Dublin needs this approach
February 26, 2002 at 1:12 pm #705223Paul ClerkinKeymaster
Motorists wishing to drive into central London will have to pay a toll from as early as February 2003. How will the scheme work?
London’s mayor Ken Livingstone hopes making drivers pay to enter the city centre will cut traffic by at least 10%.
February 26, 2002 at 2:29 pm #718263NiallParticipant
If only we had basic and efficient public transport………….. until then I wouldn’t agree
February 26, 2002 at 5:24 pm #718264vitruviusParticipant
I’m going to sound like a politician in election year but both of ye are right.
Even doubling the public transport provision in this city will not eliminate congestion since the numbers of people driving cars is steadily rising.
Such measures are necessary in order to make people change their habits and use public transport.
I acknowledge that for some people the daily trek by car into town is an unavoidable reality. The measures proposed by Mr. livingstone (I presume!)envisage a falloff of 10 to 20% in the amount of cars entering the designated area – just enough to make things more comfortable for the motorist. It is not a definitive solution but it’s a step in the right direction
February 26, 2002 at 7:02 pm #718265ShaneClarkeParticipant
There are a number of primary reasons why Dublin has the congestion and the associated environmental and noise polution that it does. These are:
1) our inadeqate public transort system
2) our environmentally unsustainable planning system
3) and our corrupt and / or ignorant local politicians abuse of that system.
Dublin aspirations to European standards in the city centre (and has been to some degree successful in recent years) are largely negated by it continuing urban sprawl.
This is to the detriment of the city, its citizens, the countryside and the environment more generally.
February 27, 2002 at 2:14 pm #718266dc3Participant
Build low density housing in an urban sprawl, every one with a handkerchief sized garden, but in such a manner it is inherently inefficient to ever be served by any form of public transport.
Ignore various reports etc going back to the 1960’s pointing out this is a bad thing.
Talk for many years about LUAS,route etc but do nothing.
Introduce bus lanes with gaps, and 24hr /7 day bus lanes with no buses (at night, Sunday morning until 10 or after)and wonder why the car is popular.
Consider that congestion charging will, on optimistic forecasts for London , knock out 10% of traffic while car sales have, in most recent years,increased by more than this per year.
Go back to step one.
(Author, a bus user by choice, spent from 08.30 to 09.05 waiting for any bus this morning, on a route with allegedly c10 min frequencies.)
February 27, 2002 at 2:49 pm #718267
Is anybody aware of a single city (be it ‘developed’ or not) that has a worse public transport system than Dublin’s?
I have travelled widely and am yet to find one.
From an enforced cyclist whose brief foray into bus use nearly led to an onset of pneumonia on Friday evening while waiting for a bus that never arrived
February 27, 2002 at 5:13 pm #718268
Does anyone know anything about the new high-density regulations recently introduced? Are they being put into action, or is it all a lot of hot air? Personally I think the planning regulations in this country are far too severe, too much attention is paid to self interest groups and the like.
In theory at least, the high-density apartment complex refused planning permission in the city centre will end up being built on a greenfield site in the country because of objections from so-called conscientious pressure groups e.g. An Taisce. In my book this is much worse, the city centre is being protected from development e.g. high-rise, high-density projects, often even though they may be well-designed, at the expense of the countryside. This needs to be remedied soon. What are peoples opinions?
March 1, 2002 at 9:09 am #718269
i think that the public at large are often wary of the terms ‘high rise’ and ‘high density’ because they automatically presume congestion, poor development standards, overcrowding and unsightly building forms. Ask any Dub about their opinions on high rise and they will almost certainly mention Ballymun or St. Michaels. (which are not even high density schemes). It will be important, in the proper development of Dublin and other Irish cities to get the message across that higher densities in cities are essential for sustainable urban development, and that with good design, they may offer very pleasant living/working environments. For example, the particular problems with Ballymun, for example, are not simply due to the fact that they are medium-high rise, even though these are often the quoted reasons. Layout, location, unit design,accessibility, public transport provision, community facilities, open space, social mix, tenure, maintenance and management have more to do with the problems of Ballymun, rather than height or density. Pressure groups probably do have disproportionate influence, however, they often have public support. I believe that people who maintain they have a right to live their lives in low-density suburban environments at city edges on large land plots, who complain about traffic and poor public transport need to have the irony of this situation explained to them. eg the reason it is, and will be, so difficult to serve the public transport needs of Dublin, is largely due to the existence of these sprawling, low density suburbs for miles outside the city (and county). I dont mean to be condescending here but i do believe that the public need to be convinced that their choices have an impact on the services thay end up with, and that land uses and transport systems are interdependent.
March 1, 2002 at 10:15 am #718270notjimParticipant
BM – Vancouver and LA.
[This message has been edited by notjim (edited 01 March 2002).]
March 3, 2002 at 10:57 pm #718271DARA HParticipant
I presume your talking about the ‘Residential Density Guidlines, 1999’ by the Dept. of Environment. I had to do a bit of research on densities myself & i can tell you that some county councils etc. especially in the country, did not seem to see them as relevant to them, some did not really seem to be farmiliar with them & one planner told me (from a more rural council) that they pretty had much binned the guidelines & went on as before (i’m not sure that this was by their choice though). Some councils i.e. Dublin region ones, would be a lot more familiar with them & at try to a least have regard for them. On the ‘other side’… Developers and architects etc. will sometimes quote parts of the guidlines to support their proposals. Some professionals are unaware of the document.
As to the effect the guidelines are having… I think maybe they brought the possibllity of higher densities into the development arena but seeing as bog-standard, cul-de-sac, semi-d/ detached housing estates are still the residential developments of choice (of developers & pretty much the public too – the quiet cul-de-sac suburban ideal – which isn’t so bad as long as you have a car) notmuch has really changed. Still, there seem to be more duplexes about!
One planner lamented to me twice during a conversation about higher densities that they were ‘still wating for the design’ i.e. good design, that are required for higher densities and this is mentioned specifically in the guidelines.
I had thought myself that this question might be worthy of starting a new topic – do people thing that standards of design have improved in higher density developments since the guidelines came out???
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.