Rathgar meeting tonight about quietway

Chuchote

He's clearly ridiculing Dublin City Council's stinginess by saying look, a motorway costs that much for just 50 metres.

I wonder where they got this figure, though. Last time I heard costings for the quietway it was running at around €300,000.

Chuchote

Chuchote wrote: »

What kind of neighbours think their right to park outside their house is more important than a kid's right to ride a bike safely to school?

Yeah, that's not it at all. But I suspect you know that.

It doesn't have effect on me, but my friend would be effected. Right or wrong, it is not kiddies going to school he fears, but the 30kph commuters.

Weepsie

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah, that's not it at all. But I suspect you know that.

It doesn't have effect on me, but my friend would be effected. Right or wrong, it is not kiddies going to school he fears, but the 30kph commuters.

You'd be hard pushed to be able to get to 30 kph with the correct calming measures in place. Those who want to go at speed would likely remain on the road.

Moflojo

Weepsie wrote: »

You'd be hard pushed to be able to get to 30 kph with the correct calming measures in place. Those who want to go at speed would likely remain on the road.

That's a key point about Quietways; they're not really aimed at high speed commuters or road cyclists. Primarily they're about creating safe, pollution-free streets and routes across urban areas which will mainly benefit the likes of kids going to school.

Anyone hoping that a Quietway will shave 5 minutes off their commute will be sorely disappointed.

Victor

Moflojo wrote: »

Anyway, the long and the short of it is that the feasibility report on Smyth's Quietway came back a couple of weeks ago and it was recommended not to proceed with the project, due to the €1.4m cost estimate and the "number of end users" that would be affected.

I'm not 100% sure what the number of end users means, and whether the number was too big or too small, but I assume it's a reference to the number of local objectors, or NIMBYs.

"End users" means the number of cyclists and pedestrians that would use it. If a million people per year use it, it might be good value. If a thousand use it, it wouldn't be good value.

HivemindXX wrote: »

I'm not sure that they mean by that reference to it costing the same as 50m of motorway. Are they trying to say it is the cycle facility is extremely cheap compared to the massive spending on roads

Yes.

The objectors frustrate me. It's difficult to understand how objections to things like this can't at least partly be motivated by an irrational dislike of cyclists and not wanting to see them get any facilities, or you know, see them on your road making the place look all low class.

Much of it is fear of change.

I love Sean nos wrote: »

That's some jump in cost in 2 months.

It was a difference over a year, between guesstimate and a structured budget based on the feasibility study.

Chuchote wrote: »

What kind of neighbours think their right to park outside their house is more important than a kid's right to ride a bike safely to school?

Indeed, but as Paddy pointed out, the only place where these would be a loss of parking outside houses would be on Herbert Park (road) where people have off-road parking and plenty of on-road parking at the park itself.

Deleted User wrote: »

It doesn't have effect on me, but my friend would be effected. Right or wrong, it is not kiddies going to school he fears, but the 30kph commuters.

But the 30 km/h commuters won't use such a route, as it is too contorted. Doing 30 km/h on it would be difficult.

And wouldn't any-speed cyclists be better than 50 km/h cars and trucks (mostly 3 tonne zones, but that doesn't stop them)