SprostonGreen wrote: » Oh thank Christ. It saddens me how ugly our town has become and that street is the worst.
bonzos wrote: » Looks like our money is being well spent. Tony McLoughlin's €50k+ payoff for his promotion to TD.....over 5000 people in the town will have to pay their household charge to keep Tony sweet. Wonder will Tony hand back some or all of his parachute payment to the council given the financial stress it is under?http://www.independent.ie/national-news/tds-got-34300-payoff-to-give-up-council-seats-3217253.html
The Real B-man wrote: » Could they be Possibly Resurfacing? needs it in Fairness.
irish-stew wrote: » Your going to have some drivers attempting to double park where the bollards were, your going to have cyclists who think they (the red areas) are cycle lanes which they were never intended for nor were/are suitable for, and then the pestestians who will wonder weather the red is part of the road or the pavement and possibly get tangled up with the above cyclists/drivers.
AgileMyth wrote: » As a motorcyclist who uses this street every day I have a major issue with this. The bollards being removed is handy for me as I can now get down the side of traffic fairly handy. The issue is with pedestrians strolling down the red part as if its an extension of the footpath.
Hobbitfeet wrote: » I thought the red part was part if the footpath and I use it all the time mainly because of ignorant people who just stop and chat blocking the tiny footpath, then look at you like your crazy when you say excuse me and ask them to move so you can get past.
irish-stew wrote: » It does cause confusion, as I feel for alot of people it does not feel natural to step of the pavement and walk along the red section, even when the bollards were there. I'm surprised that since the removal of the bollards, for those that do walk in the red section, that someone has not been hit yet. CoCo's are always trying to spend/waste the remainder of the budget every year, why not put it to good use here and sort out the O'Connell St surface and traffic/pedestrian secregation. It would probably work out cheeper than paying aloud of compo to someone who has been hit by a car or bike.
Buford T Justice wrote: » Because that would make sense and be a good idea stewie.. What were you thinking
Buford T Justice wrote: » Correction, I think you'll find the issue is when pedestrians are using the red part of the footpath, which was allocated for footfall (hence the bollards outside it) bikers are using it like its part of the main road because they couldn't be bothered to sit in traffic like everyone else who uses the road. Do you drive on footpaths too if there's a ramp up to it for you?
AgileMyth wrote: » Sometimes yeah but thats mainly just for the craic. Why would I sit in traffic cause you have to? Are you the spiteful **** who pulls over to block me filtering?
wolf99 wrote: » Was that 500k not lost when the CoCo refused to get of their collective arses' and decide one way or the other on pedestrianisation?
irish-stew wrote: » Feature on O'Connell St today in the Champion, with the main focus point being its history, some of the shops/pubs and the residence of John Mullaney of Mullaney Bros. The reaminder giving the traders and some of the publics view on its current state, breifly mentioning the promised 500k for improvments. Unfortunatly it doesn't really tell anything new.