In Dublin this will affect civil and public servants the most, which is why it hasn't been implemented. It's a great idea though......
the councils don't agree with you though. leave pretty much anything other than a car on a public road, and you'll be done for littering.
True. That’s why you don’t see it done. Tough one really. Cart before horse or horse before cart. Stick or carrot. It’s not like the property and rental situations are conducive to people just being able to move to a more suitable area if they do need the car for a long commute if they did push ahead with no street side parking even over night.
You have it backwards. The road infrastructure reached capacity, it was full. To the point that buses can't function.
Reverting back to the gridlock we had before bus lanes is not going to work. The cars day is over.
People will choose not to live near the Metro.
Idiotic false equivalences do nothing to add to debate
For most it's not a privilege but a necessity. Unless you can guarantee a family two jobs, primary, secondary (and possibly third level) education within a reasonable distance on convenient public transport routes, for life, there frequently isn't a viable alternative. That is until someone invents a cheap star trek type transporter.
The Metro will get built a lot faster if we start building it. Saying its going to take 10yrs plus isnt a reason to delay, surely?
You can't just build something - it needs to follow a process. Are you seriously suggesating that those processes be removed and the government can build what they want wherever they want?
BusConnects is a shambles.
I disagree. Elements of it are but we've seen a lot of progress with it which would probably not have happened had we not initiated the project.
No drivers, constantly cancelled routes,
I never said that they did!
We will never get rid of cars completley,
I don;t think anyone has suggested getting rid of cars. Even Eamon Ryan hasn't suggested this (despite people suggesting that it is a tenet of the GP).
so buses will never have the road space they need to be efficient, even if we had the drivers to man them - which we dont.
We can make more road space available to busses. We could even see if our police force could bother their hole policing the current laws in terms of bus lane usage. We can continue encouraging people to take PT for journeys where they would usually take a car.
Metro is really the only answer and the clock is ticking as our population increases and the bus networks (not integrated) continue to crumble under the strain.
Can you give a rough estimate of the cost for your idea of a Metro network, how long it would take to plan and develop? A rough guess is putting the €10bn current line (Swords to Charlenmont) at an eventual cost of €15-20bn. So how much for an entire network? How many people will it carry daily?
Given our relatively low-density urban population, it would be a lot of money for a fairly small benefit. Surely that money could be better spent on other public transport options? You would also still have the moaning from some quarters that it doesn't work because they live and work in places off the network and it would take them two hours each way.
So, no. Metro is not really the only answer despite you continuing to bang that drum!
People have lots of subjective reasons about where they live. Buy more for your buck for example.
It's fairly simple.
The developer bought a field and got planning permission to build an estate.
The roads and parking areas were a condition of that PP for the amenity of the householders and to accommodate visitors and deliveries etc.
When the estate was built the developer factored in the cost of the roads and parking areas when pricing the houses.
Therefore the house buyers paid.
"Therefore the house buyers paid." For what? Did you just make that up?
The people who paid for the house (and plot of land it's built on) also own the common lands as part of the cost of the house purchase? And they are permitted to store property on the common areas in perpetuity without charge?
Right of way to allow access for residents, visitors and deliveries is a separate thing.
They do get people thinking about why we devote so much public space to storage of one particular type of private property.
Because it’s not a constitutional matter. We don’t vote on any transport policy issues.
I've explained it to you.
I didn't say they owned the roads and common areas.
They don't have a right to permanently take over any part of them but they are entitled to park there just like the plumber doing work in a house or family member visiting.
Thanks for explaining to me that someone can park their vehicle in an estate...
The topic at hand though is should people be allowed to store their property free of charge on lands they don't own, and it's my contention that while indeed you may also own the land directly in front of your purchased home, it does not entitle people without that land to place their property in the estate common areas free of charge... As an example in Japan you have to prove that you own a place to park your vehicle within 2km of your residence before you're allowed to purchase your vehicle... Trades people will have access to shared temporary visitor spaces of course, and delivery drivers would only stop their vehicles briefly to deliver items..
Just to clarify so we are on the same page are we agreed that householders are allowed to park on the estate road outside their house ?
If permitted to do so that was never in dispute...
Ok cheers.
I think we got a bit of a crossed wire there.
It’s still a privilege, mostly for middle and higher earners, who can afford to buy, maintain, tax and insure a car, mostly for those who have family supports to get them through the test.
What other area do we.....?
Travellers. They even have special status.
Motorists in Ireland have to pay a tax to park outside their homes, or anywhere else in public. It's called motor tax. If you don't have motor tax, you will be fined or have your car seized if its found parked untaxed by Gardai or a traffic warden.
So yes, motorists already pay to 'store' their cars in a public place.
More end of things...
Is that correct? Motor tax allows you to park for free? Must be the cheapest parking tax in the entire world!
i think Speedline needs a quick lesson on the difference between 'necessary' and 'sufficient'.
I don't need a lesson in anything. It is a legal requirement to have valid tax on a vehicle in order to park in a public place. Hence, you have to pay. You don't get to 'store' your vehicle in public for free.
And that's precisely the attitude that keeps folks sticking to their private cars.
Why punish the folk who have to drive to work, how are they hurting you?
Brave of you to assume everyone has access to high-speed broadband, or has a spare bedroom to convert into an office, or wants their work life to 'invade' their home life.
Everything other than congestion/emission charges will absolutely kill retail trade in the city/town centres, utterly bonkers cart-before-horse stuff
Strictly speaking, so is having a job in the first place regardless of earnings. Depending on where you live, you can well be solely dependant upon the ownership of a vehicle to commute to your place of work; whether you work on minimum wage in a supermarket or whether you're earning 6 figures is immaterial.
That's precisely why it will come in. Because people can't bothered educate themselves on the issue.
Yes that's right every motor vehicle must display a disc when driving/not moving in public..
Obviously!!
But when you make a statement
"It’s a privilege taken at the expense of others. It’s time to stop prioritising the needs of those who insist on commuting in a living room on wheels, while wondering where as the road space has gone."
Who gives someone the right to stop prioritising majority of people needs? In the areas affected, let the people decide on what they for their area.
Generally it's not the area of the people commuting by car to it.
It's not a question of education; one side claims that private transportation is only for the middle/higher earners, that folks should cycle and use busses and admonishing folk for "deciding to live in the middle of nowhere" while still expecting an acceptable level of (presently non-existent, inconvenient or impractical) public transport alternatives.
The other side is dealing with the realities of: Living in the cities or suburbs (particularly Dublin) where accommodation in reasonable distance of a workplace is unaffordable, even living in areas where there's reliable high-speed broadband is becoming unaffordable and affordable areas to live are unserved by public transport, let alone reliable public transport options.
I recall a village in Germany, every house within a 5-10min walk from the train station is north of 300,000€ and only becomes reasonably affordable once you're 15-20km away at which point you'd be taking a car to get to the train station, so you may as well take it all the way to the city.
The issue proposed here, disproportionately hurts those who depend on a car, not those who choose it out of preference
It really is education. You want to drive into somewhere where you can't fit, and disproportionality adversely affect everyone else.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
