Rathgar meeting tonight about quietway

Chuchote

There's a meeting at 7.30 this evening in the parish hall of the Church of the Three Patrons (the one where James Joyce used to sing in the choir, on Rathgar Road) about the proposal for a quietway running from Donnybrook to Kimmage. Here's the proposal:

http://irishcycle.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Quietway-Feasibility-Report.pdf

However, some people in Ashdale Gardens and Corrib Road are hostile to their roads being included; it seems they don't want those rough Donnybrook types blazing through. Here's a piece flagging the meeting:

http://irishcycle.com/2017/03/28/terenure-to-ballsbridge-quietway-cycling-route-meeting-is-on-tonight/

(If by any chance there's already a thread about this and I've missed it, please merge, but I don't think there is - looked and couldn't find one.)

BoardsMember

Thanks for posting.

Is the Ashdale Gardens/Corrib Road hostility the only notable objection that has come to light so far?

I wonder how much hostility will come to light once this gets a little more media interest/coverage.

Chuchote

As far as I know it is; there may be more to be heard at the meeting. It would be worth cyclists attending and talking quietly about why it's needed, and about the effect of quietways in other countries. For me, this would extend and enhance my normal method of navigating the city, which involves finding back roads as much as possible.

It would be absolutely great for local children especially to have a safe cycling route.

average_runner

Would it not be a nice route by the river? More nature to see etc, playgrounds along that way.

Pseudorandom

Shame the corrib/ashdale gardens portion of it doesn't look like it will go ahead, would remove a massive detour for people trying to walk into Terenure.

Chuchote

average_runner wrote: »

Would it not be a nice route by the river? More nature to see etc, playgrounds along that way.

Yeah, I'm thinking of describing my cycling route to Ringsend, which is by the river most of the way.

The only places where my route is a little too busy and brings one into traffic are Beaver Row and crossing the road in Donnybrook. There is a plan for a riverside cycle/walkway at Beaver Row, linking through to Baggotrath at Herbert Park, but this riverside path section couldn't be made as fast as the rest of the Quietway.

I think the plan for the Quietway is to have it ancillary to, and linking with, the Mountains-to-the-Sea plan all along the Dodder.

BoardsMember

Pseudorandom wrote: »

Shame the corrib/ashdale gardens portion of it doesn't look like it will go ahead, would remove a massive detour for people trying to walk into Terenure.

Very true, though I can see why someone on Ashdale Gardens would be against it. They have nothing to gain really, and it would bring a lot of traffic, albeit of a quiet nature, onto what is otherwise a quiet little cul-de-sac.

If they want to go Corrib Road direction, they can go Ashfield Park/Mount Tallant, or else via the laneway just off Eaton Square.

Chuchote

BoardsMember wrote: »

Very true, though I can see why someone on Ashdale Gardens would be against it. They have nothing to gain really, and it would bring a lot of traffic, albeit of a quiet nature, onto what is otherwise a quiet little cul-de-sac.

If they want to go Corrib Road direction, they can go Ashfield Park/Mount Tallant, or else via the laneway just off Eaton Square.

Well, it depends who 'they' is. There are families with schoolkids living there too!

And even those who don't have schoolchildren or don't cycle might be interested in the possibility of having a shorter walking route to Supervalu.

BoardsMember

Chuchote wrote: »

Well, it depends who 'they' is. There are families with schoolkids living there too!

And even those who don't have schoolchildren or don't cycle might be interested in the possibility of having a shorter walking route to Supervalu.

I meant they = the residents of Ashdale Gardens, or the house owners. Put it this way, if I were one of them, and only considering selfish motives rather than the greater good, I would definitely be voting against the proposed route through my cul-de-sac. Nimbyism, as someone above called it.

Chuchote

It's understandable that people in that enclave would be nervous of burglary; there seems to be a bicycle theft gang operating in the area triangulating Kimmage, Terenure and Harold's Cross.

But actually, having cyclists coming through regularly is exactly what ambitious burglars don't want. Cyclists are "eyes on the street" - they notice people and events and changes that drivers don't; they're able to hop off and knock on a door and say "Someone dodgy-looking was peeking in your letterbox earlier" while a driver, even if he sees it, is unlikely to find parking and walk back and knock and warn. I've had a cyclist and a walker knock on my door and tell me I've left the keys in the door, never a driver…

average_runner

Chuchote wrote: »

It's understandable that people in that enclave would be nervous of burglary; there seems to be a bicycle theft gang operating in the area triangulating Kimmage, Terenure and Harold's Cross.

But actually, having cyclists coming through regularly is exactly what ambitious burglars don't want. Cyclists are "eyes on the street" - they notice people and events and changes that drivers don't; they're able to hop off and knock on a door and say "Someone dodgy-looking was peeking in your letterbox earlier" while a driver, even if he sees it, is unlikely to find parking and walk back and knock and warn. I've had a cyclist and a walker knock on my door and tell me I've left the keys in the door, never a driver…

But sadly unless its monitored, cyclist will not use it. Look at the canal, there is parts of that you wouldn't cycle during certain hours.

BoardsMember

I think the burglary thing is a red herring. Sure there's already a lot of bike theft, and occasional swathes of burglaries in the area.

The issue that residents of Ashdale Gardens probably have is that currently they live on a quiet little cul-de-sac, where their kids are able to play safely on the street, and anyone coming onto the street generally lives there or is visiting someone there. That would change if there were bikes commuting through, it would completely change the nature of the street. Buying on a cul-de-sac is a big attraction to a lot of people.

paulpd

For me there's some obvious dangers / nuisances :

- the kids that play on the half of Ashdale Gardens near the wall would be affected.
- People reversing out of driveways on Ashdale Gardens, especially near the wall / proposed opening)
- Pizza delivery guys etc using it as a short cut.
- People parking on Ashdale Gardens (which is already very tight for parking) and then walking through to their home on Corrib / Mount Tallant.

Besides, there's a least a three or four foot drop to Corrib on the other side. How do they overcome this?

Moflojo

average_runner wrote: »

Would it not be a nice route by the river? More nature to see etc, playgrounds along that way.

There is a separate greenway already planned for the Dodder. Quietways should be thought of as methods of calming traffic on streets and neighbourhoods and helping the residents to use the streets for something more than just car parks and motorways. It is misleading for quietways to be advertised as being purely for the benefit of cyclists because the people who will benefit the most are the people who live along the quietways; their quality of life (and property values) will increase substantially as a result.

buffalo

paulpd wrote: »

- People reversing out of driveways on Ashdale Gardens, especially near the wall / proposed opening)

There should be a special circle of hell reserved for people who reverse out of their driveways.

average_runner

buffalo wrote: »

There should be a special circle of hell reserved for people who reverse out of their driveways.

Some people don't have a choice as they can't reverse into the spots due to traffic!

buffalo

average_runner wrote: »

Some people don't have a choice as they can't reverse into the spots due to traffic!

There's traffic in their driveway?

edit: I'm being facetious. If you can reverse out, you should be able to reverse in, and it's far safer and simpler for everyone.

magicbastarder

by that token though, they're reversing *out* into the same traffic.
granted, i know when you're reversing out you have more discretion as regards traffic, but that probably doesn't impact the areas being discussed.

Lumen

average_runner wrote: »

Some people don't have a choice as they can't reverse into the spots due to traffic!

I had this the other day. Indicated in plenty of time to reverse park, cockspanner behind me carried on right up to my bumper. I was going pull him out of his car and bludgeon him to death with a wheel wrench, only the Garda markings on his vehicle put me off. :pac:

Anyway, I think cul-de-sacs-are-less-burglary-prone is a thing.

Permeability and Burglary Risk: Are Cul-de-Sacs Safer?
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10940-009-9084-8

The findings demonstrate that increased permeability is associated with elevated burglary risk, that burglary risk is lower on cul-de-sacs (particularly those that are sinuous in nature), and that the risk of burglary is higher on more major roads and those street segments that are connected to them. In the conclusion of the paper we outline an agenda for future research.

...but I don't know that it applies for cyclist/pedestrian access only.

magicbastarder

if it's a topic you find interesting, try 'the burglar's guide to the city' (written mainly from an american perspective).

iirc, there's a tradeoff between access (and thus being seen) and degrees of freedom in terms of escape, when a burglar is sizing up potential properties.

average_runner

buffalo wrote: »

There's traffic in their driveway?

edit: I'm being facetious. If you can reverse out, you should be able to reverse in, and it's far safer and simpler for everyone.

You can reverse in if no traffic, if your house is on a busy road, best of luck to you. No one gives you a chance to do it and then you have the idiot you will fly up the inside of you when your in the middle of the maneuver.

No one seems to have time to allow people to be safe these days!

Chuchote

paulpd wrote: »

- People reversing out of driveways on Ashdale Gardens, especially near the wall / proposed opening)

The last time I reversed out of my driveway was the last time for a reason. I was backing - slowly, walking pace - when a woman came racing in behind my car and I stood on the brakes quick - realising before I saw it that what she was racing for was to grab the toddler I was backing towards, a child I would have seen if I were driving forward, but couldn't see from the back window or mirrors. I was a lucky, lucky driver to have fast reactions. Got the gateway widened and backed in/drove out after that.

This article on burglars' preferred type of housing reckons cul-de-sacs are less safe:

http://www.sheknows.com/home-and-gardening/articles/1019607/the-10-most-common-types-of-homes-thieves-target

* Low-traffic areas

Homes on the outskirts of neighborhoods are more vulnerable, because fewer neighbors will be able to see if a crime is being committed. This includes dead-end streets, cul-de-sacs and locations with few outlets. Any house that's secluded may also be a target.

Corner homes are iffy. They allow thieves to scope the area (including your habits) easily by simply driving by and naturally slowing or stopping for a turn. Depending on your neighborhood's layout, they may also be less visible to neighbors and police.

Macy0161

It wouldn't be burglary I'd be most concerned, it would be anti social behaviour. Possibly they'd end up with the path with anti social behaviour, and little through foot and bike traffic because of the anti social behaviour. I can completely understand objections tbh - end of a cul de sac becomes teenage drinking and smoking central instead.

btw they've started work at the Applegreen for the dodder path along the Beaver Row line.

ted1

average_runner wrote: »

Some people don't have a choice as they can't reverse into the spots due to traffic!

That's utter rubbish. Reversing in is by far safer.

ted1

average_runner wrote: »

You can reverse in if no traffic, if your house is on a busy road, best of luck to you. No one gives you a chance to do it and then you have the idiot you will fly up the inside of you when your in the middle of the maneuver.

No one seems to have time to allow people to be safe these days!

Indicator on and come to a stop before the drive, then move forward a little and then reverse.

Reversing out, is proven to be more dangerous

magicbastarder

ted1 wrote: »

That's utter rubbish. Reversing in is by far safer.

i live on a busy road. maybe 1 or 2% of the time, i end up having to go nose in as reversing would end up holding up traffic (there's a bus lane outside the house) and it can be safer and quicker to go nose in in heavy traffic if you're going to be reversing out in light traffic.

magicbastarder

btw, Chucote, if you're going to the meeting, and there are raised voices, please make sure you get a strangeloveian comment in about shouting at the quietway meeting.

Victor

paulpd wrote: »

People reversing out of driveways on Ashdale Gardens, especially near the wall / proposed opening)

These people should only reverse out if there is someone there to help them. Otherwise it is illegal.

- People parking on Ashdale Gardens (which is already very tight for parking) and then walking through to their home on Corrib / Mount Tallant.

Most people are too lazy to do this.

average_runner wrote: »

Some people don't have a choice as they can't reverse into the spots due to traffic!

In a cul de sac?

Macy0161 wrote: »

It wouldn't be burglary I'd be most concerned, it would be anti social behaviour. Possibly they'd end up with the path with anti social behaviour, and little through foot and bike traffic because of the anti social behaviour. I can completely understand objections tbh - end of a cul de sac becomes teenage drinking and smoking central instead.

This is a design matter. If you have a narrow choke point, loitering happens. If it is more open, with no focal point, loitering doesn't happen. Anyway, the area is fairly established, with no hordes of teenagers.

BoardsMember

paulpd wrote: »

- People parking on Ashdale Gardens (which is already very tight for parking) and then walking through to their home on Corrib / Mount Tallant.

Can't see how/why/when you would want to do this. It's only round the corner in the car. And parking on Corrib is way easier to find & free, whereas it is pay & display around Ashdale.

Chuchote

magicbastarder wrote: »

i live on a busy road. maybe 1 or 2% of the time, i end up having to go nose in as reversing would end up holding up traffic (there's a bus lane outside the house) and it can be safer and quicker to go nose in in heavy traffic if you're going to be reversing out in light traffic.

When I drove, I used to put on the blinkers when I was about 5 metres back from my entrance, then slow and signal left, then move into position to reverse. Not everyone is too bright, and it regularly happened that the driver behind me glued his nose to the back of my car. I just waited. Lots of blaring and shouting, but eventually they person would overtake and the driver behind would leave me room to back in. I wasn't too pushed; at least I wasn't running over a toddler.

BoardsMember wrote: »

Can't see how/why/when you would want to do this. It's only round the corner in the car. And parking on Corrib is way easier to find & free, whereas it is pay & display around Ashdale.

Why would you want to drive "around the corner in the car" when you could walk straight there?

One option for Ashdale Road would be to take down part of the wall temporarily and see how it worked in the first few months… That's what Sadik-Khan did in New York - made temporary protected bike lanes with planters full of plants, and the residents knew that they could get rid of them later if they proved worse than the cars. I don't think any ever did get rid of them, though, and gradually they became permanent lanes:

TED talk: Janette Sadik-Khan, the Transport Commissioner who transformed New York, on how she did it https://www.ted.com/talks/janette_sadik_khan_new_york_s_streets_not_so_mean_any_more?language=en#t-229446
Article about Sadik-Khan's changes in New York http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/03/bike-wars-are-over-and-the-bikes-won.html

average_runner

ted1 wrote: »

Indicator on and come to a stop before the drive, then move forward a little and then reverse.

Reversing out, is proven to be more dangerous

I agree, but half the country don't understand what indicators are for

ted1

average_runner wrote: »

I agree, but half the country don't understand what indicators are for

Parking on cycle paths while you play the lotto otgrab a bottle of wine ?

Chuchote

Well, the meeting was well attended by people very worried that they'd lose their right to store their private property on the public highways - "But I won't be able to park!" and people with more reasonable worries about losing their bus (on Cowper Road) or having their road blocked off by bollards, which was also fair enough.
But in general I personally found it to be a feast of selfishness and quite a lot of nastiness; for instance, one young woman who spoke up rather quietly from the back was spitefully told by some nice bourgeois lady that "I don't know where you're from, dear, but in this country we have democracy"!
I really didn't like some of the people there, and didn't feel at all happy to have them for neighbours.
Apart from the parking, there was a definite sense that some at least didn't want smelly poor people hanging around near their houses…
I used magicbastarder's "quiet meeting about the quietway" crack and it did calm things down, briefly, at first (though there had already been a raging row about someone who was filming earlier, apparently). I also described my own usual daily cycle route to Ringsend in what probably sounded like arrant boasting, in the company, but was an attempt to normalise the idea of cycling around and about the city as an ordinary thing to do.
If boardsies were there and saw a small, red-faced woman bouncing with rage, sorry.
There was a fairly quiet and reasonable representation from people who obviously wanted the quietway but said little. One of the have-to-parkers asked how many people here had kids who would use the quietway and a forest of hands went up, to the obvious surprise of the mainly comfortably-off middle-aged conservative crowd.
A series of local councillors hung poor Pad Smyth out to dry, while weasel-wording about how much they respected his dedication in this yada yada. One referred to Dublin being a mediaeval city, which is news to me in the case of Harold's Cross, Kimmage and Terenure!
Various people objected for some bizarre reason to being offered comparisons with London, Portland, Amsterdam and Copenhagen - "We don't live there! This is Dublin!"
All in all, I suspect that this won't be the first quietway in the area; however, when the other cycle route that's hopefully in process happens, and it gentrifies the area it goes through, this may change the mind of the residents.
Others will no doubt feel that they were at an entirely different meeting than that I saw; however, that's what I saw.

average_runner

ted1 wrote: »

Parking on cycle paths while you play the lotto otgrab a bottle of wine ?

At first I thought you said drinking a bottle of wine. Much the same though.

average_runner

Chuchote wrote: »

Well, the meeting was well attended by people very worried that they'd lose their right to store their private property on the public highways - "But I won't be able to park!" and people with more reasonable worries about losing their bus (on Cowper Road) or having their road blocked off by bollards, which was also fair enough.
But in general I personally found it to be a feast of selfishness and quite a lot of nastiness; for instance, one young woman who spoke up rather quietly from the back was spitefully told by some nice bourgeois lady that "I don't know where you're from, dear, but in this country we have democracy"!
I really didn't like some of the people there, and didn't feel at all happy to have them for neighbours.
Apart from the parking, there was a definite sense that some at least didn't want smelly poor people hanging around near their houses…
I used magicbastarder's "quiet meeting about the quietway" crack and it did calm things down, briefly, at first (though there had already been a raging row about someone who was filming earlier, apparently). I also described my own usual daily cycle route to Ringsend in what probably sounded like arrant boasting, in the company, but was an attempt to normalise the idea of cycling around and about the city as an ordinary thing to do.
If boardsies were there and saw a small, red-faced woman bouncing with rage, sorry.
There was a fairly quiet and reasonable representation from people who obviously wanted the quietway but said little. One of the have-to-parkers asked how many people here had kids who would use the quietway and a forest of hands went up, to the obvious surprise of the mainly comfortably-off middle-aged conservative crowd.
A series of local councillors hung poor Pad Smyth out to dry, while weasel-wording about how much they respected his dedication in this yada yada. One referred to Dublin being a mediaeval city, which is news to me in the case of Harold's Cross, Kimmage and Terenure!
Various people objected for some bizarre reason to being offered comparisons with London, Portland, Amsterdam and Copenhagen - "We don't live there! This is Dublin!"
All in all, I suspect that this won't be the first quietway in the area; however, when the other cycle route that's hopefully in process happens, and it gentrifies the area it goes through, this may change the mind of the residents.
Others will no doubt feel that they were at an entirely different meeting than that I saw; however, that's what I saw.

People hate change and are afraid of it. It all takes time.

Victor

I went along this evening. Quite a fractious meeting, with a group or groups supporting other politicians and one of the residents associations who went along to sabotage it. Meeting was dominated by fear uncertainty and doubt. Profound constitutional issues raised. :rolleyes:

Fears of cyclists bringing paedophiles to sit on bollards outside people's houses. Don't they know that paedophiles prefer white vans?

magicbastarder wrote: »

btw, Chucote, if you're going to the meeting, and there are raised voices, please make sure you get a strangeloveian comment in about shouting at the quietway meeting.

Comment was made by someone.

Chuchote

Deedsie wrote: »

Pretty much what I expected it would be. The negative impact entitled car owners have on this city and country are totally underestimated.

And to be fair it's such a deep seeded car owners entitlement mentality it would be nearly impossible to reverse.

Not at all! Just impose a parking tax for using the public street to park outside your house. Like magic, all the cars would disappear into front gardens!

Was there any mentioning of emergency service access to these new closed roads?

Chuchote

Deleted User wrote: »

Was there any mentioning of emergency service access to these new closed roads?

There was, and Cllr Smyth explained that various types of bollard were possible, but all of them were removeable by the emergency services.

Feckofff

Yeah interesting lesson in democracy.

I was particularly disappointed by Clare O'Connor (FF) her comments were very amateurish.

I grew up in the area so I was expecting a lot of nimbyism and to be fair if the majority of people do not want it then the energy and investment should go else where.

Chuchote

Feckofff wrote: »

Yeah interesting lesson in democracy.

I was particularly disappointed by Clare O'Connor (FF) her comments were very amateurish.

I grew up in the area so I was expecting a lot of nimbyism and to be fair if the majority of people do not want it then the energy and investment should go else where.

Sure. But the next time someone starts talking about cyclists having "a sense of entitlement", just think back to tonight.

magicbastarder

Chuchote wrote: »

But in general I personally found it to be a feast of selfishness and quite a lot of nastiness

i don't know if there's something about public meetings which bring out certain types, but most of the ones i've been to have been fractious (i once found myself at a waterford council meeting which saw the only ejection of a member of the public in the council's history); i just think those sort of meetings tend to attracted more polarised opinions - i.e. people who are going along who are already invested in supporting or opposing the topic.

regarding resident's associations, i'm always reminded of my father's experience, who was roped in to become the treasurer of the resident's association where i grew up, and left in short order because of the politics. the same association fell apart about a year later when the faction who lived around the green area in our estate tried to pass a motion which would have blocked kids who did not live on the green from playing on it.

Feckofff

Chuchote wrote: »

Sure. But the next time someone starts talking about cyclists having "a sense of entitlement", just think back to tonight.

D6/D4 are probably the epicentre of entitlement.

I do wonder if the idea could have been "sold" another way.
Maybe if the residents though they were getting one over on the rest of the city by getting a "quietway"
As having a quietway is a mark of wealth/sophistication.
which is only possible because of how incredible superior the resident of this area are when compared to the rest of the city.

Chuchote

Feckofff wrote: »

D6/D4 are probably the epicentre of entitlement.

I do wonder if the idea could have been "sold" another way.
Maybe if the residents though they were getting one over on the rest of the city by getting a "quietway"
As having a quietway is a mark of wealth/sophistication.
which is only possible because of how incredible superior the resident of this area are when compared to the rest of the city.

Which would actually be true, if it happened! It's interesting to see Sadik-Khan's TED talk, where she talks about getting past exactly this kind of attitude - including the same kind of inaccurate things people were repeating tonight.

Doctor Bob

https://twitter.com/doccer/status/846841132369760257/photo/1

Chuchote

Some interesting comments here, especially the last:

http://irishcycle.com/2017/03/28/terenure-to-ballsbridge-quietway-cycling-route-meeting-is-on-tonight/#comments

average_runner

Chuchote wrote: »

Some interesting comments here, especially the last:

http://irishcycle.com/2017/03/28/terenure-to-ballsbridge-quietway-cycling-route-meeting-is-on-tonight/#comments

Convincing people to give up a quiet cul de sac was always going to be tough. People see them as a quiet area, a safe area for kids with no traffic etc and secure.

People probably paid extra for the house in the cul de sac.

Need to sell the vision.

ted1

average_runner wrote: »

Convincing people to give up a quiet cul de sac was always going to be tough. People see them as a quiet area, a safe area for kids with no traffic etc and secure.

People probably paid extra for the house in the cul de sac.

Need to sell the vision.

People also pay extra for off street parking. The on parking should be removed or pay and display with no resident permits.

Chuchote

average_runner wrote: »

Convincing people to give up a quiet cul de sac was always going to be tough. People see them as a quiet area, a safe area for kids with no traffic etc and secure.

People probably paid extra for the house in the cul de sac.

Need to sell the vision.

So true. Most of the objectors were well-padded drivers in their sixties and up; they seemed to think 'cyclists' meant burly working-class youths in Lycra, and every time someone said this was mainly to allow children to cycle there would be a chorus of "No, this is about commuting" or the like.

average_runner

ted1 wrote: »

People also pay extra for off street parking. The on parking should be removed or pay and display with no resident permits.

Best of luck with that one.

Mercian Pro

Experienced something similar a few years ago when the Health Board bought a local B&B for use as a home for people who had been in Grangegorman. The first public meeting on the proposal was an eye-opener with vitriolic comments flying ranging from paedophiles, rapists, burglars and just about everything else you could imagine.
The second public meeting a few months later had only a handful of attendees who endorsed a slightly modified proposal and the house has been in use ever since with zero problems.
Not sure if this is going to happen in this case but you never know.