Cycle infrastructure planned for south Dublin

They would still be weak minded. What is your point ?

My point is that they aren't actually weak minded just because you and some others disagree with them, or rather that they disagree with you.

They are representing significant cross sections of their communities, with legitimate concerns. I said before on here, the best thing you can do to prevent any progress, is to dismiss them as cranks, crooks, cronies, luddites, fat cats, blueshirts, or indeed weak minded. It will only entrench opposition.

OK Sorry to keep banging on about it, but I thought that you mentioned before that you don’t live in the DLR council area? If so, why would you go to the bother of speaking to several Councillors there about the conduct of the executive?

Maybe I’m misremembering and you do actually live in DLR?

(I’ll admit that I am a DLR resident directly impacted by these decisions.)

tbh this really brings me back to my earlier point about local residents not having a veto on these projects. And shows that they are right if the intention is to move this to permanent employee's.

I'm directly effected by Deansgrange, as that's my commuting route. It's a greater Dublin issue, not a local one, and should be judged on that, not chipper access.

Given that he is the Director of Infrastructure and hence, the joint shithouser of the piece, he would say that, wouldn't he?

They are directly contradicting their own statement, issued on the withdrawal of the S138, that only the Deansgrange section would be omitted, in order to address a solution for it. From my experience of the type of projects he's talking about, I politely suggest he's talking b0ll0cks.

Let me illustrate. The following is an extract from the post on the Council's website of 16th Sept.

"At the Council meeting on Monday 13 September, the notification under section 138 of the Local Government Act 2001, which related to works for the entire AST project, consisting of all three routes, was withdrawn by the Council Executive."

This is a lie. The S138 notification related only to the Deansgrange element. Why? Because other aspects of the work of the AST project were already underway on the ground, eg Lower Kilmacud Road which is currently excavated! And in any case, a contract for works being constructed on the ground under the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, are neither dependent on nor halted by a S.138 notification by the Council Chief Exec. The S.138 in this instance was being used as an instrument to force a vote, it wasn't a necessity as the funding was grants from the NTA, not Councils own resources. However, that backfired when the Councillors responded with a S.140 that they had the numbers to win.

This is the text of the email sent to Councillors by the Chief Exec when he decided to withdraw the S.138:

"Following the large number of submissions received recently on the Deansgrange element of the Active Schools Travel project, and following discussions with Councillors, it is now proposed to commence a further process of engagement with all stakeholders . All options will be considered before proceeding with the Deansgrange related elements, which form part of two of the proposed Active School Travel routes. All works proposed in relation to the Deansgrange element of the works will be deferred until the engagement process is completed, with a report to issue to the elected members at that time. The report will be completed by January 2022. In the meantime, it is proposed to withdraw the section 138 notice in its current form.”

I'm not sure how many more times he needed to say "deansgrange element", to make people understand that he was talking about the Deansgrange element!

Given the proof from both extracts above that a) the AST project as a whole is not affected by the S.138 one way or the other and that b) they were quite satisfied on Monday night that the Deansgrange element could be further examined in isolation, with revision and further consultation to attempt a solution, I can only reiterate that what Robert Burns is saying now (on his private twitter,no less) and what the Councillors were told yesterday, is total, absolute and complete bullshyt.

No, you misinterpret my feelings, I'm not close enough to it to be angry about it, I'm just feeling intolerant of negligent public servants. This is your taxes just as much as mine that they are playing fast and loose with.

The Councillors are angry about it though, they'll be overturning this stunt next week, as it is as transparent as it is shabby.

Nope, continue the work on the uncontroversial 23kms or so, as contracted, work on a solution with stakeholders for Deansgrange (some sort of shared surface deal with priority crossings, most likely) then complete that in turn.

Its not rocket science. Or at least it wouldn't be if the Council Exec weren't being spiteful.

The one way design on Deansgrange Road isn't happening, the sooner everyone gets over that and focuses on alternative solutions, the better for all concerned.

I think the actual situation is that the potential damage to the community locally was effectively communicated to the Council, ultimately.

Like many of these things, I doubt most of the people who became active over Deansgrange had ever contacted a Councillor before, let alone knew who they were, which isn't what I would characterise as well connected.

In the end, a majority of Councillors made a judgement on balance for the greater benefit of the wider area and thats where things are now.

Your myopia is constant.

Quite apart from business access, which is legitimate, some of those commercial sites are on the slate to provide higher density residential, based on the provisions of the current county development plan, which will be based on a certain level of road access etc

And so there is far more going on for Councillors to consider in the round, than just Ann and Barry on a Fisher Price bike.

Is that ANY possibility that you're being a tad selective about what particular public expenditures you choose to get particularly excited about? Not a peep about spending €80 million to manage the M50 because we can't rely on drivers to drive safely, but yeah, let's get all excited about a few cents (relatively speaking) spent on cycle lanes.

Some people are clearly more equal that the vast majority who responded to the consultation, in your mind. Perhaps we should get back to the old days of the merchant princes being in charge, and letting our betters decide these important things for peasants?

The mask slips.

1) Housing is the only game in town.

2) I'm not involved with any current or future projects within 5km of Deansgrange at the moment.

3) If this was the Motorways Forum, I'd have plenty to say about it, but it isn't.

4) I'm not disgusted by children. My own three piss me off occasionally, but disgust would be a strong word.

We are talking about a massively and permanently impactful measure, for 45 mins in the morning and 45 mins in the early afternoon, for 8 months of the year.

Young kids aren't going be let cycle without their parents anyway, by the time they're old enough, they should be practicised in cycling on all street types and with signal, roundabouts and so on. Whatever is built in Deansgrange eventually should be for all cyclists, all of the time, and side by side, with existing road users and the whole community

And yet, we are, where we are.

https://cabinteelylife.com/2021/09/20/deansgrange-cycle-lane-family-bike-ride/