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.

How did it all come to this? AGS charging NTA to enforce bus gate

  • 20-06-2020 5:50pm
    #1
    Peregrine
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭


    A letter from the NTA shows that the guards claimed they didn't have enough resources to police the College Green bus gate during Luas Cross City construction and offered to do it on a voluntary basis if the Luas Cross City project paid for Garda overtime. These 'non-public duty services' arrangements are usually between AGS and organisers of large events. AGS charging the NTA to police roads is just all kinds of wrong. One state body paying another to do a job that they're already responsible for doing.

    Same thing happened when cars kept blocking the yellow boxes at Luas junctions after construction and when taxis were banned from going southbound through College Green in the morning.

    AGS have been saying they don't have enough resources to keep the bus lanes and footpaths clear at minor locations. And they can't even do the major locations without the NTA paying them. What exactly do they do? Where do the resources go?

    Is this still happening?

    https://twitter.com/DublinCommuters/status/1273365095360405506?s=20


«13

Comments

  • #2
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,732 ✭✭✭SeanW


    If the Gardai needs money to enforce the bus gate on College Green, they can put a member of the Traffic Corps on Sean O'Casey bridge and fine all the lawbreaking cyclists who ignore the "no cycling" signs. With the resulting fines, they could easily pay for the overtime or whatever to enforce the bus gate.


  • #3
    Peregrine
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    SeanW wrote: »
    If the Gardai needs money to enforce the bus gate on College Green, they can put a member of the Traffic Corps on Sean O'Casey bridge and fine all the lawbreaking cyclists who ignore the "no cycling" signs. With the resulting fines, they could easily pay for the overtime or whatever to enforce the bus gate.
    Did a cyclist break up with you or something?

    If that's how it worked then they could put that guard at the College Green bus gate in the first place and collect fines there.

    AGS says they have no resources to enforce one widely ignored law and your idea is to find resources to enforce another widely ignored law to enforce the first widely ignored law? Since that makes no sense because it uses the same resources as enforcing the bus gate in the first place, I'm just going to assume the only purpose of your post was to bring cyclists into this to stir the pot and get a reaction out of me so I won't be engaging any further. You're welcome to continue this conversation with yourself.


  • #4
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,281 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    i do recall that when the council changed the traffic flow along the quays, the response from the gardai was pretty much 'it's not our job to police this'. and i'm not parodying their response, unless my memory is playing tricks.


  • #5
    Phil.x
    Registered Users Posts: 1,723 ✭✭✭Phil.x


    A sure sign of an extremely bad design when an garda are needed to protect a junction.


  • #6
    Get Real
    Registered Users Posts: 879 ✭✭✭Get Real


    Phil.x wrote: »
    A sure sign of an extremely bad design when an garda are needed to protect a junction.

    Pretty much this. How the length of a tram, and the signal timings, deliberately mean a Luas has no option but to block a yellow box, is mind blowing.

    All the planners, surveys, meetings and the NTA plough ahead anyway, and then "ah sure the guards can deal with it"

    Even though it's impossible to deal with as there's physically nowhere to move traffic.

    Imo, I see no problem with the NTA paying for their mistake, so an extra guard is free to attend my car thats been broken into, rather than being taken up standing at a yellow box. It might also mean the NTA and others consider these issues seriosuly in future developments.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,281 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Phil.x wrote: »
    A sure sign of an extremely bad design when an garda are needed to protect a junction.
    'a sure sign of bad motorist behaviour when an garda are needed to protect a junction' is probably closer to the truth, i suspect.


  • #8
    Peregrine
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    Get Real wrote: »
    Pretty much this. How the length of a tram, and the signal timings, deliberately mean a Luas has no option but to block a yellow box, is mind blowing.

    All the planners, surveys, meetings and the NTA plough ahead anyway, and then "ah sure the guards can deal with it"

    Even though it's impossible to deal with as there's physically nowhere to move traffic.

    Imo, I see no problem with the NTA paying for their mistake, so an extra guard is free to attend my car thats been broken into, rather than being taken up standing at a yellow box. It might also mean the NTA and others consider these issues seriosuly in future developments.
    Conveniently absolving the law breakers of any blame there. They expected people to obey the rules of the road and the Gardaí to enforce them so now they should pay extra for it? Nowhere to move traffic? They could not drive into the box junction. It's a simple rule of the road. Nothing impossible about it.

    Most of the design for Luas Cross City was complete by the time the NTA was even founded. It was DCC's decision to let cars drive onto Eden Quay after the car park operator's resisted restrictions to let the Luas operate freely. It's no secret that I'm not a fan of 55m trams in the city but it's mental if you think the law breakers are not to blame for this. Decades of poor enforcement has lead to lawlessness on our roads. Now AGS wants to be paid extra to enforce them. And you think it's the NTA's fault?

    And what about the College Green bus gate? Is it the NTA's fault that 500 drivers drove illegally through it in six hours too?


  • #9
    Atlantic Dawn
    Registered Users Posts: 81,111 ✭✭✭✭Atlantic Dawn
    M


    Why not just fit ANPR cameras and any number plate of a vehicle which is not bus or taxi gets a €100 fine?


  • #10
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,806 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Atlantic Dawn wrote: »
    Why not just fit ANPR cameras and any number plate of a vehicle which is not bus or taxi gets a €100 fine?
    Why should we let taxis through? How are they different to a regular car?


  • #11
    Peregrine
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    Atlantic Dawn wrote: »
    Why not just fit ANPR cameras and any number plate of a vehicle which is not bus or taxi gets a €100 fine?

    An Garda Síochána have had the power to do this for a long time. Neither DCC or the NTA has the power. AGS has never shown any interest in doing it.

    DCC and NTA worked with them to trial red light cameras at Blackhall Place where cars keep breaking the red light across the Luas Red Line. That started in 2015. After a while, AGS stopped issuing fines. A year ago, DCC said they've come to an arrangement with AGS to enforce 3 permanent red light cameras in Dublin city. There have been no updates on that. So it's taken 5 years and we're still waiting for just three red light cameras.

    DCC, FCC, SDCC and DLCC are also trying to get AGS to trial enforcing bus lanes using cameras. I don't know if AGS has agreed yet or not.

    NTA are trying to get legislation changed to let them enforce it using cameras.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Del2005
    Registered Users Posts: 18,871 ✭✭✭✭Del2005


    Peregrine wrote: »
    A letter from the NTA shows that the guards claimed they didn't have enough resources to police the College Green bus gate during Luas Cross City construction and offered to do it on a voluntary basis if the Luas Cross City project paid for Garda overtime. These 'non-public duty services' arrangements are usually between AGS and organisers of large events. AGS charging the NTA to police roads is just all kinds of wrong. One state body paying another to do a job that they're already responsible for doing.

    Same thing happened when cars kept blocking the yellow boxes at Luas junctions after construction and when taxis were banned from going southbound through College Green in the morning.

    AGS have been saying they don't have enough resources to keep the bus lanes and footpaths clear at minor locations. And they can't even do the major locations without the NTA paying them. What exactly do they do? Where do the resources go?

    Is this still happening?

    https://twitter.com/DublinCommuters/status/1273365095360405506?s=20

    If the NTA, or anyone else, want full time enforcement of a specific offence at a particular place why shouldn't they pay for it? Compliance with the bus gate should be improved by enforcement of all our legislation not just the bus gate.

    If a Garda is to be dedicated to enforcing minor traffic offences why not do it at schools or churches where it will improve road safety by making people park correctly instead of keeping a few cars illegally going through a junction which has very little affect on anything.


  • #13
    Atlantic Dawn
    Registered Users Posts: 81,111 ✭✭✭✭Atlantic Dawn
    M


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    Why should we let taxis through? How are they different to a regular car?


    Same reason they can use active bus lanes and regular cars can't.


  • #14
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,806 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Atlantic Dawn wrote: »
    Same reason they can use active bus lanes and regular cars can't.
    Another "privilege" that should have been revoked a long time ago!


  • #15
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 40,967 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Peregrine wrote: »
    Did a cyclist break up with you or something?
    .

    yeah, she was riding all around him......






















    ill get my coat....


  • #16
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,346 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    SeanW wrote: »
    If the Gardai needs money to enforce the bus gate on College Green, they can put a member of the Traffic Corps on Sean O'Casey bridge and fine all the lawbreaking cyclists who ignore the "no cycling" signs. With the resulting fines, they could easily pay for the overtime or whatever to enforce the bus gate.
    Or they could just fine the many drivers who ignore the bus gate at College Green, and the majority of drivers using their phones at the wheel and use the income to fund extra Gardai to keep the bus lane clear on Pearsse St?

    Why would you want to divert Garda resources away from reducing the death toll on the road?


  • #17
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,281 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Del2005 wrote: »
    If the NTA, or anyone else, want full time enforcement of a specific offence at a particular place why shouldn't they pay for it?
    If I build a new house, should I have to pay the gardai to potentially police a property they did not have to police before?


  • #18
    Peregrine
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    Del2005 wrote: »
    If the NTA, or anyone else, want full time enforcement of a specific offence at a particular place why shouldn't they pay for it? Compliance with the bus gate should be improved by enforcement of all our legislation not just the bus gate.

    If a Garda is to be dedicated to enforcing minor traffic offences why not do it at schools or churches where it will improve road safety by making people park correctly instead of keeping a few cars illegally going through a junction which has very little affect on anything.
    Because it's the result of poor enforcement from AGS in the first place.

    NXAhjJk.jpg

    83 cars per hour going through the bus gate illegally causing major delays to the bus network is not "a few cars illegally going through a junction which has very little affect on anything". Blocking the Luas with 300+ people in it by sitting in the middle of a junction illegally is not minor. Stopping and preventing this level of law breaking is the every day job or the Gardaí. It's the purpose of the Roads Policing Unit. Why should they be paid extra because they never bothered to do it in the first place?

    Who should be allowed to get extra everyday policing using a set up that's designed for policing concerts etc.? Can I pay for AGS to clear the footpaths near my house? There's nothing in law that I'm aware of that lets the NTA preferentially pay for additional policing of existing laws. If there's precedent for accepting a request to police a bus lane as an event like a concert then why can't I request the same for road traffic offences? Can I pay for a few extra patrols of my estate?


  • #19
    jimmycrackcorm
    Registered Users Posts: 14,329 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    SeanW wrote: »
    If the Gardai needs money to enforce the bus gate on College Green, they can put a member of the Traffic Corps on Sean O'Casey bridge and fine all the lawbreaking cyclists who ignore the "no cycling" signs. With the resulting fines, they could easily pay for the overtime or whatever to enforce the bus gate.

    Given the number of cyclists killed by motorists every year and no pedestrians killed by cyclists, wouldn't it make sense to concentrate fines on motorists behaviours more so?


  • #20
    Del2005
    Registered Users Posts: 18,871 ✭✭✭✭Del2005


    Peregrine wrote: »
    Because it's the result of poor enforcement from AGS in the first place.

    NXAhjJk.jpg

    83 cars per hour going through the bus gate illegally causing major delays to the bus network is not "a few cars illegally going through a junction which has very little affect on anything". Blocking the Luas with 300+ people in it by sitting in the middle of a junction illegally is not minor. Stopping and preventing this level of law breaking is the every day job or the Gardaí. It's the purpose of the Roads Policing Unit. Why should they be paid extra because they never bothered to do it in the first place?

    Who should be allowed to get extra everyday policing using a set up that's designed for policing concerts etc.? Can I pay for AGS to clear the footpaths near my house? There's nothing in law that I'm aware of that lets the NTA preferentially pay for additional policing of existing laws. If there's precedent for accepting a request to police a bus lane as an event like a concert then why can't I request the same for road traffic offences? Can I pay for a few extra patrols of my estate?

    I've no idea but having a Garda standing at one junction is not a good use of their limited resources. If they are to start enforcing our laws I'd rather they enforce the dangerous ones like red light ignoring/phones/speeding in housing estates and outside school's not the inconveniencing of a few people.


  • #21
    CrankyHaus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,281 ✭✭✭CrankyHaus


    Del2005 wrote: »
    I've no idea but having a Garda standing at one junction is not a good use of their limited resources. If they are to start enforcing our laws I'd rather they enforce the dangerous ones like red light ignoring/phones/speeding in housing estates and outside school's not the inconveniencing of a few people.

    This. Using a trained and salaried Garda to do a camera's job is ridiculous.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    Del2005 wrote: »
    If the NTA, or anyone else, want full time enforcement of a specific offence at a particular place why shouldn't they pay for it? Compliance with the bus gate should be improved by enforcement of all our legislation not just the bus gate.

    If a Garda is to be dedicated to enforcing minor traffic offences why not do it at schools or churches where it will improve road safety by making people park correctly instead of keeping a few cars illegally going through a junction which has very little affect on anything.

    It's AGS job to police the roads. Why should they be paid extra to do their job?


  • #23
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    Del2005 wrote: »
    I've no idea but having a Garda standing at one junction is not a good use of their limited resources. If they are to start enforcing our laws I'd rather they enforce the dangerous ones like red light ignoring/phones/speeding in housing estates and outside school's not the inconveniencing of a few people.

    Then remove their powers of enforcement and give it to an agency that will. AGS could have simply installed ANPR here. I'm sure the NTA would have covered the implementation costs.


    Inconveniencing a few people? You must of forgotten how this law breaking basically shutdown the city for hours at a time


  • #24
    Peregrine
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    Del2005 wrote: »
    I've no idea but having a Garda standing at one junction is not a good use of their limited resources. If they are to start enforcing our laws I'd rather they enforce the dangerous ones like red light ignoring/phones/speeding in housing estates and outside school's not the inconveniencing of a few people.

    I'd rather they enforced all laws. They don't seem to be doing anything. You can ask what Garda Traffic Corps are actually doing with their resources, why there aren't more resources and question the implications of a deal to pay for extra overtime like I am or you can give up and say "If they start enforcing our laws, I'd rather they enforced these ones over those".

    And tens of thousands of people go through College Green every day on buses, Luas and on a bike that are affected by illegal usage. Everytime you say "a few people", it looks like either don't know College Green or you're playing it down on purpose. Neither looks good on you.
    CrankyHaus wrote: »
    This. Using a trained and salaried Garda to do a camera's job is ridiculous.

    No disagreements there. But they have taken zero initiative to use their camera enforcement powers. And, since they're not using them, should they just be able to ignore most laws? Are you okay with that?


  • #25
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,732 ✭✭✭SeanW


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Or they could just fine the many drivers who ignore the bus gate at College Green, and the majority of drivers using their phones at the wheel and use the income to fund extra Gardai to keep the bus lane clear on Pearsse St?

    Why would you want to divert Garda resources away from reducing the death toll on the road?
    It's clearly not just motorists and taxi drivers that need to have their behaviour checked by law enforcement in Dublin.

    There are so many lawbreakers on Sean O'Casey bridge that you could easily fund the enforcement of the bus gate with fines from it. (Assuming that the cost of enforcement did not exceed the fines, but I doubt it would, at least not in the beginning).

    Someone mentioned 83 lawbreaking motorists per hour at the bus gate. You can easily get that from cyclists in one or two minutes at certain times on various footways.

    BTW as far as I know, there are no deaths occurring at College Green, the bus gate is a traffic control measure only. Therefore, by your standards, the motorists aren't really doing anything wrong. Like the cyclists on Sean O'Casey bridge.


  • #26
    challengemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 16,931 ✭✭✭✭challengemaster


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    If I build a new house, should I have to pay the gardai to potentially police a property they did not have to police before?

    To be fair, that's probably the only way you'd get one round if the place was robbed.


  • #27
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    Get Real wrote: »
    Pretty much this. How the length of a tram, and the signal timings, deliberately mean a Luas has no option but to block a yellow box, is mind blowing.

    All the planners, surveys, meetings and the NTA plough ahead anyway, and then "ah sure the guards can deal with it"

    Even though it's impossible to deal with as there's physically nowhere to move traffic.

    Imo, I see no problem with the NTA paying for their mistake, so an extra guard is free to attend my car thats been broken into, rather than being taken up standing at a yellow box. It might also mean the NTA and others consider these issues seriosuly in future developments.

    It's worth noting that a Yellow Box Junction has no relevance to a LUAS LRT vehicle which operates under a different set of regulations.


    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)



  • #28
    CrankyHaus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,281 ✭✭✭CrankyHaus


    Peregrine wrote: »
    No disagreements there. But they have taken zero initiative to use their camera enforcement powers. And, since they're not using them, should they just be able to ignore most laws? Are you okay with that?

    Not at all. I agree An Garda lags on using cost-efficient technology solutions. Part of its problem is that funding for equipment always comes a very distant second to salary and benefits. The mutiny a couple of years ago the second its members smelled money as the state finances improved illustrates the scale of this problem.

    However Civil organisations like Local Authorities and the NTA should take the initiative and either install the cameras themselves or, if they lack the authority to do so, lobby the Government and RSA to get it done or to give them the authority. Simply asking An Garda to post a member there is unrealistic. Even an offer to cover the cost of a camera would be better


  • #29
    Phil.x
    Registered Users Posts: 1,723 ✭✭✭Phil.x


    AlekSmart wrote: »
    It's worth noting that a Yellow Box Junction has no relevance to a LUAS LRT vehicle which operates under a different set of regulations.

    Well why do they blow the sh1t out of their horn when cars, buses, bikes are blocking them. Rules are rules you cannot pick and choose what ones you want to obey.


  • #30
    markpb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,249 ✭✭✭markpb


    Phil.x wrote: »
    Well why do they blow the sh1t out of their horn when cars, buses, bikes are blocking them. Rules are rules you cannot pick and choose what ones you want to obey.

    Luas blocking in a yellow box - not a problem legally

    Other vehicles blocking a yellow box / tramline - legal problem.

    It doesn’t matter that the yellow box is irrelevant to the tram, other vehicles still aren’t allowed block it.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,346 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Peregrine wrote: »
    Who should be allowed to get extra everyday policing using a set up that's designed for policing concerts etc.? Can I pay for AGS to clear the footpaths near my house? There's nothing in law that I'm aware of that lets the NTA preferentially pay for additional policing of existing laws. If there's precedent for accepting a request to police a bus lane as an event like a concert then why can't I request the same for road traffic offences? Can I pay for a few extra patrols of my estate?

    There's an equity issue here indeed, as to whether it is right for organisations to pay for Garda services.

    There is also the bizarre issue that the NTA is another public body, so this public money slushing around between public bodies. If there IS a need for more policing, then the Government should be reallocating budget to the Gardai. If there is a need for less budget for the NTA, that should be a Government decision.

    It really isn't up to these two bodies to play around with their own budgets.

    SeanW wrote: »
    It's clearly not just motorists and taxi drivers that need to have their behaviour checked by law enforcement in Dublin.

    There are so many lawbreakers on Sean O'Casey bridge that you could easily fund the enforcement of the bus gate with fines from it. (Assuming that the cost of enforcement did not exceed the fines, but I doubt it would, at least not in the beginning).

    Someone mentioned 83 lawbreaking motorists per hour at the bus gate. You can easily get that from cyclists in one or two minutes at certain times on various footways.

    BTW as far as I know, there are no deaths occurring at College Green, the bus gate is a traffic control measure only. Therefore, by your standards, the motorists aren't really doing anything wrong. Like the cyclists on Sean O'Casey bridge.
    SeanW wrote: »
    It's clearly not just motorists and taxi drivers that need to have their behaviour checked by law enforcement in Dublin.
    Fully agree.
    SeanW wrote: »
    There are so many lawbreakers on Sean O'Casey bridge that you could easily fund the enforcement of the bus gate with fines from it. (Assuming that the cost of enforcement did not exceed the fines, but I doubt it would, at least not in the beginning).

    Generally agree, that's probably true.

    But it doesn't seem to make much sense. Why would you focus resources on catching cyclists to produce more resources to catch drivers? It's just a bit convoluted.

    If you have resources available, just put the resources on College Green, and use their fines arising to fund their own activities.


Advertisement