Proposal to ban private cars from Dublin city centre

Home Forums Ireland Proposal to ban private cars from Dublin city centre

Viewing 46 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #709236
      Paul Clerkin
      Keymaster

      Radical new traffic management plans from the Dublin Transportation Office (DTO)to ban private cars from Dublin city centre are to be put to city councillors today.

      The plans, devised in consultation with several agencies including Dublin Bus and the Railway Procurement Agency, (RPA), would make it impossible for cars to use the city centre to cross north to south and vice versa.

      Cars would be banned from College Green, Westmoreland Street, O’Connell Bridge, on Dame Street from the junction with George’s Street, northbound on O’Connell Street and southbound on O’Connell Street from the junction with Abbey Street.

      These areas would be accessible to public transport only.

      The DTO also plans to introduce a system that would give buses priority at traffic lights by enabling the light to switch in favour of an approaching bus. This system would also allow for countdown clocks at bus stops that would show the actual time a bus will arrive.

      The plan was approved by the board of Dublin Bus last December and is supported by the RPA, but must be ratified by the city council before it can be put into action.

      Fine Gael councillor Naoise Ó Muirí said he supported pedestrianisation but the DTO plan was “extreme, impractical and unworkable” and would lead to “segregation” between northsiders and southsiders.

      Labour councillor Andrew Montague said the plans could be realised but only when the public transport infrastructure had been put in place.

    • #787616
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Woo-hoo!

      One detail (from someone I know who was peripherally involved in this)- the second paragraph would be more accurate if it said: “The plans, devised by several bodies including Dublin Bus, the Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) and Dublin City Council, and facilitated by the DTO…” But like I say, a detail. The main point stands.

      It raises some interesting questions, not least the impact of the northbound O’Connell Street ban on the proposals for the Arnott’s car park, among others.

    • #787617
      admin
      Keymaster

      Very good point other than reversing the flow of traffic from the carpark to inbound from Abbey Street and outbound from North Princes Street I can see some major problems with this.

      My preference would be to allow the Arnotts situation to remain with the redvelopment period giving an ample period for driver habits to be altered and congestion charge style cameras introduced north of Princess St post re-opening of the Arnotts Scheme. No doubt Arnotts would be delighted if you were fined €100 for passing vehicular access to their premises!!!

      Well done DTO good to see you back to your controversial and progressive best!

    • #787618
      Anonymous
      Inactive
      PVC King wrote:
      Very good point other than reversing the flow of traffic from the carpark to inbound from Abbey Street and outbound from North Princes Street I can see some major problems with this.

      My preference would be to allow the Arnotts situation to remain with the redvelopment period giving an ample period for driver habits to be altered and congestion charge style cameras introduced north of Princess St post re-opening of the Arnotts Scheme. No doubt Arnotts would be delighted if you were fined &#8364]

      What about access to the various car parks on Fleet Street (including the multi-storey near the junction with Westmoreland Street?

      Presumably all those who have been given pp for underground/multi storey car parks in the affected area (in accordance with statutory plans) will be compensated?

    • #787619
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      What about local deliveries, construction vans etc?
      Will local business improve, and would it be enough to offset the (probable) hardship of motorists?
      How would surrounding areas cope with the increase in traffic?

      How about providing cheap,widespread, reliable public rail transport that runs till late at night (if you build it they will come)
      and leave the poor motorists alone!

    • #787620
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      But where is all this traffic going to go? Its only going to lead to huge conjestion around the no traffic zone.

      Delivery vans would be let through, I’d think. They often allow delivery vans on pedestrian streets (until 10 or 11 in the morning at least).

      And how exactly are they going to stop the traffic? Is there going to have to be some sort of barrier system in place?

    • #787621
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @paul h wrote:

      …and leave the poor motorists alone!

      the problem with this kind of language is that implies that ‘motorists’ are a separate ethnic group or an endangered animal species worthy of protection and basic rights. I use my car to drive around ballsbridge and donnybrook where land is worth 100m per acre and I pay nothing extra on my flat annual tax to do so. I take up masses of roadspace, preventing public transport from functioning properly, and making wallking and cycling dangerous and unpleasant. By choosing to drive, I remove a passenger fromm public transport so the transport company loses revenue and services are less frequent. And I will continue to do so unless I am prevented from doing so by law or charged more than I can afford or delayed sufficiently to make a bus more convenient.

      I have no more entitlement to rights as a ‘motorist’ than as a ‘fax machinist’ or a user of any other device. We are Dubliners and users of the city. The machines should be our slaves rather than us being their pets.

    • #787622
      admin
      Keymaster

      @publicrealm wrote:

      What about access to the various car parks on Fleet Street (including the multi-storey near the junction with Westmoreland Street?

      Presumably all those who have been given pp for underground/multi storey car parks in the affected area (in accordance with statutory plans) will be compensated?

      This was dealt with on the College Green thread the solution is simple left turn from Aston Quay and out as it currently flows.

      PTB

      Cameras you will find that with the exception of foreign diplomats the London congestion zone works smoothly.

      Frank I agree with your sentiments but only where the public transport currently exists and it can’t be argued that these areas are poorly served and it is probably more democratic to exclude than to charge.

    • #787623
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      A fine concept which is totally compromised by the pre-existance of City Centre Multi-Storey Car Parks.

      What should be a simple and clear issue of re-routing immediately becomes a typically Irish fudge of how to devise and implement “Accessibility” arrangements for the private car parks.
      This is wasteful of both intellect and manpower and is probably best typified by the requirement to divert scarce Garda Traffic Corps members to act as Parking Attendants at Princes St and the Ilac Centres during periods of high useage.

      With the Government currently involved in having to buy-out the National Toll Roads interest in the West Link,perhaps they should be considering a similar move for the strategic centre city Private Car Parks.

      I would begin with the Arnotts,Ilac and Temple Bar sites,all of which would lend themselves to commercial redevelopment to include a statutory Public Transport element.

      Until DCC,Bus Atha Cliath,Veolia and Irish Rail are forced to co-operate on this then An Lar will remain as it presently is,a potentially attractive urban focal point with a requirement to take a survival course before accessing it !

      I would recommend binning this proposal and returning to the Council to seek it`s CURRENT position on it`s own Inner Canal Cordon Policy which appears to have been mislaid somewhere beneath the reams of Multi Storey Car Park planning files !!! 😎

    • #787624
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @Frank Taylor wrote:

      the problem with this kind of language is that implies that ‘motorists’ are a separate ethnic group or an endangered animal species worthy of protection and basic rights. I use my car to drive around ballsbridge and donnybrook where land is worth 100m per acre and I pay nothing extra on my flat annual tax to do so. I take up masses of roadspace, preventing public transport from functioning properly, and making wallking and cycling dangerous and unpleasant. By choosing to drive, I remove a passenger fromm public transport so the transport company loses revenue and services are less frequent. And I will continue to do so unless I am prevented from doing so by law or charged more than I can afford or delayed sufficiently to make a bus more convenient.

      I have no more entitlement to rights as a ‘motorist’ than as a ‘fax machinist’ or a user of any other device. We are Dubliners and users of the city. The machines should be our slaves rather than us being their pets.

      Don’t you pay road tax then? insurance? By that argument why shouldn’t cyclists pay to use the cycle lanes, pedestrians to use the pavements? I don’t cycle because of the driving behaviour of buses and taxis, not cars. I saw a cyclist come off her bike yesterday when her wheel caught in the luas tracks.

      Your argument that my driving deprives dublin bus of another passenger is laughable. I live near a luas but I don’t use it because it is permanently packed and, unless you get on at a terminus you don’t have a mission of getting a pram/buggy onto it. They couldn’t take anymore passengers but is the service more frequent? no. I waited 25 minutes for a bus last night and when it arrived it drove on bybecause it was packed. They couldn’t take anymore passengers but is the service more frequent? no. So I had to get a taxi, with the usual unpleasant driver, extortionate fare, manky car and I ended up telling him how to get where I want to go anyway. Hell, last week I had to tell the driver of the bus I did get on the way to go!! I drive to Galway rather than take the train so I don’t have to listen to some inflated fool talking on his mobile the whole way.

      My car takes up the same space as a taxi, a lot less space than a bus. Public transport has its own lanes, in some places its own light systems. I’m holding myself up, not dublin bus.

      dangerous and unpleasant?? I have yet to see a cyclist stop for a red light – I have been nearly hit by a cyclist many many more times than a car. The only time I have nearly hit a pedestrian in my car is when they walked out in front of me. Maybe traffic would move more smoothly if pensioners didn’t start to cross the road the second the little man turns red. We are indeed Dubliners but this Dubliner feels safer inside the car than outside it.

    • #787625
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Deep breath…

      I don’t have time right now to dismantle your argument piece by piece. Maybe this will serve to start the ball rolling.

      Those hostile to cyclists often claim that cyclists don’t have any right to use the public road system as car drivers ‘own the roads’ due to them paying ‘road tax’. The following information may be useful to anyone wishing to correct such uniformed views.

      From: http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/thebikezone/campaigning/tax.html

      I’d be curious to have your views on the linked article.

    • #787626
      admin
      Keymaster

      What should be a simple and clear issue of re-routing immediately becomes a typically Irish fudge of how to devise and implement “Accessibility” arrangements for the private car parks.

      Totally agree; I spent about three minutes scrawling an argument as to why we shouldn’t attempt to buy out multi-story car-parks beofre realising that your main point appears to be ‘end the fudge’ Proper traffic management is required 365 days a year and not just around Christmas time to get shoppers in and out of car-parks; the behaviour of white van man in Dublin as against other cities defies belief at times even more so when white van man is a woman parking in a clearway to pick up 20 Carrolls in Spar.

      Each space in City Centre multi-storey car-parks are worth €175-275,000 dependent on location; they are a scarce resource which would cost over €1bn to buy out. There are also large numbers of consumers that would not enter the City Centre in their absence.

      Having said that I think what people really want is a City Centre experience that doesn’t involve excessive traffic volumes when they arrive and I agree with other posters that the convenience of pedestrians must come first.

      What is sorely missing in Dublin is organisation of the Bus system which in comparison to London is chaotic; It is clear that it may not be be economically viable to build a bus station but the least that could be done in the interim is to ensure a clear passage for buses in the centre of the city unimpeded by traffic that has neither origin nor destination there.

    • #787627
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Dublin city centre would be a nicer place if there were less cars and more bicyles. Nobody can argue with that !

      Cycling facilities in the City need vast improvement at all levels. It is good to see the conversation being about putting limitations on cars in the city centre.

    • #787628
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @ctesiphon wrote:

      Deep breath…

      I don’t have time right now to dismantle your argument piece by piece. Maybe this will serve to start the ball rolling.

      From: http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/thebikezone/campaigning/tax.html

      I’d be curious to have your views on the linked article.

      It’s a fair point, albeit a UK article and I’m not sure re statements regarding rights to the road. It covers all things financial very well and of course allows cyclists to continue to wear their self-righteousness like a suit of armour. So, ok – point made on my opening paragraph. BUT

      It doesn’t address – deep breath – any of the other points I made. It doesn’t address how mountain bikers are destroying countryside and protected habitats on a daily basis in pursuit of “leisure”, ride 3 abreast on narrow country roads, endanger themselves and pedestrians by acting like hooligans, get on their bikes after 6 pints on a friday night cause hey if I get knocked down I’ll sue the pants of the car driver, innocent or not, overcrowding on public transport etc etc

      we can put down links to articles all day – i’ve a few crackers from Jeremy Clarkson if you like but the whole point of my comments is that we’re a long way away from persuading people out of the car – you can quote theory all day but the non-cyclist knows the reality

    • #787629
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      A fine concept which is totally compromised by the pre-existance of City Centre Multi-Storey Car Parks.

      What’s more infuriating is that all the post 1990 parks were built with unbelievably generous tax breaks. Unless this fact could be used in the negotiation of a buy out (i.e. that the capital cost of these car parks was effectively provided by the government in the form of tax breaks), you’re looking at a serious double whammy in terms of cost for the public.

      Whatever about the difficulties accomodating the Fleet St. park in the new scheme, the situation to the south of Dame St. is much worse, I feel. I always fancied the idea of turning the area bound by Dame St, NG Georges St, Grafton St. and Stephen’s St. into a pedestrianized quarter – it would be perfect in many ways in terms of its mix of retail outlets, pubs and places to eat and its streetscape (narrow pre-WSC street patterns seem to provide a much more comfortable environment for pedestrians). This would effectively extend Temple Bar southwards and Grafton St westwards creating a huge pedestrianised city centre area – albeit with Dame St and Nassau St. acting as (mostly) public transport artuaries through the area. This will never be possible ‘though because of the three large car parks in this area (ignoring the massive parking complex behind the Stephen’s Green centre and College of Surgeons).

    • #787630
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @wearnicehats wrote:

      I drive to Galway rather than take the train so I don’t have to listen to some inflated fool talking on his mobile the whole way.

      I know. I drive everywhere because it is the most rational choice when the planners have devoted 30-40% of the city’s land area to infrastructure for this type of machine in exchange for my 151 euro per year. Pedestrians do take up space, a couple of metres squared when walking and a metre squared when standing. A car takes up about 12 metres squared parked but nearly 100m2 when moving in a city (lane width 3.5m, 2 second headway, 50kph). Car parks typically allocate 25m2 per car to allow for access and there are said to be 8 parking places per car in the city, most paid for through indirect subsidy.

      So why let peope drive around dense urban cores when land space is so much at a premium, when they often only manage to travel at walking speeds, when their noise and air pollution affect more people than rural driving and when their presence delays a larger number of people on public transport?

      Each time you get on a bus the bus company gets a little extra revenue that can be used to improve services or frequency. In Dublin though there is a very odd problem. The Dublin bus company gets less than a 10th of the average european subsidy as a proportion of costs and its main services seem to have been operating at capacity during peak hours for the past few years. 20 years ago we got half the average European subsidy so it must have been policy to starve the bus company for at least the last two decades.
      subsidy in 2000/2001: 3.6%
      subsidy in 1994/1995: 4.4% http://www.cfit.gov.uk/docs/2002/psbi/lek/a3/08.htm
      subsidy in 1986: 20% http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0113/S.0113.198605280007.html

      It seems that while fare revenue has been increasing steadily, the government has just pocketed the change.

      I’m not sure if you are seriously comparing the danger from people walking or cycling to me in my 1,000 kgs of plastic and metal travelling at 50kph. I’d have no problem with my kids playing on the street if the worst they could meet was a bicycle.

      One major restriction to further luas capacity is the intersection with cars. And who’s in those cars? Why me, buying a packet of cigarettes or an ice cream and if I kill someone on the journey, something that happens every day in Ireland, well who cares because I paid my insurance premium so everyone’s laughing and Axa can just resurrect the dead and make everything OK. Meanwhile I saved walking to the shop and the possibility of talking to a human on the way and I didn’t get WET.

    • #787631
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @wearnicehats wrote:

      It’s a fair point, albeit a UK article and I’m not sure re statements regarding rights to the road. It covers all things financial very well and of course allows cyclists to continue to wear their self-righteousness like a suit of armour. So, ok – point made on my opening paragraph. BUT

      It doesn’t address – deep breath – any of the other points I made. It doesn’t address how mountain bikers are destroying countryside and protected habitats on a daily basis in pursuit of “leisure”, ride 3 abreast on narrow country roads, endanger themselves and pedestrians by acting like hooligans, get on their bikes after 6 pints on a friday night cause hey if I get knocked down I’ll sue the pants of the car driver, innocent or not, overcrowding on public transport etc etc

      we can put down links to articles all day – i’ve a few crackers from Jeremy Clarkson if you like but the whole point of my comments is that we’re a long way away from persuading people out of the car – you can quote theory all day but the non-cyclist knows the reality

      Dear Jeremy,

      The fact that it’s a UK article doesn’t really change the point. Conditions here are similar enough for it to be sufficiently relevant.

      Also, there’s no connection between your previous post and the new points you make here. I don’t see what having a go at mountain bikers has to do with removing car traffic from College Green, nor for that matter the other points you make on cyclists. If you want to take those points up over in the Cycling in Irish Cities thread I’ll gladly debate them with you there, but you’ll see from reading my previous posts there that a) I’m annoyingly self-righteous about my cycling, because b) I do not break the law on my bicycle, ever, and c) we are largely in agreement on the subject of cyclists and the law.

      PS By ‘non-cyclist’ I presume you mean motorist? To me, ‘non-cyclist’ includes drivers, car passengers, public transport users, and pedestrians (including the mobility-imapired). So which reality (that is hidden from the cyclist) do you think these people know?

      PPS Frank- For what it’s worth, I agree almost 100% with your post, but perhaps you can understand my surprise at seeing a motorist spell it out so bluntly! Anyway, thanks for your honesty. 😉
      (Edit: That comment referred to your first post, but could just as easily refer to your second.)

    • #787632
      admin
      Keymaster

      Why do these threads always descend into car vs bicycle on this forum?

      As an individual that travels mostly by train I encounter both car-drivers and cyclists that do not follow the rules and class both as a pain.

      BTW

      I think it is important that this proposal retains focus as it appears to be the first realistic compromise to emerge yet that delivers both a quality environment without gunthering city traffic flows.

      The idea that multi-storey carparks will dissapear is simply unrealistic. On a square footage basis they yield more than prime offices and there is no way that DCC will ever find the €1bn plus to remove what are an irritant and to retailers an asset. Whether we like it or not many consumers will never use public transport.

      The trick with these consumers is to make life awkward but not impossible.

    • #787633
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @PVC King wrote:

      Why do these threads always descend into car vs bicycle on this forum?

      Agreed.

      The real debate we should be having is the one about the mixing of public transport and pedestrians in College Green.

      Or the one about the car parks. For my money, there’s every chance that BTs and others might redevelop these sites themselves.

      Jimg’s suggestion about pedestrianising the area between George’s St and Grafton St is thinking along the right lines too (though I’d stretch it to Dawson Street, assuming the Luas is going that way). And this would tie in with the Grafton St Special Planning Control scheme. And hey presto! Joined up thinking!:rolleyes:

      Edit: PS Did the Council make a decision on this yet? The original article said the debate was on March 1st.

    • #787634
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @wearnicehats wrote:

      I live near a luas but I don’t use it because it is permanently packed and, unless you get on at a terminus you don’t have a mission of getting a pram/buggy onto it. They couldn’t take anymore passengers but is the service more frequent? no. .

      Spot on – I couldn’t agree more.

      I was at the Infrastructure Conference in UCD last week and listened to (endured) a self-promoting presentation by the RPA on what an outstanding success the Luas was – much more heavily subscribed than was anticipated. This latter statement presented as if it was something to be happy about! (rather than an scandalous failure to properly assess demand for a multi-million euro public project)

      I asked if they (RPA) were aware of the appaling congestion at peak from Milltown onward and, if so, what did they intend to do about it? They are and they intend to improve ‘headroom’ (?) No idea what that means but – in the meantime – the car owning middle classes have abandoned Luas and are driving to work whereas the students (who are not car owners and would otherwise use the bus – or walk/cycle) are prepared to put up with the discomfort and can wait for the three or four trams until a sardine space can be found.

      It really really pees me off. And they are merrily planning the onward extension to Cherrywood and beyond – absolute madness 😡 .

      So I will continue to drive into the city because I need to be on time and driving makes this possible. Very sad but very true 🙁

      I’m also fed up with the ‘motorist = selfish’ argument and am tempted to indulge myself in a large engined luxobarge before clever Trevor finally succeeds in taxing them out of existence and forces me to knit my own bicycle..

    • #787635
      Anonymous
      Inactive

    • #787636
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      I bet you waited there for a few mins to get that last shot!

    • #787637
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Not at all – just had the camera out 🙂

      And he sat there for a good while too, luckily just until the Luas arrived on top of him. I just couldn’t believe he misjudged a space that so clearly only accommodated half his size – you see this regularly with public transport vehicles that simply should know better, especially in a line of traffic that had backed up from the bridge lights. The rambling pedestrians and motorcyclist just round it off nicely :p

    • #787638
      admin
      Keymaster

      Those aircoach drivers can be a motivated bunch at times; I once got one where the intrnal electrics started smoking it was driven so hard.

      The expresion headroom should read headway which is the technical term for planned times between services. The Luas headways are a joke it could easily run on 90 second headways on the Green Line should a spur be built in an opposite direction from Harcourt Rd. I always take early and late trains to avoid peak congestion times on public transport and I am sure it puts some people off; then again peak driving times are pretty uncomfortable as well.

      I like the idea of pedestrianising the area from Dawson Street to Georges Street using South King St and Nassau St Dame Street as the additional boundaries. However it is clear that whilst much progress has been made in this direction: this objective will take time to acheive.

      The key problem I see in car movement at present is that someone leaving Clonee to shop in Grafton St will probably travel directly through the centre of the city to park in either BT or St Green. Whilst someone in Terenure shopping in Henry St will probably park in Arnotts or Jervis.

      Key progress would represent consumer 1 parking in ILAC and consumer 2 parking in Christchurch. At least this way the impacts would be reduced to the edge of the central zone and allow the very core the respite that we all seek.

    • #787639
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      I love the mild chaos in the picture, the hustle and bustle really brings a city to life

    • #787640
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      And Boy does`nt Wynns canopy just make a magnificent statement as it struggles to maintain it`s dignity amidst the flotsam and jetsam of tacky cheap and nasty (BUT DCC approved !) convienience store frontages.

      Theres even a faintly Parisian air about its lonely stance ..??? 🙂

    • #787641
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @publicrealm wrote:

      Spot on – I couldn’t agree more.

      I asked if they (RPA) were aware of the appaling congestion at peak from Milltown onward and, if so, what did they intend to do about it? They are and they intend to improve ‘headroom’ (?) No idea what that means but – in the meantime – the car owning middle classes have abandoned Luas and are driving to work whereas the students (who are not car owners and would otherwise use the bus – or walk/cycle) are prepared to put up with the discomfort and can wait for the three or four trams until a sardine space can be found.

      It really really pees me off. And they are merrily planning the onward extension to Cherrywood and beyond – absolute madness 😡 .

      The Luas green line is fine always except 8.30-9.30 am and 5.30-6.30pm approximately. In those rush hours it is crowded- but isn’t that normal? In London the tubes are even more crowded at those hours and the trains are separated by only seconds and there are about 14 different lines!

    • #787642
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @Alek Smart wrote:

      A fine concept which is totally compromised by the pre-existance of City Centre Multi-Storey Car Parks.

      well, if the government are spending €600m buying out the toll bridge…

    • #787643
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @wearnicehats wrote:

      It doesn’t address – deep breath – any of the other points I made. It doesn’t address how mountain bikers are destroying countryside and protected habitats on a daily basis in pursuit of “leisure”, ride 3 abreast on narrow country roads, endanger themselves and pedestrians by acting like hooligans, get on their bikes after 6 pints on a friday night cause hey if I get knocked down I’ll sue the pants of the car driver, innocent or not, overcrowding on public transport etc etc

      what about the quad bikes and scramblers – i.e. motorists – who (as far as i understand) are doing far more to destroy the countryside?
      i believe coillte have been trying to get a law passed to allow easier access to the gardai onto coillte land as there is some vagueness in the law which makes the gardai reluctant to take any action about illegal use of the above on the land.

      also, cyclists deliberately cycle two or three abreast on country lanes as a matter of self–preservation; it means they are able to control overtaking attempts. i’ve been out there on my own, and had cars overtake me into oncoming traffic. it can be damn scary.

    • #787644
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      getting back on topic, are there any figures as to how much private traffic in the city centre is traffic with the city centre as either its source or destination?
      i.e. how much of it could be rerouted around the city centre? and what would be the impact of rerouting?

    • #787645
      admin
      Keymaster

      @magicbastarder wrote:

      well, if the government are spending €600m buying out the toll bridge…

      The costs of buying each 500 space carpark would be €100m with a residual land value of c€20m on the most prime sites. Repeat this across 10 sites and a net €800m loss would accrue.

      The opportunity cost of €800m in Dublin transport terms would be bonkers. Let’s face it we could have spent €800m removing car-parks and have cancelled LUAS. Why didn’t I think of that?

      When Dublin has an interconnector, metro, 20 QBC’s and a proper airport maybe then buying out car-parks will be a higher priority than building additional LUAS lines.

      Stopping motorists who have no reason crossing the very centre of the city and providing a small number of city centre parking spaces are two very different issues. Critically one represents valid traffic management policy whilst the other represents uncosted idiologically driven witch hunt.

    • #787646
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Perhaps a compromise can be reached if we kindof extend the definition of “Valid Traffic Management Policy” whilst widening the scope of the Witch Hunt 😉

      It can,I feel be validly argued,that over the past 40 years Dublin has not had ANY “Valid Traffic Management Policy”

      The situation we have now is a direct result of 4 decades of Central Planning being directed by a very small coterie of major speculative developers.
      These developers and their ever eager and compliantly docile Political Friends took complete control over Dublins development at it`s most important juncture for several centuries.

      With NO National Planning Policies or,more importantly,controls in place during the 1970`s and 1980`s this little band proceeded to develop an entire region on a “Back of an Envelope” basis.

      Over the past 40 years,the largely undereducated and unquestioning populace blindly followed the dictates of the “Great Fellah`s” and the subscribers to Taca who during the 70`s and 80`s reaped great rewards for their loyalty to the Political system.

      It could be summed-up by the sight of unemployed social-welfare dependant men fighting to have the honour of buying a drink for a low-level Political figure in the hope of being remembered by that figure at some future point.

      Perhaps if we as a culture had pursued a few more “Witch-Hunts” when such sports could have achieved something we might have a better country today ?

      However in the absence of such an event we are left to watch the “Craic” which is daily enacted as Motorists heading for Arnotts Car Park firstly have to locate Princes St,then perform a series of intricate death defying manouveres before anchoring up at a jaunty angle across the extended granite footpath beside the GPO.
      Yes indeed after spending €56 million “upgrading” O Connell St we are left with a situation where Motorists and Pedestrians alike have great difficulty identifying where Footpath ends and Roadway begins….:eek:

      Definitely a case for some “Valid Traffic Management Policy” at this location anyway !! 😮

    • #787647
      admin
      Keymaster

      The access to North Princess St is a disaster and when this site is redeveloped both access and egress should be planned from Abbey Street. What would be required to make this work would be a reversal of the traffic direction on Lower Liffey St and Middle Abbey St. This would prevent any traffic requirement access onto O’Connell Street.

      Your points in relation to the great mohair are it is felt irrelavant as it is ancient history and as you say yourself they were a very small bunch and not an entire industry.

      The reality is that many consumers if unable to drive to the city will drive to out of town malls as against take public transport. If you want a thriving city centre it is important to accomodate consumers and not exclude them; particularly when the motivation is to right wrongs caused 30 years ago.

    • #787648
      Anonymous
      Inactive
      ctesiphon wrote:
      . If you want to take those points up over in the Cycling in Irish Cities thread I’ll gladly debate them with you there,

      PS By ‘non-cyclist’ I presume you mean motorist? To me, ‘non-cyclist’ includes drivers, car passengers, public transport users, and pedestrians (including the mobility-imapired). So which reality (that is hidden from the cyclist) do you think these people know?
      QUOTE]

      no way – you’ll get me onto your 2wheeler site and indoctrinate me to the point where I’ll be wearing ill fitting spandex, riding up and down dollymount with flies in my teeth and boring everyone to death with tales about my wonderful carbon footprint.:D

      I’m a non-cyclist in that I’m simply too long in the tooth. But, if you’d care to read the post, you’d see that, apart from long distance hikes to galway, I take the bus. And I hate every moment of it. If I could park where I work, I would.

    • #787649
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      I would love to have your confidence PVC in any element of “Planned” infrastructure being put in place to right the enormous wrong currently on view at Princes St.

      Even better farce is to be witnessed around 1900 each evening as an articulated truck arrives at the GPO and then proceeds to reverse into Princes St in order to deliver to Pennys Warehouse.

      With the HSA currently girding its loins to battle with several Irish Local Authorities on the topic of Safety and Responsibility it can only help their case if they station a video camera here for a few nights to record madness in motion !

      I would still dispute the following Quote

      [PVCKING]
      “Your points in relation to the great mohair are it is felt irrelavant as it is ancient history and as you say yourself they were a very small bunch and not an entire industry.”

      THat “Very Small Bunch” had very long arms and fingers which were the most adept at kneading the doughy mixture.
      Even todays big players do not have to trawl too deeply in their management structures before some names start to ring bells…..even if some are gaelicised or even the oul death notice stalwart “neè” (as in maiden name) starts to appear.

      The irrelevancy arguement is exactly the one which allowed these crooked shysters to make a total Balls of our Capital.
      I would contend that there remains a LOT of investigation yet to be undertaken and that prospect sits uneasy with some of the current Movers & Shakers in the development arena.

      The arguements about consumers driving to out-of-town malls is very true but sadly those very Malls are already way over traffic`d.
      Take a peep at Dundrum “Town Centre” any weekend or The Square or Blanch Or Liffey Vallee.
      Even when presented with a clean sheet scenario our intrepid planners failed dismally to impliment any effective Public Transport alternative into these major schemes.

      No…..stick them oul Buses on the Windward side of The Square where the waiting local authority types will have the hole blown out of them even in mid summer whilst we figure out how to squeeze in ANOTHER few hundred Car spaces……..

      I`m not sure that there is a punishment cruel or unusual enough for some of our “Brilliant” Local Administration and Planning Proffessionals to make them atone for the suffering they have inflicted on the great unwashed.

      We forgive and forget the past 40 years at our peril…. ! 😮

    • #787650
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      And this Morning hot off the presses……..

      @cobalt wrote:

      From today’s Irish Times:
      Tiles on show in Dartmouth park
      Fiona Gartland

      Yes indeed,just when YOU thought it was safe to stroll about without a (flak) jacket, the mohair overcoat has made a totally unforseen comeback out in Ranelagh…. 😮

    • #787651
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Alek, as any planner, architect, or tribunal will tell you, those issues you complain about were created by politicians against the advice of the professionals you criticise

      “Even when presented with a clean sheet scenario our intrepid planners failed dismally to impliment any effective Public Transport alternative into these major schemes”

      That clean sheet was soiled irreparably by Lawlor, Burke, Haughey et al, long before a planner or county manager got to rubber stamp what were political decisions

    • #787652
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Hmmm.Alonso you may well be correct but I`m afraid I just don`t buy the notion of a wonderful Church/State divide on these issues.

      Whilst SOME professional planners and even Civil Servants did indeed raise their heads to cry Foul,the majority took a sniff at the prevailing wind and kept schtum.

      We now know that an entire generation`s only hope of properly planned environments was sacrificed on the altar of wealth and corruption.

      We also know that many of the silent acquiscent professionals went on to do quite well for themselves in Private Practice or Consultancy….and fair play to them.

      However all we have now is the shambolic remains of a half planned,half executed bit of an oul plan which stumbles along patching things up here and there.

      Planners,City & County Managers,Rubber Stamps all went hand in hand with the Lawlor/Burke alliance to facilitate Modern Ireland and did`nt they all do well out of it……..??? : )

    • #787653
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      I think you will hard pressed to find any country in the world that is not run by corrupt politicians
      Politicians tend to give the voters what they want
      It seems the majority were happy enough with the low density development model, which (i think) leads to car dependancy with little or no viable public transport.
      Pedestrianising a huge chunk of our city centre doesnt make sense when a car is the only decent way (dont tell me buses) to get around
      People are always gonna drive, for shopping etc. its the people who are driving to work you have to win over onto public transport
      and that transport has to be rail based prefably underground, anything else is just plain short sighted
      We should be thinking further ahead than just what we think will be good enough for the next few years

      p.s. many moons ago i used to cycle across the city to work and the most dangerous part of my trip was coming around the bend at college green in front of trinity, and almost getting side swiped by a bus, every single day

    • #787654
      admin
      Keymaster

      Pedestrianising a huge chunk of our city centre doesnt make sense when a car is the only decent way (dont tell me buses) to get around People are always gonna drive, for shopping etc. its the people who are driving to work you have to win over onto public transport

      I disagree that the car is a decent way to get around Dublin given the congestion that blocks smooth passage to the centre; if you are lucky enough to live beside a transport corridotr such as DART, LUAS or a QBC public transport is far superior.

      Furthermore whilst Dublin could be considered a low density sprawl in the mid 1980’s a lot of progress has been made with infill apartment & office development in the intervening 20 years in all directions for 2 to 3 miles out. This intensification of land use continues at an encouraging pace but a lot more needs to be done and making the centre an attractive destination is an important step in this process.

      For food shopping people are always going to drive but such journeys rarely involve the city centre and the key to a better city is to have people doing comparison shopping for items such as clothes, books etc using public transport to access the city centre. Part of this process is to make the bus/luas systems as efficient as possible and restricting three central streets to public transport use only is a good step in that direction.

    • #787655
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      What was the result of the council meeting? Did they approve the plan? DCC seems to take up to 2 months to post council meeting minutes on their famous website.

    • #787656
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Frank they weren’t voting on it. They were just having it formally presented and discussed. It still has to go to public consultation, so yes their Windows 95 website will be waitin a while longer for the voting and debates to appear…

      Alek, I wuldn’t say “many” professionals went on to do well in the private sector. I know three who certainly did in very recent times, but back then, I don’t know, and haven’t heard many being implicated.

    • #787657
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Is there any figures available for the financial benefit of this? (because lets face it thats what everything is about;) )
      I am easily willing to make sacrifices if the economic benefits are great
      and for the projected congestion on surrounding streets?

      I cant gauge what people think at home, but it just seems too radical to pass a vote(you know how we irish dont like change)
      Maybe some watered down version like no cars between 7am and 7pm would have a better chance

      There was an idea floated around here only a couple of weeks ago to pedestrianise the entire length of 42nd street and ruin some light rail on it. Nice idea, but i think it died out fairly fast
      http://www.vision42.org/ — check out their site

    • #787658
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      It’s not that radical. Public transport would move a little more freely and cars would still be able to reach their car parks via slightly longer routes. I’m sure that pedestrianising Grafton Street was considered a radical idea in the 80s. I used to park on Grafton street on Saturday mornings before 11am until as late as 1990.

      I don’t think it will have any great effect from a pedestrian’s point of view; the road will still be full of buses and taxis.

    • #787659
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Great to see the DTO getting in there and proposing this traffic ban now. It may as well be done now because the whole place is going to be tits up for years anyway while Luas is being put in.

    • #787660
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      What’s wrong with a compromise of a London Style Congestion charge? It would make the governement money, and still remove a lot of traffic from the city centre.

    • #787661
      admin
      Keymaster

      It would give out of town malls and office campuses an advantage over the City Centre which is why it shouldn’t happen anytime soon. Regulating traffic flows away from the very core would give public transport an advantage but would not constitute yet another stealth tax or a major disincentive to using the City Centre.

      Devin’s point re the Luas works is also very relevant as unless some major access cuts are made the next round of Luas works could have catastrophic impacts on the operation of the City bus network; any opinions on the revised arrangements on Stephens Green?

Viewing 46 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Latest News