one bad thing leading to another bad thing does not negate the second bad thing.
IIRC the car must be insured at the property too, part of proving you're not just bagging a cheap permanent parking space for any car. i think this catches a lot of students, etc., out, where the car might be insured at their parents home which could be down the country.
i used to live in phibsboro and got the visitor permits; i didn't own a car when i was living there but was often able to borrow my mother's car, but usually at weekends when there was no requirement to pay anyway.
How does your partner manage in large shopping centres, where the disabled parking could well be a km or two away from the shops?
The reason the plan gets rejected is usually because the amount of paid parking falls short of that required by the residents. For example the street can accommodate 30 cars but the residents think they need 40 places for current requirements.
Pay parking is the way to go in the absence of inadequate provision in a location.
The problem is not the cars. It’s the unavailability of housing for the grown up children. People getting animated about the wrong thing here
i think that's standard in dublin city council territory where paid parking is provided. if you don't have a driveway, you can get a permit to park near your house for €50 a year and i think up to 20 permits lasting 24 hours each for visitors, they were €1.25 each when i got some about 12 years ago.
i've heard of some neighbourhoods rejecting the idea of introducing paid parking schemes like this; the council will often put it to a vote before introducing it in an area.
Accommodation for the disabled should be at the forefront of any pedestrianisation project.
It is not true that the Green Party do not give a damn about the disabled and it is wrong of you to say so. Why do you blame them for shortcomings in the implementation of a single project? Disabilities manifest in different ways, and not all disabilities can be accommodated in a plan but generally implementation attempts to cater for as many as possible. Most of the problems for those that require special provision are caused by those who do not have any disability being thoughtless towards those that do have difficulties, like those parking on the pavement, or those parking in designated parking spaces.
Do you have any evidence that the absence of your partner's requirements were omitted from the plans by anyone at all, let alone by the Green Party?
You are accusing the Green Party of deliberately doing something they clearly had no hand, act or part in. Now I am not in any way associated with any political party, but I object to the continuous blaming of the Green Party for things they do not do, nor propose. Perhaps you might contact them and ask for their views in this matter and inform them of yours. You might be surprised how close your views actually are to theirs.
Why is that though? Does he have a wheelchair or mobility scooter?
My partner is disabled and needs to be dropped by car at the door if we go to events, meals or on errands. Anywhere that goes "pedestrianised" such as Capel Street where there's no taxi or car drop off therefore becomes a no go zone for him. I also remember when I was almost knocked down by a speeding cyclist in Smithfield tearing down the down ramp near Bel Cibo, anyone who wasn't fast on their feet would be a goner. The nutty Green Party don't give a damn about the disabled or mobility impaired. Voting with my feet and just won't be spending any money in these areas.
It could be put that way, but at least I paid something for the right to pay to park my car outside my house, or any house in my street instead of not being able to park there for free because others parked theirs blocking the street.
We should go for the Japanese solution - you can't buy a car unless you prove you have private off-road storage space for it.
What's depressing is this statement.
"In what’s believed to be one of the first efforts in the country to tackle the problem"
No, bending over backwards for people to store multiple cars on street is not tackling the problem. Not even close.
50€ a year to store your personal property in a public space?
Or have I read that wrong?
We had that problem that was solved by introducing pay parking. No house can have more than two permits carrying an annual charge - any more must pay the hourly charge.
Obviously, there likely would be a limit to the number of spaces as well. If there are more tickets required than spaces, 1st ticket is one price, 2nd costs much more. Clamps then tend to sort the problem out. We pay €50 per year.
How depressing is this
The very complex process of repainting some markings....
What are the car park's "insurmountable structural difficulties that cannot be overcome"? You just turn right and right again?
This changes very little. It's not being pedestrianised any time soon. The headline should be changed.
Precisely
The headline is very misleading.
The reality is that they have an objective of pedestrianisation, but there’s no definitive plan.
This is great news! Only thing to note is that as of now, they have only voted on adding it to the development plan from what I can see. No word yet on it being officially pedestrianised on x date. Hopefully that comes soon enough!
Agreed that changing the signs is unlikely to make much of a practical difference but having a lower default speed limit means a road's design speed will be lower and if there are any works to be carried out it will be designed accordingly to slow the traffic e.g. narrowed lane widths etc.
Yes meant Capel st.
It'll be interesting to see once SWS is pedestrianised how those internal layout issues in the BT car park will suddenly no longer exist.
The lower part of Grafton Street can’t be pedestrianised due to the buses and trams.
In fact far more buses will be using it once the realigned network is implemented with three spines.
I can only assume that you meant Capel Street or Liffey Street?
Wow, has DCC grown a pair? Only weeks ago they stopped the lower segment of Capel being pedestrianised due to the demands of Arnotts car park to have direct access to the quays, which should not be accommodating car traffic anyway.
Great news!! 😍
Wasn’t aware that BT had dropped their branding from the car park, but seems like they could see the writing on the wall and it was obviously damaging to them.
Think David McWilliams wrote about that some time ago, seems they were reading his stuff.
Waste of time unless enforced. We have a default limit of 50kph in Ireland, but in reality most traffic travels at 60kph.
My estate in Limerick has had a speed limit of 30kph since 2017. Literally nobody obeys it because its never going to be enforced.
Wales leading the way!!
Bring it on here!
Great article.
Anyone read any of those books?
That tweet made my weekend. She seems to have deleted her Twitter account now too. Wonderful heart warming stuff.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/07abd39dc4f0afde3c391afc78cc920e.svg)
