Well you cam Google Oslo like. On the other hand, your claim that removing parking kills city centres is completely and utterly baseless and contrary to observable facts the world over.
baseless claim.
Agreed. The suburban shopping arguement is good if you are from one of the circles of hell that is worse than suburban shopping centres. For regular humans, city centres are more attractive shopping, eating and drinking venues. The suburban centres offer convenient access to the big brands for people who are forced to live out there for economic reasons. They certainly aren't places you choose to go to or remain in after you've obtained your goods.
Dublin has far too much private traffic, it is not a pleasant place to be for pedestrians or cyclists. This is what sends people to suburban shopping centres.
There's a thread on that already
Dublin is also bypassed
Untrue. Car free spaces equal more vibrant spaces. That's the case around the world. Oslo has seen a big increase in footfall after going car free
Have you not seem combined multistorey parking houses and apartment blocks? They are very common.
I can think of one particularly large development in the rejuvanated quarter of my City which is a combined parking, retail and resendential development.
I figure they get a few million in revenue in the retail levels from the residents above some of whom would be renting car spaces below.
One particular car park I visit has differnt levels for residents and customers.
One of the streets in my city directly adjacent and parallel to the old town removed a lane of traffic and replaced it with a cycle lane and a row of parking spaces about 500 metres long even though that street has about 4 multistorey parking houses on it or nearby. Removal of the traffic lane doesn't appear to impact my travel time on that particular route.
If you discourage parking you rip the heart out of your urban centres as everyone will trek to the out of town shopping centres.
What Dublin is doing is not an example of international best practice.
Clarendon, Drury, Stephens Green and BTs need to go for a start in the short term. That whole area should be car free as a starting point. The other pains are arnotts, the ilac and the 2 on Jervis St.
Not fussed about clearys or Christchurch.
Fleet Street also needs goning.
Trinity Street is going all by itself to be replaced by a new office building.
Application in to lop a couple of floors off Arnotts car park to build apartments above instead.
Even the car park owners are starting to see there's no future in bringing cars into town.
"... and to encourage a high turnover of users of these parking spaces"
So they want more motor traffic?
i'd never realised that there was a 'google maps for car parks'
as an absolute baseline minimum, on street parking should cost equivalent or more than private parking.
I think the issue regarding multistorey parking is where some of it is located. To maintain access to it, you are prevented from addressing larger issues within the network.
Personally I have no objection to multistorey parking but they do come with access issues when you consider how the network needs to be improved to increase capacity and safety issues for all modes of transport.
Sending cars out of the city to 'out of town retail parks' or indeed anywhere they want to go sounds fine to me. Liffey Valley and Blanch will start charging for parking soon.
Multi storeys are not required in the city centre. They are there because of tax breaks gifted to them. We have 15 of them in the city centre. Complete overkill.
We can have a near car free city centre, Oslo achieved this through removing all parking and all through routes.
Tell that to cgcsb who seems to want all parking removed, including multistory.
That's the plan, basically free up street space over time, which will be used to expand walking, cycling and PT infrastructure.
There will always be a need for parking it just won't be on streets
how many people park on the street when doing their shopping in the city centre, compared to using a multi-storey?
A big reduction in parking will send people to out of town retail parks. I'm all for the removal of on street parking, but mulitstory car parks are necessary for this to happen. You're never going to get a city center to be completely car free.
A big reduction in parking is needed, and there's no plan to tackle any multistorey.
After Galway City recently announced a hike in parking charges, DCC are following suit. Expect other councils to announce increases over the next few weeks
Speaking about the hike in parking fees, Dublin City Council’s Parking Enforcement Officer, Dermot Stevenson, said: “The hourly parking charges are being increased to ensure that there is a suitable deterrent to long stay parking in the city and to encourage a high turnover of users of these parking spaces.
“We also want to encourage sensible parking in the city as well as asking motorists to consider alternative transport methods other than the private car”.
You're making a big leap from some slight restriction on cars in some areas for some periods to 'towards banning of cars'. We've had car dominated cities for too long now, and our health and our environment is harmed every day as a result. We need to do things a bit differently.
What's the latest fudge on the liffey cycle route? The temporary one is lethal in parts and lots of people are returning to work now, surely building a permanent route should have been well underway already.
for the record I'm in favour of the introduction of thoughtfully placed bollards and guard rails to the benefit of all including commuters who would otherwise be inconvenienced by parents pulling in for "just a moment" while they drop off and collect their offspring. More of this!
I'm the only one it appears who is explicitly stating the implicit implication of the agitation and advocacy on this sub-forum which is toward banning of cars or restriction of their use to the point where it becomes pointless to own one. The opinion is with a little bit of finessing the "problem" will resolve itself to the cyclists advantage.
are those bollards strong enough to rip the wheel off a land rover? or did that happen before it hit the bollard, i wonder?
You seem to be the only one talking about banning cars here.
I'm simply pointing that we have allowed a situation to develop where cars are the default option, even for short journeys where walking and cycling are very feasible options.
are you proffering this anecdote as justification to ban cars?
She didn't 'openly admit' to anything. She said that was the allegation made by the aggressive, bullying driver, that they were cycling three abreast, but the mam didn't admit to anything. TBH, it is fairly unlikely that she would be three abreast in a cycle bus, far more likely that the adult was to the rear, shielding the children, and probably doing a good job at shielding, which is what irritated the bully behind the wheel. And three abreast is permitted while overtaking, btw.
She's not driving though, she's cycling. She's making good progress at cycling speed (which is higher than average driving speed in much of the city). There is no law that requires cyclists to pull over for others. No-one else's journey is more important.
That driver is presumably quite happy to sit for hours in traffic jams starting down the bumper of the car in front, but put them behind a cyclist for 10 or 20 seconds and WW3 breaks out, with talk of 'progress' and 'consideration'. Where's the consideration in driving round with four empty seats all day?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a2083440578c8f8372334e3f622c0cf5.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62877c35768f143f69acd7bb6cd43f3c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)