LXFlyer wrote: » The improvement offered by the double bus lane is that buses won't immediately be battling with general traffic when they try to pull out from the bus stop as they do right now. At peak times this can mean they don't move.
bk wrote: » What?! Abbey Street was well dead before the Luas came to it. It is starting to pick up quiet a bit now along the line. However much of the property along it is owned by Arnotts owners and awaiting a massive new shopping center. The shopping center didn't go ahead because of the recession, but it is likely back on now.
LollipopJimmy wrote: » There was small Newsagents on Middle Abbey St that kept going and going hoping the Luas would bring some business when they had thought initially a stop would be going outside. Never happened and the shop died off. Abbey St as a whole has been dead for years and years
bk wrote: » New Bobo's there, doing very well from any time I'm in there. BaseCamp, a great "new" hiking shop, doing very well. Arnotts has a Bewleys and Itsa facing onto it and doing very well. The Bagel Bar Coffee House, sushi place and a new Starbucks opened on Lower Liffey Street. Big Spar down across from Jervis stop and big Insomnia coffee shop next to it. BTW The Academy is always busy with concerts. Gin Palace pretty much always jointed, etc. You can clearly see the street slowly develop and "gentrify". Of course the street could develop way more, but most of it is owned by the Arnotts owners and awaiting the massive development. Once done, it will really transform the street.
LollipopJimmy wrote: » Sorry, I rushed my response. I was making the point that the removal of most traffic didn't have a negative effect on the street. It was what it was before the Luas. While these places are doing well they are not piping along the way you would expect them to in a City Centre. The Spar shops on the Luas stops being the exception
patrickbrophy18 wrote: » Having skimmed through the first 11 pages (undoubtedly there will be more), I'm seeing a lot of the familiar smart-assed, simple minded, rebellious responses. Many of them are saying that motorists are part of the problem without even bothering to look at the other side of the coin. First off, if we are going to remove or re-allocate space from one type of road user to another, there needs to be a comprehensive contingency plan involving all relevant authorities to accommodate these displaced motorists. Second off, some of the motorists using the quays are coming from areas without adequate transport links or where the public transport alternative takes considerably longer. For example, the use of number plate recognition for cars along the quays could be used to build up a rough example of travel patterns. This would feed into the NTA who would plan the introduction of a bus service from these areas based on common grounds. The DATA gathered from the number plate recognition would then send out an email to those car owners notifying them of the upcoming new bus service. Finally, the double bus lane would be introduced and the motorists would make the switch. Ergo, the proper contingency is put in place. Now, I know that the above example is incredibly optimistic. However, the current situation of inconveniencing motorists without any sort of contingency is kind of like the cart before the horse which makes this move incredibly inconsiderate. Then again, what do you expect with the abundance of self-serving people in office?
brokenarms wrote: » But there has been comprehensive contingency plans. They will have to get a tram, bus or train if they dont want to be stuck on the Queys all morning. I dont think you are grasping the fact that there will no longer be anymore room for private cars in the near future.http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/RoadsandTraffic/Traffic/Documents/NTA%20Dublin%20City%20Centre%20Transport%20Study%202016%20exec%20summary.pdf
Avada wrote: » As lovely as that idea is (and I'm not being sarcastic). The Data Protection Commissioner would have a canary!
patrickbrophy18 wrote: » Thanks for the feedback ! I don't think number plate and location data would intimate enough to cause the aforementioned canary. Otherwise, insurance firms wouldn't be sending their customers emails. What I am talking about is constructive use of data.
patrickbrophy18 wrote: » Having skimmed through the first 11 pages (undoubtedly there will be more), I'm seeing a lot of the familiar smart-assed, simple minded, rebellious responses. Many of them are saying that motorists are part of the problem without even bothering to look at the other side of the coin.
patrickbrophy18 wrote: » Second off, some of the motorists using the quays are coming from areas without adequate transport links or where the public transport alternative takes considerably longer.
patrickbrophy18 wrote: » First off, if we are going to remove or re-allocate space from one type of road user to another, there needs to be a comprehensive contingency plan involving all relevant authorities to accommodate these displaced motorists .... For example, the use of number plate recognition for cars along the quays could be used to build up a rough example of travel patterns. This would feed into the NTA who would plan the introduction of a bus service from these areas based on common grounds. The DATA gathered from the number plate recognition would then send out an email to those car owners notifying them of the upcoming new bus service. Finally, the double bus lane would be introduced and the motorists would make the switch. Ergo, the proper contingency is put in place.
patrickbrophy18 wrote: » Now, I know that the above example is incredibly optimistic. However, the current situation of inconveniencing motorists without any sort of contingency is kind of like the cart before the horse which makes this move incredibly inconsiderate. Then again, what do you expect with the abundance of self-serving people in office?
monument wrote: » Smart-assed enough to mention in grandstanding, but not enough to actually reply to?
markpb wrote: » The traffic coming back after the summer holidays will cause mayhem all by itself
Peregrine wrote: » It's about time we stopped allocating the majority of road space to the least efficient user and whatever is left over to more efficient users of space. It will improve the journeys of tens of thousands of bus users.
LXFlyer wrote: » And yes private car owners are going to find life much more difficult while public transport users get prioritised.
brokenarms wrote: » If you think thats bad, wait till you see what they do with the lights. If I were you, I would buy a bus pass.
LeinsterDub wrote: » Get out of your car so
monument wrote: » They'll have options:Stay in the low-priority single traffic lane. Find an alternative route. Reexamine the public transport lines from their areas. Look at park and ride options. Look at cycling directly. Look at park and cycle. Reexamine the need for the trip.* * For example, I know someone who starts west of the city and travels on the quays to an area near Dublin Bay just to go to a gym and then goes to works in south side of the city centre.
monument wrote: » The changes on the quays are part of the contingency plan for Luas Cross City and the disruption that causes to the mode of transport which carries the most people on the quays.
monument wrote: » It does not look like you have read the thread or else you don't seem to understand this: The central section of the quays is going to be vital for the bus network -- it will handle the large volumes of buses already on the quays and a lot of the buses which currently use Dame Street. As I and others have pointed to -- if buses and trams are blocked or slowed too much by cars, the watering down of the original plan to have greater car restrictions may have to be revisited sooner than later.
monument wrote: » And, as I've already posted in this thread, there also will be extra public transport capacity for contingency: Dublin Bus is adding 30 new (non-replacement) buses this year There will be a large shot of extra capacity when the private bus company takes over 10% of Dublin Bus routes, and the Dublin Bus buses are freed up to run on their other routes. Luas Cross City is new capacity serving some of the areas where car commuters start. Luas Cross City is also extra connectivity making previous trips requiring a long walk, now only needing to switch trams. The Kildare route trains taking the Phoenix Park Tunnel direct to the central business district is also extra capacity and connectivity and also serves areas in west Dublin where car commuters on the quays come from.
monument wrote: » If we're going to take such tones... is it also "incredibly inconsiderate" to drive into a city centre and get in the way of buses and trams which carry far more people?
monument wrote: » Is it "incredibly inconsiderate" to drive -- with the air, noise, and safety issues that causes -- in the most highly populated area in the country?
Seaswimmer wrote: » I don't cycle along the quays but I am curious as to how the double Pearse Street bus lane is working. That has been a double lane for a good while now so I would imagine the north quays will be similar when it starts. Anybody any direct experience of cycling or using the bus along that one. Especially during peak times when I imagine traffic volumes would be similar.
patrickbrophy18 wrote: » If their end lacks even basic direct connectivity to the center, their trip by car is justified. On the other hand, inconveniencing them is "incredibly inconsiderate" as it's all take and no give. We have to incentivise these users and not demonize them which is a recurring them in this thread.
patrickbrophy18 wrote: » Well if I must mention particular posts, it might come across as attacking the poster wouldn't it. Nevertheless, here are some posts which are rather one-sided: Why not ask yourself why current holiday goers use the car during their normal routine before labeling them as the cause? You might find that some of them will cite the lack of adequate and swift transport to the city as the primary reason (and a valid one too). Again, this is just a one-sided observation without asking why the least efficient user is a least efficient user. Improving the situation for existing bus users is all very well. However, they should also be tapping in to the least efficient user by providing them with an alternative if that means introducing more bus routes. Make sense? Once more, we see the condemnation of private car owners without asking why they are car owners in the first place. Not helping and a very typical Irish response to the issue at hand. This is beats all the rest. Ask this person where they are coming from and how long it would take them to get to their destination before coming out with such a brash statement. These posts are just a few which are unbelievably one-sided. I think the fact that they work is a very valid need for the trip given that they would be paying taxes to the government etc. Moreover, going to the gym and then going to work is something that would take many times the length by public transport which is where flexibility of having a car comes in. However, there is no commitment by the transport providers to provide for the inconvenienced motorists. I have read through it. This logic of improving the situation for existing users while not tapping into the private car users is the ultimate issue here. [/LIST] This is all very well and good. Thankfully, after decades of petitions, the Phoenix Park Tunnel was opened up to passenger services. Moreover, the Luas Cross City project is finally approaching completion. So, this should soften the blow partially. However, much of the remaining measures are just rejigging or privatization of existing routes without the mention of new ones to cater for the displaced car users with no attractive alternative in place. In this example, it is as laws are inevitably being broken when blocking buses and trams given that space allocated to them. As long as they abide by the law, it isn't "incredibly inconsiderate". If their end lacks even basic direct connectivity to the center, their trip by car is justified. On the other hand, inconveniencing them is "incredibly inconsiderate" as it's all take and no give. We have to incentivise these users and not demonize them which is a recurring theme in this thread.
patrickbrophy18 wrote: » First off, if we are going to remove or re-allocate space from one type of road user to another, there needs to be a comprehensive contingency plan involving all relevant authorities to accommodate these displaced motorists.
Second off, some of the motorists using the quays are coming from areas without adequate transport links or where the public transport alternative takes considerably longer.
Now, I know that the above example is incredibly optimistic. However, the current situation of inconveniencing motorists without any sort of contingency is kind of like the cart before the horse which makes this move incredibly inconsiderate. Then again, what do you expect with the abundance of self-serving people in office?
Avada wrote: » Personally, I don't think any amount of bus lanes will change driver behaviour. The only thing that will get people out of their cars is a congestion charge for the city centre imo.
_Kaiser_ wrote: » I do feel sympathy though for those motorists who will have no choice but to deal with these half-baked changes from a Council that is clearly in a massive rush to try and show how "modernly European" it's become
magicbastarder wrote: » how many motorists will this affect? what percentage of people use the quays to get to work, who are driving private cars?
magicbastarder wrote: » you give your insurance company your contact details. this is a fairly fundamental part of actually having a policy with them, as they need to contact you. you explicitly consent to them having your contact details. knowing where you drive your car cannot be compared with a company you have a relationship with, having your email address.
patrickbrophy18 wrote: » Then, why did you say the following? The purpose of my proposal for a number plate recognition system on the quays would be to build up usage statistics so that new bus services could be introduced to cater for those being inconvenienced by these new plans. Plus, one would imagine that if these statistics are harnessed for the provision of new routes, it would be seen as a positive from a customer facing perspective.
_Kaiser_ wrote: » But I would agree with Patrick - many of those still enduring the daily drive are doing so because using the public transport options in their area would add potentially hours to their day, additional significant costs - and that's assuming there's services at all.
howiya wrote: » While it would be useful to have such data the method of collecting it you have suggested would go against data protection rules. Maybe motorists could complete a short survey while stuck in traffic along the quays. The answer to the question is that approximately 500 cars use the quays during the 8am-9am peak period. Over 7,000 people are carried by buses and that will increase when buses are rerouted along the quays