It's also 30km/h on the beach at Bull Island, but don't tell the Evening Herald

“30kph limit for rush hour cars on Long Mile” cried the Evening Herald’s headline yesterday.

Why is the zone only for certain times of the day? Only half way down the Herald’s news report is a council official quoted saying that the limit applied during the school year. No other mention that the limit is there because of school children or that there are school buildings on both sides of the road.

The newspaper also somehow failed to mention the small length of the new speed limit zone on the road. The zone comes in just under a whopping 400m long. That distance at 28km/h takes so long to travel… a whole 51 seconds!

The article opens saying: “Motorists on Dublin’s busy Long Mile Road will have to take extra care following the introduction of a new 30kph speed limit.” At the risk of somebody telling us “will somebody think of the children”, this is a small stretch of road outside schools in a built up area, motorists should take extra care outside all schools regardless of the speed limit.

According to the council’s website, the operational hours are 8.15am to 9.30am and 12.45pm to 4.15pm. A second new zone outside a school for 140m at Chapelizod Road runs from 8.15am to 9.30am and from 1pm to 3pm.

Unlike normal speed limit signs, these timed signs have black backgrounds and text (ie 30km/h) which lights up when active (see here).

What’s the point of the limits? The following image shows the large increased probability of death if a person gets hit by a car at 50km/h, compared to a much lower probability of death at 30km/h. Some people’s feelings on this differs to the facts, but it’s hard to argue with physics:

MORE: Image of a 30km/h periodic speed limit sign
MORE: Speed limits in the Dublin City Council area
MORE: Call for 30km/h speed limit
MORE: Effect of 20 mph traffic speed zones on road injuries in London

Helmets? High-vis? No. Firstly, the second two are lacking lights and, just as important secondly, is road positioning. The first cyclist takes a far better road position — he cycles in a straight line, following the road how other traffic does. He keeps away from the kerb and also stays away from the parked van’s doors.

The last two cyclists make the mistake common to many of Dublin’s cyclists — they follow the kerb rather than following the road like the rest of the traffic. This leads them to swerve out at the last minute as the road narrows to make way for the parked cars.

The potential danger here is that motorists may not give them the room to swerve out (in this case, that taxi shown beside them acts correctly by giving them space). Both also failed to look behind them or over their shoulders — a basic skill for cyclists pulling out or changing lanes.

This road is by far not the best designed for cyclists, but cyclists need to take responsibility for how they cycle.

“Hugging the kerb” or cycling on top of double yellow lines is generally a poor way of cycling. A key part of cycling training is road positioning and cyclists are recommended to keep well away from the kerb. Cyclists may feel like they are safer closer to the side of the road, but that’s more often than not untrue.

When cycling too close to the footpath with traffic beside you, you can’t avoid potholes, open or damaged drain covers, or people walking off the footpath. In the same way as if you keep cycling close to a parked car you’ll get “doored” sooner or later.

Using your eyes -- a basic skill, far more important than a helmet or high-vis

The issues of whether to wear helmets and high-vis or not is a distraction. At one end of the scale it’s a distraction to improving the skills of cyclists and drivers, while at the other end it’s a distraction to providing better conditions for cyclists.

All this gear also makes cycling look dangerous, and this slows down the process of getting more people on bicycles (cycling is not dangerous, we’ll deal with this later).

It may seem strange. But by far the most proven way to make cycling safer is to increase the amount of people cycling. It’s called safety in numbers. The more cyclists on the road, the less accidents. The more people cycle, the more motorists are aware of cyclists, expect cyclists and the more likely that motorists are cyclists or know cyclists, so treat them better.

Unlike cycling helmets, safety in numbers has been proven time and time again. If you want to make cycling safer — get more people to cycle. Don’t waste valuable time promoting helmets or high-vis (promote lights if you want to promote safety gear for cyclists).

Compared to safety in numbers, the benefits of cycle helmets is highly disputed and there’s even some scientific papers which say wearing helmets could do more harm for various reasons. Pro-helmet research is flawed beyond belief as it makes no distinction between off-road mountain biking and urban commuting, or between a racer at 50km/h and a middle aged woman at 15km/h. Even the authors of some of the strongest pro-helmet research no longer stand by all of their claims (others continue to repeat them).

Helmets are clearly a distraction from safer cycling. Like a long line of people before him — cyclists or not — a former garda wrote into The Irish Times this week saying helmets should be “promoted as strongly as possible.” He said:

“It is not correct to say that cycling is “not dangerous” as there are times when cycling does involve risk and cyclists do sometimes suffer serious injuries and even death as a result of becoming involved in accidents. While Mr Mordaunt [a previous letter writer] may be a very skilful cyclist and capable of safely cycling without the use of a helmet, many others, including myself, may not be so skilled.”

“I recently had cause to be grateful that I was wearing a cycling helmet, when I struck a bad pothole and fell from my bike while cycling on a main road. I had a heavy fall from the bike, suffering injury to my shoulder and hip, and in the process struck my helmeted head hard on the tarmacadam surface. I dread to think what my injuries might have been had I not been wearing the helmet.”

Again, we’ll deal with how safe cycling is below…

Wearing high-vis, has lights, but cycles inside turning vehicles

By his own admission, he “may not be so skilled” of a cyclist; why then is a helmet so important? Should he not look at improving his cycling and learn to avoid potholes? This recent of many letters written into The Irish Times were linked to an article on cycling training. They seemed to miss the point of the article – safe cycling is about skill more than safety gear.

As the cycling instructor in the article says — cycling is safe.

The above letter writer says “there are times when cycling does involve risk”, that’s true about nearly everything in life. Not only is it comparably safer than some household tasks, but the health benefits of cycling outweigh any risks by as much 20 to 1 (source below*).

Urban cycling — which makes up most commutes — is safer than you’d think. Between 1998 and 2008, rural cycling accounted for 75 or 52% of cyclist deaths in Ireland. Overall deaths have been decreasing; cyclists accounted for 4.6% of people killed on Irish roads in 1998, but only 2.9% in 2002. In Dublin where more people cycle than anywhere in the State, cyclists deaths in urban and rural areas have been in single figures for over a decade.

For most of that time, deaths in Dublin have been in the low single digits. Statistically, the figures are so low that not much can be inferred from them, but there is no sign of an increasing trend in deaths when the number of people cycling has increased in recent years.

Helmets are a distraction. Between 2002 and 2006, 73% of fatal accidents in Dublin were caused by left turning heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) — a figure which could have been vastly improved by better training for cyclists and drivers, and cyclops mirrors for HGVs. Helmets do not help when people are crushed by trucks – cyclops mirrors do. Yet there have been very few calls for mandatory cyclops mirrors for trucks.

And if helmets were needed in cyclist-only crashes, then we’d see large amounts of cyclist injuries and deaths in Denmark and the Netherlands where there are many cyclists, very few of whom use helmets. But the opposite is seen in those countries.

Calls for cyclists to wear helmets are not based on evidence. Such calls are based on emotion and people’s feelings that cycling is more dangerous than it is.

Getting more people cycling to work, college and school can be used as a tool to tackle one of our greatest health problems — obesity. But it goes far beyond that; cycling and walking can lower the risks of cancer, diabetes, heart diseases, strokes, and even depression (source).

A large modal share increase of cycling has even more widespread health benefits. This is important to Dublin given recent increasing air quality problems directly linked to emissions from motorised traffic and the acute noise problem Dublin has from traffic.

But with emotion, not evidence pushing the agenda, helmets are likely to continue to be an issue for some time to come.

* Source: British Medical Association. Cycling: towards health and safety. Oxford Univ P, 1992

“Details supplied” appears 64 in the latest minutes published online, those for the January 2011 council meeting. For December, the term comes up 114 times. For November, 88 times. For October, 103 times. For September, 112 times.

In fairness, the term is needed. It’s needed to protect people’s personal details. But the council’s use goes far beyond this legitimate usage.

But why does the council feel the need to hide the details of public roads or footpath repairs, or details of council programmes? For example:

“To ask the Manager to initiate proceedings to have, (details supplied), entered on the derelict sites list.”

“To ask the City Manager to report on the new initiative, (details supplied), started by the Council and if it will be piloted on the south side?”

To ask the City Manager for a report on the possibility of a house being built without any planning permission to the rear of, (details supplied). I did enquire about this property to DCC last year (2009).

“To ask the City Manager to arrange for a couple of bollards to be placed on the green area outside, (details supplied), as there is a postbox located there and cars/vehicles have the green destroyed. There is also a problem with vehicles pulling up and obstructing entrances and exits of properties nearby.”

“To ask the City Manager to look at the placing of a bollard in the centre of the path at the bottom of the ramp facing, (details supplied).”

“The issue of coach parking in, (details supplied), is currently being investigated by the Traffic Division in consultation with other parties. A report will be forwarded to the Central Area Committee in due course.”

“To ask the City Manager if there are plans to improve the street lighting along, (details supplied), as lighting there at present is very weak. Could he also please investigate the possibility of having CCTV installed at the end of the Avenue near the, (details supplied).”

Not included are examples of personal details or details of the council’s tenants — these should not be included. There even could be reasons why some of the above examples should be kept hidden, but all of them? It’s not top secret stuff, nor is there likely to be any wrongdoing in the above, but why are the details hidden?

For open, transparent government at all levels, it’s not just improvements in the Freedom of Information Act which is needed, much more is. It is a sad state of affairs when the council uses the equivalent of a black pen written answers attached to its own minutes.

IMAGE: Some rights reserved by infomatique

The streets became easer to cross. Tables and chairs allowed people to sit down and eat or talk and enjoy the streets, not just use them as a means of getting from A to B. Traffic flow was also better.

Should we be asking questions like: Why does Westmoreland Street need four wide traffic lanes plus on street parking? Why are people crammed on both sides of parts of Dame Street when the traffic lanes are also extra wide? Why is so little room given to the very heavily walked non-pedestrianised part of Grafton Street when the space left on the road is more than what is needed?

Why are there two east bound traffic lanes outside the Cineworld on Parnell Street when the only traffic that can legally get there appears to be cyclists? Why is there only a tiny space left for bus stops and people trying to walk on Parnell Square West when the road is one of the widest one-way streets in the city?

As well as larger squares, the changes in New York had smaller-scale effects on other street as these before and after photos from Columbus Circle show:

And, on an even smaller scale, New York last year started working with business in taking out a few parking places rather than trying to fit tables and chairs on already busy footpaths:

It’s not fair to say or imply Dublin has not given space back to people — the pedestrianisation of Grafton Street, Henry Street, and some smaller streets, as well as the footpath widening of  O’Connell Street, are examples. But can Dublin do more?

Dublin City Council is looking at doing some more. Businesses around the area of South William Street (between Grafton Street and South Georges St) have been seeking that streets in that area be pedestrianised — see more at dublin2walk.com. The traders behind the proposals say that the project can be done cost effectively while maintaining or even improving access to the area’s car parks. The council seems to be taking the proposals at least somewhat seriously and is looking into it as part of a planned revamp of  Grafton Street. There’s also plans to build a plaza on Custom House Quay, diverting traffic around Custom House and improving traffic flows.

We don’t have the money at the moment? Indeed, Dublin’s attempts at street improvements always seem to be high cost solutions — streets repaved with granite stone and the higher cost traffic light polls and street furniture. New York is a good example where lower cost methods can be used — markings, bollards, and plant pots are being used while it awaits a full redesign with permanent materials.

As the architect Jan Gehl points out many cities started these kind of improvements while trying to get out of downturns. He points out that being “sweet to people” has been shown to be good for a city’s economy — it’s good for people, good for business, and good for tourism. If you’re interested in what Gehl has to say, see this video here.

This is about what kind of city Dubliners want. It’s not about banning cars but giving space back to people while still allowing cars access to car parks and to get around. It’s an area that all Dublin councils have power over. But people have to want a better, more liveable city. Do we want it enough? Do we tell the powers that be enough that we want it?

Here’s other examples of before and after photographs from New York City (more can be found on their Flick sets here, here and here):

Last Saturday 50,000 people protested in Dublin against cuts and the IMF/EU bailout… or was it 100,000 people? Or maybe it was 40,000? Or 150,000?

Most media outlets said 50,000 people, or up to 50,000 — including RTE, The Irish Times, and Breakingnews.ie. Some said it was below 50,000. Few reported 100,000; The Guardian was one of the main media outlets to do so. Exactly how many people there are at a protest is never an exact science.

The 50,000 figure was sourced from the Gardai on Saturday. The 100,000 figure came from the stage at the march — the unions announced it near the end of the protest, using the Gardai as a source. A figure of 150,000 also came from the stage where a musician announced it without saying a source.

By Monday, the garda estimate was down. ”The final figure estimated was between 40,000 and 45,000. We take guidance from local Gardai on the ground in reaching these figures,” said Gerry Kavanagh of the Garda Press Office.

It’s hard to measure the amount of people moving in a march, but the march ended at O’Connell Street where the bulk of the marchers gathered. From photographs and accounts, the following was mapped out around the area of the protest — give or take. We’d be interested in seeing other photographs or video if you think they show a different picture.

View Protest numbers in a larger map

Using an area and distance calculator on Google Maps, the area comes to around 10,000 square meters. It could be a lot lower if you factor in statues, empty spaces, barriers etc. But let’s use 10,000 square meters as a guide given that’s the best estimate we can can come up with from the pictures we’ve seen (rooftop and aerial photographs in Sunday papers and on websites and posted via Twitter).

Put two people per square meter and you get 20,000 people. Three and you get 30,000. Four — it’s getting squashed here — and you have 40,000. 50,000 or above in that space would be only achievable if everybody was as close as you get in a packed nightclub or commuter train — that’s not what photographs show. 100,000 people in that space is highly unrealistic.

Around 40,000 seems right, 45,000 seems high. The most reported number of 50,000 seems at the very high end but Irish media outlets got flack over it.

JUST TO ADD: 40,000 still seems quite a good turnout given the poor road conditions due to the cold weather.

IMAGE: Some rights reserved by infomatique

Dublin's boardwalks have become known as areas for homeless and drug addicts to hang out

Dublin City Centre’s problems won’t be solved by a new law banning aggressive begging if people are unwilling to even pick up their phone.

Even after a ban on begging was ruled unconstitutional, much of the problems with with beggars and ‘junkies’ are already covered by law.

Any act of aggression or intimation is covered. Begging at Luas stops and on trams is covered as loitering under the light railway bylaws.

These are already covered but daily Luas users complain about beggars annoying them when buying tickets or even on trams.

The idea that new laws will solve the problems of the city centre is a sick joke when current crimes are often not being reported. And maybe laws are not being enforced or there isn’t enough policing resources for the city?

Take this jem from the Sunday Independent, where the journalist wrote: “Since the old Vagrancy Act was struck down, gardai have had no proper legal powers to move on beggars or the heroin addicts who have been congregating in the city centre in large numbers — in some place openly dealing drugs within yards of the busiest shopping and tourist areas.”

Typical mishmash for the Independent, mixing fact with fiction. There may be no powers to stop somebody from begging, but including “openly dealing drugs” is the same sentence is nonsense. Clearly the Gardai still do have powers to stop drug dealing in public, the Vagrancy Act being struck down does not affect this.

After the Sunday Independent article was publiched, a statement was also released by lord mayor Gerry Breen calling on the Dail to hurry up with a new begging law (the press release was covered in The Irish Times etc — at least with the Sunday Independent, the city centre’s problems are news before the lord mayor makes statements).

The problem is highlighted in an ongoing thread  on boards.ie called “Junkies in city centre“. But that thread and others show that people often don’t report events to the gardai or security. People say they don’t have the time, or don’t want to get involved.

With the majority being so unwilling to report a crime, it makes it hard to know how much of this is down to lack or resources for the Gardai or inaction. Both of these are unfair if so many people are unwilling to look for a garda or security guard, or walk away and just ring the local Garda station. And, sometimes, making a statement is needed.

People not willing to get involved or even picking up the phone is one of the wider problems here. Other problems such as too much centralised resources for the homeless and for drug addicts are already being worked on. Homelessness its self is an even wider problem again. A new law isn’t the be all and end all of solving the Dublin City Centre’ problems.

IMAGE: Some rights reserved by Kieran Lynam

The Dail - a boys club?

COMMENT: On a recent Saturday afternoon I sat and read The Irish Times. On page three of the Weekend supplement, my party colleague Olwyn Enright smiled back at me.  The Deputy, having served the people of Laois/Offaly for the past eight years had come to the decision that her family commitments and the demands of being a rural deputy were incompatible.

At 36, Deputy Enright is one of the youngest Fine Gael TDs in Dail Eireann and whilst the decision is entirely hers to make and not one that should be questioned, it does throw into stark relief the decisions faced by female members of the Oireachtas, those which in all likelihood are not being laboured over by their male counterparts.

In 2006, the Central Statistics Office found that there virtually the same number of women and men in Ireland. Perhaps it is about time that we, as a mature nation, realise that our beloved mothers, sisters, wives and daughters represent half the population and that like it or not they should be represented fairly and equally right across all levels of government.  This democratic deficit can only be addressed when we begin to discuss and address why women chose not to go in to politics.

Perhaps the judgement foisted upon women by their peers, their relatives, their neighbours, fellow party members and finally the electorate puts them off (when was the last time that a male political was ridiculed for his choice of outfit or his profile picture on facebook), or maybe the length and venues of some political meetings at grass routes level and in the Oireachtas itself (when coupled with a perceived role in our society as the main carer) prevents or discourages women from participating or engaging in politics.

With just 14% of TD’s in Dail Eireann being women, is our society or our political system to blame?  Or is our political system a reflection of our society and the role that it has carved for women. Is the type of support available in modern Ireland that allows a woman to make a choice without judgement or ridicule?

I believe the statistics answer this question.  In 2009, only 14% of TDs in Dail Eireann were women, while they accounted for 34% of members of State Boards, 17% of members of local authorities and just 12% of members of regional authorities. The average representation in national parliaments for the 27 EU countries was nearly 24% in 2009.

Our society has seen rapid changes in the last number of decades.  These changes have lead to the old notions as to the roles that men and women play in our society being turned on their heads, often being discarded outright.  What replaces these notions is key to the evolution of our society and indeed our political system.  Key to this evolution is the question: why are there low numbers of female parliamentarians?

Political equality is essential for a properly functioning democracy.  It is clear that women are not running for political office in the numbers necessary to begin to equalise this imbalance.  We should, as a modern democracy, encourage open debate on this issue both at party political and national level.

If we want more than empty rhetoric then Irish society and we as individuals and indeed our political parties need to examine our own motivations and behaviours.  Undoubtedly only a strong willed person would chose to enter politics and we are not short on strong willed women in this country, so what is putting them off politics?

While the Oireachtas has recommended the introduction of gender quotas or targets as a means to resolve this imbalance, it is clear that our political systems and method of voting may also need to be examined in order to truly level the playing field.  While part of the resolution to this problem may lie with gender quotas, the political establishment must alter the means of candidate recruitment and selection in order to ensure that women are given the same opportunities as men.

Perhaps the Irish people and the Dail could consider the charter of International IDEA, a Swedish based democracy lobby group; “The pursuit of democracy is incomplete without policies, measures and practices that seek to reduce inequalities between men and women in all spheres of life.”

I believe that the time has come for us all to examine this issue in greater detail.  A sea change in the Irish political system is needed if we are to have anything approaching equality.

Alan Farrell is a Fine Gael councillor on Fingal County Council, this is the first of a series of articles he to write for Dublin Observer.

IMAGE: Some rights reserved by apanoply

Proposals for the Dublin mayoralty have changed so much since their original inclusion in the 2007 Programme for Government that it’s been difficult to tie down what the mayor will actually do, writes Dermot Looney, a Labour Party councillor on South Dublin County Council.

The Bill to introduce the “Mayor for Dublin” – the ‘for’ is, seemingly, important to distinguish it from the lord mayor ‘of’ Dublin – has not yet been published. Nevertheless the guiding principles are included in the General Scheme – popularly known as the Heads of the Bill – which were published in February, giving us a fairly detailed sketch of the final picture. As always, the devil is in the detail – so what do these proposals actually say?

THE NEW REGIONAL AUTHORITY OF DUBLIN

The serious nitty-gritty of the bill is contained in Part 3, “Functions of the Authority.” Before examining the powers ‘granted,’ it is worth investigating the makeup of this Regional Authority of Dublin (RAD) and the mayor’s relationship with it.

Part two, chapter one of the Bill notes that the new mayor would chair the Regional Authority of Dublin. The current Dublin Regional Authority (note, again, the subtle name change) is, in essence, one of eight half-hearted attempts at regional government, suggested by EU regionalisation policies, at a level between local councils and national government. There are currently 31 members of the DRA which currently serves as a review body for planning and development guidelines. In its current format, the DRA is often held up by the media as the epitome of an ineffective quango.

“In essence, one of eight half-hearted attempts at regional government, suggested by EU regionalisation policies”

The heads of the current bill will abolish the current DRA and replace it with a new and slimmed-down Regional Authority of Dublin (RAD). The Mayor would be one of 16 members of the RAD and would act as its chair, unlike in London where the mayor does not sit with the assembly.

In addition to what the bill describes as the directly-elected “Mayor for Dublin,” the four chairs of the local authorities would also sit on this authority, ie the lord mayor of Dublin City Council, the mayors of South Dublin and Fingal, and the Cathaoirleach of Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown.

“There is somewhat of a representational imbalance in favour of the city council area”

There would also be five other members of the RAD appointed from Dublin City Council, and two each from South Dublin, Fingal and Dun Laoghaire. In population terms, the City Council area has approximately half a million people, with 1/4 of a million each in South Dublin and Fingal and 200,000 in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown. There is somewhat of a representational imbalance in favour of the city council area.

Transport and planning are some of the areas the new mayor is to deal with

Under Head 15 (4) it is indicated that the members of the Authority would be nominated by the councils each year at the annual meeting of each (usually in June, when the mayors/Cathaoirligh are elected). There is no indication as to whether or not a particular councillor would serve longer than a one-year term on the RAD.

Realpolitik would determine that the party political makeup of this authority would rely on the controlling groups of the four councils involved. At present there are alliances of varying strengths between Labour/SF/Ind (South Dublin), Labour/Socialist Party (Fingal), and Fine Gael/Labour in both Dublin City and Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown.

Under these arrangements the current DRA, not including the ex-officio lord mayor of the City Council, includes 11 Labour, 8 Fine Gael, 3 Sinn Fein, 3 Fianna Fail and 5 Independent councillors. It would be reasonable to expect that the new RAD would have a similar make-up, until the 2014 elections at least.

“There are no references whatsoever to a role for the regional authority or the mayor in education, policing, health or other elements of social policy which are devolved locally in many other countries”

One question deserving of being raised is what would happen in the event of the majority of members of the authority reflecting a conflicting party political allegiance to the mayor. Under the Heads of the Bill, members of this new RAD can seek the mayor to be removed from office if 3/4 of the members vote for her/his removal – but even in this unlikely event, the final say is still with the relevant Minister.

A deputy mayor would be appointed by the mayor from amongst the members of the Regional Authority, and would not be a Cathaoirleach/mayor of Dublin City or the three administrative counties. The mayor would also have the power, in essence, to fire her/his deputy.

Waste policy with come under the mayor's powers

The Heads of the Bill divide the functions of the RAD – and therefore the mayor – into five main sections, dealing in turn with general functions, regional planning guidelines, regional waste management, regional water services and regional housing, along with references to regional bodies involving transport and enterprise and a section on ministerial directives.

The policy areas dealt with are in themselves instructive as to the limitations of the mayor’s powers and, indeed, the overall weakness of Irish local government. There are no references whatsoever to a role for the RAD or the mayor in education, policing, health or other elements of social policy which are devolved locally in many other countries.

Under Head 38, the mayor is given the power to direct the four councils to implement her/his regional plans – essentially an over-riding power on matters of water, waste management and planning. However, the mayor’s power remains, in general, subservient to the Minister for Environment.

As well as being answerable, to some extent at least, to the RAD, the mayor is also compelled to attend one meeting of each of the four councils at least once a year. The mayor and the RAD are to be consulted on housing services in the four Dublin councils but will have no power in this regard.

OBJECTIVES AND FUNCTIONS

The objectives of the authority are given in Head 35 as (a) developing Dublin economically, environmentally, culturally and in terms of social cohesion, (b) providing efficient local government through co-ordinating the four councils, (c) promoting partnership between public and private interests in Dublin, (d) promoting Dublin within Ireland and internationally as an attractive place in which to live, work and invest and (e) co-ordinate Dublin’s development with that of the neighbouring Mid-East region (Meath, Kildare and Wicklow).

The principal functions, meanwhile, are given in Head 36 as strategic planning, enterprise and innovation, reviewing and improving co-operation in the local provision of public services, calling local public bodies to account, promoting co-operation between the various stakeholders involved in local administration and reviewing the overall status of Dublin and plans to meet needs for its development.

FINANCES

One of the key criticisms of Minister Gormley’s proposals is that the mayor will have no independent budget.

Under Head 41, the mayor is given a somewhat significant role in the budget process for the four councils. S/he is expected to give written directions on the setting of rates and the overall spending priorities to each of the four councils.

The council officials can reject these directions but must provide written reasons to the mayor and publish these in the draft budgets presented to the councillors at the annual budget meetings. Furthermore, the four councils are compelled to consult with the mayor regarding procurement processes involving €50 million or more.

The mayor is also given the power to establish a community fund for providing or improving cultural/heritage and recreational amenities, protecting the environment and promoting social inclusion and community development. The money for this is to be raised by the mayor from any voluntary, business or community group or local public body. It seems doubtful that hard-pressed local councils and other public groups will be able to commit, so any funding is likely to be philanthropic.

PLANNING

Heads 46 and 47 gives the mayor the power to prepare, make and review Regional Planning Guidelines for the “Greater Dublin Area” – which, as well as including the four Dublin Council areas, also includes counties Meath, Kildare and Wicklow.

There is only a consultative role in this proposal for the umbrella organisation representing those counties, the Mid-East Regional Authority. These Regional Guidelines will set the frameworks for the County/City Development Plans in the area. At present the guidelines are agreed to by the councillors on the Dublin Regional Authority and the Mid-East Regional Assembly.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Waste management in Dublin is currently governed by the Dublin Waste Management Plan 2005-2010 which is set by council officials. Head 50 gives this power directly to the Regional Authority with the mayor proposing the plan and the councillors making up the authority voting on it.

This is one of the few direct powers given to the RAD members but it is seriously limited by the qualification that the mayor can rule a decision out of order for specified reasons of being inappropriate. The plan would then be postponed for ‘reconsideration’ by the authority members – if deadlock continues, the mayor wins out as s/he has the final say.

WATER MANAGEMENT

Unlike waste and planning, there are is no overarching water management plan for the four Dublin councils at present. Dublin City Council co-ordinate the supply of water at present on behalf of the other authorities. This Bill gives the power to prepare such a plan to the mayor, with the same role and limitations for the members of the authority in approving such a plan as in the case of waste management above.

Head 52 determines that the mayor and authority will only have a role in making a water services strategic plan, not in the day-to-day provision of services. It would seem, for example, that the mayor will have no role in the setting of water charges if the Government decides to impose them.

TRANSPORT

Much of the public discourse on the issue of the mayoralty has focussed on a possible over-arching role in transport. My Labour colleague and near-namesake Cllr Dermot Lacey is always keen to point out that more than 40 different bodies are currently responsible for traffic management in Dublin at present. So, it is perhaps surprising that there is nothing included on transport in the Heads of the Bill other than that the Mayor will have a “key role” in relation to traffic and transport management in the Dublin Region.

There have been few details provided since in this regard. Minister Gormley, in an article in the Irish Times shortly after publication of the Heads of the Bill, noted that “The transformation of the public transport system will be accelerated in the coming years. What’s missing in Dublin is strong local democratic input and leadership to guide this process. The mayor will provide this input while the Government is committed to providing the capital resources.” Again, this seems to indicate more of a consultative role than one with significant power.

DEVELOPMENT BOARD

Under Head 59, the Mayor is appointed as head of a new Dublin Region Development Board which will also include the chief executive of the RAD (see below), the Deputy Mayor, the Mayors/Cathaoirligh of the four councils, the three county managers and the city manager and a variety of other unspecified representatives and individuals to be appointed, initially at least, by the Minister.

This board will replace the three County Development Boards and the City Development Board which act at present as types of executives or mini-cabinets for each Council. This is a contentious programme which would seem to further downgrade the role of Strategic Policy Committees (SPC’s), whose chairs are currently represented on the County/City Development Boards.

ROLE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Under Head 20, there would be a chief executive of the authority appointed – in essence, a super-county/city-manager who would be hired (and, if necessary, fired) by the mayor – but only with the ‘consent’ of the Minister, which could lead to major tensions. If the Mayor turns out to have the real power in this instance, it would be an effective reversal of the current power dynamic between elected councillors and unelected managers – and a more than welcome one at that.

“A super-county/city-manager who would be hired (and, if necessary, fired) by the mayor – but only with the ‘consent’ of the Minister, which could lead to major tensions”

The Mayor, under Head 21, may appoint no more than five members of staff in addition to the Chief Executive, with much of the staffing arrangements to be decided by Ministers. However, the Irish Times reported on February 24 2010 that “[s]ome 30 personnel will staff the office of the mayor and the regional authority.”

ROLE OF THE MINISTER

The Minister for Environment, Heritage and Local Government – or any future equivalent – retains most of the overall power.

Head 45 indicates that there will be a review of the functions and objectives of the Authority between the Minister and the Mayor within two years, with the Minister charged with making any subsequent recommendations.

ELECTING THE MAYOR

There was considerable confusion at the time of the publication of the Heads as to whether a sitting TD could run for office until it was confirmed that they were entitled to do so in the days following.

Under Head 72, it is stated that all Mayoral elections after the first one will be held at the same time as local elections. Therefore, the first Mayor is likely to have only three years in her/his first term, with the next election to take place with the local authority elections in June 2014.

“Independents and candidates from non-registered parties can be nominated by the signatures of 60 assentors or by depositing €1,800″

Under Head 16, the Bill allows candidates to seek election as both Mayor and county/city councillors, but the mayoralty takes predominance. Candidates for the European Parliament are not permitted to run. No mention is made of dual candidacy for the mayoralty and the Dail. When elected, the mayor would be disqualified from running for the Dail, Seanad or Europe.

Under Heads 84 and 85, independents and candidates from non-registered parties can be nominated by the signatures of 60 assentors or by depositing €1,800. Head 112 notes that details of spending and donations at an election are still under consideration by the Government.

“Curiously, Head 93 makes provisions for “polling on the islands,” anticipating an unlikely wave of emigration to Lambay or Ireland’s Eye!”

A bye-election will be held if a vacancy occurs as long as there is a 12 month gap or more with the deputy mayor taking over the role in the meantime. As expected, votes will take place under the same single transferable vote system as used in Presidential voting and Dail by-elections. Curiously, Head 93 makes provisions for “polling on the islands,” anticipating an unlikely wave of emigration to Lambay or Ireland’s Eye!

In my final article in this series, I will seek to navigate beyond the technocratic elements of the Bill and investigate the most important questions of all – how democratic are the plans, and is a Mayor for Dublin even needed?

In the first of a series of articles Dermot Looney, a Labour Party councillor on South Dublin County Council, looks at the proposals for a directly elected Mayor of Dublin.

It won’t have come as much of a surprise to anyone involved in Dublin politics to read recently that John Gormley’s deadline of 2010 for holding the new Mayor of Dublin election will now not be met. But it is worthwhile to examine the recent history of the project to see how seriously – or not – the notion of a Dublin mayor is taken by the real decision-makers in Government.

Proposals for a directly-elected Mayor of Dublin have been mooted over the years by, amongst others, Labour and the Greens. Fianna Fail toyed with the idea in the early part of the last decade, only for Noel Dempsey to reportedly ditch the plan because polls showed no Fianna Failer could win.

The Green’s plans were contained in the FF/Green 2007 Programme for Government, and, like so many other recent ministerial pronouncements, were re-announced with fanfare in October 2009 in the ‘renegotiated’ programme. There was one major change – the original date of 2011 had been brought forward to this year.

There was further extensive coverage of Gormley’s plan in January 2010 when he surprised many – including, it would seem, his Government partners in FF – by announcing the mayoral elections would take place within six months. Gormley pledged at the time that the to-be-elected mayor would “raise the profile of Dublin, enhance local democracy and accountability, and lead the provision of a more effective and integrated public service across the city and region”.

“For far too long,” Gormley told The Irish Times, “We haven’t had proper local government in this country; we’ve had local administration.”

Within a few weeks, though, Gormley was already admitting his plan for a June election was “overambitious” as the heads of the Local Government (Dublin Mayor and Regional Authority) Bill were published. Instead, he set an Autumn 2010 date for the vote.

“I can’t say for certain,” he told the Times about setting an exact date, “But what I can say it will be in 2010 – that’s for certain.” He was equally certain as recently as June 23, when he ‘insisted’ to the Irish Independent that the election would take place in October.

You can’t really argue with Labour environment spokesperson, Joanna Tuffy, who noted that Minister Gormley seems to have “a habit of announcing things without thinking through the logistics properly.”

Last week though, we learned that the Cabinet would not approve legislation until later this year – meaning that an election will not take place until Spring 2011 at the earliest. The Irish Times reported, worryingly, that “the Bill has proved to be far more complex than originally envisaged and it will be one of the biggest pieces of legislation put through by the Government” with a purported 170 sections.

So much for Gormley and his certainty of a 2010 vote, June or not. You can’t really argue with Labour environment spokesperson, Joanna Tuffy, who noted that Minister Gormley seems to have “a habit of announcing things without thinking through the logistics properly.”

Cynics point out that Fianna Fail simply would not countenance any election given that it would, in essence, force them to hold three by-elections which would result in a further three vote swing in the Dail. These are now not likely to happen until the likely presidential election which must happen before November.

It is more than possible, given the history of delays, that the mayoral election will be contemporaneous with the ballots for president, the by-elections in Waterford, Donegal South West and Dublin South, the impending Childrens’ Rights Referendum and whatever you’re having yourself.

More significant than these delays, however, are the proposals themselves. They have grown and mutated over the course of the last three years with these recycled announcements. We are frequently told that the mayor will have similar powers to the Mayor of London but unlike the London mayor, no role is envisaged for the Mayor of Dublin in education, policing or health.

Minister Gormley has said that the mayor will have the authority to direct councils and their officials to implement policy on waste, water and planning as well as a substantial role in transport but the devil is truly in the detail. In my next post, I’ll examine what details have been included in the Heads of the Bill before finally examining whether the proposals stand up to the most important test of all – will they really improve democracy for local people and communities?