‘Loss Of Parking’


Seán McCárthaigh, in The Times Ireland, reports:

A €1.4 million safe cycling plan across several south Dublin suburbs has effectively been scrapped. Councillors voted for the second time in a year against holding a public consultation on the South Dublin “Quiet Way” between Donnybrook and Kimmage.

The plan was “dead in the water”, according to one politician, after councillors rejected spending more on the project after opposition from residents along several parts of the route over road closures and the loss of parking.

Dublin cycle route ‘dead in the water’ after second defeat (The Times Ireland)

Pic: Quietway Feasibility Study

Sponsored Link

18 thoughts on “‘Loss Of Parking’

  1. Iwerzon

    First it was the residents opposition to the Luas extension in Ranelagh and now they have a veto over the cycle lanes. Meanwhile, compulsory purchase of gardens to widen the Bus lanes in Phibsboro and channeling all south-bound bus routes through Stoneybatter. Double standards?

    1. theo kretschmar schuldorff

      Don’t forget that by channeling all the bus routes through Stoneybatter, they’re redirecting all Stoneybatter’s private car through-traffic to Phibsboro! That’s just what they need. 100s more cars

  2. LeopoldGloom

    The whole point of this is to get people out of cars. There should be no private cars taking up space on public street. You can barely go down a suburban residential street anymore but for all the cars.

    People will say roads are not designed for bikes. They were certainly not designed for this many vehicles. Households shouldn’t have a need for 3-5 vehicles as is so often the case.

      1. LeopoldGloom

        Interesting. Might have to order that.

        In parts of Japan, cars have to be off city streets by a certain time (unless being driven) as it’s considered a public space.

      1. LeopoldGloom

        You’re correct it isn’t. But it’s not nearly as uncommon as it ought to be.

        1. rotide


          I’d be willing to bet a pretty large chunk of change that the overwhelming majority of that is rural also. If the amount of 4 or more car households in cities was more than 1% id be surprised

      2. Cian

        In the 2016 census ‘only’ 62,826 households had three or more cars. This is 7.5% of households – so a long way from “often the case”.

        For context:
        – 697k with one car (41%)
        – 567k with two cars (33%)
        – 95k with three cars (6%)
        – 30k with four or more cars (2%)
        – 258k with no cars (15%)
        – 50k not stated (3%)

  3. The Dude

    The councillors who have stymied this are pretending to act for democracy. They are not.

    There has been no public consultation for this route because the councillors have moved to prevent any such consultation.

    Perhaps the same elected representatives might be able to inform people who live along and move along that route – including the schools – as to data regarding poisonous fumes being emitted by vehicles along the same route?

    Or maybe not, as unlike other cities, such as London, Paris, Glasgow, etc, there appears to be effectively no systematic gathering or collating of data in Dublin City Council area regarding poisonous fumes.

    As coincidence would have it, all the aforementioned cities apart from Dublin are now moving to have laws ensuring less dangerous fumes – such as yesterday’s introduction of the ULEZ area in London.

    Yet in Dublin, no advances will be made as the data is not even systematically collected / collated. There is possibly is a legal case there against DCC for sufferers of respiratory conditions in the DCC area.

    Instead, elected reps move to actively block public consultation of even the most basic measures that might help provide healthier, safer alternatives.

    And all the time, car sales continue to rise in Ireland for Volkswagen, BMW and other foreign based car manufacturers who are known to have lied through their teeth about their deathly fumes.

    Cui bono?

      1. The Dude

        Good man rotide: See a considered view – and ignore it in favour of the cheap quip.

      2. Tarftonclax

        Travelling by bike is so much faster than by car at Rush Hour in the city. But you knew that didn’t you?

  4. small ads

    The idea of the consultation – which the councillors voted down, apparently because it’s undemocratic not to ask residents what they think – was to check what the residents along the proposed quietway would accept and would refuse.
    Most dishonestly, some of the pearl-clutching groups (whose real objection was to dirty working-class types from Kimmage coming into their leafy sylvan neighbourhoods) were claiming that roads were going to be closed. This was mooted as a possibility in a very early iteration of the plan, and had long since been abandoned.
    Well, let them enjoy their Alzheimer’s and cancer while fondly watching their grandchildren’s lungs and brains shrink from the poisoning effect of their gigantic people-carriers (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/09/news-air-quality-brain-cognitive-function/), each one wheezing along carrying just one mobile-phone-watching driver.

  5. lolly

    I’m a cyclist and I live on one of tiny narrow roads it was to go through and I thought it was a bonkers scheme. we would not have lost parking but they were going to knock into laneways a the back of houses and make the road one-way (which would have been a bit of a pain admittedly but also the opening of the laneways raised potential security issues) – mostly however people objected because they didn’t want their quiet residential street turned into a busy road for bikes. There were also dangerous turns onto main roads from quiet streets that would have made it very unsuitable for kids. it sounded quite mad and very poorly thought out and the councillor that was pushing it had a very poor grasp of the practicalities of what was planned at the public meetings he attended trying to push it. Its failure was not due to a conspiracy by rich folk it was because it was a mad idea that would never have worked like they intended and councillors saw this.

    1. Outspann

      Not wanting to narrow it down too much, but which of the “tiny, narrow roads” are you actually living on? I’m just interested to figure out where the roads are along this route that are too narrow for a bicycle, but perfectly fine for a car? As both a sometime cyclist and frequent driver, I’m also confused on how those “quiet residential streets” will get nosier or less desirable if cars are replaced by bicycles? As a resident along the route, I went to the first public consultation meeting two years ago with an open mind. When the point was made that people didn’t feel safe cycling during rush hour, one of the older attendees response was “well I don’t understand why all children can’t just be driven to school”. When that’s the level of discourse – that the solution to gridlock is to put more cars on the road – my mind was made up. People need to realise that there is no status quo. It’s constantly changing. Things are either getting better or getting worse. The fact that our politicians have decided nothing in the last two years doesn’t mean that everything has stayed the same. Since 2017, traffic has got heavier. The roads have got more dangerous. Journey times have increased. Sure, quietways can get voted down. BusConnects can get sidelined. But what is the alternative? What’s your plan, Lolly?

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link