Cities around the world that are reducing car access

MJohnston

The problem for DCC is always going to be that parking accounts for a significant proportion of their revenue. And under a Tory government like we have right now, they pretty much need all the revenue they can get.

cgcsb

MJohnston wrote: »

The problem for DCC is always going to be that parking accounts for a significant proportion of their revenue. And under a Tory government like we have right now, they pretty much need all the revenue they can get.

Revenue for all the public services they offer? Isn't their budget €1bn. In exchange for sporadic street sweeping service and management of a few gyms and libraries. Seems like a bad deal for the tax payer tbh.

MJohnston

cgcsb wrote: »

Revenue for all the public services they offer? Isn't their budget €1bn. In exchange for sporadic street sweeping service and management of a few gyms and libraries. Seems like a bad deal for the tax payer tbh.

Their budget mostly comes from state grants and subsidies, I'm talking about revenue that the council makes directly, ie. stuff that's more in their own control, rather than subject to the whims of the government.

In that regard, parking is a pretty substantial contributor:



As for what they need revenue for, well I'd remind you of a couple of particularly important big ticket items that they struggle to fund - public housing and cycling infrastructure.

keane2097

And rafting of course

Sam Russell

keane2097 wrote: »

And rafting of course

I do not think that comes into the 'need' category.

MJohnston

Sam Russell wrote: »

I do not think that comes into the 'need' category.

I believe that was sarcasm

cgcsb

MJohnston wrote: »

Their budget mostly comes from state grants and subsidies, I'm talking about revenue that the council makes directly, ie. stuff that's more in their own control, rather than subject to the whims of the government.

In that regard, parking is a pretty substantial contributor:



As for what they need revenue for, well I'd remind you of a couple of particularly important big ticket items that they struggle to fund - public housing and cycling infrastructure.

They haven't been building social housing though or cycling infrastructure with the exception of the new contrflow bike lane on Lombard st.

Seems poor value if we're paying them a billion a year for these 'services'. We're paying for something that we are of receiving.

MJohnston

cgcsb wrote: »

They haven't been building social housing though or cycling infrastructure with the exception of the new contrflow bike lane on Lombard st.

Seems poor value if we're paying them a billion a year for these 'services'. We're paying for something that we are of receiving.

Ah come on, you can go view their expenditure breakdown for yourself, you’re able to Google.

cgcsb

I think there's crossed wires here. I'm not saying that they aren't spending money I'm saying it's very bad value for the tax payer. Take Madrid city council for example, they've about the same budget per person. The people of Madrid get high quality waste, water, planning, housing, transport, street cleaning and maintenance. We get none of those things with the notable exception being a half km of painted on cycle lane on Lombard st.

Thelonious Monk

I walked down South William St and Capel st over the weekend. Both narrow streets have parking on both sides and what seems like a permanent traffic jam on the streets, with tiny footpaths for pedestrians. If they wont pedestrianise it why the f**k not take the parking out and widen the footpaths? Who on earth says to themselves I'm going to drive to town today and park on South William St anyway?

donvito99

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I walked down South William St and Capel st over the weekend. Both narrow streets have parking on both sides and what seems like a permanent traffic jam on the streets, with tiny footpaths for pedestrians. If they wont pedestrianise it why the f**k not take the parking out and widen the footpaths? Who on earth says to themselves I'm going to drive to town today and park on South William St anyway?

A lot of it I think is business owners wanting to park directly outside their premises. So when the "loss of custom with loss of parking" trope is thrown out to the papers whenever somebody floats public realm improvement, there's an element of "where am I going to leave my car all day".

Thelonious Monk

donvito99 wrote: »

A lot of it I think is business owners wanting to park directly outside their premises. So when the "loss of custom with loss of parking" trope is thrown out to the papers whenever somebody floats public realm improvement, there's an element of "where am I going to leave my car all day".

Leave it in a car park, or near a bus or luas or dart. Why must they be directly outside their business? Ridiculous.

magicbastarder

i saw a tweet on saturday, someone lamenting the fact that their street in stoneybatter was completely clogged with people driving there and parking, presumably to walk into town to do their christmas shopping.

Thelonious Monk

magicbastarder wrote: »

i saw a tweet on saturday, someone lamenting the fact that their street in stoneybatter was completely clogged with people driving there and parking, presumably to walk into town to do their christmas shopping.

Yeah it's a tough nut to crack, although I thought all those streets around stoneybatter required a parking permit only available to residents. If it isn't currently that way it should be.

cgcsb

In stoneybatter it's acceptable to park for free in the clearway which is never enforced at any time of day. Some even park in the bus lane outside fancy times or indeed at the bus stop outside centra. No plans to end this as far as I know.

Sam Russell

cgcsb wrote: »

In stoneybatter it's acceptable to park for free in the clearway which is never enforced at any time of day. Some even park in the bus lane outside fancy times or indeed at the bus stop outside centra. No plans to end this as far as I know.

The worst example I know of is Leonard's Corner on the South Circular between Tescos and the corner. The No. 9 and No. 16 turn at the corner and there are always cars park illegally on double yellow lines. Many times the buses cannot actually turn the corner. It is every day, all day.

No excuse for the lack of enforcement.

cgcsb

I've called DCC enforcement many times about stoneybatter nothing ever happens. The illegal packers have strength in numbers, if there's 10 of them in a row parked illegally one of them is unlikely to be clamped. Maybe it should be privatised and we can add this to the long list of functions removed from DCC jurisdiction due to lack of interest.

magicbastarder

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Yeah it's a tough nut to crack, although I thought all those streets around stoneybatter required a parking permit only available to residents. If it isn't currently that way it should be.

i think the parking permit regime applies mon-fri there? would need to check that.

AndrewJRenko

cgcsb wrote: »

I've called DCC enforcement many times about stoneybatter nothing ever happens. The illegal packers have strength in numbers, if there's 10 of them in a row parked illegally one of them is unlikely to be clamped. Maybe it should be privatised and we can add this to the long list of functions removed from DCC jurisdiction due to lack of interest.

It has been privatised for years now.

boring accountant

Ben D Bus wrote: »

It's useable for enough people right now to start changing things. The tougher cases can be dealt with later as PT becomes better as a result of the changes.

I moved from near UCD closer to town because multiple times I had more than 5 buses speed past packed to the gills. This was on the N11 of all places. Not a practical mode of transport even in areas that are relatively well served by public transport.

wakka12

boring accountant wrote: »

I moved from near UCD closer to town because multiple times I had more than 5 buses speed past packed to the gills. This was on the N11 of all places. Not a practical mode of transport even in areas that are relatively well served by public transport.

Then more busses are needed. That does not mean it is not a practical mode of transport just because the service you used was often too busy.

MJohnston

The N11 might be an excellent QBC by itself, but unfortunately capacity there is often constrained by the fact that most of the buses have to come through the Quays and College Green. I use the 46A myself, and I usually get on at Leeson Street, across from the Sugar Club. It's maddening how often it takes more than 10 minutes to get from that stop to Sussex Road - barely a 500m journey - and it's all because of cars clogging the place up! Once you get past Donnybrook, the journey is routine, predictable, and efficient.

This of course causes serious bunching of services, and by the time they reach UCD, they're packed with all the people who have been waiting ages for them to arrive. Without car congestion in the city centre, the frequencies of these types of services would be so much more predictable, and it could be so much more easily increased too.

abcabc123123

cgcsb wrote: »

I've called DCC enforcement many times about stoneybatter nothing ever happens. The illegal packers have strength in numbers, if there's 10 of them in a row parked illegally one of them is unlikely to be clamped. Maybe it should be privatised and we can add this to the long list of functions removed from DCC jurisdiction due to lack of interest.

With regards to Stoneybatter, the NTA are betting the farm on them being able to implement extremely rigorous enforcement of bus lanes. Their BusConnects design has a busy general traffic lane sandwiched in between bus lanes on either side, so buses won't have anywhere to go if there are any obstructions in the bus lanes. If they don't have extremely stringent enforcement, the area will bog up the whole corridor.

cgcsb

I've noticed that on Parnell street between central and the lilac entrance is also free parking, despite the 24hr clearway sign. Somethings gotta give, we need some kind of enforcement.

CatInABox

I saw this article this morning on what the government may have to do to combat congestion, and one thing jumped out at me. No, it's not the driver centric tone of the article, that's par for the course to be honest, no, it was this bit, direct from the department of transport:

A report for the Department of Transport warns of the growing problem of congestion. “It is increasing, and increasing faster than forecast. It is necessary to take decisive action to reverse this trend,” it says.

Shocked, shocked, etc. The departments projections have always veered into the realm of make belief, but even so, how anyone can possibly think that this wasn't coming?

Article here.

Thelonious Monk

And still they'll do absolutely nothing about it. 20 years ago my commute was from Artane to Ranelagh and it was gridlock then, there have been no improvements since. It's a ridiculous country.

Zebra3

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

And still they'll do absolutely nothing about it. 20 years ago my commute was from Artane to Ranelagh and it was gridlock then, there have been no improvements since. It's a ridiculous country.

Given the rise in population and the selfishness of so many people, it's gonna be gridlock for the rest of time.

What's needed is better PT and cycle lanes at the expense of car space.

If people wanna sit in their cars endlessly, that can be their problem.

cgcsb

Zebra3 wrote: »

Given the rise in population and the selfishness of so many people, it's gonna be gridlock for the rest of time.

What's needed is better PT and cycle lanes at the expense of car space.

If people wanna sit in their cars endlessly, that can be their problem.

While waiting for those things to come, if at all, I'd be quite.happy in the interim if existing bus and cycle priority was actually observed and enforced.

Thelonious Monk

Here's a photo I took earlier this year, a good example of how space is considered when it comes to pedestrians or cyclists, or anything that isn't a car basically. This is at Merrion Row.

SeanW

Zebra3 wrote: »

What's needed is better PT and cycle lanes at the expense of car space.

You do not need to reallocate road space with Dart Underground, the Metro etc and they could serve vastly more people than another lousy bus snaking around Trinity. Metros and DARTs benefit everyone.

Reducing motorist usage of city streets may be a good idea for other reasons, but it is not necessary to get people moving. Anyone who has used Maynooth-City, DART, Kildare Commuter or Green Line Luas, heck even the Docklands trains from the M3, to be in the city before 9AM any time in the last 5 years will tell you that we need dramatically more rail based transport. ASAP.