Sir, – During the current consultation process for the National Transport Authority’s core bus corridor project, the term “nimbyism” has been used widely to imply that resistance to the proposed development is based purely on the selfish attitude of residents who wish to preserve their own interests at the expense of many. This must be music to the ears of NTA designers because if you shout Nimby (Not in my back yard) loudly enough, or cover newspapers with the word Nimyism writ in bold, then maybe citizens won’t notice the 20-metre carriageways where their historic villages used to be, or maybe they won’t see the 200 new diesel buses puffing out fumes along the roads where the 200-year-old trees used to stand, or maybe they won’t hear the shouts of pedestrians battling through cyclists to get to the bus stop, or maybe they won’t feel the pinch of the €2 billion of taxpayers’ money spent on a short-term scheme devised without even a traffic-impact study. To be honest, I much prefer the term Nimfy – Not in my front yard. – Yours, etc ,
LORNA CALLANAN,
Terenure,
Dublin 6.
Sir, – A letter writer (April 25th) writes that local opposition to Bus Connects may “have just enough support to damage the current Government’s chances at the next election”.
On the Rathfarnham route, Bus Connects estimates immediate savings of up to 50 minutes per journey at peak times. This is worth a full working day each week for each of the thousands of commuters on that route.
It is important also to consider the significant savings that will accrue to Dublin Bus from the increased efficiency, and the environmental benefits from reduced emissions and fuel consumption, and the better facilitation of cyclists.
The price to pay for this badly needed evolution is the removal of just 50 car parking spaces and 45 trees along that route.
I would suggest that the handful of local Nimby objectors will be vastly outnumbered by commuters whose lives will be positively transformed by the plan, and by all those local residents who judge that the long-term environmental and social benefits more than justify to loss of on-street parking.
Any party trying to prevent these changes would surely suffer a greater loss of favour than one that supported them to proceed. – Yours, etc,
JOHN THOMPSON,
Phibsboro,
Dublin 7.