Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Parking and traffic in Phoenix Park

Options
1…1920222425…86

Comments

  • Options
    #632
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Hopefully it will just be a slower burn and we’ll see a continued push toward policies that discourage car usage in the city and the park

    I think we'd all like that, but only when there are genuine alternatives available.


  • Options
    #633
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users Posts: 3,241 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    I'll be pleased to make a submission on returning parking to the main Avenue etc, at that forum, but in the meantime hopefully the Park will be enjoyed by as many people as possible for the remainder of this summer.

    Stay safe everyone.
    Looks to have 8km of cycle lanes removed and then finishes it with "stay safe everyone".:rolleyes:
    Larbre34 wrote: »
    Well, even they can't ignore the law.
    Which law exactly?


  • Options
    #634
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Former Former wrote: »
    I think we'd all like that, but only when there are genuine alternatives available.

    Well, that’s a chicken and eggs scenario, and what we’ve been doing to now hasn’t worked. The park is just a microcosm

    I would like to see it the chicken and egg switched around. Instead of waiting for public transport strategies to encourage people out of their cars, we should make really drastic and substantial pro-cycling and pro-bus changes right now, remove more car lanes, remove parking, and then fill in the gaps with mass transit solutions. Short term pain for a long term solution instead of just scrabbling around the edges of the problem and just clogging up the city making it dangerous for cyclists at the same time as p1ss1ng off drivers

    But I’m sure there’s another thread for this


  • Options
    #635
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    Looks to have 8km of cycle lanes removed and then finishes it with "stay safe everyone".:rolleyes:

    :)


  • Options
    #636
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 23,841 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    daymobrew wrote: »
    What law did the Green Party ignore?
    Did they force the OPW to close the gates?

    No, they didn't do anything. But a number of their Councillors were taking credit for making the OPW extend the closure of the gates indefinitely. Thats not possible without the formal extinguishment of the rights of way over those accesses, so both parties should have known that. It was just naive on the Greens part.

    OPW have obviously been properly advised by their superiors at this point.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #637
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 23,841 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    Looks to have 8km of cycle lanes removed and then finishes it with "stay safe everyone".:rolleyes:

    Which law exactly?

    I meant stay safe in the public health context, but fine, get ill if you prefer.

    I wasn't aware of a litany of cycling incidents and accidents prior to March so I'll take it we can argue that point in the public consultation when it happens. And as I've said I've been magnanimous enough to take the pressure off OPW about the parking on the Avenue and let it lie, until a full consultation around the future access and transport needs for the Park.


  • Options
    #638
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    And as I've said I've been magnanimous enough to take the pressure off OPW about the parking on the Avenue and let it lie, until a full consultation around the future access and transport needs for the Park.

    No need whatsoever for parking in the avenue.
    I hope it never returns, the park is a much safer place without it.


  • Options
    #639
    Hurrache
    Registered Users Posts: 10,151 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    No, they didn't do anything. But a number of their Councillors were taking credit for making the OPW extend the closure of the gates indefinitely.

    Who? Aren't you just conflating 'making' with being happy with the decision on the back of a popular lobby?


  • Options
    #640
    sally cinnamon89
    Registered Users Posts: 657 ✭✭✭sally cinnamon89


    What a pity.

    Please god keep the cycle lanes - we don't need a car park down the main road. I do think there is appetite for change in the gates regard. Remove half and make them pedestrian only leaving room for cars and pedestrians. It's a park for gods sake.

    The FG smugness here is unreal


  • Options
    #641
    Hurrache
    Registered Users Posts: 10,151 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    What's FG smugness here?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #642
    ligerdub
    Registered Users Posts: 2,584 ✭✭✭ligerdub


    sally cinnamon89 wrote: »

    Please god keep the cycle lanes - we don't need a car park down the main road.

    Why? That's exactly what we need. There's already cycle lanes going down there, designated as such. The pre lockdown way was perfectly fine. Also, if you take parking out of the park then you're going to find people parking outside the boundary of it.....which will bring even more problems!

    Chesterfield avenue is about 4km long, it can provide sufficient parking for a huge amount of cars to park. There is plenty of room. The park is so vast that you could provide numerous cycle lanes if you want. There aren't any because there's no need for any more than are there already. It's not like the park is going to be overcrowded with people even if every single parking space in the place was taken up.

    What people are saying when they say things like this is that they want to be some sort of saboteur against people in cars. It strikes me as being a little bit mean to me. People want to go up to and enjoy a resource where you can bring the family and have a bit of fresh air and a ramble and it's pretty much cost free, let them get on with it....and let them drive! None of this paid parking or car free zone rubbish.


  • Options
    #643
    trellheim
    Registered Users Posts: 5,864 ✭✭✭trellheim


    naked politicisation - there was no need to reopen these gates just a stroke pulled. The park was quickly changing to becoming a nicer place and I'm a very local user.

    Very sad to see just to see a few punters shave a couple of mins off their commute


  • Options
    #644
    hardybuck
    Registered Users Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭hardybuck


    trellheim wrote: »
    naked politicisation - there was no need to reopen these gates just a stroke pulled. The park was quickly changing to becoming a nicer place and I'm a very local user.

    Very sad to see just to see a few punters shave a couple of mins off their commute

    No darling, a stroke was closing them under the guise of a crisis and trying to keep it that way after the restrictions had lifted.

    Fingers crossed that the traffic jams are over for a while.


  • Options
    #645
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 23,841 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    trellheim wrote: »
    naked politicisation - there was no need to reopen these gates just a stroke pulled. The park was quickly changing to becoming a nicer place and I'm a very local user.

    Very sad to see just to see a few punters shave a couple of mins off their commute

    Isn't it funny when someone in Ireland disagrees with something, even though it has happened for reasons of compliance with statutory obligations and best practice around public consultation, it gets dismissed as a 'stroke'.

    Tidy up your toys and you can make a submission on the public consultation when it comes along with all the rest of us.


  • Options
    #646
    Hurrache
    Registered Users Posts: 10,151 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    Larbre34 wrote: »

    Tidy up your toys and you can make a submission on the public consultation when it comes along with all the rest of us.

    Read back over all your posts on this, across a number of forums, and come back to us about tidying up toys.


  • Options
    #647
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    This thread can be summed up thus

    Cyclists want cycling prioritised.

    Those who cannot cycle to the park still want to be able to drive there.

    Nobody wants city centre workers using it as a car park.

    If the OPW had put any thought into it, a solution could be found pretty easily that would meet all these needs. But they're deeply, deeply incompetent and that's how we got where we are.

    I dread what is coming in their "consultation".


  • Options
    #648
    ronivek
    Registered Users Posts: 1,916 ✭✭✭ronivek


    Former Former wrote: »
    If the OPW had put any thought into it, a solution could be found pretty easily that would meet all these needs. But they're deeply, deeply incompetent and that's how we got where we are.

    I'm not sure about 'deeply incompetent'; there were plenty of people in this thread who quite liked the quieter park environment from what I can see. I mean one of their mandates is the protection of the park's flora and fauna; along with pedestrians and cyclists.

    What's your suggested solution to tick all those boxes?


  • Options
    #649
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ligerdub wrote: »
    Why? That's exactly what we need. There's already cycle lanes going down there, designated as such. The pre lockdown way was perfectly fine. Also, if you take parking out of the park then you're going to find people parking outside the boundary of it.....which will bring even more problems!

    Chesterfield avenue is about 4km long, it can provide sufficient parking for a huge amount of cars to park. There is plenty of room. The park is so vast that you could provide numerous cycle lanes if you want. There aren't any because there's no need for any more than are there already. It's not like the park is going to be overcrowded with people even if every single parking space in the place was taken up.

    What people are saying when they say things like this is that they want to be some sort of saboteur against people in cars. It strikes me as being a little bit mean to me. People want to go up to and enjoy a resource where you can bring the family and have a bit of fresh air and a ramble and it's pretty much cost free, let them get on with it....and let them drive! None of this paid parking or car free zone rubbish.

    Plenty of place for cars to park away from the avenue.
    No need for it there.


  • Options
    #650
    Pinch Flat
    Registered Users Posts: 7,761 ✭✭✭Pinch Flat


    bubblypop wrote: »
    Plenty of place for cars to park away from the avenue.
    No need for it there.

    Really shows the irish attitude to the car. "Hey there's a long stretch of road with a hard shoulder going through a lovely park. Let's convert it into a car park".


  • Options
    #651
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ronivek wrote: »
    I'm not sure about 'deeply incompetent'; there were plenty of people in this thread who quite liked the quieter park environment from what I can see. I mean one of their mandates is the protection of the park's flora and fauna; along with pedestrians and cyclists.

    What's your suggested solution to tick all those boxes?

    I think that if parking is limited to only park and zoo users, you are a good bit of way there. And hopefully that will be a sensible outcome. The park shouldn’t be used as a car park by commuters heading into the city, or those going shopping

    Pay parking, with a free amount of time sufficient to enjoy the park or zoo, but a penal cost thereafter to deter park-and-riders. And a permit for this working at the courts or on jury duty


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #652
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,903 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    Pedestrians. One word, they are the forgotten species everywhere.

    It's all cars and bikes, but all over the city there is barely room for walkers on the streets what with the narrowness of pavements and all the street furniture.

    Have to say I have been caught out and tad confused in the past about the demarcation of paths for pedestrians and cyclists on Chesterfield, but got the hang of it eventually, although many didn't and either cyclists or peds enroached each other's spaces now and then.


  • Options
    #653
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    ronivek wrote: »
    I'm not sure about 'deeply incompetent'; there were plenty of people in this thread who quite liked the quieter park environment from what I can see. I mean one of their mandates is the protection of the park's flora and fauna; along with pedestrians and cyclists.

    What's your suggested solution to tick all those boxes?

    And there were plenty of people in this thread who vehemently disagreed with the changes.

    The OPW has a mandate to maintain the park as an amenity for the public. That's their overriding objective. It is not a nature reserve, it's a public amenity. Now, if they choose to limit the park to those people who can walk or cycle there, then they're failing badly.

    OK, so they wanted to cut down on through traffic. Fair enough. Then why not just close the peripheral gates until 10am on weekdays? Or bring in traffic lights to choke the traffic at the Parkgate St entrance before 9am and discourage people that way? Or close the roads that are used for parking until 10am? There was zero creative thinking and it just pissed everyone off.

    And all of this at a time when no-one can use public transport. No, they're absolutely useless.


  • Options
    #654
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 23,841 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Hurrache wrote: »
    Read back over all your posts on this, across a number of forums, and come back to us about tidying up toys.

    If I came across as frustrated, it was because I knew there was a whole heap of acting outside of powers here and I made representations to resolve that. If these changes become permanent out of a public consultation, so be it, but the right thing will have been done, and in the meantime I was right in what I said and did about it.


  • Options
    #655
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,903 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    All car traffic that would have used Chesterfield should use North Road instead.

    All car parks should be mandatory with bollards if necessary.

    A compromise can be reached surely?


  • Options
    #656
    raheny red
    Registered Users Posts: 2,570 ✭✭✭raheny red


    Scenes like this were nice while they lasted:
    https://twitter.com/__kbaker__/status/1257368125051371524?s=09

    It's good to have nice things now and again. The Bull Island Causeway was enjoyable while it lasted too. Even if it was done for a couple of weeks a year, that would be swell.


  • Options
    #657
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 23,841 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    All car traffic that would have used Chesterfield should use North Road instead.

    All car parks should be mandatory with bollards if necessary.

    A compromise can be reached surely?

    Get in on the public consultation when it comes.


  • Options
    #658
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    All car traffic that would have used Chesterfield should use North Road instead.

    All car parks should be mandatory with bollards if necessary.

    A compromise can be reached surely?

    But this is a compromise. Gates are back open, but parking is vastly reduced and cycle lanes on the Avenue are much improved.


  • Options
    #659
    hardybuck
    Registered Users Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭hardybuck


    raheny red wrote: »
    Scenes like this were nice while they lasted:
    https://twitter.com/__kbaker__/status/1257368125051371524?s=09

    It's good to have nice things now and again. The Bull Island Causeway was enjoyable while it lasted too. Even if it was done for a couple of weeks a year, that would be swell.

    Ask them to build a Greenway. Plenty of space for one.


  • Options
    #660
    zerosugarbuzz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,224 ✭✭✭zerosugarbuzz


    Very happy with this development. I’ve only used the park twice since the chapelizod gate was shut. This re opens the park as an amenity to all residents of the city. Particularly those with children, dogs, or elderly people who have mobility issues and for whom parking on the periphery is not a viable option.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #661
    Shefwedfan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,958 ✭✭✭✭Shefwedfan


    That’s disappointing, hopefully the cycle track stays, I do see they are monitoring traffic all over the park

    Might be time to start having a conversation with government to start shutting it down


Advertisement