Is it time...

GreeBo

... to bite the bullet, plan the "perfect" transport routes and CPO/knock down as necessary to achieve it?

Personally I cant see any sensible way of solving the problem (other than putting it all under ground or on stilts) other than picking a route and making it happen and to hell with who has to move.

Im guessing no one will do this as it will mean political suicide until its completed.
But look at the big dig in Boston, >10 years of heartache but its over now and widely recognised as a good thing.

Opinions?

Zoney

Doesnt matter as it will never happen.

I was under the impression that the Big Dig in Boston was a bit of a disaster, ruining parts of the city, necessitating lengthy construction, gobbling vast oceans of money - even more than the large amounts intended, and ultimately not entirely solving transport problems.

Plus there's the issue of dodgy construction and bits of it falling apart (wasn't part of the system closed after the tunnel lining fell down and killed a motorist?)

Anyways - you have got to be kidding; there is no way anyone in Ireland should even be given a blank cheque for demolition and building, no matter how sound the plan looks on paper (which is itself unlikely of course!)

Andrew Duffy

Have a look at Birmingham, Glasgow or Manchester; or further afield, Los Angeles or New York, to see what happens when the "perfect" transport system is bulldozed through areas where poor people live.

GreeBo

No, plan around it

Zoney wrote:

ruining parts of the city

But is it possible to retrospectively add a good transport system to a city that has had no long-term planning without removing existing structures?

Zoney

Doesnt matter as it will never happen.

GreeBo wrote:

But is it possible to retrospectively add a good transport system to a city that has had no long-term planning without removing existing structures?

Sure it is. You have disruption certainly, but adding buses, trams, metro and improving heavy rail/high speed services is quite possible without widespread levelling of parts of the city.

In fact, about the only thing that is problematic (although the others cost lots of money) is allowing more and more individual cars into cities. It's really a no-brainer that you need to avoid doing this. Relying on the above instead even lets you do wacky outrageous stuff like letting people actually use streets for business again.

I certainly hope the Dublin plans go ahead, though no doubt the cost and disruption will be higher than it would be in other countries, and there won't be proper management of private vehicles to accommodate a gradual change of focus. But on the plus side, unlike in other countries, people here will probably just put up with it.

SeanW

Doesnt matter as it will never happen.

There's a good deal of scope to build new rail lines and whatnot without CPOing half a city. Either through using streets for trams, tunnelling or elevation, there's no need to demolish excessively.

shltter

Doesnt matter as it will never happen.

Its a stupid question

You have not identified anything that needs to be knocked down and what would replace it.

GreeBo

No, plan around it

shltter wrote:

Its a stupid question

You have not identified anything that needs to be knocked down and what would replace it.

Wow, so its true what they say about you.:cool:

and just to keep my post on topic:

a) a building thats in the way
b) transport infrastructure.

secret_squirrel

I tend to agree with Sh¦tter. Your question is so general its meaningless.

Unless you come up with some examples hopefully somewhat vaguely linked to reality - what exactly is the point of this thread?

Calina

shltter wrote:

Its a stupid question

You have not identified anything that needs to be knocked down and what would replace it.

That's actually a very unconstructive contribution. I suspect that OP is perhaps considering efforts that were made in Paris in the 19th century when quite a lot of the city was levelled and redesigned with nice useful wide avenues, four and five story buildings which have had some useful benefits in terms of building public transport las time went on.

Even if you left most of the city centre intact, some consideration could be given to leveling most of semi-D suburbia and rebuilding energy efficient (and please God help us all, functional as opposed to investment driven) apartments and houses suitable for families with fine wide avenues down which trams and buses can be routed, for example. Of course it'll never happen because most people living in those houses wouldn't see it as their civic duty to have their homes levelled for the greater good of the city.

You are looking at this from far to micro a level.

markpb

Calina wrote:

I suspect that OP is perhaps considering efforts that were made in Paris in the 19th century when quite a lot of the city was levelled and redesigned with nice useful wide avenues, four and five story buildings which have had some useful benefits in terms of building public transport las time went on.

Slightly OT but this was already done in Dublin in the 18th century as part of the Wide Streets Commission.

Even if you left most of the city centre intact, some consideration could be given to leveling most of semi-D suburbia and rebuilding energy efficient apartments and houses suitable for families with fine wide avenues down which trams and buses can be routed, for example. Of course it'll never happen because most people living in those houses wouldn't see it as their civic duty to have their homes levelled for the greater good of the city.

Theoretically a swathe of suburbia could be CPOd for a project like that but the I'd imagine the costs would be astronomical.

I think the thread could be made a whole lot more interesting if GreeBo or someone else could give some concrete examples of why/where such a project should be done. In a perfect world, the only disruption I'd love to see in Dublin would be bore holes for Metro lines Other than that, perhaps some of the streets could be widened or straightened to allow for better bus/tram running.

Off the top of my head (I know, this is getting too macro level), I'd CPO the wall outside St. Pats to allow the Drumcondra bus lane to run without break. Ditto for the bungalows on Malahide Road near Kilmore Road - that one stretch without bus lane cripples the Malahide Road bus lane for miles north of it.

Calina

not to mention the political fall out...

GreeBo

No, plan around it

secret_squirrel wrote:

I tend to agree with Sh¦tter. Your question is so general its meaningless.

Its supposed to be general, Im not proposing any routes or designs

secret_squirrel wrote:

Unless you come up with some examples hopefully somewhat vaguely linked to reality - what exactly is the point of this thread?

The reality is that the lack of planning of our city has meant that its is somewhat difficult to design and implement a new transport system as effieciently as we could if we were starting with a blank canvas.

The point of the thread is to see people opinions on should/could we rectify the problem by going in there and putting tram tracks or QBC's where we want to and where they make the most sense by removing whats in the way.

GreeBo

No, plan around it

markpb wrote:

I think the thread could be made a whole lot more interesting if GreeBo or someone else could give some concrete examples of why/where such a project should be done. In a perfect world, the only disruption I'd love to see in Dublin would be bore holes for Metro lines Other than that, perhaps some of the streets could be widened or straightened to allow for better bus/tram running.

Of course an underground everywhere would be fantastic, but thats not exactly going to be cheap either.
Widening and straightening is exactly what I'm talking about.
But naturally I dont have a list of all the changes I would like to make.
Bus routes in from Templeogue for example, Terenure destroys and QBC (which is intermittent and one way in any case)
Should we cut off a chunk of Bushy Park to give a busroute in each direction on that road which is a car park at rush hour anyways.

AlekSmart

No, plan around it

Markpb wrote:

"Off the top of my head (I know, this is getting too macro level), I'd CPO the wall outside St. Pats to allow the Drumcondra bus lane to run without break. Ditto for the bungalows on Malahide Road near Kilmore Road - that one stretch without bus lane cripples the Malahide Road bus lane for miles north of it."

Quite an interesting obbo here Mark....and a very constructive one too.
However somebody beat you too it.
A little over 18 Months ago a crew arrived and installed (In jig Time) a sizeable Natural Gas Junction Station directly behind the wall at the St Pats Bulge.
It`s quite a large scale pipwork and valving setup and I would imagine would make ANY tidying of the location a far more intricate operation.

Now I have little doubt but Bord Gais/Dublin City Council/Dublin Bus and uncle Tom Cobley all met in conclave before agreeing that there was "No Problem" with the bit of oul pipework goin in there boss......

gobdaw

markpb wrote:

Slightly OT but this was already done in Dublin in the 18th century as part of the Wide Streets Commission.

More recently, Dublin City Council (or Dublin Corpo, as then known), through their Roads dept planned and implimented road widening through Dublin streets "broad and narrow" in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s and made one unholy sh1t of the city.

Me? I'd be very doubtfull.

shltter

Doesnt matter as it will never happen.

GreeBo wrote:

Wow, so its true what they say about you.:cool:

and just to keep my post on topic:

a) a building thats in the way
b) transport infrastructure.

OK I will give an example because your question is so general
Could we be saying it is Ok to

Demolish the Customs house to make way for a central bus depot.

Or demolish some empty wharehouse to make way for entrance to an underground station.


It 100% depends on what you intend to demolish and what the space is needed for you cannot just give a general yes demolish away especially in this city and its history of demolishing historic buildings.

shltter

Doesnt matter as it will never happen.

GreeBo wrote:

The point of the thread is to see people opinions on should/could we rectify the problem by going in there and putting tram tracks or QBC's where we want to and where they make the most sense by removing whats in the way.

Again you can not give a general answer because it is completely dependant on the situation demolishing a wall to widen a road is one thing but you are asking for a general demolish whatever is in the way and that makes the question to general.

shltter

Doesnt matter as it will never happen.

markpb wrote:

Ditto for the bungalows on Malahide Road near Kilmore Road - that one stretch without bus lane cripples the Malahide Road bus lane for miles north of it.

If the right turn into the Kilmore Road was banned then that would go a large way to solving that problem without having to detroy people homes also there is space for road realignment on the other side by taking a couple of feet of the space in front of the pub and possibly some of the front gardens.

The Malahide road QBC is crippled by two right turns the Kilmore Road and Collins Ave.

shltter

Doesnt matter as it will never happen.

Calina wrote:

That's actually a very unconstructive contribution. I suspect that OP is perhaps considering efforts that were made in Paris in the 19th century when quite a lot of the city was levelled and redesigned with nice useful wide avenues, four and five story buildings which have had some useful benefits in terms of building public transport las time went on.

Even if you left most of the city centre intact, some consideration could be given to leveling most of semi-D suburbia and rebuilding energy efficient (and please God help us all, functional as opposed to investment driven) apartments and houses suitable for families with fine wide avenues down which trams and buses can be routed, for example. Of course it'll never happen because most people living in those houses wouldn't see it as their civic duty to have their homes levelled for the greater good of the city.

You are looking at this from far to micro a level.

We did that in this City as well that is how we got O'Connell St.

The question is too general we do not have a blank sheet so the argument of what you could do with one is pointless (unless we fall out with George W)

So it has to be on a micro level and you have measure the pro and cons of each measure. Personally I would have no faith in the people who plan for this city getting it right even if you gave them a blank sheet.

The advice of well I wouldn't start from here is useless we are here we cannot got back 100 years and start again we can tweak and improve sometimes on a large scale like Ballymun but more often on a small scale like demolishing a wall here or there. Each project has to be judged on its own merits and no one can give a blank cheque of just demolish whatever you like.

Calina

The question is also hypothetical, so it can be discussed in terms of a blank sheet.

Realistically, we have some historic buildings that we could hang on to, on the other hand, if you like, it would probably not be a bad idea to demolish Connolly Station, Busarus and the ends of Talbot Street and Amiens Street for your bus interchange with DART and Luas, just by way of an example. Why go for the jugular of Customs House? A lot of the buildings along the quays are in less than pristine condition too, why not look there? It's just too easy to reject the idea by cherry picking the wrong buildings to level, isn't it?

While I think it's an interesting question hypothetically, it should also be noted that the net result would almost certainly be some sort of a North American grid system, completely lacking in character, if mooted plans for the Docklands area were anything to go by. But a conviction that it would happen doesn't mean I cant discuss the merit of the idea.

Your reaction is to knock it down as a guaranteed failure before it's even discussed which I find to be a pity, to say the least.

I'll close by pointing out that wide and all as O'Connell Street is, it is increasingly useless as a bus corridor as more of it is devoted to pedestrians than is to mass transit. Northbound is a case in point.

Zoney

Doesnt matter as it will never happen.

Calina wrote:

The question is also hypothetical, so it can be discussed in terms of a blank sheet.

In which case it's the entirely different question of, "how do you organise a city for sustainable transport?" ... in an entirely general sense, assuming a planned city or such.

I really don't think it's particularly sensible - it's not like even that seemingly simple question has been answered entirely by experts and authoritative sources in the area of transport and planning. Even as well-versed individuals you could argue about it for eons; as for anyone else, you'd be talking even more worthless rubbish.

Meanwhile, the real issues of Dublin's dysfunctionality would be untouched. That is the real question that should be asked here - "how do we work around the fact that the entire city is a planning disaster, and attempt to let people get around in some manner, not just sit on the M50 for hours?".

markpb

shltter wrote:

If the right turn into the Kilmore Road was banned then that would go a large way to solving that problem without having to detroy people homes also there is space for road realignment on the other side by taking a couple of feet of the space in front of the pub and possibly some of the front gardens.

Pop Quiz GreeBo: here's a good example of your question at a very mico level. A group of bungalows are built too close to a major arterial route, leaving only a 1.2m footpath between them and the road. The road is too constrictive and a bus lane needs to be built. Is it acceptable to remove half the footpath to accomodate thousands of bus passengers but leave these people with a bus corridor barely 50cm from their front wall?

shltter, the turn onto Kilmore Road (but not Collins Avenue) is being removed as part of the upgrade to the Malahide Road bus lane. I've yet to see any work start on that yet so I'm guessing it'll be a while. I think the footpath is being reduced as well though.

shltter

Doesnt matter as it will never happen.

Calina wrote:

The question is also hypothetical, so it can be discussed in terms of a blank sheet.

Realistically, we have some historic buildings that we could hang on to, on the other hand, if you like, it would probably not be a bad idea to demolish Connolly Station, Busarus and the ends of Talbot Street and Amiens Street for your bus interchange with DART and Luas, just by way of an example. Why go for the jugular of Customs House? A lot of the buildings along the quays are in less than pristine condition too, why not look there? It's just too easy to reject the idea by cherry picking the wrong buildings to level, isn't it?

While I think it's an interesting question hypothetically, it should also be noted that the net result would almost certainly be some sort of a North American grid system, completely lacking in character, if mooted plans for the Docklands area were anything to go by. But a conviction that it would happen doesn't mean I cant discuss the merit of the idea.

Your reaction is to knock it down as a guaranteed failure before it's even discussed which I find to be a pity, to say the least.

I'll close by pointing out that wide and all as O'Connell Street is, it is increasingly useless as a bus corridor as more of it is devoted to pedestrians than is to mass transit. Northbound is a case in point.

The reason I chose the Customs House is because it would be outrageous to demolish it no matter what the merits of a Bus Station but the question posed by the OP would include such outrageous acts if they contributed to "sensible transport system"

What you are suggesting is not what the OP suggested you are suggesting completely rebuilding the city from scratch bar the historic buildings you like.
For what it is worth I disagree with both suggestions.


And I completely disagree with your suggestion that it would not be a bad idea to demolish Connolly and Amiens St it would be a terrible idea IMO and there is no need for it as there is space behind Connolly for any interchange.

Busaras while most of us can probably agree is ****ing ugly is very popular with the Architects apparently in fact I think it is protected.

Transport is important but you don't have to destroy the city to provide it.

shltter

Doesnt matter as it will never happen.

markpb wrote:

Pop Quiz GreeBo: here's a good example of your question at a very mico level. A group of bungalows are built too close to a major arterial route, leaving only a 1.2m footpath between them and the road. The road is too constrictive and a bus lane needs to be built. Is it acceptable to remove half the footpath to accomodate thousands of bus passengers but leave these people with a bus corridor barely 50cm from their front wall?

shltter, the turn onto Kilmore Road (but not Collins Avenue) is being removed as part of the upgrade to the Malahide Road bus lane. I've yet to see any work start on that yet so I'm guessing it'll be a while. I think the footpath is being reduced as well though.

There are works at the footpath in front of those cottages at the moment.

Personally I would have realigned the road on the other side where there is empty space and taken a bit of the area in front of the Goblet.

I would also have banned the turn into Collins ave at least from 7 to 9 am

Victor

shltter wrote:

Busaras while most of us can probably agree is ****ing ugly is very popular with the Architects apparently in fact I think it is protected.

While the public areas desparately need improvement, the main building isn't all that bad - take a look at the top floor. But remember, separate function from decor. The Germans are quite happy at having an out of date and even grimy station (I'm looking at you Deutz), but it **works**.

I imagine selective culling could be useful. But mass demolition takes too long, copts too much and destroys the area socially.

carryboy

A sensible transport plan is what highway planners propose. Their visions seem convincing and yet when imposed, more often than not it rarely aid into what is supposed to be remedied.

GreeBo

No, plan around it

markpb wrote:

Pop Quiz GreeBo: here's a good example of your question at a very mico level. A group of bungalows are built too close to a major arterial route, leaving only a 1.2m footpath between them and the road. The road is too constrictive and a bus lane needs to be built. Is it acceptable to remove half the footpath to accomodate thousands of bus passengers but leave these people with a bus corridor barely 50cm from their front wall?

Without knowing the area I will attempt to answer your question by referencing a similiar situation on Taylors Lane, Rathfarnham/Ballyboden.

There were 2/3 bungalows built very close to the roadway which was already too narrow.
There have been plans around for as long as I have been alive to widen the road network in this whole area (The Green Route?) but it was delayed while they waited for 2 of the 3 owners to "die off".

Personally I would CPO the site and remove the obstacles thus removing the problem.

GreeBo

No, plan around it

shltter wrote:

The reason I chose the Customs House is because it would be outrageous to demolish it no matter what the merits of a Bus Station but the question posed by the OP would include such outrageous acts if they contributed to "sensible transport system"

Actually no it wouldnt, there will always be more than 1 option, especially if it means destroying a site such as the Customs House.

shltter wrote:

Transport is important but you don't have to destroy the city to provide it.

I would argue that unless you are a pedestrian lack of transport is already ruining this city.