JC Decaux signs start appearing - Shocking.

BrianD

Metrobest wrote: »

Brian, I assume such a scheme is not in operation in your city, because if it was you wouldn´t be talking like that. On the contrary the public amenity is first class. Anything that improves mobility in the city without causing more pollution has to be welcomed with open arms. And if the tradeoff is having to stare at a few advertisments, it´s one most people are willing to tolerate when they see the benefits these bikes bring.

Metro, I have lived in and visited quite a few cities around the world in my time. In fairness, I have never heard of this bike hire lark with the exception of Amsterdam where it seems to be on an informal basis.

I see no advantantage in the bike hire scheme for anybody - tourists or locals. Who would need it??? Nobody and in the event that a tourist does then let the private sector deal with it. Environmental value is almost zero while the adverts amount to visual clutter in the city. Plus you have to factor in the power usage of these units and that a fleet of vans have to around and service them every two weeks (if the ads were to change every cycle).

Final point. In Barcelona the bikes are for residents, not tourists. It´s essentially a new form of transport infrastructure that takes people out of cars and public transport. You have to register on the website and receive the card in your Spanish address. And the machines are only in Spanish and Catalan. So that´s why tourists don´t come home raving about Bicing in Barcelona.

If you're a local you'll buy a bike. Simple as that.

In Paris locals register with Velib for an annual charge. Tourists can purchase a 24 hour voucher for 1 euro. It´s a wonderful scheme for locals and tourists. It was the first time I stayed in Paris and did not have to use a taxi to get home at night. Cycling along the Seine on Sunday (when they close off one of the quays to traffic) and along by Notre Dame was another highlight. Please be aware that Velib has/is changing Paris for the better, and to say it can´t do the same for Dublin is extremely naive.

Let private companies do the hiring. This is not the business of the city council. There are plenty of other amenities that the city needs to offer instead of bikes. More swiming pools would be nice for starts.

Metrobest

BrianD wrote: »

There are plenty of other amenities that the city needs to offer instead of bikes. More swiming pools would be nice for starts.

Swimming pools are great but don´t do much for mobility in the city (except within the pool itself )

Would you be supportive of scheme where JC agreed to build a number of swimming pools in return for a similar number of on-street advertisements?

monument

BrianD wrote: »

Metro, I have lived in and visited quite a few cities around the world in my time. In fairness, I have never heard of this bike hire lark with the exception of Amsterdam where it seems to be on an informal basis.

"this bike hire lark" referring to subscription-based on-street bicycle rental systems such as those in Paris, Lyon, Barcelona, Vienna etc is quite new.

In Amsterdam rental is for tourists only. They already have a bicycle culture there.

BrianD wrote: »

I see no advantantage in the bike hire scheme for anybody - tourists or locals.

• directly promoting the use of cycling using the rental bikes
• which gets some people to buy their own
• both of which increasing the numbers of cyclists on the streets
• which adds safety in numbers and puts more pressure for better and more cycling lanes, parking etc
• which in turn makes cycling more attractive and increases the numbers of cyclists again

And this leads to...

• less air pollution
• less noise pollution
• less congested streets
• more mobility
• more people getting exercise
• a more pleasant city to live and work in

And I'm going to add again - for about the fifth time on this thread - this all works best and quicker with proper scale as Paris has. The signs of the above will be limited in Dublin because of the low scale.

BrianD wrote: »

Who would need it??? Nobody and in the event that a tourist does then let the private sector deal with it.

That's doublespeak. Nonsense.

Just think about what you are saying here: First you ask who would need it. Then you answer "nobody". But then you leave it open that tourists might actually need or use it.

BrianD wrote: »

If you're a local you'll buy a bike. Simple as that.

Paris has shown that far more locals than those who would have bought a bike before the rental system was launched are cycling now (on the rental bikes and on their own bikes).

BrianD wrote: »

Let private companies do the hiring. This is not the business of the city council. There are plenty of other amenities that the city needs to offer instead of bikes. More swiming pools would be nice for starts.

Why not let private companies sort out swimming pools? :pac:

Promoting cycling crosses the lines of issues such as improving the environment, mobility/transport, and public health. Swimming pools have far fewer advantages.

BigglesMcGee

monument wrote: »

"this bike hire lark" referring to subscription-based on-street bicycle rental systems such as those in Paris, Lyon, Barcelona, Vienna etc is quite new.

In Amsterdam rental is for tourists only. They already have a bicycle culture there.

• directly promoting the use of cycling using the rental bikes
• which gets some people to buy their own
• both of which increasing the numbers of cyclists on the streets
• which adds safety in numbers and puts more pressure for better and more cycling lanes, parking etc
• which in turn makes cycling more attractive and increases the numbers of cyclists again

And this leads to...

• less air pollution
• less noise pollution
• less congested streets
• more mobility
• more people getting exercise
• a more pleasant city to live and work in

And I'm going to add again - for about the fifth time on this thread - this all works best and quicker with proper scale as Paris has. The signs of the above will be limited in Dublin because of the low scale.



That's doublespeak. Nonsense.

Just think about what you are saying here: First you ask who would need it. Then you answer "nobody". But then you leave it open that tourists might actually need or use it.



Paris has shown that far more locals than those who would have bought a bike before the rental system was launched are cycling now (on the rental bikes and on their own bikes).



Why not let private companies sort out swimming pools? :pac:

Promoting cycling crosses the lines of issues such as improving the environment, mobility/transport, and public health. Swimming pools have far fewer advantages.

Personally, i cant wait to use these bikes. There need to be a lot more of them though, with a lot more spaces for leavong them back too.
They are fantastic in Barcelona. The locals use them all the time.

Taxi drivers HATE tem. I wonder why

MadsL

There's a new guy in town...Patrick St/Dean St.

Hotblack Desiato

So dropping litter is bad, but defacing our streetscape in the interests of private profit is just fine. :rolleyes:

HydeRoad

Apart from bikes, which are surely a reasonable enough thing in their own right, can ANYONE here who defends these things, give us a reason why these enormous adframes are a desirable thing for Dublin, on their own merit?

Discount the bikes, or Paris, or Barcelona, for just a moment. I'd like to know why Dublin needs giant adframes like these. What in the name of God is desirable about that monstrosity in Patrick Street?

whosedaddy?

oh gosh, now I know what those black "poles" are for... for the bigger versions of of the JCD signs...

And I was so naive thinking this might be for electronic traffic signs or something similarly useful.

lostexpectation

Metrobest wrote: »

Some clarifications. In relation to funding Bicing in Barcelona the city raised existing parking charges for the street parking - that´s where Bicing´s funding comes from. This was imposed on drivers without consultation, as. the Barcelona model is to present solutions to citizens as a fait accompli, rather than the paralysis by analyis that makes it difficult to deliver change in Dublin. Crucially, however, the city council here has a good reputation for its planning schemes and therefore it has the political capital to deliver initiatives like Bicing without too much consultation. What´s happening here is that areas on the fringe of the Bicing network are crying out for racks in their areas.

The City Council in Dublin does not have the trust of its citizens (for good reason when you look at the planning shambles that is Dublin in the last 15 years) nevertheless on this issue I think the City Council have the citizens best interests at heart. Rather than buy into the conspiracy theories that its all about revenue for JC, I really think that these councillors want to make Dublin a better place. As for the deal, as I stated previously 450 bikes go a long way in a low density city as each bike is used multiple times day and night. Montpellier is a city I visited recently and it has a JC scheme as well as luas-style trams in a density similar to Dublin´s. It certainly didn´t look like Montpellier had got the same deal as Paris though - there were hardly any racks about!

In Paris the presence of vastly increased numbers has changed public perceptions of cycling. Now people who live in the suburbs can take the metro into central Paris, then take a bike to reach their destination rather than relying on the metro or buses. Thus mobility has improved. Dublin could follow suit with these things Paris has done: On various one way streets they have put in (narrow) contraflow cycle lanes. They´ve painted bike symbols in bus lanes. Best of all has been closing one side of the quays on Sundays. These are all solutions that could be imposed in Dublin if the political capital and will was there.

are jcdecaux paying dcc the money advertising spots are worth and then subtracting the cost of providing the bikes?

lostexpectation

ps till need just one thread on this

MadsL

An Bord Pleanala decision on ALL of these monstrosities we managed to get to appeal..

Refusal

Quote:
1. It is considered that the proposed metropole sign by reason of its excessive scale, height and horizontal proportions would be overbearing and insensitive to the amenities and character of the streetscape at this location. The proposed development would seriously injure the visual amenities of the area and would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

2. Having regard to the site location on the footpath adjacent to a major
intersection of heavily trafficked and conflicting traffic movements, a
contraflowing cycle lane and a busy pedestrian environment and several
competing demands on the attention of motorists, cyclists and pedestrians, it is considered that the proposed metropole sign by reason of scale, proportions
and visual prominence would distract the attention of motorists and other road users to an undue degree. The proposed development would, therefore,
endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

ODS

The whole affair is a desperate indictment on Dublin's local govt - that, and what the blazes is the Gormleys Dept of Environment doing by being the first to hire them up?

Adding to the mess is the dodgy rezonings that occurred to get the scheme through

Link to secret dodgy rezonings map and a magazine article on the same ishere:

http://ireland.archiseek.com/news/2008/000134.html

It all stinks :mad:

Guy:Incognito

I havent read through all the thread but did with the one in AH a while back. I assume there are a similar number of outraged people here. Has everyone getting outraged actually driven down the roads in question? (Dorset st and PArnell I'm talking about, in case this thread includes others) I do most days and really have no issue with any of the signs. Madsl posted a pic the last time I questioned his post which was quite clearly taken nicely to the left ot give a bad reflection of the view blocked by the sign and not from the drivers view at all.

Davy

One at both ends on the n32 from m50 to clarhall

ODS

Stekelly wrote: »

I havent read through all the thread but did with the one in AH a while back. I assume there are a similar number of outraged people here. Has everyone getting outraged actually driven down the roads in question? (Dorset st and PArnell I'm talking about, in case this thread includes others) I do most days and really have no issue with any of the signs. Madsl posted a pic the last time I questioned his post which was quite clearly taken nicely to the left ot give a bad reflection of the view blocked by the sign and not from the drivers view at all.

In fairness Madsl has taken snaps both from the point-of-view of pedestrians, but also that of drivers - as here on Synott Place/ Dorset St, since removed -

MadsL wrote: »

MadsL

Stekelly wrote: »

I havent read through all the thread but did with the one in AH a while back. I assume there are a similar number of outraged people here. Has everyone getting outraged actually driven down the roads in question? (Dorset st and PArnell I'm talking about, in case this thread includes others) I do most days and really have no issue with any of the signs. Madsl posted a pic the last time I questioned his post which was quite clearly taken nicely to the left ot give a bad reflection of the view blocked by the sign and not from the drivers view at all.

Here we go again....
I clarified that on AH - maybe you didn't read it.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56670540&postcount=53

You don't have to drive down Parnell St - a taxi did it for you....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka2xiMQtqFA

Maybe you should read my posts sometime...:rolleyes:

Guy:Incognito

MadsL wrote: »

Maybe you should read my posts sometime...:rolleyes:

I dont have to I drive the roads most days and have had no issue with the signs.

As I said in that thread. As long as no one rushes out onto the road when the traffic is on green (same as any road without the signs) and check before crossing (as common sense dictates) there is no issue. People that get hit by cars do so because they arent paying attention not because of a sign. If a car is parked at the side of the road and you decide to cross behinf it and get knocked down, is it the cars fault for parkign there or yours for not looking at what your doing? (again we are talking common sense here).



There are trees all down the centre of parnell street that I dotn see campaigns to have taken down. What about the big trees lining sections of the north circular? No campaigns to have these dangerous view blocking monsters removed? no? What about the ones on the median on Dorset st that are in view in your above pic?

MadsL

People that get hit by cars do so because they arent payign attention.

And motorists whose view is not blocked are often thankfully able to stop in time. The stopping distance at just 50kmph is 24m. The 'thinking' time you would have if someone stepped out from behind one of these would practically be zero. You would hit the ped before you could hit the brake.
But I guess that's the ped's fault. Stepping out at a crossing and all...:rolleyes: In the UK it is illegal to park within 25m of a ped crossing for this very reason.

We warn people not to cross the road behind buses for the same reason - because it is dangerous. Buses have a useful purpose, these signs don't - in fact are actually designed to distract motorists. Can you name me any benefit of placing these next to a pedestrian crossing?

But ultimately you are entitled to your opinion.

I just happpen to share mine with the Dublin Transportation Office, An Bord Pleanala, the Dublin City Business Association, and The National Council of the Blind all of whom have described these as dangerous.

Draw your own conclusions.

MadsL

I dont have to[read your posts] I drive the roads most days and have had no issue with the signs.

If you are going to debate with me at least have the courtesy to read the points I'm raising

There are trees all down the centre of parnell street that I dotn see campaigns to have taken down. What about the big trees lining sections of the north circular? No campaigns to have these dangerous view blocking monsters removed? no? What about the ones on the median on Dorset st that are in view in your above pic?

These signs are almost 1.5m wide - that's some tree...

IIMII

I passed that sign in Parnell Street today -it's daft, no other description, no further elaboration required. It should be moved before some poor unfortunate eejit tanked up at night walks out in front of a car, never mind the potential for accidents during the day.

However, taking how things are done in this country I presume if it hasn't been shifted by now you'll a job moving it at all.

The people in the flats should object

Guy:Incognito

MadsL wrote: »

These signs are almost 1.5m wide - that's some tree...

Some of the trees along the North circular would by 4 or so feet thick. They also completely block your view up and down the road when pulling out from some junctions. As well as that there are lines of cars parked on one or both sides of the road. Yet despite all this , a bit of carefullnes and attention paying and theres no problems. The ones along dorset street can be as bad with all the leaves and from a diagonal , block your view of behind them.

MadsL

Some of the trees along the North circular would by 4 or so feet thick. The ones along dorset street can be as bad with all the leaves and from a diagonal , block your view of behind them.

So your argument is that because trees may in places block the view of pedestrians these signs are perfectly acceptable?

Since I have answered all your other arguments, is that your final position on this?

AlekSmart

I would have to take issue with Stekelly on the Synnot Place panel.

Madsl`s photos as posted here and elsewhere did not actually do the siting justice.

It was far worse.
As somebody who is required to drive along Dorset St several times a day over a 20 hour period I can say without fear ot contradiction that the siting of this particular sign did not meet ANY planning or safety related criteria.

I contacted both the local Garda Store St Traffic Unit,The Garda Divisional Traffic unit in Dublin Castle as well as the Garda National Traffic Policy section.
In addition I also contacted the City Managers Office and left them in no doubt as to the undesirability of the sign at this location.

Part of DCC`s reply centred around the alterations made to Dorset St after it`s IAP works and suggesting that the wrong drawings were being worked off by the JCD contractors.

I find this to be an even worse scenario as it implies that great swathes of DCC`s professional branch are not capable of getting out and inspecting the locales where these items are springing up !!

Guy:Incognito

MadsL wrote: »

So your argument is that because trees may in places block the view of pedestrians these signs are perfectly acceptable?

Since I have answered all your other arguments, is that your final position on this?

No my point was that there are far worse things blocking far more or the path from view yet there is no problem as people pay attention. Theres no problem as they are trees. If there was a great big oak tree in the same position as the sign it would not warrant a mention , case in point being the many hiundreds of trees areound the city that have never had outrage directed at them.

MadsL

the many hiundreds of trees areound the city that have never had outrage directed at them

Trees have a purpose in the city, they are rarely 300mm from the curb edge and emblazoned with eyecatching advertising serving no useful purpose except to make money for the advertising company.

no problem as people pay attention

Yes, Dubliners never jaywalk :rolleyes:

Seriously stekelly, you have gone from attacking the photograph (no apology) to it being pedestrians own fault (no response to my points) to 'ah, sure deres trees'...

Kinda clutching at straws here?? (or trees) Could we keep it real?

MadsL

Part of DCC`s reply centred around the alterations made to Dorset St after it`s IAP works and suggesting that the wrong drawings were being worked off by the JCD contractors.

On RTE or did you get a response from DCC?

Zoney

Stekelly wrote: »

Some of the trees along the North circular would by 4 or so feet thick. They also completely block your view up and down the road when pulling out from some junctions. As well as that there are lines of cars parked on one or both sides of the road. Yet despite all this , a bit of carefullnes and attention paying and theres no problems. The ones along dorset street can be as bad with all the leaves and from a diagonal , block your view of behind them.

That argument if made more publically would probably just result in people agreeing with you and getting the North Circular vandalised with tree removal.

It certainly isn't a good argument for keeping advertising monstrosities.

jank

Seriously stekelly, you have gone from attacking the photograph (no apology) to it being pedestrians own fault (no response to my points) to 'ah, sure deres trees'...

Kinda clutching at straws here?? (or trees) Could we keep it real?

LOL Trees!! I think he is arguing for the sake of arguing. People like this usually are the ones that give out about everything, the Joe Duffy types but never participate in change. Much easier to shout off ones mouth on the phone (or keyboard) yet wont get off their ass to back it up.

It is clear that this is a serious health issue and i must congraluate the people invloved in highlighting this issue. Well Done!:)

Rawr

There really is no comparison between trees and metro poles.

Most trees in the city were placed there long before motoring took off here and some may even be older than that. They are elements of nature and caution may very well be needed when driving past them.

However, the JCD metro poles are an avoidable act in gross ignorance, bordering on criminal stupidity. They don't *have* to block the view of road-users. They can be placed in safer places and stil do their job. (of advertising even more to us, which is another argument)

John_C

Rawr wrote: »

There really is no comparison between trees and metro poles.

There is a very obvious comparison to be made. Something which blocks the view of a driver, blocks the view of a driver. This is true, irrespective of what is doing the blocking. You(plural)'re free to argue that the danger posed by trees is worth it because they serve another purpose but I think you're all being unfair on the other side of the argument, dismissing the person making it as some kind of crank.

Stark

I still think his argument is invalid. "Ah sure, there are obstructions already" isn't vaild justification for creating new obstructions.

And I have seen trees being cut down when they've become too much of a hazard. Some of them approx 200 years old...

tibor

John_C wrote: »

There is a very obvious comparison to be made. Something which blocks the view of a driver, blocks the view of a driver. This is true, irrespective of what is doing the blocking. You(plural)'re free to argue that the danger posed by trees is worth it because they serve another purpose but I think you're all being unfair on the other side of the argument, dismissing the person making it as some kind of crank.

On the North Circular Road there is a row of designated car parking beside the trees i.e. they are not directly adjacent to moving traffic. In fact they are about 6-8ft back from traffic, unlike the advertising hoardings in question.

John_C

Stark wrote: »

I still think his argument is invalid. "Ah sure, there are obstructions already" isn't vaild justification for creating new obstructions

As it happens, I disagree with him as well but I think that a lot of what was said about him on the previous page or two was ridiculously over the top.

There's an element of truth to both sides of the discussion. I could probably give a hundred examples of sight lines being blocked in important places on the roads I travel but these are all ignored until a piece of advertising blocked a line of sight. That doesn't excuse the placing of the advertising signs but I think that there's a huge amount of jumping on a health and safety bandwagon going on.

John_C

tibor wrote: »

On the North Circular Road there is a row of designated car parking beside the trees i.e. they are not directly adjacent to moving traffic. In fact they are about 6-8ft back from traffic, unlike the advertising hoardings in question.

That may well be true, I don't know the road but, if you like, I can start giving examples from the roads I travel. I don't think there's any major need though because I'm sure we can all think of our own.

iwudluvit

John_C wrote: »

As it happens, I disagree with him as well but I think that a lot of what was said about him on the previous page or two was ridiculously over the top.

There's an element of truth to both sides of the discussion. I could probably give a hundred examples of sight lines being blocked in important places on the roads I travel but these are all ignored until a piece of advertising blocked a line of sight. That doesn't excuse the placing of the advertising signs but I think that there's a huge amount of jumping on a health and safety bandwagon going on.

there's a strong whiff of of 'ooh look at those evil corporationary corporations'. it's a bit of a shame to pander to such leftie ****e but if it cleans up the roads and makes them safer - so be it. they might be the straw to break the camels back. there's a huge amount of errant sight lines - even old bloody mother nature is growing branches and shoots all over safety traffic signs all around the country.

I've always believed that there should be a (with power) independent road audit team that goes around the country fining local councils for shoddy work; hit them where it counts and put the profit to charitable use.

Alun

iwudluvit wrote: »

I've always believed that there should be a (with power) independent road audit team that goes around the country fining local councils for shoddy work; hit them where it counts and put the profit to charitable use.

Now there's a job I'd like (along with a few others on this forum, I'd wager )

RedorDead

2 new ones erected on the long mile road at the end of last week. Must get pics and post. They dont seem as bad as some previous ones.

lostexpectation

Stekelly wrote: »

I dont have to I drive the roads most days and have had no issue with the signs.

As I said in that thread. As long as no one rushes out onto the road when the traffic is on green (same as any road without the signs) and check before

There are trees all down the centre of parnell street that I dotn see campaigns to have taken down. What about the big trees lining sections of the north circular? No campaigns to have these dangerous view blocking monsters removed? no? What about the ones on the median on Dorset st that are in view in your above pic?

shows us a photo of tree blocking a traffic light from close range and we might agree with ya. otherwise...

did somebody mentioned a dcc reply or was that just to the original appeals?

John_C

lostexpectation wrote: »

shows us a photo of tree blocking a traffic light from close range and we might agree with ya. otherwise...

I don't have a photo but the branches of a tree overhang one of the the traffic lights on the Montrose Hotel side of the Belfield flyover on the N11 in Dublin.

L1011

And have you contacted DCC (or is it DLRCC out there?) about it?

John_C

MYOB wrote: »

And have you contacted DCC (or is it DLRCC out there?) about it?

No but feel free, I think it's Dunlaoghaire.

L1011

I've never seen them so I can't go contacting them now can I?

You on the other hand have, and are saying they're an obstruction and that the council are ignoring them while not ignoring the problems with the signs. The issue is that the problems with the signs were brought to the councils attention, yet you've not brought that tree (in a different council area!) to the relevant councils attention...

Ste.phen

John_C wrote: »

No but feel free, I think it's Dunlaoghaire.

Surely it's DCC? I didn't think DLRCC were in on this crap?

John_C

MYOB wrote: »

I've never seen them so I can't go contacting them now can I?

You on the other hand have, and are saying they're an obstruction and that the council are ignoring them while not ignoring the problems with the signs. The issue is that the problems with the signs were brought to the councils attention, yet you've not brought that tree (in a different council area!) to the relevant councils attention...

I think I'll just concede that you're superior moral being to me. I genuinely don't go about contacting the council each time I see something wrong on the roads.

I don't think that this invalidates the original argument.

eringobragh

Heres 2 vids of the JCDecaux banners taken from my Cruisecam

First one is Drumcondra

Outside Tolka Park wouldn't be too happy looking out my bedroom window at that POS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uS2-OiUiTc

Second is on the opposite side of the road not as good a vid but ill post it anywho

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z4X8GfK5fg

Edit: embedded youtube doesn't work!!!!!!!!!!!

MadsL

As far as I know that one at Tolka Park was refused permission...

When was the vid taken?

MadsL

Noncompliance of tolka park sign

eringobragh

MadsL wrote: »

As far as I know that one at Tolka Park was refused permission...

When was the vid taken?

About 3 days ago. (Ignore the time/date stamp on the vids as the DVR hasn't constant power)

They seemed to be finishing it off

Seth Brundle

could ABP have given it the nod?

MadsL

could ABP have given it the nod?

This one wasn't appealed. The non-compliance was from DCC (orginally there was meant to be a pavement extension) Decaux argued for a bit of moving things around and DCC said no.

So, DCC said no, and they put it up anyway.:eek:

I'm trying to get confirmation from the planning officer.....