Why penalise the motorist.Most people have to take their cars to work as most cannot afford to live in Dublin, plus the public transport in Dublin and surrounding areas is not good enough.
People already pay high car insurance, tax, nct petrol/diesel, why ask them to pay more?
Because the motorist has elected to use the most space-inefficient and least sustainable means to navigate the city. Short of razing the city centre and building a 6 lane dual carriageway through it, the city can't be made to accommodate more cars while also facilitating better and more efficient public transport, so driving into the city (in particular in single-occupancy vehicles - if there are 4/5 people in a car obviously the efficiency of the vehicle is greater) has to be disincentivised for motorists somehow. What a lot of people miss is that if there were no cars in the CC, buses would work a lot better, and the excuse of PT not being good enough wouldn't hold true to anywhere near the same extent.
EDIT: I say this as someone who found themselves driving to and from work in the city centre due to running between work and hospitals for a week or so earlier this year, and to be honest such is my hatred for sitting in traffic I was in work by 6am each day, and generally it was after 6:30pm when I left to go to whichever hospital by car. I took public transport between work and the hospitals during the day or at peak times. Main reason for driving to work was that it was well located between all three of home (Dublin 15) and both hospitals (Vincents and James's), and the fact that I was likely to be coming and going at odd hours.
No they don't. Most people get to work by public transport, walking or cycling.
Really ? Thats interesting, have you any info about it?
61,694 people out of 211,416 cross into the city in cars.
Public transport, walking and cycling account for 144,543
worth noting that that only counts people crossing the canal cordons - does not capture commuters whose commute does not cross one of those points.
True, though I think it is fair to class that as the "city centre".
not to be pedantic but if it was the city centre the report would have said city centre,
It was quite specific and said "canal cordons"
what you might class as 'the city centre' is obviously a moving target, but the canals is as good a way of defining it as any other.
The car will eventually be removed in its entirety from the City Centre outside of specific and highly restricted time periods. That is the trend, and the trend is supported by the data (pedantry of canals vs city centre aside). Car parks will move out to interchange points with Public Transport outside of the city centre where demand resides.
It's over, but we just have to suffer the death by a thousand cuts until everyone realises that and stops flogging a dead horse. This will ultimately be understood in the end as a ~60 year process starting from when Henry St was closed to cars as a temporary experiment in June 1971. At EVERY SINGLE STEP OF THE WAY there has been objections from Councillors, lobbyists, businesses, etc. But these objections have always been on the wrong side of history and will continue to be so. It's been far too slow, but we're getting there.