Pedestrians to have priority over cars in new Dublin plan

AngryLips

http://www.thejournal.ie/pedestrians-to-have-priority-over-cars-in-new-dublin-plan-319620-Jan2012/

DUBLIN IS TO become a “pedestrian-friendly” capital – with cars only a secondary priority as developments are planned, according to a draft proposal for the city’s future.


Planners foresee that the “predominant movement pattern in the city centre will be on foot”, the document states, while cars passing through the city centre en route to other destinations will be “pro-actively discouraged”.


Dublin City Council is inviting submissions to its Your City, Your Space plan, which was published in draft form last year.


It states that increasing congestion in the city centre makes it essential to prioritise pedestrians and public transport over cars, and calls for the creation of a “pedestrian-friendly city with a world class public domain.” The report states:


On foot, by bicycle or by public transport will be the main modes of access and through-traffic will be pro-actively discouraged. While economic needs require private car and service vehicle access for business and shopping trips, the predominant movement pattern in the city centre will be on foot.

The draft report also urges efforts to preserve the historic and local character of specific neighbourhoods, such as the Georgian squares.
It sets out a plan for development which divides the city into zones, including the “Liffey Corridor and Civic Spine” – the quays, O’Connell Street, Westmoreland Street and Dame Street – and the “primary” shopping areas of Grafton Street and Henry Street.


There is also a call for increased focus on public spaces, including Barnardo Square between Dublin Castle and the City Hall; Beresford Place behind the Customs House; and the Fish Market space in Smithfield.


City manager John Tierney told the Irish Times that the report is not designed to produce major upheavals or large redevelopments in years to come, but provide a better framework for carrying out everyday public works.


Submissions are open until January 25.

...about time.

Cicero

I'd be interested to see statistics relating to pedestrian accidents with cars in relation to the areas around Dublin where the 30kph speed limit has been introduced.

On a personal level, what I have noticed is that while the car speeds have indeed reduced downwards in these areas, the number of people taking risks when crossing the road (especially around O' Connell Bridge and the Halpenny Bridge) have increased significantly- pedestrians are simply walking out in front of moving traffic on the road against a pedestrian red light purely because they see traffic is going slower.

In France, there are many areas of Paris that have high levels of pedestrians crossing roads but firm, permanent barriers seperating path from road, make it difficult for pedestrians to cross the road on areas other than approved traffic light controlled zones.
The traffic speeds are considerably higher than that in Dublin leaving the pedestrian no alternative but to wait for the appropriate green light, before venturing accross the road.
My point is: While reducing the speed of cars does protect pedestrians in built up areas, there needs to be a greater enforcement and controls put in place to limit the instances of pedestrians crossing roads at unapproved points. There is only so much a driver can do and it's near impossible to allow for some of the pedestrian behaviour I have seen in recent times.

bk

First cars should be the fourth priority, not the second:

1) Pedestrians
2) Cyclists
3) Public Transport
4) Car

Second they aren't saying they are going to do anything major, in which case it is just lip service.

Dublin City Council gets a large percentage of it's income from parking, so the reality is this will always take their priority.

Will DCC remove parking spaces from around the city to make more room for bus stops, wider footpaths and cycle lanes?

Will they pedestrianise more streets, necessitating the closer of certain car parks? (e.g. the narrow streets around South William St, which should really be pedestrianised and would make for a very nice pedestrian quarter, competitive with Temple Bar).

If they were really serious, then two things should be done.

1) Build Metro North with the O'Connell Street stop having a pedestrian concourse under the river liffey and O'Connel bridge.

2) Build a road under College Green and turn College Green into a nice square.

Having spent the past week in the Poland Tri-City area (Gdansk-Sopot-Gydnia) it is frankly embarrassing to see how far ahead they are of us.

- Most busy motorways have pedestrian underpasses, which are wide, brightly lighted and seem very safe. These underpasses seem to be everywhere.
- All buses are three door single decors or 4 door bendi buses. Very quick dwell times.
- Many if not most of the buses are trolley buses, which run off overhead power lines and therefore cheaper to run more environmentally friendly.
- In Sopot where the lovely main street was separated from it's lovely seaside peer by a busy road, they have now buried the road and created a very nice square, with cool pubs, clubs and restaurants surrounding the square and making a very nice continuous pedestrian area and turning it into a very pleasant city.

Will we do any of these things here in Dublin?

Dublin in some ways is a great city with a great night life and people, but it is plagued by cars and buses and it isn't a very pleasant place by day time.

AngryLips

Cicero wrote: »

My point is: While reducing the speed of cars does protect pedestrians in built up areas, there needs to be a greater enforcement and controls put in place to limit the instances of pedestrians crossing roads at unapproved points. There is only so much a driver can do and it's near impossible to allow for some of the pedestrian behaviour I have seen in recent times.

Firstly, there is no law against jaywalking in this country. What's more, I think the law should be proportionate to the risk posed by the road user with vehicular traffic posing the greatest risk. The reduction in speed limit is, itself, an attempt to address the risk of pedestrians veering onto road space but design and planning pay another role in that effort.

expectationlost

5) lorries?

Cicero

AngryLips wrote: »

Firstly, there is no law against jaywalking in this country. QUOTE]

maybe there should be...

AngryLips wrote: »

but design and planning pay another role in that effort.

as does changing all behaviours...including pedestrian behaviour....

seamus

AngryLips wrote: »

Firstly, there is no law against jaywalking in this country.

There's some minor legislation which makes it illegal to cross the road within a certain distance of a pedestrian crossing. I can never remember the figure, I think it's 5, 10 or 15 metres.
However outside of that it's not specifically illegal to cross the road at any point.

The problem is not really jaywalking. We're particularly bad for not obeying pedestrian traffic signals, but planners also need to recognise that a place where jaywalking occurs a lot is therefore a high-capacity route or pinchpoint. They then need to change the layout to accomodate this or install lights if none exist.
The Halfpenny bridge crossings on both sides of the liffey would be the most obvious example of where the current set up, just doesn't work.

n97 mini

expectationlost wrote: »

5) lorries?

Saw an interesting sign on the back of such a vehicle in the UK a year or two ago:

Without lorries you'd get nothing.

dublinman1990

Quote from bk

1) Build Metro North with the O'Connell Street stop having a pedestrian concourse under the river liffey and O'Connel bridge.

2) Build a road under College Green and turn College Green into a nice square.


Why would you place and build a suitable road under an area like College Green? The point is that if you two the projects through there such as LUAS BXD, or MN (if approved), You may not have the required space to build a road in the first instance. You need both a starting and finishing point for this new road if you propose to build it.

According to this map link below, MN is meant to be built under College Green anyway, and if you draw or picture LUAS BXD in as well, That is meant to be nearly right over the line before the Luas turns right into Pearse Street and left into Hawkins Street.

http://www.rpa.ie/Documents/Metro%20North/MN_Map_Feb_2011.pdf

As for the DART U, It is meant to turn into the southend of St Stephen's Green leaving MN to have some space for the platforms and floor space etc.

If all these projects are being built at the same time, the decibel levels for these parts of the city, including the new proposed road, would go through the roof for years until it's ended.

bk

Burying the road would be a simple cut and cover job. Metro North would be much deeper.

Neither are going to happen anyway, I just wish we had the balls to do things like this.

monument

bk wrote: »

Burying the road would be a simple cut and cover job. Metro North would be much deeper.

Neither are going to happen anyway, I just wish we had the balls to do things like this.

Ah... had to remove my 'thanks' / approval of your last post after you edited in the bit about this.

Cut and cover in a built up and sensitive area like College Green would likely to be expensive and hugely disruptive (more disruption than BXD, metro and Dart Underground combined, and then some more).

Worst still there is no reason for a tunnel, cut and cover or otherwise. College Green is mostly public transport and if the goal is to pedestrianise it, then you can divert bus traffic around it.

monument

Cicero wrote: »

The traffic speeds are considerably higher than that in Dublin leaving the pedestrian no alternative but to wait for the appropriate green light, before venturing accross the road.

Higher traffic speeds are not desirable or achievable in the city centre.

Cicero wrote: »

My point is: While reducing the speed of cars does protect pedestrians in built up areas, there needs to be a greater enforcement and controls put in place to limit the instances of pedestrians crossing roads at unapproved points. There is only so much a driver can do and it's near impossible to allow for some of the pedestrian behaviour I have seen in recent times.

You have not proven your point. There is no such need for greater controls on pedestrians. In fact pedestrian barriers have been proven to be a danger to pedestrians and cyclists, their led to increased road speed and increased accidents.

We should however enforce current laws on pedestrians about waiting for a green man to cross and not crossing close to but away from a ped crossing. And maybe we should along with this removing unrealistic waiting times for pedestrians at controlled crossings.

But also we should enforce current laws on drivers who think they have the right to keep travelling / increase their speed when they see somebody crossing the road -- they don't. The law is clear -- motorists must yield to pedestrians who have started to cross the road even where there is no controlled crossing.

expectationlost

n97 mini wrote: »

Saw an interesting sign on the back of such a vehicle in the UK a year or two ago:

i said nothing about disintegrating all lorries on earth.

bk

monument wrote: »

Worst still there is no reason for a tunnel, cut and cover or otherwise. College Green is mostly public transport and if the goal is to pedestrianise it, then you can divert bus traffic around it.

Actually I agree, College Green should be pedestrianised today by directing traffic (mostly buses) around it.

To be honest I posted the original post after just coming off a flight from Poland and being really pissed off at seeing how good some of their infrastructure is and thinking we should do the same.

Stepping back now, I still want us to improve our infrastructure and create a really pleasant and pedestrian friendly city centre. However as you say there maybe more practical ways to achieve the same without underpasses, etc.

I need to go off and think about what my ideal solution would be, not that anyone will listen.

AngryLips

bk wrote: »

2) Build a road under College Green and turn College Green into a nice square.

This section is already heavily restricted to cross-city traffic. I don't think it would require an underground tunnel to pedestrianise it further.

ClovenHoof

This is just like Transport 21 - more 'go nowhere' wibblings from individuals who don't use public transport and don't care about it.

Another piece of theatre to keep newspaper jounalists from becoming unemployed bloggers.

Forget about it, this is more of the same old nothing.

bk

Ok, so I'm the new benevolent dictator of Ireland and here is my sweeping plan

1) Pedestrianise College Green from Westmoreland St down as far as Grafton St (yes including Suffolk St and a little of Nassau St) and west as far as Georges St.

2) Pedestrianise all the little streets between Dawson Street and Georges St. including Drury St, Clarendon St, Wicklow St., etc.

3) Close and pedestrianise the road between Stephens Green and Grafton St, turning it into another square.

You now basically have a lovely large pedestrianised zone on the south side of the city from Temple Bar down as far as Stephens Green, with a number of nice squares and civil areas. Open a lot of nice restaurants, galleries etc. to operate in these squares.

4) Use Marlborough and Capel St for North and South bound buses. With the new Macken St bridge.

5) Build a new bridge between Fishamble St and Arran St to handle more North/South traffic.

6) Greatly widen the footpaths on Westmoreland St and D'Olier St.

Now the next bit I'm not sure about, but I'd love to bury the east and west bound quay traffic under a under pass at O'Connell Bridge and perhaps even pedestrianise O'Connell St.

But Perhaps that would be a step too far even for my dictatorial ways

Of course this would piss off some drivers, car parks and make some North South bus journeys a little longer. But you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

BTW perhaps a more manageable but much less ambitious plan can be seen here:
http://www.dublin2walk.com

Aard

If DCC rely so much on revenue from on-street parking, could they not build a multistorey and then remove a corresponding number of spaces from the streets? Or just begin removing spaces gradually without replacing them...

In Copenhagen, they reduce the number of parking spaces by 2% every year. So there's no huge impact day-to-day, but over time people are discouraged to park in the inner city. For example, in a street with 10 spaces running down it, they might remove one of them and put in a bike rack instead. (In fact, I'm pretty sure I've seen this happen on Drury St already.)

Del2005

Yet there's toll on the supposed relief road, with plans to add more. It is proven by the huge use of our tolled interurbans that Irish people are willing to spend time not money.

Make the M50 free and a lot of the traffic will disappear from the city streets.

dublinman1990

bk wrote: »

Ok, so I'm the new benevolent dictator of Ireland and here ib my sweeping plan

1) Pedestrianise College Green from Westmoreland St down as far as Grafton St (yes including Suffolk St and a little of Nassau St) and west as far as Georges St.

2) Pedestrianise all the little streets between Dawson Street and Georges St. including Drury St, Clarendon St, Wicklow St., etc.

3) Close and pedestrianise the road between Stephens Green and Grafton St, turning it into another square.

You know basically have a lovely large pedestrianised zone on the south side of the city from Temple Bar down as far as Stephens Green, with a number of nice squares and civil areas. Open a lot of nice restaurants, galleries etc. to operate in these squares.

4) Use Marlborough and Capel St for North and South bound buses. With the new Macken St bridge.

5) Build a new bridge between Fishamble St and Arran St to handle more North/South traffic.

6) Greatly widen the footpaths on Westmoreland St and D'Olier St.

Now the next bit I'm not sure about, but I'd love to bury the east and west bound quay traffic under a under pass at O'Connell Bridge and perhaps even pedestrianise O'Connell St.

But Perhaps that would be a step too far even for my dictatorial ways

Of course this would piss off some drivers, car parks and make some North South bus journeys a little longer. But you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

BTW perhaps a more manageable but much less ambitious plan can be seen here:
http://www.dublin2walk.com

bk, you may have to relook at some points referred to your post there. I understand that if you zoom in on the previous MN Map link again, You would have found that the RPA is already proposing to build a extra new Luas line at College Green called LUAS Liberties. So, this will sort of development would give great indication Suffolk Street being predestrianised in the future.

Also, if you looked more closely that MN is meant to be built in the Clarendon Street area. Even, the Luas Green line extension would be built on Dawson Street as well. That would cover the lower end of Grafton Street leading into College Green.

There is a distinct possibility that this extension could leave very little road space in Dawson Street, which could leave bus services going up and down Kildare Street and Westland Row. Which then in turn can redevelop and resurface other places such as Nassau Street and Clare Street. Other places for consideration are Hume Street, Ely Place and Merrion Row.

Another point is that both Drury Street and Wicklow Street are very narrow streets IMO. Both of them are only one way streets. Let's say if MN was built now, The Construction Crews may have difficulty in accessing Clarendon Street from Georges Street when building it.

I've been through Georges Street myself about over a year ago, this being pre network direct. The amount of traffic accounting for buses and cars would be huge. Major bus Routes like the 9 and 83 go through there nowadays, Although it used to be the 19, 19a and 83.

Any other places, I would leave that to anyone else.:D

fly_agaric

DCC wrote:

Your City - Your Space

Our City, paid for by the ratepayers - you plebs just live in it:D

monument

fly_agaric wrote: »

Our City, paid for by the ratepayers - you plebs just live in it:D

Now also paid for by property tax and second home tax, as well as rents of tenants of different types, parking fees etc.

monument

bk wrote: »

Of course this would piss off some drivers, car parks and make some North South bus journeys a little longer. But you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

Changing anything pisses off drivers. Taking cars off Grafton Street and other streets pissed off drivers, and traders etc, but it was worth it in the long run

And it's not strictly true that it would have to lead to longer (time-wise) bus journeys. Having a network of high-quality bus rapid transport like routes in and around the core would speed buses up.

You could have the four or more routes the NTA selects for BRT (hopefully BRT proper) and also have BRT quality lanes in the centre where QBCs and/or many routes converge.

CIE

So...if they pedestrianise College Green, where is all the traffic going to go? You've just cut off the main route into St. Stephen's Green. There are no other streets, unless you widen Fleet Street west of Westmoreland Street and Anglesea Street; and doing that is going to make your bus trip even longer (and of course your bike trip, for the few that will be riding bikes).

Saying that it's not "desirable" to drive at a decent speed around Dublin city is not facing up to reality. Going at 30 km/h means that you radiator is getting hotter and your motor is going to wear out faster. Dublin Bus just consolidated a number of bus routes, so there are fewer buses to choose from. Waiting for Metro North to be built will be a wait for eternity—and if they actually do build it, then duplicating it with a Luas Green Line extension should be automatically off the table, with an eye to running the Metro onto the Green Line instead.

And yes, pedestrians "jay-walking" is a big problem. Closing off roads to pedestrianise them means that the roads that the traffic gets diverted onto become more dangerous; in order to actually get in and out of the city, pedestrians have to access these roads therefore, to reach their car or their bus route or even their train or tram.

fly_agaric

monument wrote: »

Now also paid for by property tax and second home tax, as well as rents of tenants of different types, parking fees etc.

true. Just thought the idea of the council talking about "Your City" in that context was funny.
In my cynicism I think they listen to the Central Govt. first, then the biggest ratepayers a close second + sometimes (if we're very very lucky!) the rest.

LXFlyer

bk wrote: »

Ok, so I'm the new benevolent dictator of Ireland and here is my sweeping plan

1) Pedestrianise College Green from Westmoreland St down as far as Grafton St (yes including Suffolk St and a little of Nassau St) and west as far as Georges St.

2) Pedestrianise all the little streets between Dawson Street and Georges St. including Drury St, Clarendon St, Wicklow St., etc.

3) Close and pedestrianise the road between Stephens Green and Grafton St, turning it into another square.

You now basically have a lovely large pedestrianised zone on the south side of the city from Temple Bar down as far as Stephens Green, with a number of nice squares and civil areas. Open a lot of nice restaurants, galleries etc. to operate in these squares.

4) Use Marlborough and Capel St for North and South bound buses. With the new Macken St bridge.

5) Build a new bridge between Fishamble St and Arran St to handle more North/South traffic.

6) Greatly widen the footpaths on Westmoreland St and D'Olier St.

Now the next bit I'm not sure about, but I'd love to bury the east and west bound quay traffic under a under pass at O'Connell Bridge and perhaps even pedestrianise O'Connell St.

But Perhaps that would be a step too far even for my dictatorial ways

Of course this would piss off some drivers, car parks and make some North South bus journeys a little longer. But you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

BTW perhaps a more manageable but much less ambitious plan can be seen here:
http://www.dublin2walk.com

Wonderful ideas, but frankly it means that:
1) Southbound buses currently using Nassau Street will have to use D'Olier Street, Townsend Street, Westland Row and Merrion Square and Merrion Street southbound to get to St Stephen's Green

2) Northbound buses would have to follow the current 44 route from Dawson Street, via Nassau Street, Westland Row, Pearse Street, Tara Street and Burgh Quay.

3) Anything operating along Dame Street will have to use the Quays, Parliament Street and then double back on Dame Street to get onto Georges Street, and in the opposite direction go via Winetavern Street or Fishamble Street.

That means longer journeys on every bus route, and no matter what way you dress it up, routes 4, 7, 11, 14, 15/a/b, 46a, 140, 145 in particular would have minimum useful city centre stopping locations southbound. Anyone wanting to travel from Nassau Street would have to walk to Merrion Square or St Stephen's Green. And that is inconvenient no matter what way you dress it up.

None of the alternative routes are suitable for any more traffic than they already have.

seamus

bk wrote: »

Now the next bit I'm not sure about, but I'd love to bury the east and west bound quay traffic under a under pass at O'Connell Bridge and perhaps even pedestrianise O'Connell St.

There are a number of spots I would love traffic to free-flow on the quays and either have cars go under or pedestrians go over, but I think the two biggest issues there are the proximity to the river and the architectural concerns.

To bring peds over the road, you need to start removing old buildings and other structures, which takes away from the city.
If you go down and build a tunnel with 3m of a river, then you risk a major problem if the river rises above the quay walls. It's a once-every-ten-years occurrence, but you don't need a flooded tunnel at any stage.

CIE wrote: »

So...if they pedestrianise College Green, where is all the traffic going to go? You've just cut off the main route into St. Stephen's Green.

Well to be fair, traffic will always get around, the problem is eliminating the bottlenecks when you reroute. Busses can be rerouted around the far side of Trinity - so down D'Olier Street, left onto Pearse Street (alter the layout there) and then right onto Westland Row.
You could change Lincoln Place so that it's two-way and busses only and force all other traffic down Clare St.
When you consider that North->Southbound busses already have to go around Trinity to Kildare St, making them go the opposite direction wouldn't actually have much of an effect.

The main issue as far as I can see it is that it may be quite hard to get busses to "hug" the pedestrianised area, like they do now. Though you could make Nassau St two-way and bus-only and force all other traffic down Kildare st.

monument

lxflyer wrote: »

None of the alternative routes are suitable for any more traffic than they already have.

Then change those routes. The first road ring in and around the pedestrianised area could include high-quality two-way BRT.

There would be very little traffic crossing it in and out of the zone so it could have very high priority.

CIE wrote: »

So...if they pedestrianise College Green, where is all the traffic going to go? You've just cut off the main route into St. Stephen's Green. There are no other streets, unless you widen Fleet Street west of Westmoreland Street and Anglesea Street; and doing that is going to make your bus trip even longer (and of course your bike trip, for the few that will be riding bikes).

Through traffic goes around. If drivers, taxis or cyclists want to access the central zone there would still be small access roads to car parks etc. If they want to go somewhere on the other size of the central zone they go around.

Putting in BRT in and around the central zone keeps buses moving and could improve them.

CIE wrote: »

Saying that it's not "desirable" to drive at a decent speed around Dublin city is not facing up to reality. Going at 30 km/h means that you radiator is getting hotter and your motor is going to wear out faster. Dublin Bus just consolidated a number of bus routes, so there are fewer buses to choose from. Waiting for Metro North to be built will be a wait for eternity—and if they actually do build it, then duplicating it with a Luas Green Line extension should be automatically off the table, with an eye to running the Metro onto the Green Line instead.

All of this has been discussed to death elsewhere. These are non-issues.

I was going to reply but it's would bring us off topic.

CIE wrote: »

And yes, pedestrians "jay-walking" is a big problem. Closing off roads to pedestrianise them means that the roads that the traffic gets diverted onto become more dangerous; in order to actually get in and out of the city, pedestrians have to access these roads therefore, to reach their car or their bus route or even their train or tram.

Yet this has not been a issue elsewhere. Or even here in the streets around our current pedestrian streets. The international experience suggests that the streets around pedestrian, traffic calmed, and lower speed limit zones also benefit from greater safety.

bk

lxflyer I agree that my ideas might have some negative impact on buses, but I believe the benefits far outweighs the disadvantage.

Also as others have said above, the issues could be minimised with bus only roads and bridges and other re-alignments.

Obviously this would be much easier to do if we had MN and DU and were therefore less reliant on buses, but I think it could still be done.

LXFlyer

monument wrote: »

Then change those routes. The first road ring in and around the pedestrianised area could include high-quality two-way BRT.

There would be very little traffic crossing it in and out of the zone so it could have very high priority.

Through traffic goes around. If drivers, taxis or cyclists want to access the central zone there would still be small access roads to car parks etc. If they want to go somewhere on the other size of the central zone they go around.

Putting in BRT in and around the central zone keeps buses moving and could improve them.

All of this has been discussed to death elsewhere. These are non-issues.

I was going to reply but it's would bring us off topic.

Yet this has not been a issue elsewhere. Or even here in the streets around our current pedestrian streets. The international experience suggests that the streets around pedestrian, traffic calmed, and lower speed limit zones also benefit from greater safety.

With the greatest of respect it is NOT a non-issue.

You have not addressed the fact that the main routes to much of south Dublin will have minimal useful stops in the city centre.

By your thought process both Pearse Street and Westland Row would have to become bus only. Where would all the traffic on Pearse Street go?

There is only the bridge at Macken Street and East Link - the former is already blocked up?

For any plan such as this you cannot merely say that where the traffic needs to go is a minor matter - it is an integral part of any such plan.

Similarly where buses go needs to be clearly stated and needs to be relevant to where people want to go and not be a considerable walk from current stops.

LXFlyer

bk wrote: »

lxflyer I agree that my ideas might have some negative impact on buses, but I believe the benefits far outweighs the disadvantage.

Also as others have said above, the issues could be minimised with bus only roads and bridges and other re-alignments.

Obviously this would be much easier to do if we had MN and DU and were therefore less reliant on buses, but I think it could still be done.

I would suggest that forcing passengers to walk to either Merrion Square, St Stephen's Green or Townsend Street/D'Olier Street instead of getting a bus on Nassau Street is more than a minor inconvenience.

Buses, as the major form of public transport in Dublin need to be relevant to where people need to go and not just at the periphery.

desertcircus

Cicero wrote: »

In France, there are many areas of Paris that have high levels of pedestrians crossing roads but firm, permanent barriers seperating path from road, make it difficult for pedestrians to cross the road on areas other than approved traffic light controlled zones. /QUOTE]

The problem, however, is that those barriers are utterly lethal for cyclists - if someone cuts in or doesn't see you, there's no longer the option of just jumping onto the path. As far as I know, there are campaigns in London to have such barriers removed because of the number of deaths which wouldn't have occurred but for their presence.

bk

lxflyer wrote: »

I would suggest that forcing passengers to walk to either Merrion Square, St Stephen's Green or Townsend Street/D'Olier Street instead of getting a bus on Nassau Street is more than a minor inconvenience.

All of which are within a 5 minute walk of Nassau St. and therefore well within European norms.

For people wanting to get to Grafton St. they would simply get off at D'Olier St and walk a slightly longer distance through a very pleasant, pedestrianised square.

In fact with the North end of Grafton St, part of Nassau and Suffolk St and Dame St. pedestrianised under this plan this area would likely turn into a major shopping and entertainment area, probably more important then Grafton St itself. Basically the focal point of the city and likely THE major destination for shoppers, tourists, etc.

Basically turn Westmoreland St and D'Olier Street into a major bus terminus.
Increase the width of the footpaths on these two streets, turn Fleet St into a pedestrian st, with high quality pedestrian cross and control points between Westmoreland St and D'Olier St and also across Townsend and Pearse St.

So most south bound buses would stop on D'Olier St, allowing people easy access to Temple Bar, Trinity, the lovely new College Green Area and Grafton St.

Next have the buses go down Townsend St and Westland Row, stopping outside Pearse for good connections with the DART. Finally the buses head down around Stephens Green, putting people again within only a 5 minute walk of Grafton St. and many businesses, etc. around Stephens Green.

I'm really not seeing the issue here. It is only a minor inconvenience. As a 16/A user, I often see (and do myself) see people get off at D'Olier St and walk to Grafton St from there. It really isn't far.

monument

This isn't the kind of thing you do in one big action but slowly over years...



Orange: Possible two-way BRT routes
Green: Green line Luas (after BXD)
Red: Red line Luas
Black: Dart
Not shown: Access routes to car parks and routes for private traffic around the zone

lxflyer wrote: »

With the greatest of respect it is NOT a non-issue.

You have not addressed the fact that the main routes to much of south Dublin will have minimal useful stops in the city centre.

lxflyer wrote: »

Similarly where buses go needs to be clearly stated and needs to be relevant to where people want to go and not be a considerable walk from current stops.

The core area is tiny -- it would be like moving the closest bus stop between 50-300m and a walk across pedestrian friendly areas. You're talking -- for example -- far less of distances than people do walk from Jervis to the bus stops on O'Connell Street (at least 450m).

The current main QBC routes would be upgraded to BRT (inside and outside the city centre) -- this should give far better levels of service. People are more willing to walk a little extra to transport which is more dependable and frequent.

lxflyer wrote: »

By your thought process both Pearse Street and Westland Row would have to become bus only. Where would all the traffic on Pearse Street go?

It does not matter where the traffic goes. What matters is how people and goods gets around.

Why would Pearse Street have to become bus only? It's a four-lane wide road!

The planned upgrades of the four main QBCs and maybe others to BRT -- if it is real BRT ie high-quality -- will result in major modal change. Some would switch to buses, some to trams or trains, some to walking further or cycling, and some would keep driving.

As per here, the NTA say they are looking at upgrading the priority 1 QBCs -- which are Lucan, Malahide Road, Blanchardstown, Stillorgan QBCs -- and maybe others -- likely Swords and one of the south west routes.

lxflyer wrote: »

There is only the bridge at Macken Street and East Link - the former is already blocked up?

For any plan such as this you cannot merely say that where the traffic needs to go is a minor matter - it is an integral part of any such plan.

Where did I say it was a minor matter? But it's not as big of an issue as you make it out to be.

There's only those two bridges?... And the Talbot Memorial Bridge, Butt Bridge, Grattan Bridge, O'Donovan Rossa Bridge, Fr Mathew Bridge, Mellows Bridge, James Joyce Bridge, Rory O'More Bridge, Frank Sherwin Bridge, Island Bridge, and West-Link Bridge. O'Connell Bridge would be the only bridges restricted but that's going to happen any way with BXD.

lxflyer wrote: »

I would suggest that forcing passengers to walk to either Merrion Square, St Stephen's Green or Townsend Street/D'Olier Street instead of getting a bus on Nassau Street is more than a minor inconvenience.

As above the walks would be much shorter.

LXFlyer

Your original post suggested making all the peripheral routes as BRT routes - that's why I made my post on Pearse Street and Westland Row as these are peripheral routes.

It might help if you had been a bit clearer in your original post. You certainly didn't suggest making Nassau Street and Kildare Street 2 way.

If you are going to start making suggestions at least clearly post what the effects would be of your plans.

monument

lxflyer wrote: »

Your original post suggested making all the peripheral routes as BRT routes - that's why I made my post on Pearse Street and Westland Row as these are peripheral routes.

It might help if you had been a bit clearer in your original post.

All the peripheral routes could include BRT, that does not stop them from having other uses. BRT does not automatically equal bus only street.

The other uses could include being a part of a major private motoring route or an access route to a car park or you can have BRT and the rest of the street pedestrianised or pedestrian priority or a cycle route. It would widely differ depending on the street. Drawing up such plans would require months if not years of work.

antoinolachtnai

You have to take all this in the context of the city retail and leisure environment. The city centre, particularly the south city centre, is in rapid decline. The high-end shopping, for instance, is rapidly being lost, in favour of the out of town centres. One of the big advantages these centres undoubtedly have is parking.

In the short term, whilst the south city centre is in such decline, taking cars out of the city centre will make the decline faster and deeper.

It is completely ridiculous to make the city centre so dependent on one specific bus company that is fundamentally broken. It cannot and will not deliver its part in such a plan.

The right thing to do would be to come up with a strategy to revitalize the city centre, and transport would form one part of it. Instead an engineering plan is proposed, which is fundamentally ropey in its premises.

dublinman1990

I wouldn't put the landscape of a rapid decline in retail and leisure so quickly antoinolachtani, I would say myself that certainly that if I am walking through the south city centre in which certain areas have declined rapidly in places, let's say Pearse Street, Hawkins Street, Tara Street, Corn Exchange Place, where the former Irish Press office was based, D'Olier Street and Fleet Street. I agree wholeheartedly they in dire need of a serious makeover.

Particularly, staying on the topic, when the new LUAS BXD line is opened through Hawkins Street it will give some great benefit to predestrians. And it will give businesses,whose appearance to be pretty appalling at the minute, to give them a really big lift in terms of making them more attractive. But, in order for the retailers to do that, they must have the ability to do it themselves to get the big rewards.

If the new Luas and MN lines are built through the newly pedestrianised College Green whenever that comes to light, it will give predestrians more opportunity to look at the businesses along the south city.

antoinolachtnai

You don't see what I mean. Grafton Street and surrounding streets are in decline for the last four years. Pedestrian numbers are falling. The stores going in are of lower and lower quality. Ropey gift shops, bargain book stores and calendar sellers are all that is opening.

This is not just cyclical decline. Out of town centres are holding their own.

As for Luas, can you give an instance where Luas has improved the shopping or the street life on a street which it ran along?

monument

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

You have to take all this in the context of the city retail and leisure environment. The city centre, particularly the south city centre, is in rapid decline. The high-end shopping, for instance, is rapidly being lost, in favour of the out of town centres. One of the big advantages these centres undoubtedly have is parking.

In the short term, whilst the south city centre is in such decline, taking cars out of the city centre will make the decline faster and deeper.

It's not something you do in one big ban and access could be kept to all of the parking off street. The BRT -- if they are going to do it right -- would work well also with large park and ride.


From this document on what happened in Copenhagen:

Forty years ago, when the pedestrianisation process began, the shopkeepers in central Copenhagen were unconvinced and apprehensive. ‘We are not Italians, we are Danes. It will never work here.’

‘Shops will die off if there are no more cars.’ ‘The climate over here is not suitable for mingling in the streets.’

These were just some of the objections they raised. ‘There was literally no culture of public space and public life; we used to sit at home and have a black coffee at the dinner table,’ recalls Lars Gemzøe.

‘However, since then, things have changed a lot in this city. When the first street was closed to traffic as an experiment, people found it interesting, and then came the next car-free street.

The critical shopkeepers soon realised that it was working to their advantage, and people discovered that they liked to explore their city on foot. Because the city council made it gradually more difficult to drive and park, visitors had time to get used to the idea that it was too complicated to take the car, and
took the bus or bicycle instead. And so the centre of Copenhagen underwent a dramatic change from a car-orientated to a peopleorientated place.’

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

It is completely ridiculous to make the city centre so dependent on one specific bus company that is fundamentally broken. It cannot and will not deliver its part in such a plan.

No, not suggesting Dublin Bus should. The Dublin Bus and BE 'contracts' end on December 3, 2014. Will the NTA really get to some kind of tendering by then?

Tendering for use of the BRT routes that the NTA is apparently looking at could be one very good way of starting off doing it. There's a range of ways it could work and that would, I guess, mainly depend on how or if the BRT routes work out. More local routes or those not conflicting with the BRT could follow.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The right thing to do would be to come up with a strategy to revitalize the city centre, and transport would form one part of it. Instead an engineering plan is proposed, which is fundamentally ropey in its premises.

Is footfall down that much given the economy in the last four years?

And of course it's not just about transport. The whole idea about moving traffic including public transport out of College Green is anything but about transport alone -- it's about place making. It's about making streets more than just a thoroughfare -- about making it more attractive for shopping, eating, living in, etc.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

As for Luas, can you give an instance where Luas has improved the shopping or the street life on a street which it ran along?

Grafton Street? Henry Street?

AngryLips

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

You have to take all this in the context of the city retail and leisure environment. The city centre, particularly the south city centre, is in rapid decline. The high-end shopping, for instance, is rapidly being lost, in favour of the out of town centres.

Abbey Street has definitely seen an increase in footfall since the construction of Luas. Henry Street and Capel Street have been successfully regenerated, the Ilac Centre has been given a complete makeover and along with the development of "the Italian quarter" I think it would be inaccurate to describe the north city centre as being in decline.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

You don't see what I mean. Grafton Street and surrounding streets are in decline for the last four years.

I don't think so. The profile of commercial business may have changed now that there's greater competition from Henry Street and Dundrum but it's hardly in decline, unless you measure decline by the number of 'high-end' outlets in the area. Everything between Grafton Street and Georges Street is now primed for pedestrianisation and there is a campaign by local business for that. Even just ten years ago these were back streets occupied mainly by warehouses and offices but now it is predominantly retail.

By any measure, as is evident with past examples in Dublin, fostering a pedestrian friendly environment actually stimulates commercial activity even when it's at the expense of limiting unrestricted access for private traffic.

Aard

The thing about Grafton St is that it's very expensive. The areas around it are much cheaper, and are starting to be seen as 'cooler'. Drury St has a row of relatively high-end independent clothes shops and a couple of food shops. Exchequer St and Wicklow St have the same. Johnsons Court is jewellery central. Dawson St has cafés and eateries, and a few nice clothes stores, not to mention Hodges Figgis. South William St is continuing to keep itself known as a hipster street. Even South King St has that newish building with Zara and H&M. The only place seeing relative decline is Grafton St itself. (Relative being the keyword; it's not like it's become OCS or anything.) But at the same time, you have places like Disney opening up shop.

If you take the street by itself, yes there is slight decline. If you take the "Grafton St Area" OTOH, it's doing remarkably well thanks to an abundance of opportunities in previously little-used side streets.

antoinolachtnai

Grafton Street has been in steady decline for 10 years, footfall-wise. This is not a cyclical issue. It is something very fundamental.

http://portal.cbre.eu/portal/page/portal/research/publications/FPR_EMEA_DUBLIN_RETAIL_MV_Q2_2011.pdf

This is in spite of Luas.

Grafton Street has two problems that I can see.

1. Competition from out-of-town centres.

2. Decline of the quality of what Grafton Street offers.

There is very little 'special' left on the street. It is a bunch of mobile phone and chain stores that you can find anywhere. There has to be something special there to make it sustainable. In the old days, this was where the high end of clothes retailing was - the Pia Bangs, FX Kelly's and so on. Now all this is gone.

Without something very distinctive, there is no way that the area will be able to attract people to leave their cars at home and come to town.

As has been said, there are still some special things in the surrounding streets. However, this is really pretty precarious. There is actually just a very small number of small businesses (less than three) anchoring the top of South William St. The middle of the street is a bit of a dead zone. It needs an anchor, but there is no plan for finding one.

As soon as the street improves, the rents start going up and that drives the special stuff out. This should be dealt with on South William Street, but the signs are that it will not be.

Dawson Street is better than it was, but it is really still very weak. The loss of Waterstones has been a hit on it. The uncertainty around Luas will make retail players very reluctant to make a big investment there.

I do not think that Abbey Street has benefitted from Luas. There is more footfall in parts of it for sure, but there is no real street life. Arnotts have even invested in a big entrance on the street, but it hasn't really caught on. Further west, towards Smithfield, there has been investment too, but nothing has really worked on the route itself. For sure, some surrounding streets have been lifted a bit. I would say that it has sterilized the streets it runs on, rather than uplifting them. Henry St benefited to a degree from the Luas, but it is not actually part of the Luas route, or even traversed by it.

Grafton Street didn't actually benefit from the Luas as much as Dundrum Town Centre apparently did. Again though, the Luas doesn't actually run down Grafton St.

South Great George's St is coming along in its own way, even though it has very heavy traffic.

I am not saying that pedestrianisation is a bad thing. It is a good idea in the right context. But it is not a panacea. If it were, Sligo and Dun Laoghaire would be booming commercial centres. They aren't. In fact, pedestrianization seemed to do damage to these town centres.

I cannot see how it makes sense to plan transport when there is no clear vision for how that part of the city will be developed and what the commercial mix will be. It is just blind hope to think that pedestrianization will solve the very serious problems the south city faces.

Aard

Antoin, you make some very good points. I'd really only disagree with a couple of them.

Grafton St is very "High Street" but it still has some important retailers, most notably Brown Thomas, BT2, and to a certain extent Marks & Spencer. While you may be able to find mobile phone shops anywhere, you won't find the Grafton St 'experience' anywhere else.

I'd disagree about S William St lacking in an anchor - it's hard to get more prestigious than the Powerscourt Townhouse. The southern half is a little dingy, yes, but I think that's mostly due to retailers not complying with shop-frontage codes and some gaudy signs more than there not being good/interesting shops there in the first place. The quality of the buildings themselves is high, with the distinctive "stoops" along the way. I think the main problem with this area is the width of the pavements; it's hard for two people to pass each other without somebody turning to the side. In terms of pedestrianisation of this area, I agree 100% that it is not a panacea. You're too right about Sligo and Dun Laoghaire. At any rate, because of the car parks in the area, it's impossible to pedestrianise it completely. I think it'd be good to preserve one lane of traffic all the way down S William St (with contraflow cycle lane). If the parking alone was removed, there's be plenty of space for peds, without worrying about the place becoming a ghost town.

Re Dawson St, I think it's unfair to say it's "very weak". Waterstones may be gone, but many other places have opened up. Developers are crying out for some Dawson St property, as can be seen in Garret Kelleher's plan for nos. 13-17. He wanted to make huge ground-floor spaces available stretching further back than at present, and I believe that if he had gone ahead with it (credit crunch stalled things) that Apple would be one of the first to sign up for one. Further down, you've got Harry's, Bleu, and the Mansion House; if that's not prestigious, what is!

I agree about Abbey St and the Northside in general. I guess what I make of all that is that it is evident that the will of the market is pushing the main retail core of Dublin further south and further east by the year. Not much in the way of luas lines, metro lines, or dart underground can stop that. It's about where people with money live (generally from D2 to Foxrock between the Luas and the sea), how far they want to travel, how much they adhere to fashion, and how much they want to avoid perceivedly unsafe areas. The physical layout of the southside areas is better suited to pedestrianism too, with the small blocks and narrow streets, compared to the megablocks of the ILAC, Jervis, GPO, and Irish Life. The northside's big mistake was getting rid of the connecting streets between Henry and Parnell Sts. I digress.


(I realise that not all of these points address things you mentioned, but I felt I might as well bung all my thoughts on the matter into the one post )

bk

The problem with Grafton St, is that it is just too small to handle the large store sizes required by retailers today.

Unlike what Aard says above, had the recession not hit, then the city center retail would have moved Northwards around O'Connell and Henry St with the Arnott and Northern Quarter developments, which had plenty of space for large retail outlets and already had many prestigious retailers signed up including House of Fraser, Harvey Nichols and John Lewis.

Even Brown Thomas has been rumoured to be sniffing around Arnotts and Clerys!!

In the long term, the Grafton St area just doesn't have the room to expand. The O'Connell St/Abbey St area on the other hand has plenty of room to expand and development and will eventually likely to become the retail focal point of the city.

As for Grafton street, I believe it's future lies in perhaps turning into a street with very high end boutiques and jewellers, an Irish New Bond Street. With the surrounding streets being pedestrianised, they would have more emphasis on coffee shops, restaurants, bars and quarky small jewellery/clothing/etc. stores.

monument

A general point -- While it's about more than transport and it can help retail, it is also about more than retail too. It's about improving an area for (in no order) tourists, shoppers, workers, residents.

It's for people who will lounge around, eat and drink on the street, stop and talk, and people who will benefit from a better environment while walking from a to b whether that's shops, work, home, the cinema, theatre, a concert etc.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Grafton Street has been in steady decline for 10 years, footfall-wise. This is not a cyclical issue. It is something very fundamental.

http://portal.cbre.eu/portal/page/portal/research/publications/FPR_EMEA_DUBLIN_RETAIL_MV_Q2_2011.pdf

This is in spite of Luas.

The data in that report does not support your idea that there has been steady decline footfall-wise for Grafton Street. Even less so for Henry Street. Sure there was clear decline between 2001-2003, but between 2004-2011 it's fairly steady. Henry last year was just at its 2004 levels and Grafton was just marginally above its 2004 levels.

The data in that report shows no apparent correlation between footfall on Grafton Street and Henry Street and out of town retail supply.

The footfall has been relatively stable after Luas arriving -- it does not have much data pre-Luas, but the largest change of any kind is decline pre-Luas.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I do not think that Abbey Street has benefitted from Luas. There is more footfall in parts of it for sure, but there is no real street life. Arnotts have even invested in a big entrance on the street, but it hasn't really caught on. Further west, towards Smithfield, there has been investment too, but nothing has really worked on the route itself. For sure, some surrounding streets have been lifted a bit. I would say that it has sterilized the streets it runs on, rather than uplifting them. Henry St benefited to a degree from the Luas, but it is not actually part of the Luas route, or even traversed by it.

Grafton Street didn't actually benefit from the Luas as much as Dundrum Town Centre apparently did. Again though, the Luas doesn't actually run down Grafton St.

Abbey Street has fairly high occupancy rates, more so if you look at the suitability (ie a wreck of a building isn't going to work anybody).

Luas in its self cannot make it self make a street and Luas isn't just for the streets it is directly on. Also the negative elements of transport uses or a transport corridor of those streets is higher than say nearby streets (ie it's a thoroughfare for the Luas and a walking route for many on small enough footpaths, while other streets are mainly fairly wide shopping streets).

And agreed on Dundrum too -- I would not have went out there half as much as I have without the Luas.

Some very valid points about the future of South William Street that I can't argue with -- it's the kind of planning that is lacking in urban centres but which shopping centres have.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I am not saying that pedestrianisation is a bad thing. It is a good idea in the right context. But it is not a panacea. If it were, Sligo and Dun Laoghaire would be booming commercial centres. They aren't. In fact, pedestrianization seemed to do damage to these town centres.

Agreed, it's not a panacea and it has to be handled very carefully -- like access for goods to shops, cars to car parks, routes around it, not affecting public transport too much, etc etc. How it is handled as a public message is also key -- look at the bus gate.... poorly handled, and a lot of huff and puff about nothing much, but a negative picture of a closed city which could only harm retail was painted by some.

With Sligo was a key part of the street not left out of the pedestrianisation because objections, or am I remembering incorrectly? Both suffered massive nearby increases of out of town retail and I'm not sure if pedestrianisation could have stopped that.

Indeed, pedestrianisation is in way a blunt tool -- full pedestrianisation, pedestrian priority, traffic calming and just widening footpaths where needed can work well.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I cannot see how it makes sense to plan transport when there is no clear vision for how that part of the city will be developed and what the commercial mix will be. It is just blind hope to think that pedestrianization will solve the very serious problems the south city faces.

Again, it's not just about retail and you would not only do it for retail. And I would say more but would be repeating what I've already said.

antoinolachtnai

I agree, these are sensible contributions.

However -

- I don't think Powerscourt is an anchor on South William Street.For me the South William Street entrance is an awkward back door to the Powerscourt Centre. The Centre really relates much more to Johnson's Court and Drury Street. I accept you can have different views on it, but Powerscourt is having a tough time finding its place in the retail landscape too.

- I don't think there is a code for shopfronts on South Wiliam St. It's not protected from changes of use, or anything else, in the way that Grafton St is supposed to be.

- I wouldn't think anybody is paying much premium for a shop on Abbey St, other than the spots beside the Luas stops. It just doesn't seem like there is much foot traffic. Surely the middle part of the street shows that having a convenient location, traffic calming and plenty of footpath space does not necessarily equal success.

As for the emphasis on retail - well pedestrianization is mostly about retail and food, certainly if you have full pedestrianisation. It isn't really compatible with many other uses. You can't pedestrianize an office district for instance. You have to have the parking. Equally, luxury hotels need full vehicular access. If you pedestrianize something like College Green, you are making an awful lot of parking and offices inaccessible, or at the very least, much more difficult to access. Residential can be developed to a point, but you still have to find a way to cater for families who want to have a car.

It is absolutely true to say that the problems in Dun Laoghaire and Sligo had to do with out-of-town retail not just pedestrianisation. These new centres offered a much higher quality experience than these town centres. Dublin city centre is facing exactly the same challenge.

The question is not 'how do we get rid of the cars?' The question should be 'How do we get the magic back?' It is about the 'soft' elements more than it is about the 'hard' elements like the types of building or the traffic arrangements.

I am glad the debate has come back around to improving the pedestrian environment, rather than simply getting rid of vehicular traffic.

Regarding the statistics, foot traffic on Grafton Street has fallen by 20 percent over the ten years, that much is clear. Half of that happened in the first half of the decade, half of the second. OK, it bumped around for a while, but during the greatest boom we have ever seen, from 2006-2008, there was no increase.

bk

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

- I wouldn't think anybody is paying much premium for a shop on Abbey St, other than the spots beside the Luas stops. It just doesn't seem like there is much foot traffic. Surely the middle part of the street shows that having a convenient location, traffic calming and plenty of footpath space does not necessarily equal success.

The problem with a place like Abbey Street, is who goes first?

No one wants to renovate their building to attract a new higher class tent, as a new higher class tent will only come if the surrounding buildings also have similar tents. It is a chicken and egg problem.

That is why you need a single large landowner to anchor and develop a street in a single large development.

Think Opera Lane in Cork or King St in Dublin on a smaller scale.

The Arnotts development would have offered the same development of Abbey St, but unfortunately got hit by the recession.

However the fundamental plan is sound and we won't always be in recession and it will eventually be down. Abbey St does have a great deal of potential. However Abbey St definitely needs footpath widening.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

As for the emphasis on retail - well pedestrianization is mostly about retail and food, certainly if you have full pedestrianisation. It isn't really compatible with many other uses.

Shopping, food, entertainment, play, work. You mean the majority of things people spend their time doing.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

You can't pedestrianize an office district for instance.

Of course you can, many are, Canary wharf jumps to mind.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

You have to have the parking.

Of course you have to have some and no one is suggesting that you get rid of all cars. But the emphasis definitely needs to switch away from cars to pedestrians. Do you really believe that the majority of office workers in Canary Wharf, London City, New York City drive to work? Not a chance.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Residential can be developed to a point, but you still have to find a way to cater for families who want to have a car.

Why?

I know many people who bring up kids without a car. Public transport, bikes and the odd taxi can take care of most families, with just a little fore thought. For those who want a car, nothing stopping them buying/renting a house outside the city.

antoinolachtnai

There are thousands of parking spaces in Canary Wharf, underground. In total, there are probably as many parking spaces there as in the whole of the south city centre It is pedestrianized in the same sense that Dundrum Town Centre is pedestrianized. It's a completely different thing from reworking existing streets without adding extra parking.

Although there is a good pedestrian 'experience' in those locations, the car is still a convenient way of getting to and from Canary Wharf (or Dundrum Town Centre). In this situation, you are talking about traveling by car no longer being a convenient option for visiting or living in the city centre. That is a totally different thing from Canary Wharf.

Whilst it may be possible for families to live without a car, they may want a car. If this facility is not available, it will make the place much less attractive.

Arnotts is a pretty big anchor on Middle Abbey Street, but nothing much seems to have happened around it. In terms of numbers, you are right, the Luas should deliver for Abbey Street, but it hasn't. The Luas just seems to sterilize the streets it runs through. I'm sure there is some resolution to this, but it hasn't been found yet in Dublin.

South William Street is not owned by any one owner and it has come along in its own crazy way. It is certainly easier in many ways, but not essential for there to be one landowner. I agree with you though that landlords play an essential role, and one that is overlooked by the council.

The model I would suggest would be the one that is successful in ORB (Oxford Street, Regent Street, Bond Street) in London. You first create a vision and a master plan for the area. You then build the transport and other plans around that.

bk

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

There are thousands of parking spaces in Canary Wharf, underground.

To put it in context, there re 2,900 car parking spaces in Canary Wharf. Canary Wharf has 110,000 employees, not counting visitors and shoppers at the three shopping malls.

So there is parking for about 2.6% of the employees or probably more realistically about 1% of people visiting Canary Wharf on any given day.

Pedestrianisation and public transport are the soul and live blood of Canary Wharf, somewhere like Canary Wharf couldn't exist if most people got there by car.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

In this situation, you are talking about traveling by car no longer being a convenient option for visiting or living in the city centre. That is a totally different thing from Canary Wharf.

No I'm not, and I don't think anyone is suggesting that. What I'm suggesting is that a core 500m square area is pedestrianised and that the car parks in this core area be closed. However new car parks can be built just outside this area, allowing people to continue to drive into the city center, just like you describe in Dundrum.

We are talking about only closing two car parks, with a total of 820 spaces, plus maybe 50 or so onstreet spaces. Surely we can find space just outside this area for a new underground multistorey car park for the same or more spaces in a much more accessible location?

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Whilst it may be possible for families to live without a car, they may want a car. If this facility is not available, it will make the place much less attractive.

This area isn't really suited to residential anyway and there is no way there is space for residential parking, even with the current multi-storey parking. We are talking about an area primarily retail and entertainment, with perhaps some over retail apartments, much more suited to young renters.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Arnotts is a pretty big anchor on Middle Abbey Street, but nothing much seems to have happened around it.
In terms of numbers, you are right, the Luas should deliver for Abbey Street, but it hasn't. The Luas just seems to sterilize the streets it runs through. I'm sure there is some resolution to this, but it hasn't been found yet in Dublin.

Arnotts had massive redevelopment plans that included a new street linking Abbey St and Henry St.

Basically Arnotts owned the entire area 5.5 acre site between Abbey St, Henry St, O'Connell St and Liffey St except the GPO Arcade and Penneys. The whole area was going to be knocked and rebuilt with large new stores, new streets, etc.

It really was a very good plan. Unfortunately it stalled due to the recession and Arnotts is now in banks/nama ownership. Which is why so little has happened on Abbey St.

However the plan was a sound one and whoever ends up buying Arnotts, will likely go ahead with the plan. Then you will see a massive change in Abbey St.

Such change doesn't happen quickly, which is why the Luas appearing on Abbey St didn't change things over night. It will take time to happen, but the plan is a good one.

BTW the guy who built and owns Dundrum Center also owns the Carlton site North of Henry St and has similar redevelopment plans. So obviously he isn't too worried about city center shopping versus out of city shopping centers, like Dundrum. He obviously believes the city center has a bright future.

What the city needs is a clear vision and master plan with the landlords and city council all working closely together.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The model I would suggest would be the one that is successful in ORB (Oxford Street, Regent Street, Bond Street) in London. You first create a vision and a master plan for the area. You then build the transport and other plans around that.

Agree 100% and that is the vision I'm trying to lay out here.

antoinolachtnai

bk wrote: »

To put it in context, there re 2,900 car parking spaces in Canary Wharf. Canary Wharf has 110,000 employees, not counting visitors and shoppers at the three shopping malls.

So there is parking for about 2.6% of the employees or probably more realistically about 1% of people visiting Canary Wharf on any given day.

There are a lot more car parking spaces than that. Those are just the public parking spaces to cater for the shopping and visitors. The typical building seems to have around three stories of underground parking.

Pedestrianisation and public transport are the soul and live blood of Canary Wharf, somewhere like Canary Wharf couldn't exist if most people got there by car.

Nobody talked about 'most people'. We are talking about some people who need to be able to drive to work and want to drive to the shops when they are making a substantial purchase.

In fact, a great experience is at the core of Canary Wharf. Pedestrianisation is part of it, but it is not the whole story.

It is also noteworthy that Canary Wharf has reliable public transport. Dublin does not. This is a very big issue that has to be addressed.

No I'm not, and I don't think anyone is suggesting that. What I'm suggesting is that a core 500m square area is pedestrianised and that the car parks in this core area be closed. However new car parks can be built just outside this area, allowing people to continue to drive into the city center, just like you describe in Dundrum.

If you pedestrianize an area of that size, you will close down facilities like hotels. You will lengthen the walk between the car and the shopping. This will make it a lot less attractive for a significant proportion of larger spenders.

We are talking about only closing two car parks, with a total of 820 spaces, plus maybe 50 or so onstreet spaces. Surely we can find space just outside this area for a new underground multistorey car park for the same or more spaces in a much more accessible location?

Now you are talking about a pretty big engineering project.

The problem is that you are potentially cutting into arteries through the city. College Green, for example, is an artery, more than a local road. Where are these other cars to go?

This area isn't really suited to residential anyway and there is no way there is space for residential parking, even with the current multi-storey parking. We are talking about an area primarily retail and entertainment, with perhaps some over retail apartments, much more suited to young renters.

The only thing you can really put overhead is apartments. You won't get a lot of offices if they can't get van pickups and deliveries during the day.

Arnotts had massive redevelopment plans that included a new street linking Abbey St and Henry St.

Basically Arnotts owned the entire area 5.5 acre site between Abbey St, Henry St, O'Connell St and Liffey St except the GPO Arcade and Penneys. The whole area was going to be knocked and rebuilt with large new stores, new streets, etc.

It really was a very good plan. Unfortunately it stalled due to the recession and Arnotts is now in banks/nama ownership. Which is why so little has happened on Abbey St.

However the plan was a sound one and whoever ends up buying Arnotts, will likely go ahead with the plan. Then you will see a massive change in Abbey St.

Such change doesn't happen quickly, which is why the Luas appearing on Abbey St didn't change things over night. It will take time to happen, but the plan is a good one.

The upper part of Abbey Street has had extensive investment, but very little has happened up there. Surrounding streets (like Liffey St) seem to have done much better. I just think there is a big issue with Luas. I cannot see it doing a street good. I just cannot see the evidence.

BTW the guy who built and owns Dundrum Center also owns the Carlton site North of Henry St and has similar redevelopment plans. So obviously he isn't too worried about city center shopping versus out of city shopping centers, like Dundrum. He obviously believes the city center has a bright future.

He and his business partner NAMA, I assume you mean. It is really impossible to see both the Arnotts development and the Carlton development being built in the next twenty years. There is just too much 'big retail' space for the economy.

I think you are correct that the north city is coming through much better than the south city. Henry Street is making more sense to big retailers. The problem is what to do with the South City. It really needs to be distinctive. All I am saying (and I think you might agree with me) is that radical steps need to be taken to redevelop it.

All I am saying that is different is that 'pedestrianisation', the exclusion of motor vehicles and bikes for most of the day, should not be the starting point for this.