webpal wrote: » And yet 100 meters away, businesses on the quay, struggle to attract tenants for 15k pa
O Riain wrote: » Well hopefully the upgrades with the quay will change that once its totally finished.
katydid wrote: » You are joking, right? Even when they are finished, the whole Quay will be a disaster zone. Cars nose to nose in single lanes, exhaust fumes...
Mr.Shabby wrote: » Hmm looking at the rental prices there, It seems a little unfair that Mulligans pays 65k while gamestop pays 125k? Maybe gamestop has a much bigger back room or something but judging on shopsize, they seem pretty similar?
ec18 wrote: » 100K footfall per week? does that seem very high?
Max Powers wrote: » i think all our problems can be traced back to the process of making the Quays safer, more tourist, cyclist and pedestrian friendly. We should revert back immediately to having 4 lanes, both inner ones continuously blocked, speeding, traffic jams, trucks bombing down a city centre street and being cut-off from the river side.
katydid wrote: » Sure, they're much safer now that it takes twenty minutes for a car to get from one end to the other. .
BBM77 wrote: » I find this attitude that people who rose concerns about what has been done on The Quay as running an “internet campaign against change” a bit ridicules. Many people, myself included, have genuine concerns about the works carried out on The Quay. Making The Quay more pedestrian/cycling friendly is not contradictory to maintaining four lanes, having no bottle necks and an efficient flow of traffic. Especially considering the amount of room that is available. What is contradictory is reducing the capacity of The Quay as the main artery through the city centre to handle traffic which brings people into the city centre while your stated aim as a local authority is to increase the number of people in the city centre. It has illogical public sector/politically motivated thinking written all over it.
robtri wrote: » the aim is to allow traffic to flow to allow people come to the city but to be slow enough to stop people using it as a main road through the city.. they donot want the trucks and the cars who are just driving through going into the city centre. they also want to make it more pedestrian friendly overall I think it is doing a good job at meeting these aims...
katydid wrote: » To allow people to come into the city by creating a stop go system on the quay? By reducing two lanes to one, thus doubling the traffic chaos? By creating roundabout that cars and trucks have difficulty manoeuvering? By dedicating an entire lane to a turn off for a car park?
robtri wrote: » yes, all correct, except traffic chaos.... waterford does not have a traffic problem.... soon trucks and lorries will get the message and get out of the city centre ...
robtri wrote: » yes, all correct, except traffic chaos.... waterford does not have a traffic problem.... soon trucks and lorries will get the message and get out of the city centre ... there is no roundabout on the quay that a car has issues manourving around, its a lack of driving ability entire lane for car park, exactly what is needed to help people park
wellboytoo wrote: » You miss the whole principal, the new system is meant to slow traffic, but keep it flowing. The roundabouts have allowed them to create a system of no left turns onto the Quays, thereby keeping traffic flowing with the added bonus of being able to double back if you are a stranger and see something you want to do.the entire lane for a car park is for peak times so the through traffic is not blocked by cars going into the car park.
katydid wrote: » I understand the principle. I understand that when you take four lanes and reduce it to two, you slow down the traffic. The roundabouts are fine, but there is no need for the inside circle to be so big. Buses still have to drive on the Quay, along with delivery trucks etc. and for them it is too big.
robtri wrote: » ...slow enough to stop people using it as a main road through the city...
BBM77 wrote: » This is where the argument falls down for me (and juvenile comments about ambulances). The two main problems on The Quay are that traffic has not been reduced because the bypass is not being used by through traffic due to the fact that it has a toll on it and most of the length of The Quay has inefficient surface cars parks. In all the money that was spent neither of these problems have been addressed. I never disputed the need for change on The Quay to make it more pedestrian friendly but trying to force people to use the bypass by altering the public realm when in reality it is not being used and The Quay is being used because of separate issues makes no sense.
wellboytoo wrote: » Just like your last sentence!?
mire wrote: » The main question here is - what is and what should the purpose of the quays be? If it is as you say to be "the main artery through the city centre", then so be it - let our priority be the delivery of as much traffic through the city as fast as possible, regardless of the impacts. However, most cities realise that city centre streets should not prioritise through traffic [there is a bypass for that]; instead, they should prioritise activity, access, mobility, environment, walkability, safety. Part of that actually involves slowing traffic down. Deliberately. The idea that Waterford should have a dual carriageway of 4 lanes down the quays is bizarre, and the idea that this is compatible with making it "pedestrian/cycling friendly" is even more bizarre. Cities gave up those types of ideas 30-40 years ago. Your suggestion that this is "illogical public sector/politically motivated thinking" is silly and mistaken. It is best practice. Look outside Waterford. It's the type of thing that cities do; it's what Copenhagen did 50 years ago, and most European cities have done since. I appreciate your concerns are genuine; but they are misplaced. Grafton street traders in Dublin and the city centre businesses generally proclaimed the death of their business when it was changed to a pedestrian-only street. Traffic changes always cause concerns and always cause misplaced concerns. The traders in Grafton Street were wrong, as were traders in every other situation where they decried this type of "illogical public sector/politically motivated thinking". And I'm afraid in this instance, your concerns, whilst predictable and understandable are misplaced also.
BBM77 wrote: » You go off and think of a point to make like a good chap.
