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

College Green Plaza -- public consultation open

Options
1…4142444647…54

Comments

  • Options
    #1292
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,284 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    KD345 wrote: »
    This is the right decision IMO, they examined the impact and realised the negatives it would have on surrounding areas. As a bus user this plan would have been disasterous for services.

    Agreed, but of course the bus issue could have been resolved months ago by a simple car ban on the North Quays and a double bus lane. Corruption saw an end to that.


  • Options
    #1293
    jon1981
    Registered Users Posts: 4,359 ✭✭✭jon1981


    The right decision. There's no real solution to here for the cross city bus services outside of Dame st. The roads in Dublin city are just far too narrow to reroute.


  • Options
    #1294
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,284 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    jon1981 wrote: »
    The right decision. There's no real solution to here for the cross city bus services outside of Dame st. The roads in Dublin city are just far too narrow to reroute.

    The north quays, as the modelling for Bus Connects has proven.


  • Options
    #1295
    buffalo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,059 ✭✭✭buffalo


    cgcsb wrote: »
    Agreed, but of course the bus issue could have been resolved months ago by a simple car ban on the North Quays and a double bus lane. Corruption saw an end to that.

    Corruption is a strong word, implying bribery and maliciousness. Is there any evidence it was anything other than a lack of backbone from the council in facing down carpark owners and backlash from car commuters?


  • Options
    #1296
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    buffalo wrote: »
    Corruption is a strong word, implying bribery and maliciousness. Is there any evidence it was anything other than a lack of backbone from the council in facing down carpark owners and backlash from car commuters?

    I would suspect that the opinions of the Councils Law Officer,relating to the long standing policy of the Multi Storey Car Park owners to pursue the Council for ANY negative impacts upon their businesses,played a major role in this "decision".

    Always remember that the Multi-Storey Car Park timeline is virtually parallell with the rise & rise of the "CJH" era in Irish and Dublin Politics.

    Nobody,even 40 years on,can stomach the prospect of a confrontation.

    Back to Jarrett Walker in the studio......:D


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1297
    Zebra3
    Registered Users Posts: 13,859 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    Shameful decision.

    Another step backwards for the city.

    Prioritising polluting vehicles that carry very small numbers of people over creating a healthier safer place in the heart of the city.

    It’s stuff like this that causes the city to get left behind in quality of life rankings.

    All to keep a small number of selfish self-entitled people happy.


  • Options
    #1298
    bennyineire
    Registered Users Posts: 2,469 ✭✭✭bennyineire


    Why can't then do a "cut and cover" tunnel for the front section of Trinity. Tunnel would only need to be about 100-150m long
    Of course the time to do this was when Luas X was been done


  • Options
    #1299
    wakka12
    Registered Users Posts: 9,786 ✭✭✭wakka12


    bennyineire wrote: »
    Why can't then do a "cut and cover" tunnel for the front section of Trinity. Tunnel would only need to be about 100-150m long
    Of course the time to do this was when Luas X was been done

    I agree tbh, the current situation just doesnt cut it, traffic re routing and car ban in college green would have been preferrable but if its not possible then it should be done, there should also be car tunnel around christchurch cathedral, and at the kevin street/cuffe street patrick street cathedral junctions, so sad that the area around our citys ancient and beautiful cathedrals are so completely dominated by cars


  • Options
    #1300
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,284 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    buffalo wrote: »
    Corruption is a strong word, implying bribery and maliciousness. Is there any evidence it was anything other than a lack of backbone from the council in facing down carpark owners and backlash from car commuters?

    Councillors are there to represent their constituents. There are literally no ordinary members of the travelling public lobbying against a car free quays. The only detractors are the car park owners, 0.01% of the electorate. How else do you explain it being voted down?


  • Options
    #1301
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,284 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    bennyineire wrote: »
    Why can't then do a "cut and cover" tunnel for the front section of Trinity. Tunnel would only need to be about 100-150m long
    Of course the time to do this was when Luas X was been done

    The BusConnects plan to redesign the city's bus network has already been designed to avoid college green, it'd be a waste of money to build a tunnel for bus routes that would no longer use CG.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1302
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,284 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    wakka12 wrote: »
    I agree tbh, the current situation just doesnt cut it, traffic re routing and car ban in college green would have been preferrable but if its not possible then it should be done, there should also be car tunnel around christchurch cathedral, and at the kevin street/cuffe street patrick street cathedral junctions, so sad that the area around our citys ancient and beautiful cathedrals are so completely dominated by cars

    Car tunnels in the City Centre? what year is it?building car tunnels = more car capacity = more cars. Solution is to reduce the amount of road space available for cars, replace it with wider footpaths, bus and bike lanes.


  • Options
    #1303
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    cgcsb wrote: »
    Car tunnels in the City Centre? what year is it?building car tunnels = more car capacity = more cars. Solution is to reduce the amount of road space available for cars, replace it with wider footpaths, bus and bike lanes.

    Actually, removing 50% of public car parking spaces and putting a charge, payable to DCC, for all business parking spaces, including the privately owned car parks, would make a big difference.

    If you cannot park in the CC then you might as well park outside the canals and get a bus in.

    If there are few cars, then the bus flies through to the city centre. With a 90 minute ticket, why would you try and drive?


  • Options
    #1304
    buffalo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,059 ✭✭✭buffalo


    cgcsb wrote: »
    Councillors are there to represent their constituents. There are literally no ordinary members of the travelling public lobbying against a car free quays. The only detractors are the car park owners, 0.01% of the electorate. How else do you explain it being voted down?

    There are plenty of ordinary members of the public who want to be able to drive down the quays - they drive that way every morning and every evening! See also the residents in the nearby areas who fear that car traffic might redirect through their neighbourhoods. So it's a potential vote-losing move.

    Car park owners hide behind a facade of "Dublin businesses". If Dublin businesses are against something, of course councillors will take some notice.

    See also councillors who just vote against any radical change without any apparent logic.

    No need to bribe anyone.


  • Options
    #1305
    wakka12
    Registered Users Posts: 9,786 ✭✭✭wakka12


    cgcsb wrote: »
    Car tunnels in the City Centre? what year is it?building car tunnels = more car capacity = more cars. Solution is to reduce the amount of road space available for cars, replace it with wider footpaths, bus and bike lanes.
    Yes but they are vital arteries of traffic for the city and will always be busy regardless of how unpopular driving becomes in dublin, putting them underground (it is a relatively small length of road Im talking about anyway) would give important central routes in the city back to the pedestrians of the city, dont need to be completely pedestrianised fully, but dealing with such intense traffic north south east and west at many of the locations I listed below is what gives those areas such an unpleasant and car dominated atmosphere

    From cuffe lane to the patrick street- 680m long, put all east west traffic undergournd, pedestrians could then safely spill across from camden to aungier street and the other laneways nearby
    Winetavern street 200 m long, put all north south traffic underground, would effectively create a new semi pedestrianised cook street linking dublin east to west, the green areas around wood quay would feel like a plaza and link templebar to the liberties, and itd be so nice to be able to walk under and around christchurch

    Crescent from Cristchurch place to ushers Quay - approx 500 m length of road - would link up really nicely with the above and allow continuation of dame street to thomas street relatively uninterrupated, if they were put undeground I think it would result is a really lively and important civic plaza in the area around christchurch place


    Camden-aungier-georges street would be so nice if pedestrianised but is obviously unfeasible and probably too costly to put such a long road undeground - 1.6km


  • Options
    #1306
    Zebra3
    Registered Users Posts: 13,859 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    Actually, removing 50% of public car parking spaces and putting a charge, payable to DCC, for all business parking spaces, including the privately owned car parks, would make a big difference.

    If you cannot park in the CC then you might as well park outside the canals and get a bus in.

    If there are few cars, then the bus flies through to the city centre. With a 90 minute ticket, why would you try and drive?

    People would still use the city to drive through.


  • Options
    #1307
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    Sam Russell wrote: »
    Actually, removing 50% of public car parking spaces and putting a charge, payable to DCC, for all business parking spaces, including the privately owned car parks, would make a big difference.

    If you cannot park in the CC then you might as well park outside the canals and get a bus in.

    If there are few cars, then the bus flies through to the city centre. With a 90 minute ticket, why would you try and drive?

    People would still use the city to drive through.

    Maybe, but all day parking would eliminate much of the peak time traffic, and reduce the day time traffic. The drive through traffic would find it easier to avoid the city centre if there was less congestion generally.

    Remember how much illegal parking took place before clamping, then it became easy to park, well for a time. Upping enforcement and the fines to eye watering levels again might also help.

    Garda enforcement would also help reduce the problem, plus the use of ANPR cameras to issue fines automatically for traffic offences.

    Traffic takes the easiest route.


  • Options
    #1308
    dfx-
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,665 Mod ✭✭✭✭dfx-


    KD345 wrote: »
    This is the right decision IMO, they examined the impact and realised the negatives it would have on surrounding areas. As a bus user this plan would have been disasterous for services.

    But it's so glaringly obviously wrong so this sort of proposal to get this far is infuriating.


  • Options
    #1309
    prinzeugen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,891 ✭✭✭prinzeugen


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    Shameful decision.

    Another step backwards for the city.

    Prioritising polluting vehicles that carry very small numbers of people over creating a healthier safer place in the heart of the city.

    It’s stuff like this that causes the city to get left behind in quality of life rankings.

    All to keep a small number of selfish self-entitled people happy.

    It would have screwed bus passengers also not just car drivers. The only selfish people are the ones that wanted this.

    Also banning traffic is not going to suddenly make Dublin city centre safer. There are social issues that can make it a dangerous place to be traffic or no traffic.

    I am glad this is dead.


  • Options
    #1310
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,284 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    buffalo wrote: »
    There are plenty of ordinary members of the public who want to be able to drive down the quays - they drive that way every morning and every evening! See also the residents in the nearby areas who fear that car traffic might redirect through their neighbourhoods. So it's a potential vote-losing move.

    Car park owners hide behind a facade of "Dublin businesses". If Dublin businesses are against something, of course councillors will take some notice.

    See also councillors who just vote against any radical change without any apparent logic.

    No need to bribe anyone.

    But this is all irrational


  • Options
    #1311
    Nermal
    Registered Users Posts: 2,617 ✭✭✭Nermal


    There needs to be some method for projects of a certain size/importance to totally bypass ABP.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1312
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Nermal wrote: »
    There needs to be some method for projects of a certain size/importance to totally bypass ABP.

    Well the reason given for rejection centred on the lack of proper studis - such as on the effect on pedestrian routes because of the narrow pavements etc.

    It was quite a shoddy piece of work given the umber citations of missing studies.


  • Options
    #1313
    Zebra3
    Registered Users Posts: 13,859 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    prinzeugen wrote: »
    It would have screwed bus passengers also not just car drivers. The only selfish people are the ones that wanted this.

    Also banning traffic is not going to suddenly make Dublin city centre safer. There are social issues that can make it a dangerous place to be traffic or no traffic.

    I am glad this is dead.

    Buses could've been rerouted.

    Remove the space wasters.


  • Options
    #1314
    wakka12
    Registered Users Posts: 9,786 ✭✭✭wakka12


    prinzeugen wrote: »
    It would have screwed bus passengers also not just car drivers. The only selfish people are the ones that wanted this.

    Also banning traffic is not going to suddenly make Dublin city centre safer. There are social issues that can make it a dangerous place to be traffic or no traffic.

    I am glad this is dead.

    They should submit a new proposal where the busses pass through alongside the luas line. The plaza proposal is not to make Dublin safer


  • Options
    #1315
    hmmm
    Registered Users Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    Years of work and waiting around for a decision, wasted. As a commuter and as someone paying all these salaries through my taxes, it's infuriating.

    Why does it take months to make a decision?
    How can a proposal be made which would even be rejected in the first place? Can these proposals not be debated in advance in some way?
    What is the plan B for if this doesn't work? Another plan to be drawn up, and another 3 years of waiting?

    And now we are supposed to "trust" that our planners will get BusConnects right.

    No. We need a new way of doing things in this city.


  • Options
    #1316
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,542 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    hmmm wrote: »
    Years of work and waiting around for a decision, wasted. As a commuter and as someone paying all these salaries through my taxes, it's infuriating.

    Why does it take months to make a decision?
    How can a proposal be made which would even be rejected in the first place? Can these proposals not be debated in advance in some way?
    What is the plan B for if this doesn't work? Another plan to be drawn up, and another 3 years of waiting?

    And now we are supposed to "trust" that our planners will get BusConnects right.

    No. We need a new way of doing things in this city.

    Well, the NTA weren't designing the plaza for one thing (nor are they really designing BusConnects either)


  • Options
    #1317
    buffalo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,059 ✭✭✭buffalo


    cgcsb wrote: »
    But this is all irrational

    What's your point?


  • Options
    #1318
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users Posts: 28,734 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    I've said it before, I'll say it again... enthusiasts here aside, most people have zero faith in public transport (having been burned too many times before) and won't priotitise it over the workable (if far from ideal) alternative of driving.

    People will not take the chance of being left stranded somewhere when a bus/tram inevitably (and frequently) fails to show, and seeing as Dublin's urban sprawl now extends almost 100 km away (thank you housing crisis), the time that would be wasted enduring this poorer choice is neither desireable or practical. Even inside the M50, it's generally too slow and inefficient to be worthwhile (the ongoing obsession with "An Lar"), not to mention increasingly expensive as well.

    That's the reality of the situation for most of those "selfish/evil/polluting" motorists and why public transport will ALWAYS be the last resort for many - it's a bit like renting... seen as the option for those without a better choice.

    But in truth I think the reason here is a lot simpler than alleged corruption (any proof of that?) just as it was with the shelving of BusConnects.... there's a potential election on the way, and none of the politicans involved want to be facing a backlash on the doorsteps because of the massive disruption and anger these changes would generate. Politics far outweighs buses and plazas I'm afraid.


  • Options
    #1319
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,542 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    _Kaiser_ wrote: »
    I've said it before, I'll say it again... enthusiasts here aside, most people have zero faith in public transport (having been burned too many times before) and won't priotitise it over the workable (if far from ideal) alternative of driving.

    People will not take the chance of being left stranded somewhere when a bus/tram inevitably (and frequently) fails to show, and seeing as Dublin's urban sprawl now extends almost 100 km away (thank you housing crisis), the time that would be wasted enduring this poorer choice is neither desireable or practical. Even inside the M50, it's generally too slow and inefficient to be worthwhile (the ongoing obsession with "An Lar"), not to mention increasingly expensive as well.

    That's the reality of the situation for most of those "selfish/evil/polluting" motorists and why public transport will ALWAYS be the last resort for many - it's a bit like renting... seen as the option for those without a better choice.

    But in truth I think the reason here is a lot simpler than alleged corruption (any proof of that?) just as it was with the shelving of BusConnects.... there's a potential election on the way, and none of the politicans involved want to be facing a backlash on the doorsteps because of the massive disruption and anger these changes would generate. Politics far outweighs buses and plazas I'm afraid.

    Classic. Let's not take steps to improve public transport because car drivers don't like the current state of public transport.

    Grand so, keep things the way they are, good luck with the inevitable gridlock!


  • Options
    #1320
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users Posts: 28,734 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    MJohnston wrote: »
    Classic. Let's not take steps to improve public transport because car drivers don't like the current state of public transport.

    Grand so, keep things the way they are, good luck with the inevitable gridlock!

    The point is that telling people you're going to take away/reroute or significantly alter their existing choices (car OR public) and replacing it with massive disruption and the promise that "this time it'll be better... honest!" isn't going to wash with people who've been let down too many times before.

    You want people to use buses/trams? Improve what's there now first ... improve reliability (buses that turn up as expected would be a start) , efficiency (routing - the aforementioned obsession with An Lar), costs (the same services that were there 10 years ago cost significantly more now), and make it a genuinely attractive and real alternative.

    If the argument is that "we can't do that without the former" then no, I'm afraid it'll never happen .. as we saw with the overwhelmingly negative reaction to BusConnects from those NOT enthusiasts on dedicated forums like this one.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1321
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,542 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    _Kaiser_ wrote: »
    The point is that telling people you're going to take away/reroute or significantly alter their existing choices (car OR public) and replacing it massive disruption and the promise that "this time it'll be better... honest!" isn't going to wash with people who've been let down too many times before.

    You want people to use buses/trams? Improve what's there now first ... improve reliability (buses that turn up as expected would be a start) , efficiency (routing - the aforementioned obsession with An Lar), costs (the same services that were there 10 years ago cost significantly more now), and make it a genuinely attractive and real alternative.

    If the argument is that "we can't do that without the former" then no, I'm afraid it'll never happen .. as we saw with the overwhelmingly negative reaction to BusConnects from those NOT enthusiasts on dedicated forums like this one.

    Hey man, guess what? The only way to significantly improve reliability, efficiency, and as a result costs, for buses (with or without BusConnects) is to get rid of cars from the city centre.
    I'm past caring what 'washes' really, because the loudest members of the general public are usually the most ignorant. I only wish the more forward-looking majority were a bit more outspoken about their support of infrastructure projects.

    Anyway, I'm done explaining this over and over again. The project is dead, the thread should be too.


Advertisement