the most controversial, and contested way of doing it. I wish them well.

Maybe I am missing sarcasm.

People are being cranky because they didn’t get their own way after 2 public consultations. Very weirdly they did succeed in getting their own unprofessional and dangerous proposal onto the 2nd consultation list. The majority rejected it. The only reason they are still objecting is because they are rich enough to take a case to the high court. The council did not choose to go to court, it was a small minority that did.

It reminds me of people who challenge referendum results in court.

beauf

I wasn't referring to the legal aspect. Just the plan overall.

p15574

Effects wrote: »

And in an old report I had a look at, some of the mockup photos were done in 2007/2008. How long should it take to get something like this done.

How many children have grown up without being able to enjoy a childhood cycle along here?

Effects

p15574 wrote: »

How many children have grown up without being able to enjoy a childhood cycle along here?

Exactly. I know I'd really hate to cycle that current route with my kid. It's bad when it's just myself.
I've seen cyclists knocked down on that stretch a good few times, more than any place else I can remember.

yascaoimhin

Larbre34 wrote: »

The lack of trust around the so-called trial is a big motivator of the residents' opposition.

People who object to projects that have widespread support often have to resort to falsehoods and scaremongering to make things seem like the absolute worst thing in the world. See Green Luas Upgrade being referred to The Berlin Wall

"Lack of trust" was invented intentionally to make create the illusion that they're not being listened to, when they have been accommodated above and beyond what is necessary or reasonable.

"So-Called Trial" is another phrase thrown around by intentionally dishonest people without a shred of evidence because they don't want the trial to be a success and therefore permanently implemented.

CramCycle

yascaoimhin wrote: »

People who object to projects that have widespread support often have to resort to falsehoods and scaremongering to make things seem like the absolute worst thing in the world. See Green Luas Upgrade being referred to The Berlin Wall

If you look at those not in favour of the trial, DCC noted that many of them had used the exact same wording in a large number of submissions. Now they didn't accuse anyone of it being a small group making multiple submissions and postulated that it could all be individual calls copying wording that was on pamphlets in the locality.

Larbre34

CramCycle wrote: »

If you look at those not in favour of the trial, DCC noted that many of them had used the exact same wording in a large number of submissions. Now they didn't accuse anyone of it being a small group making multiple submissions and postulated that it could all be individual calls copying wording that was on pamphlets in the locality.

Well done Sherlock.

The latter is exactly what happened. It routinely happens in public consultations when there is organised opposition. 'if you want to object, here's a suggested form of words etc etc....'

Larbre34

yascaoimhin wrote: »

"So-Called Trial" is another phrase thrown around by intentionally dishonest people without a shred of evidence because they don't want the trial to be a success and therefore permanently implemented.

It is referred to as a so-called trial, because the City Council have not set any metrics for it, any parameters for success or failure. The only dishonesty being demonstrated in this matter is by the executive of the Council.

What sort of trial would it be if the Council could pull any figure out of their arse at the end of 6 months and say 'grand job, we're keeping this!'

The notion of a trial is dead now. If the track goes in, it'll be after a proper planning process and it'll be permanent, or if it comes up short, it'll never happen in this form.

tomasrojo

yascaoimhin wrote: »

"So-Called Trial" is another phrase thrown around by intentionally dishonest people without a shred of evidence because they don't want the trial to be a success and therefore permanently implemented.

Tim Harford had a good piece recently about how conspiracy theories are characterised as much by indiscriminate doubt as indiscriminate belief. You have to suppress belief in quite a lot of credible views of how the world works to accept QAnon, for example.

On the other hand, if the previous instances that were discussed of Dublin City Council ignoring the failure of a trial and retaining the street changes could be furnished, I'd be more amenable to give credence to the "so-called trial" gambit.

CramCycle

Larbre34 wrote: »

Well done Sherlock.

No need to get snippy.

The latter is exactly what happened. It routinely happens in public consultations when there is organised opposition. 'if you want to object, here's a suggested form of words etc etc....'

So a well organised objection campaign struggled to even come close to being in the majority in their viewpoint, you realise that's not a positive spin for anyone against the scheme. It means that a bunch of people who made no effort to coerce others into submitting on their behalf outnumbered them significantly. I am not Sherlock but common sense tells me that if such a campaign had been run, it would have looked worse for those opposed.

Larbre34 wrote: »

It is referred to as a so-called trial, because the City Council have not set any metrics for it, any parameters for success or failure. The only dishonesty being demonstrated in this matter is by the executive of the Council.

What sort of trial would it be if the Council could pull any figure out of their arse at the end of 6 months and say 'grand job, we're keeping this!'

The notion of a trial is dead now. If the track goes in, it'll be after a proper planning process and it'll be permanent, or if it comes up short, it'll never happen in this form.

In the unlikely event what you ask comes to pass, well, needless to say, cutting your nose to spite your face comes to mind. Merrion gates are closing in a few years, the port are moving traffic away from the bridge in the future, so from what I can see, if the objection is upheld, the locals just suffer with worse traffic for longer than is necessary.

Breezer

Out of interest, assuming this does go ahead, what happens to the cycle track when the Merrion Gates close permanently? Does it just become a dead end? Or is that still TBC?

Seaswimmer

Breezer wrote: »

Out of interest, assuming this does go ahead, what happens to the cycle track when the Merrion Gates close permanently? Does it just become a dead end? Or is that still TBC?

One of the early plans suggested a tunnel under the line for pedestrians and bikes only. This was to be in parallel with the now discontinued plan of a new road from Strand Road over to the Merrion Road near the offices before Merrion Gates..

magicbastarder

so; one of the biggest impediments to cycling in the area is motorists on strand road.
one of the biggest impediments to improving train services in the area is motorists on strand road.
one of the biggest impediments to motorists on strand road is motorists on strand road.

anyone here good at sudoku or pattern recognition?

Breezer

Seaswimmer wrote: »

One of the early plans suggested a tunnel under the line for pedestrians and bikes only. This was to be in parallel with the now discontinued plan of a new road from Strand Road over to the Merrion Road near the offices before Merrion Gates..

Thanks. No plans since that was scrapped though?

yascaoimhin

Breezer wrote: »

Thanks. No plans since that was scrapped though?

DART+ Coastal will begin public consultation later this year/start of 2022, we'll know then what is being considered regarding removal of level crossings in Sandymount

yascaoimhin

Larbre34 wrote: »

It is referred to as a so-called trial, because the City Council have not set any metrics for it,

They will develop a report based on feedback and take appropriate steps, like they do with other trials around the city

https://consultation.dublincity.ie/traffic-and-transport/feedback-on-grafton-street-area-pedestrianisation/

https://consultation.dublincity.ie/traffic-and-transport/grangegorman-filtered-permeability-trial/

And all the DCC Beta Trials http://dccbeta.ie/project

For some reason, Strand Road wants to be treated differently.

Try something out with the intention of see IF there are issues, still makes it a trial. It's not a requirement to have predetermined parameters to meet or follow at the end of the trial period. That is a qualification you have invented intentionally to add fuel to the falsehoods spread by the people objecting to this project.

You want the City to jump through enough hoops to make the project unviable.

The city was never under any kind of obligation to carry out a Part 8 for a Temporary measure or reallocated road space.

Larbre34

The High Court will decide that one, not you or I. But as I've said, the fact it determined a prima facie case bodes ill for Owen Keegan and Co.

If the Court does rule against the City though, there'll be some scramble to do Part 8s to retain all the recently reallocated road space, not just in Dublin, which will be affected by ruling.

It has to be said though, the Government are mostly to blame for the mess that had brought us to this point.

yascaoimhin

Larbre34 wrote: »

If the Court does rule against the City though, there'll be some scramble to do Part 8s to retain all the recently reallocated road space, not just in Dublin, which will be affected by ruling.

The court will then have created a president for all temporary detours to be subject to a Part 8 planning process, effectively banning parades

CramCycle

Larbre34 wrote: »

The High Court will decide that one, not you or I. But as I've said, the fact it determined a prima facie case bodes ill for Owen Keegan and Co.

Nonsense, no it doesn't, that's how the system works, consider whats in front of the judge and decide whether there is potential merit. On the basis that there is a lot of reference to various processes, it would be remiss of the judge not too. It's not like its's John Waters up there spouting sh1te. If it sounds like it isn't impossible or beyond stupid, which to be fair it doesn't. This doesn't in anyway indicate it is right. If that were the case, all cases that got past this stage would be biased heavily.

It has to be said though, the Government are mostly to blame for the mess that had brought us to this point.

There was no mess though, personally I would blame the, and I will repeat this again, minority for the time wasting. It's a pity but we will have to wait and see now. Hopefully the trial will take place in due time and then we can see if it is a good or bad idea.

buffalo

Larbre34 wrote: »

It has to be said though, the Government are mostly to blame for the mess that had brought us to this point.

Don't worry, I heard that the coalition and the Green Party are going to fall apart over this so-called trial. Any day now...

Thelonious Monk

So is the plan eventually for Strand Road to become a cul-de-sac? Or will they build an overpass at the Merrion Gates?
How do they expect to get permission for this if they can't even make a street one way? There'll be uproar from the locals and counsellors.

Larbre34

buffalo wrote: »

Don't worry, I heard that the coalition and the Green Party are going to fall apart over this so-called trial. Any day now...

No, I said CETA will take them out. Do pay attention.