Cars to be banned from city centre

Calina

markpb wrote:

You have some good arguments but I still think it's a blinkered way of looking at it. Yes, Dublin has had some truly awful planning and yes, the high cost of houses (and people's obsessions with semi-d + garden) has made people move further away from the city. It's a pity those things happened but that's the city we have and we have to work from there.

Because of its low population density, Dublin will probably never have more than two decent metro lines (Metro north and a later one running south or west from the city centre). On-street tram lines are a compromise but not a great one. They're better than buses because they're slightly segregated but, as you can see from the red line, where there isn't already an alignment it's hard to build a decent tram line.

So that leaves us with.... substandard expensive tram lines and buses. And, like the film says, there aint enough space in this city for the two of us so someone has to suffer. Unless you can find a better solution, that someone is going to be car drivers. I agree with what you're saying - they're are some people in this city who would use public transport if it was better but given the resources we have and successive governments unwillingness to spend real money on public transport, what choice do we have?

I would venture to say that your position is actually the more blinkered. Brussels has two main metro lines, some tram lines and an integrated approach to bus services. It also has an excellent ring road set up. Much of what passes for transport planning here is tragic in that it plans on the here and now, rather than integrating it with plans for the future in other respects. We've historically suffered from piecemeal planning and this has had an knock on impact on the whole. Put simply, the sum of the whole of this city is less than the value of each bit broken down.

Making life hard for car drivers is what I would consider to be a bit of a cheapskate way of doing things. Certainly Dublin is poorly laid out but property crash or no property crash, building is not going to stop dead and so with a little cop on - noticeably lacking I have to say - you could take an integrated approach to planning housing/industry/commercial/transport rather than knocking up estates here and there every once in a while, waiting five years to get a local shop in, and five years to get an infrequent and oversubscribed bus service in.

What you suggest smacks of giving up and going for what you think is the least hasslesome part of the chain.

We appear to have a sufficient amount of money to pour it into the health system without caring how much it works or not. We are flinging money at tribunals. Our TDs are amongst the best paid in Europe. We have had tax take surpluses for the past three or four years in excess of budgetary assessments. You are telling me we don't have the resources.

I'm telling you we don't have the political willpower and that as always, we are trying to do as little as we can get away with. That is why we have a Luas now, and not an underground system. It is why Dublin Airport has to be extended again. It is why the bus service in Dublin is the shambles it is. It is why a tramway hasn't been built in Cork and it is why the rail system is still, after 7 years "getting there".

Do you think this happens in France? Do you think it happens in Dublin? The layout of Dublin now is no excuse not to be planning for the future. Having made mistakes in the past is no excuse for continuing to make the same mistakes. Yes Dublin is low density now, but with planning that can be changed. It's not like all the apartment blocks that were built in the past 20 years are going to survive the 99 years of of their lease agreements, imo.

markpb

Calina wrote:

Making life hard for car drivers is what I would consider to be a bit of a cheapskate way of doing things. Certainly Dublin is poorly laid out but property crash or no property crash, building is not going to stop dead and so with a little cop on - noticeably lacking I have to say - you could take an integrated approach to planning housing/industry/commercial/transport rather than knocking up estates here and there every once in a while, waiting five years to get a local shop in, and five years to get an infrequent and oversubscribed bus service in.

What you suggest smacks of giving up and going for what you think is the least hasslesome part of the chain.

You're absolutely right. We should have better planning, a more integrated approach to public transport and we should be putting a whole lot more money in than we currently are. I have no problem with any of that.

But right now, we don't have it and some of it will take years to come to fruition which is why I think we should do both. Adopt some short term measures (beef up bus lanes so they're actually effective, restrict private traffic through the city centre, etc) as well as planning for the future. There's no reason why we can't do both.

What you seem to be saying is we should let car drivers have the run of the city until we get our politicians in order, densify the city and build a proper public transport network. What happens in the meantime, does everyone get to sit in traffic which the existing network creaks and gets gradually worse?

If it's any consolation, it's what the British are planning to do as well - add extra lanes to motorways rather than sorting out the mess that is public transport.

They're getting better though, at least in Edinburgh and London where their public transport networks are excellent.

Calina

markpb wrote:

But right now, we don't have it and some of it will take years to come to fruition which is why I think we should do both. Adopt some short term measures (beef up bus lanes so they're actually effective, restrict private traffic through the city centre, etc) as well as planning for the future. There's no reason why we can't do both.

You are right, there is no reason why both can't be done. Where I have an issue is that in most cases, in this country, and pretty much the case for the past 10 years, is both are not being done. The cheapest and easiest is being done. Short term solutions is where it is at. Without any evidence at all of decent integrated future planning I don't see why the situation of motorists in this city should be worsened beyond the fiasco it already is. In other words, reassess how city parking works, how park and ride will work, how residential planning will be done, how commercial planning will be done, rerouting inner city motor traffic, how that could be done.

We have issued no carrots for the north side for years and years. Mostly when we sit down to look at public transport in Dublin we don't look at what is needed first and foremost. We look at the ideological considerations first and foremost. That is not useful. I realise that the time to do this planning was about 15 years ago and it didn't happen. But that is no reason to go on the same way. Unfortunately, all I see coming here is a series of short term solutions again with scant regard for the long term.

strassenwolf

markpb wrote:

Because of its low population density, Dublin will probably never have more than two decent metro lines (Metro north and a later one running south or west from the city centre). On-street tram lines are a compromise but not a great one. They're better than buses because they're slightly segregated but, as you can see from the red line, where there isn't already an alignment it's hard to build a decent tram line.

Dublin City does not have a low population density. The density in DCC is very respectable and is in fact slightly higher than several cities I can think of which have a number of metro lines, e.g., Munich, Stockholm, Vienna or Berlin.

OK, the density in SDCC, Fingal and DLR is generally lower than in DCC. But if the plan is to go down the LUAS/metro compromise as with metro north, it might be sensible to have an arrangement of tunnels in DCC for metro lines, which broadly become a number of LUAS lines in the outer areas. That way you can have more rapid, more frequent service in areas of the metropolitan region which have a density capable of supporting such a service.

markpb

strassenwolf wrote:

But if the plan is to go down the LUAS/metro compromise as with metro north, it might be sensible to have an arrangement of tunnels in DCC for metro lines, which broadly become a number of LUAS lines in the outer areas. That way you can have more rapid, more frequent service in areas of the metropolitan region which have a density capable of supporting such a service.

Metro North isn't a compromise - its a light-rail fully segregated metro system. Apart from that, I fully agree with you but it requires the government getting their asses in gear and funding more metro tunnels and FCC and DLRC leaving space on new roads of bus lanes and tram lines, something they've been quite poor at to date.

AlekSmart

The essense of Dublin`s Planning Defecit is all the more infuriating when one realizes that it came,not from ignorance,but from pure undiluted greed mixed in with a healthy dollop of illegality.

However these combinations today go a great way to identifying the modern Irish social ethos.
Just as we rapidly fall back upon foul mouthed abuse when our side of an arguement collapses so to do we barge on through when all the sensible advice is telling us to Stop !

There`s a little passion play going on up the road in Monaghan at the mo which sees Local Reps all in a hurry to rezone land while the Engineering Professionals and Planners are telling "The Lads" to pay attention to the fact that the area in question lies on a flood plain.

The response so far,it appears,is a resounding all-party concensus to push through the rezoning motion......I wonder why ????

Similarly here in Dublin we have a City Council which for decades has had a sortofa kindofa bit of an oul Traffic Policy which centred around restricting General Traffic movement through the "Inner Canal Cordon"

It was`nt rocket science but it had a bit of common sense attached to it.

Oddly enough,or perhaps not, the same Corporation and later City Council then presided over a VAST programme of Multi-Storey Car Park construction WITHIN the same Canal Cordon.

This made any potential General Traffic restriction a mathematical impossibility especially as not a Single Public Transport space was provided for in ANY of the same developments...WHY ?

The Developers will say....."Well Nobody asked us " or "We have no legal liability to include such items" and those developers will be factually correct.

My vision for best practice in Public Administration is that the elected officials acting in concert with their Professional Advisers would draw up the City`s Planning reqirements with specific legal requirements to include a Public Transport element in ALL City Centre commercial developments.

That PT element can be anything from a Ticket Vending Site/Information Panel to a full bore Bus/Rail/Tram/RiverBoat Interchange.

The Stephens Green Centre.
The Ilac Centre.
The Irish Life Centre.
The Setanta Centre.
The Jervis Centre.
The Arnotts/Pennys Centre.
The Georges Quay Centre.
The Parnell Centre.

Not so much as a Public Rickshaw space between the lot........because they were`nt asked/told .

Just take a ramble westwards along Parnell St from The Rotunda as far down as the Fruit Market.
This area has now some of the densest population figures in the City however as far as public transport is concerned it may as well be the Matto Grosso.
Dublin Bus treats the Parnell St/Parnell Sq West junction as it`s Line-In-The-Sand as it forces every vehicle it can muster to turn right and trundle painfully through the egg-timer that is Parnell Square.

Now this little Vehicular Ballet is not helped by the City Councils somewhat bizzarre decision to promote perpendicular car parking around the Square,a process which is as dangerous as it is foolish.

Again I would have little problem with ANY of this contradictory twaddle IF I was`nt continually told of the doings of our wonderful City Council and its many and varied departments all progressing steadily towards Civic Nirvana.

The essence of all this remains the refusal of Central Government to recognize that a City cannot function efficiently without it`s Administrators having a Working Plan over which it has CONTROL.

The Dublin Transportation Authority fiasco has proven yet again that NO such comprehension exists,except perhaps amongst a few good people on Boards .Ie... :eek:

Hotblack Desiato

Calina wrote:

I'm also annoyed by the tendency to assume that making life harder for drivers is a viable way of getting them out of their cars.

It's been policy in the UK for well over ten years now. The Tories had the fuel price escalator and introduced Gatsos, Labour brought in lots more gatsos, stopped road construction, brought in SORN (statutory off-road notification changing the burden of proof from the authorities to the motorist), automatic number plate recognition turning UK into a surveillance state, and the congestion charge.
Though - wasn't Red Ken an independent when he brought that in? and it's the only one of the above that actually makes sense imho as the money is invested in public transport.

Motorists are in general willing to pay whatever you ask of them in order to keep driving and UK politicians have realised this - they may dress it up as 'green taxes' or whatever but they actually don't want people to stop driving.

When this city has a comprehensive integrated and functioning public transport system then look at things like parking spaces and cars. But not before.

Imho we need a lot more carrot, but we need a bit of stick too.

However, fixed charges (e.g. annual permit to use city centre, or resident's parking permit, or more road tax) are NOT the way to go. The more money people have to invest (depreciation, annual taxes and charges, insurance, etc.) for the privilege of owning a car, the more they're going to want to get their money's worth by using it every day.

At the moment, the opportunity cost of using a car (basically fuel) is generally less than going by bus etc. What needs to be done if you want to encourage a modal shift onto PT is increase fuel taxes (has the side effect of encouraging more efficient cars) and bring in congestion charges for particular problem areas where alternative PT capacity exists.

As you say, going the other way around is hardly fair, and will only break our overstretched PT systems altogether.
We desperately need far more investment in PT (including a full underground system in Dublin) but in the meantime we should give a commitment to gradually increase our low fuel taxes up to the UK level in, say, five years. Given the numbers of motorists trading up to far larger and less efficient vehicles, it's obvious that we need, and that they can afford to pay, more fuel taxation to encourage efficiency.

Hotblack Desiato

AlekSmart wrote:

Just as we rapidly fall back upon foul mouthed abuse when our side of an arguement collapses so to do we barge on through when all the sensible advice is telling us to Stop !

Decentralisation comes to mind!

Oddly enough,or perhaps not, the same Corporation and later City Council then presided over a VAST programme of Multi-Storey Car Park construction WITHIN the same Canal Cordon.

There were huge tax breaks going (from central government) for car park construction at the same time - Why would be a good question.
From DCC's point of view, and given the mess that local authority funding is in, I doubt they looked at the traffic implications of so many new car parks, just totted up the rates income they'd be getting!

Now this little Vehicular Ballet is not helped by the City Councils somewhat bizzarre decision to promote perpendicular car parking around the Square,a process which is as dangerous as it is foolish.

Again.. it's income in the form of car parking fees.

If we didn't have our collective heads stuck in a certain part of our collective anatomies when it comes to local taxation, then local authorities wouldn't have to implement self-defeating policies like these for the short-term financial gain.

The essence of all this remains the refusal of Central Government to recognize that a City cannot function efficiently without it`s Administrators having a Working Plan over which it has CONTROL.

I doubt that central government is that bothered about how Dublin functions to be honest, every time anything is proposed in the capital there is uproar in rural constituencies.

Also the present system of planning control has suited them rather well over the years, some on the take but many using it to curry favour with voters. Asking politicians to move away from clientelism is like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas.

RedPlanet

The only way to make public transport viable and attractive, is to get all these bloody cars out of the way.
Just look around the streets of Dublin (and just about every other city and town); it is awash with parked cars. Most of them with 2 wheels up on the footpath encroaching on space for pedestrians.

AlekSmart

Ninja9 You are on the money.
There`s little escaping from the fact that we get away with murder in this Republic when it comes to paying our way.

The reality is the "Old" domestic rates were as good as it got when it came to Local Taxation and in the modern context it could have left us somewhat better off had not Dr Martin O Donoghue and his fellow travellers decided our destiny lay in the "Free Pass".

Whether we choose to admit it or not that same reality is that everywhere we read and drool over working Public Transport systems there will usually be a sizeable dollop of Local Taxation levied to fund it.

Its also worth noting that our Local Authorities continue to maintain functioning Rates Departments and have access to all the necessary records to reintroduce them at a stroke !!

And Red Planet matches Ninja for Bullseye Hitting.....Prob the best example of the damage capable of being inflicted by unrestricted Private Car useage is currently to be seen in Ranelagh.
This village,newly reinvigorated by Luas,has been allowed to become a total prisoner to the Car.
What could be a Village Quarter in a REAL sense is little more than an open-air exhibition of mechanized ignorance on a massive scale..Grrrrrrrr

Victor

ninja900 wrote:

Also the present system of planning control has suited them rather well over the years, some on the take but many using it to curry favour with voters. Asking politicians to move away from clientelism is like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas.

Of note, the vast majority of planning corruption in Dublin was in the county council area, not in the city.

Now, planning mistakes .....

carryboy

markpb wrote:

I can't find a link to back this up so you're all going to have to believe me

Q102 News is reporting this morning that a plan is being presented by DTO to Dublin CC to designate Westmoreland St, Dolier St, College Green and parts of Dame Street to be public transport only. It'll be put before the council in the "near future" and, oddly enough, has the backing of Dublin Bus.

I think this it's a fantastic idea and will do wonders for public transport. Which means of course that it's unlikely to happen.

Great! If this should happen it would make buses and taxis wonder things.:cool:

Hagar

carryboy wrote:

Great! If this should happen it would make buses and taxis wonder things.:cool:

Yeah, you'd wonder "Where the **** are they?".

Hotblack Desiato

Victor wrote:

Of note, the vast majority of planning corruption in Dublin was in the county council area, not in the city.

Presumably because there was little scope for rezoning within the city area because it was developed already!