O’ Connell Street, Dublin
- This topic has 3,789 replies, 212 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
@Emma Dalton wrote:
Regarding the pedestrianisation of O Connell Street and the links to Stephens Green and Parnell Square, Brian McGuinne of Mitchell + Associates (landscape architects for O Connell Street) gave a very interesting paper at one of the recent conferences about landscape architecture in Dublin and spoke about the design principles behind O Connell Street. That is, doing the opposite to the Ramblas where the footpaths along the building edge are too narrow to allow activity.
God!!! Did he try to put forward some dreadful architect conceptualisation of what was done? It was plain ol’ PAVEMENT WIDENING – nothing more, nothing less. But a nice job, needless to say.
Though while the big wide pavements are great for pedestrians, they’re a total failure on the cycling front because they squash cyclists next to the traffic.
Those two narrow strips of road along each side of Ramblas are quite bad because as soon as you step off the middle bit it’s quite dangerous. They should elimiminate them if possible.
I see that DCC have just put in a new taxi rank on O’ Connell Bridge, on the north-bound side; well this should compliment the new bus stop that they put in a month ago, also on the bridge, on the south-bound side :rolleyes:
And these are not the only ad-hoc new provisions to have been made by DCC on O’ C St within the last few weeks; pavement has been replaced by 2 new separate bus parking bays on O’ C St upr, outside Berties AIB and the Carlton/ Dick Quirkes “amusement arcade”, (you know the one I mean, where gambling slot machines are going on despite being a total breach of regulations). And of course there’s no sign of the new plastic poles being replaced by anything more suitable for the cycle-lane between Abbey St and O’ C Bridge.
What a mess 😡
Comments please to Michael Phillips, head of DCC’s Roads Dept, and also to City Manager John Tierney as all of this has happened under his watch in the last few months.
If a city manager isn’t able to keep his roads dept from making mayhem on the capitals main st, after 10s of millions have been spent on it, what hope?
@ctesiphon wrote:
Was Mr McGuinne responsible for this comment, or was it another quote from a ‘well respected’ member of West 8?
Only if they insist on using their cars. And if they do, then they deserve all the congestion the world can throw at them.
In city centres, pedestrians should be at the top of the food chain with private cars at the very bottom.
The fear you describe above will, in all likelihood, be a reality sooner rather than later. And it will be glorious.
People will only stop using their cars, when there is a decent 24 hour public transport system, which we don’t have at the moment. That should be the main priority, before they think of pedestrianising anywhere, or making it more difficult for traffic.
@Blisterman wrote:
People will only stop using their cars, when there is a decent 24 hour public transport system, which we don’t have at the moment. That should be the main priority, before they think of pedestrianising anywhere, or making it more difficult for traffic.
Just to clarify, the new bus bays outside Berties Bank are for private coaches, not public transport.
QUOTE Hutton :
“I see that DCC have just put in a new taxi rank on O’ Connell Bridge, on the north-bound side; well this should compliment the new bus stop that they put in a month ago, also on the bridge, on the south-bound side
And these are not the only ad-hoc new provisions to have been made by DCC on O’ C St within the last few weeks; pavement has been replaced by 2 new separate bus parking bays on O’ C St upr, outside Berties AIB and the Carlton/ Dick Quirkes “amusement arcade”, (you know the one I mean, where gambling slot machines are going on despite being a total breach of regulations). And of course there’s no sign of the new plastic poles being replaced by anything more suitable for the cycle-lane between Abbey St and O’ C Bridge.” ] END
The two Bus/Coach bays mentioned are not new,they were provided from day 1.
Why is another matter,however I suspect it may have something to do with the impossibility of operating that cack-handed Taxi Rank when even as much as a bicycle occupies space on the inside lane.As for the OC Bridge Taxi Rank,well….. what can one say….It now provides Taxi drivers with a raison d`etre for barging through from the INSIDE (Left-Turn Only) lane on Westmoreland St.
If DCC were GENUINE in their concerns for public safety they would have coned off the southern near side aspect of OCB with the same floppy poles that outline the cycle lane at the approach to Eden Quay.
As it currently stands DCC`s new tinkering has seriously increased the risk of RTA`s ESPECIALLY in relation to Cycle/Vehicle collisions.One suggestion worth considering is to remove the current Taxi Rank along the Riverside at Aston Quay and relocate it to the Eastern side of OCB,ie: Burgh Quay.
Currently the Aston Quay Rank limits Taxi`s and their customers to a Westbound route only.
Relocating the Rank to Burgh Quay,if properly structured,would allow Taxi`s to position for North/South/West bound departures with relative ease.This suggestion would only be truly effective if DCC were to surrender the current On-Street Quayside Parking TOTALLY.
However given the abysmal track record of this outfit I would imagine they would impose some cack-brained swop of parking to allow for continued blockage and restriction of Aston Quay.This suggestion would also allow for the crazy OCB “Rank” to be removed in the interest of public safety and sanity.
Sadly ,since both Mr Phillips and Mr Tierney appear to live and work from a hermetically sealed bunker deep beneath Wood Quay I would expect little except perhaps a mild rush to commission a consultant or two to report as to why such a suggestion could NOT be considered….:D
@Alek Smart wrote:
As for the OC Bridge Taxi Rank,well….. what can one say….It now provides Taxi drivers with a raison d`etre for barging through from the INSIDE (Left-Turn Only) lane on Westmoreland St.
Do you guys mean the taxi rank is in the left-lane of OCB north, the part which was previously marked off with hashed-lines? That’s going to be a disaster for cyclists….
It is indeed, markpb – been there for a while now. It’s only in operation between 8pm and 6am or similar, but I believe it has been known for cyclists to venture out beyond these hours.
Yes, an incoherent mess. Yet another ridiculous intermediary measure while the Luas central corridor saga rumbles on. The city centre will be a shanty town by the time a decision is made at this rate.
@Alek Smart wrote:
The two Bus/Coach bays mentioned are not new,they were provided from day 1.
Really? *Rubs eyes to check whatelse they have missed*…If so I stand corrected so.
*Makes mental note to self to wander in to Hempenstalls and get new specs after Christmas*
@Blisterman wrote:
People will only stop using their cars, when there is a decent 24 hour public transport system, which we don’t have at the moment. That should be the main priority, before they think of pedestrianising anywhere, or making it more difficult for traffic.
Agreed, largely, with two small provisos- I don’t think the system has to be 24 hour, and I think the traffic restrictions should happen in tandem with the PT improvements to force the modal shift.
@Alek Smart wrote:
As for the OC Bridge Taxi Rank,well….. what can one say….It now provides Taxi drivers with a raison d`etre for barging through from the INSIDE (Left-Turn Only) lane on Westmoreland St.
Though at least now the Aircoach won’t be able to sneak up the inside ‘lane’ (the hatched area) of the bridge and bully cyclists out of the way, as has happened to me twice- same driver both times. Except… I didn’t get out of the way. Because I didn’t have to.
One of the benefits of the “No discernible Kerb” arrangement in O Connell St is the manner in which items such as the Bus Bays can be there one minute and gone the next.
It also,of course flies totally counter to the Governments Committment to accessible public transport for all as it fails to meet the design requirements now required at all other remodelled Bus Stops…for example take a peep out in the sticks along the N81 all the way to Blessington..every single Bus Stop remodelled with Kassel Kerbing for a SINGLE route (65)
Yet in O Connell St with a vast throughput of Bus Routes NOT A SINGLE BUS STOP MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SAFE ACCESS FOR THE DISABLED. 😮
Of course it`s entirely possible that Mssrs Phillips and Tierney remain unaware of the existance of the various disability access requirements of the Equal Status Act 2000,and the role of the Equality Agency and other disabled rights groups in attempting to have the Acts requirements complied with…it`s entirely possible indeed… :rolleyes:
The cause of Huttons confusion is most likely the SIGNAGE for the bays,as in common with most of the Statutory Signage on the street it has a habit of disappearing and reappearing in some wildy altered state.
For example the Street started out with a 24Hr Clearway in place along the GPO Plaza,the nice shiny stainless steel poles on the South bound side still remain,totally devoid of the Statutory Signs….something which greatly facilitates the parking of ticket-selling open-top tour buses on this stretch of 24HR CLEARWAY 😮 😉 😉 😉
im a fan of “No discernible Kerb” !!!!!
The problem is the buses they move and they stop and park where the hell they like…
They are even going to be included in the golden Z shaped snakebus only zone
that runs from temple bar to siptu. Dublin City Council may include these parking spaces and a visual assesment in the liffey framework plan…When the luas goes in you will have nothing to worry about…
It would be pretty funny to imagine a foot path that goes up and down up and down…
And then theres the colour discrimination!!!! whats next???
the problem with some building regulations is they discriminate against certain architectural styles/designs…discrimination is a double edged sword… 😀
Great pictures, but you can see from the picture of O’Connell Bridge how big an impediment Trinity was to the Wide Street Commissioners. Two wide streets leading from what was then and now the city’s most important bridge…and both blocked from reaching further south by Trinners.
whats wrong with these photos???
what would you change if you could…
can you see how wrong the alignment of the footpaths and the five lamps are???
Its the same story from the other side so….I already have a few ideas…
mainly o’connell st sq. and the rest…
you might get a picture in 6 months : )Here is the “real” version of your above photomontage, shamrockmetro – a pre-1891 photograph. It would make you cry!!! :
*sobs uncontrollably*
I suppose some consolation should stem from the vista in any event being entirely obstructed today by the ranks of buses along Eden Quay…
shamrockmetro, the lamps of O’Connell Bridge are not aligned for the simple reason that the bridge is neither aligned with O’Connell Street or Westmoreland/D’Olier Streets due to the angle of the Liffey, and more importantly the off-axis responding developments on both sides of the river. Short of shifting a few tectonic plates, I fear we’re lumped with it.
Interesting views you’ve posted, if the Custom House a ‘tad’ embellished 😉
It’s curious how oddly familiar Ballast House looks in the other view replicated on the site of O’Connell Bridge House. Indeed at first I was half wondering why you posted it, as there didn’t seem to be anything different!Indeed on this very topic, does it frustrate anybody else how poor the exisitng Ballast House is (as reproduced by Michael Scott in the late 1970s)? In spite of its classical character, at the end of the day it’s a heap of junk from a specification perspective, with cladding, dressings and fenestration possessing all the finesse of a steamroller. The window surrounds in particular look like they’ve been cut out of a slab of concrete with a scissors and applied to the facade with Pritt Stick, whilst the brickwork is sullen and prosaic.
Given the office interior is thoroughly dated, the entrance arrangements dismal, and the structural form a concrete frame clad in brickwork, what would people think of the likelihood of a redevelopment, and more specifically the design idiom – and its desirability – of a potential new building/facade? I’d imagine the economics probably don’t stack up, but either way I’d prefer an improving on the detailing and better ground floor treatment to the river front.. Indeed a return to the original WSC design. i.e. minus the dressings, would surely be an improvement.
It’s a wallpaper building we all pass by with little heed, but as things stand is a clunky addition to the most important intersection in the city.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
