Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Cities around the world that are reducing car access

12467119

Comments

  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 84 ✭✭Carlingford Locked


    Does anyone know why there's so little space provided to pedestrians on Dame St and on Nassau st? It can get very cramped and pushes people out onto the roads and into danger.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,501 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Does anyone know why there's so little space provided to pedestrians on Dame St and on Nassau st? It can get very cramped and pushes people out onto the roads and into danger.

    For cars.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 84 ✭✭Carlingford Locked


    MJohnston wrote: »
    For cars.

    I just don't understand why they get priority in a city centre?


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,501 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    I just don't understand why they get priority in a city centre?

    I mean, you're preaching to the choir here. They continue to get priority because the multi-storey car park owners and the AA wield too much influence over Dublin City Council.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 84 ✭✭Carlingford Locked


    I see. Car drivers will argue that there aren't alternative methods to travel though. I would agree with them to a certain extent.
    Our city is so poorly designed, with semi-D land starting as soon as you step out of the very centre of town. I think we would need a massive infrastructure project that would require CPOing a LOT of properties, to have proper arteries in and out of the city for cars and public transport etc. That will never happen because politicians are not ballsy enough in this country and too many people would protest. You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs etc.
    So I can't see how it will ever change.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 28,354 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Does anyone know why there's so little space provided to pedestrians on Dame St and on Nassau st? It can get very cramped and pushes people out onto the roads and into danger.

    Same for half the city - Baggot St, Merrion Row, Westland Row, Dame St


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,541 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    I haven’t seen it mentioned but I wonder if the Paris Car ban is also a grievance for the yellow vest movement in France?


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    MJohnston wrote: »
    I mean, you're preaching to the choir here. They continue to get priority because the multi-storey car park owners and the AA wield too much influence over Dublin City Council.

    It's not shoppers causing gridlock the vast majority of the year, it's people commuting via car. The city could easily downsize major thoroughfares and still cater to people driving into the city to do a bit of shopping and have a meal.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,272 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    I get the feeling the city is sort of paralised in terms of change. We can't sort out the South William St area until we know what's happening with bus connects, and we can't get on with that because of politics and we can't get on college green because we cant get on with banning cars from the quays which we cant do until the liffey cycle route is done, which brings us back to busconnects and so on. Just a bit of movement on sorting these issues would be nice.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,501 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    It's not shoppers causing gridlock the vast majority of the year, it's people commuting via car. The city could easily downsize major thoroughfares and still cater to people driving into the city to do a bit of shopping and have a meal.

    No, I didn't say shoppers were causing gridlock.

    I'm saying that the profits that the car park owners make (from shoppers, commuters, and anyone else) gives them the incentive to strongly lobby against measures that reduce car access to Dublin city.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,735 ✭✭✭SeanW


    It should be pointed out that many of the cities doing these things (car bans, congestion charges etc) have massive Metro/Subway type systems. London Underground, Paris has an extensive Metro system. New York has lots of parks, pedestrian paths everywhere and they took the cars out of part of the Broadway/Times Sq. area, but again, they too have an extensive subway system as well as a massive electric commuter railway network.

    This idea that the AA is responsible for all of Ireland's problems is bizarre to say the least.


  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,231 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    SeanW wrote: »
    This idea that the AA is responsible for all of Ireland's problems is bizarre to say the least.

    Indeed, the AA is actually extremely pro BusConnects, at least from that radio interview that had the AA guy destroying an "An Taisce" spokespersons criticisms of the BusConnects plan.

    From that, I'd assume that the AA would also support Metrolink, as they'd be able to see the benefits of moving more people without cars.

    No, the main opponents to change in Dublin are from car park owners, and also from the retail sector. The opposition from the car park owners is obvious, but the retail sector are always fearful of anything that may impact on footfall. There's still the belief that car users buy more, just because they have a car to bring stuff home, when all the data shows that public transport user spend the most in retail shops.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,272 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    CatInABox wrote: »
    Indeed, the AA is actually extremely pro BusConnects, at least from that radio interview that had the AA guy destroying an "An Taisce" spokespersons criticisms of the BusConnects plan.

    From that, I'd assume that the AA would also support Metrolink, as they'd be able to see the benefits of moving more people without cars.

    No, the main opponents to change in Dublin are from car park owners, and also from the retail sector. The opposition from the car park owners is obvious, but the retail sector are always fearful of anything that may impact on footfall. There's still the belief that car users buy more, just because they have a car to bring stuff home, when all the data shows that public transport user spend the most in retail shops.

    Actually I think Dublin Chamber are in favour of BC and also of College Green Plaza


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,501 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    SeanW wrote: »
    This idea that the AA is responsible for all of Ireland's problems is bizarre to say the least.

    Woah there horsey - who the feck is saying that?


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,354 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Can we stop treating the AA as some kind of representative body?

    They haven't been a member organisation for years. They are an insurance broker selling products to motorists.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,501 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    And yet they're also on DCC's transport committee :
    https://www.counciltracker.ie/motions/10aee5aa


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 37 celtcia


    P_1 wrote: »
    True. In hindsight the luas should either have gone through Trinity or underground

    Pretty easy to change...
    Time for a new design team...


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,610 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    cgcsb wrote: »
    I get the feeling the city is sort of paralised in terms of change. We can't sort out the South William St area until we know what's happening with bus connects, and we can't get on with that because of politics and we can't get on college green because we cant get on with banning cars from the quays which we cant do until the liffey cycle route is done, which brings us back to busconnects and so on. Just a bit of movement on sorting these issues would be nice.

    I'd feel the same, it is like we have arrived at some kind of Mexican standoff. I think DCC have to grasp the nettle of dealing with the car parks. I dont see that problem as insurmountable either- if they were offered a deal where their sizable buildings were given planning permission to convert to offices/hotel space then they would have a windfall in terms of achieving a much higher rent per square metre than they do currently renting to cars. They get wealthier and DCC gets to pedestrianise College Green, Sth William St and proceed with making the quays public transport only.


  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,231 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    Interesting stuff going on in Germany, ever since the emissions scandal started, the government and the car industry have been on the back foot in terms of complying with environmental controls. Thanks to lawsuits brought by environmentalists, old diesel cars are being banned from several cities, and others are trying desperately to meet emissions, including bringing in large areas of 30 km zones.

    The Irish Times has more here.

    One of the interesting things not mentioned in the report is the surge in support for the green party in Germany. Lots of articles about a rise in support for AFD, but the greens are doing far better than them, and that's even with all these measures being brought in.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,272 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Germany took the crazy decision to replace it's nuclear capacity with coal. The Greens will probably back that decision if the Greens in Ireland are anything to go by, an anti-environmentalist party.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 37 celtcia


    Cars or no cars the oil will get used...
    Cars are not the issue it's the framework...


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,255 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    cgcsb wrote: »
    Germany took the crazy decision to replace it's nuclear capacity with coal. The Greens will probably back that decision if the Greens in Ireland are anything to go by, an anti-environmentalist party.

    Yeah, after Fukishima. Germany, of course, being notorious for regularly having earthquakes and tsunamis.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,272 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Podge_irl wrote: »
    Yeah, after Fukishima. Germany, of course, being notorious for regularly having earthquakes and tsunamis.

    Not to mention the various disasters attributed to the oil and coal industries over the years, but hey look over there, a solitary extremely rare combination of events.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    cgcsb wrote: »
    Germany took the crazy decision to replace it's nuclear capacity with coal. The Greens will probably back that decision if the Greens in Ireland are anything to go by, an anti-environmentalist party.
    A 2014 study, found that coal is not making a comeback in Germany, as is sometimes claimed. Rather renewables have more than offset the nuclear facilities that have been shutdown as a result of Germany's nuclear phase-out
    .
    On 26 January 2019, a group of federal and state leaders as well as industry representatives, environmentalists, and scientists made an agreement to close all 84 coal plants in the country by 2038. Coal was used to generate almost 40% of the country's electricity in 2018 and is expected to be replaced by renewable energy. 24 coal plants are planned to be closed by 2022 with all but 8 closed by 2030.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,272 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Wind still can't act as baseload. Nuclear and wind could have taken coal off line much quicker. By 2038, we will have passed the point where we can reverse the man made impact on the climate, might as well continue to burn coal in 2038


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,360 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    cgcsb wrote: »
    Wind still can't act as baseload. Nuclear and wind could have taken coal off line much quicker. By 2038, we will have passed the point where we can reverse the man made impact on the climate, might as well continue to burn coal in 2038

    Teslar think batteries might backup wind turbines.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,272 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Teslar think batteries might backup wind turbines.

    Probably, but an electricity grid based on wind supported by rechargeable batteries is only theoretical at the moment. There are a number of battery storage projects being installed in the midlands at present, we'll see how that works out. We do need some kind of proven baseload right now. Burning coal at Moneypoint and burning peat mixed with palm kernel shells imported from Cambodia in Edenderry, Loughrea and West Offaly power can't continue.

    We're also spending mega bucks supporting wind and batteries and we're also paying for a massive undersea cable to connect us to the French grid so that we can baseload with French nuclear. The problem with the later being that we're basically at the mercy of French energy policy and trusting them not to strike too much on non windy days.

    Take into account the future of cars is electric, we're switching to a mostly electric rail system and we're also building acres of data centres, we're going to need some serious increase in output. The ESB favoured converting Moneypoint to a small nuclear reactor to give us energy security but politicians are too heavily involved in what is a highly technical matter.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,360 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    cgcsb wrote: »
    Probably, but an electricity grid based on wind supported by rechargeable batteries is only theoretical at the moment. There are a number of battery storage projects being installed in the midlands at present, we'll see how that works out. We do need some kind of proven baseload right now. Burning coal at Moneypoint and burning peat mixed with palm kernel shells imported from Cambodia in Edenderry, Loughrea and West Offaly power can't continue.

    We're also spending mega bucks supporting wind and batteries and we're also paying for a massive undersea cable to connect us to the French grid so that we can baseload with French nuclear. The problem with the later being that we're basically at the mercy of French energy policy and trusting them not to strike too much on non windy days.

    Take into account the future of cars is electric, we're switching to a mostly electric rail system and we're also building acres of data centres, we're going to need some serious increase in output. The ESB favoured converting Moneypoint to a small nuclear reactor to give us energy security but politicians are too heavily involved in what is a highly technical matter.

    I agree with all you say, but nuclear is also unproven technology. The Windscale accident did a lot to dent our (Irish) enthusiasm for it, which resulted in the Carnsore Nuclear project being canned in the '70s.

    They renamed Windscale as Sellafield, but continued having accidents there so political opposition continues. There is no soltution as to what happens to radio active waste - apart from burying it in disused mines.

    Now the nuclear waste is a problem for the future, but so is climate change - or used to be. Currently, the USA is suffering temperatures in excess of minus 40 degrees (F or C) while Australia is suffering a heat wave of plus 50 degrees Celsius.

    Climate change is here now.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,735 ✭✭✭SeanW


    I fundamentally reject the idea that nuclear energy is "unproven" in any way. It has been an unqualified success anywhere that it has been done properly. There is more than half a century of hard evidence to prove this.

    You talk about the Polar Vortex in the United States? Guess who kept everyone alive, warm and empowered :pac: during the Polar Vortex?
    No less than Exelon Corp. which operates a whole load of nuclear reactors.

    That's before we look at Europe, where most of the countries that have small carbon footprints per kw/h of power generated/used also have lots and lots of nuclear. Cases in point, France and Sweden. Meanwhile, Germany was still commissioning coal fired power plants as of 2014 and dramatically out-pollutes not just France and Sweden but other nations as well, all in a bid to support their "Energiewende" which is just an expensive way of killing birds and bats, as well as wasting enormous amounts of rare earth metals and other materials.

    Nuclear unproven? I don't think so.


Advertisement