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

College Green Plaza -- public consultation open

1246754

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 10,460 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Calina wrote: »
    I remain to be convinced routing a bunch of buses down the quays and through Parliament Street makes life easier for people on affected bus routes.

    First of all, I was referring not to this College Green plan in entirety, but what could be added on top of it in order to reduce the pain for PT users. This proceeds from the assumption that the pedestrianization itself is rather inevitable. So in that previous post I wasn't saying that life would be easier for PT compared to *now*, I was saying it might be easier than how it will be in the proposed plan.

    Secondly, unfortunately for some bus users, the College Green Plaza will have other benefits that might indeed outweigh the pain that it will cause to PT.

    To be honest, the plaza seems increasingly inevitable, and I wonder if it in conjunction with the opening of the cross city Luas shouldn't prompt a wholescale revision of bus routes that pass through this part of the city centre.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,644 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    TherapyBoy wrote: »
    Having Suffolk Street open or closed off makes no impact at all on the traffic to those carparks. The only traffic that could use Suffolk Street were taxis & buses turning left at the bottom of Dawson Street if I recall correctly. A turn that was not open to normal traffic.

    Anyways, I was talking about myself driving from the northside into the city to park in one of these carparks. It looked like they were changing the access to them through the loop-thing & up Church Lane.

    Right, that’s my point. The current situation works so wouldn’t it be better for everyone if the current traffic direction of Trinity Street was kept? Otherwise buses, taxis and general traffic, etc. all have to use (part of) the loop which could get very congested. Isn't it better for everyone if general traffic turned onto Trinity Street as now and Church Lane gets pedestrianised? If a driver does miss the turn off for Trinity Street they just use the loop to swing around and turn down Trinity Street or continue straight back Dame Street. Perhaps there is something I am missing?


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,643 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    I think people (including the council) may be underestimating the issue of cyclists. Whilst in general I'm against over-regulation of cycling and don't have any objection to mixing cyclists and pedestrians in certain circumstances; this is going to be quite a busy plaza and Dame St->Westmoreland St is a major cycling artery. If they just leave cyclists to find their own way across the plaza, there's quite a high potential for conflict; but if they put in a defined cycle lane they'll have to make some provision for pedestrians crossing that lane (particularly the visually impaired).

    This might seem wacky but what about a tunnel? - if it's just to accommodate cyclists it doesn't need to be huge or deep, it could be cut and covered as part of the overall plaza development. The roof could be semi opaque so it's lit by daylight during the day, could be a nice feature?


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,853 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    hardCopy wrote: »
    It'll need to be permanent post rather than just regular patrols. Two Gardaí minimum who's role is to cover the plaza and not respond to calls elsewhere.

    Otherwise it'll just be another boardwalk. A central spot for junkies and benzo dealers to hang out with some complimentary seating.

    Ha, I doubt it will happen if it hasn't for the Boardwalk.

    But whilst I know they pay mega rates already, could there be an option of private security (alongside backup from the Gardai), provided by the likes of Bank of Ireland, Trinity, and other entities who will benefit from this initiative?

    I await the tsunami of ridicule here. lol.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,606 ✭✭✭schemingbohemia


    loyatemu wrote: »
    I think people (including the council) may be underestimating the issue of cyclists. Whilst in general I'm against over-regulation of cycling and don't have any objection to mixing cyclists and pedestrians in certain circumstances; this is going to be quite a busy plaza and Dame St->Westmoreland St is a major cycling artery. If they just leave cyclists to find their own way across the plaza, there's quite a high potential for conflict; but if they put in a defined cycle lane they'll have to make some provision for pedestrians crossing that lane (particularly the visually impaired).

    This might seem wacky but what about a tunnel? - if it's just to accommodate cyclists it doesn't need to be huge or deep, it could be cut and covered as part of the overall plaza development. The roof could be semi opaque so it's lit by daylight during the day, could be a nice feature?

    It is wacky and wouldn't work, wouldn't be used.

    I'm a cyclist, just put in a few Garda in the first few weeks and give a fixed charge penalty notice to any cyclists acting the ar$e, sorry I mean "cycling without due care and attention". Seriously, any lanes that make the journey longer will be ignored and cannot be designed to not have pedestrians walking across them.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,969 ✭✭✭hardCopy


    loyatemu wrote: »
    I think people (including the council) may be underestimating the issue of cyclists. Whilst in general I'm against over-regulation of cycling and don't have any objection to mixing cyclists and pedestrians in certain circumstances; this is going to be quite a busy plaza and Dame St->Westmoreland St is a major cycling artery. If they just leave cyclists to find their own way across the plaza, there's quite a high potential for conflict; but if they put in a defined cycle lane they'll have to make some provision for pedestrians crossing that lane (particularly the visually impaired).

    This might seem wacky but what about a tunnel? - if it's just to accommodate cyclists it doesn't need to be huge or deep, it could be cut and covered as part of the overall plaza development. The roof could be semi opaque so it's lit by daylight during the day, could be a nice feature?

    TBH a tunnel sounds like another junkie nest, with a skylight.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,853 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    Deedsie wrote: »
    Wouldn't it be great to live in an Ireland where we could plan for ambitious nice things and not have to worry about them being ruined. I wonder if we built a few state of the art injection centres on outside the canals would that reduce the problem?

    There are no supervised injection centres in the city right now AFAIK.
    So I doubt local residents outside the city will welcome this kind of initiative with open arms either. Objection yer Honour and all that!

    Aodhan O'Riordan formerly of the last Government's parish was all for this, but it would have been in the city centre AFAIS. the Merchant and the other centres, right beside the tourist enclaves.

    Anyway. Let's see what will happen.

    The plan for the plaza should not be dismissed just yet.

    The follow up maybe though!


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,643 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    It is wacky and wouldn't work, wouldn't be used.

    I'm a cyclist, just put in a few Garda in the first few weeks and give a fixed charge penalty notice to any cyclists acting the ar$e, sorry I mean "cycling without due care and attention". Seriously, any lanes that make the journey longer will be ignored and cannot be designed to not have pedestrians walking across them.

    I don't see why it wouldn't be used, I'm sure they have similar in Holland going under roads. We're not talking the port tunnel here, and it wouldn't be easily accessible for junkies etc if it was designed to connect directly into the adjoining cycle lanes.

    Currently you can cycle from Dame Street to Westmoreland Street, & assuming you don't get stopped by the pedestrian lights you can cycle fast and a lot of cyclists use that route. If this plaza is in the way and it's covered in pedestrians who have right of way at all times it'll become very difficult to cycle from Dame to Westmoreland. "Acting the ar$e" is a vague descriptions - my fear is the council and the guards will take the easy option and just put up a load of signs saying "Cyclists Dismount".

    I suppose the other option is to direct cyclists down Parliament St and onto the north quays cycle lane, but that's still in planning.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,606 ✭✭✭schemingbohemia


    They're not going to dig up college green again (especially so soon after the LUAS works), the amount of services that run underneath the surface would just cause an absolute nightmare. It's a solution to a non-existent problem. Yes, cyclists will have to go slower or find an alternative route, that's not exactly unsurmountable and certainly doesn't require a massively expensive tunnel!

    Never seen anything similar in the Netherlands.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,225 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    I was just thinking today, while more car bans and indeed taxi bans are required, e.g. Bachelor's Walk, George's st etc.
    What does one do when the buses cease at 11:20? People are still working, socializing etc. and they'll have no means of getting around. The only option is the 2 night per week, 1990s style, 'nitelink' service. Which is so expensive people living within the M50 could get a taxi more economically. The 'nitelink' also does not come with any online route information, real time etc. it is outbound only and doesn't pick up anywhere on the way between Westmoreland st and the burbs.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,483 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    cgcsb wrote: »
    I was just thinking today, while more car bans and indeed taxi bans are required, e.g. Bachelor's Walk, George's st etc.
    What does one do when the buses cease at 11:20? People are still working, socializing etc. and they'll have no means of getting around. The only option is the 2 night per week, 1990s style, 'nitelink' service. Which is so expensive people living within the M50 could get a taxi more economically. The 'nitelink' also does not come with any online route information, real time etc. it is outbound only and doesn't pick up anywhere on the way between Westmoreland st and the burbs.

    That's really a different topic.

    But any increase in normal bus route operating hours will require increased subsidy from the NTA.

    There is some talk of it happening but I'd prefer to see the capacity issues on daytime services on certain routes addressed first.

    And most routes (with a few exceptions) have a last departure from city centre at 23:30 not 23:20!

    Also all Nitelink routes have some limited pickup locations en route.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,225 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    lxflyer wrote: »
    That's really a different topic.

    But any increase in normal bus route operating hours will require increased subsidy from the NTA.

    There is some talk of it happening but I'd prefer to see the capacity issues on daytime services on certain routes addressed first.

    And most routes (with a few exceptions) have a last departure from city centre at 23:30 not 23:20!

    Also all Nitelink routes have some limited pickup locations en route.

    My point being that you'll have large areas where cars are banned 24/7 and there are no public transport services at all in those areas for 6 hours of the day. It just seems silly to have road space that isn't used at all by pt for several hours being off limits to private transport. Basically it'll be lying empty for a quarter of the day every day.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,483 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    cgcsb wrote: »
    My point being that you'll have large areas where cars are banned 24/7 and there are no public transport services at all in those areas for 6 hours of the day. It just seems silly to have road space that isn't used at all by pt for several hours being off limits to private transport. Basically it'll be lying empty for a quarter of the day every day.

    Only for about 4 hours.

    Trams finish at 00:30 and start again at 05:00.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,225 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    lxflyer wrote: »
    Only for about 4 hours.

    Trams finish at 00:30 and start again at 05:00.

    Trams don't run on Bachelor's walk, Burgh Quay, Dame St, Geroge's St, Parliament St etc. Those streets will just be unused for those hours. Trams also only serve a fraction of the area served by Dublin Bus.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,483 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    cgcsb wrote: »
    Trams don't run on Bachelor's walk, Burgh Quay, Dame St, Geroge's St, Parliament St etc. Those streets will just be unused for those hours. Trams also only serve a fraction of the area served by Dublin Bus.

    I was referring to College Green.

    We don't know whether cars are to be banned from the quays or not - this consultation doesn't (inexplicably) deal with that. It merely says "additional bus priority measures".

    Taxis and cars will still be able to use Georges St and Dame St.

    I don't think allowing Parliament St for general traffic outside for several hours is realistic if it's bus only all day long - it would be too confusing.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,250 ✭✭✭Seamai


    Creating a large central plaza is in theory a great idea. It would be important, however, that a vibrant space is created rather than a barren lifeless space. In none of the artists impressions I've seen have there been any fountains, seating areas, kiosks etc

    I agree. While in theory I'm in favour of the idea, the artist impressions don't really sell it for me, they make the whole area very bleak and cold, maybe some trees would soften the look but then again would they block the view?
    If the plan is to use this plaza for civic events I don't think it's big enough. I heard some ridiculous figure on the news earlier this week like 250,000 people were in that space when Barak Obama made his speech from there a few years back, there is no way a figure like that would fit in that space.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,349 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    But whilst I know they pay mega rates already, could there be an option of private security (alongside backup from the Gardai), provided by the likes of Bank of Ireland, Trinity, and other entities who will benefit from this initiative?

    I await the tsunami of ridicule here. lol.

    Actually very reasonable suggestion, the Temple Bar association did exactly that (private security) for Paddys Day and it was a big success and they are planning to continue doing it for major events.

    In fairness to the Gardai, they do seem to be patrolling O'Connell Street and Temple Bar pretty much 24/7 now. At least I always see them any time I pass these areas. I don't think it would be difficult for them to extend these patrols to College Green.
    cgcsb wrote: »
    My point being that you'll have large areas where cars are banned 24/7 and there are no public transport services at all in those areas for 6 hours of the day. It just seems silly to have road space that isn't used at all by pt for several hours being off limits to private transport. Basically it'll be lying empty for a quarter of the day every day.

    Actually Aircoach and all the other private bus companies operate buses almost 24/7 on these routes.

    Also very serious rumours now circulating that Dublin Bus is about to start trialling a couple of routes 24/7 in the next few months.

    The reality is with greatly improving public transport in the city center and greater public transport priority we are very likely to see more and more buses, trams and Darts operating 24/7 or close to it.

    BTW one issue with a glass covered cycling tunnel would be the lovely view of ladies knickers that the cyclists would have of the ladies walking over it! ;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,460 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Seamai wrote: »
    I agree. While in theory I'm in favour of the idea, the artist impressions don't really sell it for me, they make the whole area very bleak and cold, maybe some trees would soften the look but then again would they block the view?
    If the plan is to use this plaza for civic events I don't think it's big enough. I heard some ridiculous figure on the news earlier this week like 250,000 people were in that space when Barak Obama made his speech from there a few years back, there is no way a figure like that would fit in that space.

    Plaza itself is NOT designed yet.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,483 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    loyatemu wrote: »
    I don't see the problem with moving the city centre bus stops to the edge of the CC - Connolly, Tara St and Pearse aren't particularly central either yet plenty of people still use the Dart to get into the city centre.

    The bus service is there to be convenient to use for passengers. Forcing people to walk longer distances does nothing but reduce that convenience. As it is most cross-city buses stop within a short walk of the two main retail areas. The notion of removing the mode of public transport that carries 2/3 of public transport users in Dublin further away from the city centre is just nonsense.

    Having stops in the heart of the city centre also facilitates interchanging between routes for people travelling cross-city.

    Having massive gaps between bus stops flies in the face of design theory on this (maximum suggested gap is 400m per TfL design guidance manual, and reduced where necessary particularly in town centres and residential areas to meet passenger requirements).

    A bus service is there to be convenient to use. People need to cop on to that and the vital importance that the bus network has for our city's transport needs when looking at these proposals which are heavily skewed towards 2.3m cyclists per year (6,500 per day as per the report) -v- 32m bus users.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,460 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Wait, this is a cyclist-oriented proposal? Since when??


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,687 ✭✭✭✭jack presley


    As long as they don't use the same type of paving as they did in the recent Grafton Street revamp, it could be nice.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,483 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    MJohnston wrote: »
    Wait, this is a cyclist-oriented proposal? Since when??

    Well the issue relating specifically to the capacity of College Green (which appears to be the driving force behind this) is down to a full lane of traffic being removed to install a two-way cycle lane around the Bank of Ireland.

    That is what is causing the perceived issue of too many buses and trams.

    I'd ask the question of could an alternative cycle route be provided - maybe along Anglesea St and Aston Quay?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,225 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    lxflyer wrote: »
    The bus service is there to be convenient to use for passengers. Forcing people to walk longer distances does nothing but reduce that convenience. As it is most cross-city buses stop within a short walk of the two main retail areas. The notion of removing the mode of public transport that carries 2/3 of public transport users in Dublin further away from the city centre is just nonsense.

    Having stops in the heart of the city centre also facilitates interchanging between routes for people travelling cross-city.

    Having massive gaps between bus stops flies in the face of design theory on this (maximum suggested gap is 400m per TfL design guidance manual, and reduced where necessary particularly in town centres and residential areas to meet passenger requirements).

    A bus service is there to be convenient to use. People need to cop on to that and the vital importance that the bus network has for our city's transport needs when looking at these proposals which are heavily skewed towards 2.3m cyclists per year (6,500 per day as per the report) -v- 32m bus users.

    The potential for interchange between buses will largely be unaffected. Bus stops aren't actually moving that far.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,460 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    lxflyer wrote: »
    Well the issue relating specifically to College Green is down to a full lane of traffic being removed to install a two-way cycle lane around the Bank of Ireland.

    That is what is causing the perceived issue of too many buses and trams.

    That doesn't seem to be true at all to me given how this project has progressed. Original plans removed ALL non-Luas traffic completely, and from my perspective as a cyclist, there's very little in here that makes life better for us, it's mostly about simply providing an open, pedestrianized civic plaza, and then the rest of the reasoning is about incorporating the new Cross City line into the area.

    You are comparing the negation in bus service provision against the perceived benefits for cyclists, but that's a tiny, tiny part of the plan. You have to weigh it against a whole heap of intangibles like "making the city centre more pleasant", "increasing the draw for tourism", etc.
    I'd ask the question of could an alternative cycle route be provided - maybe along Anglesea St and Aston Quay?

    Anglesea St will probably never be a go-er because it'd involve removing Temple Bar cobbling (and if you don't remove it, cyclists are not going to use it). Aston Quay is also a mess thanks to taxis and buses competing with each other for stopping spaces - it's probably the worst part of the quays to cycle on (though Batchelor's on the opposite side is pretty bad too).

    But, here's the thing - you can mitigate the need for north-south cyclists to use College Green by opening up the Trinity campus to them a bit, but cyclists aren't to blame for buses not being able to travel east-west anymore, that's because of the above.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,483 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    cgcsb wrote: »
    The potential for interchange between buses will largely be unaffected. Bus stops aren't actually moving that far.

    They would if certain posters (such as the post I quoted) had their way!


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,483 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    MJohnston wrote: »
    That doesn't seem to be true at all to me given how this project has progressed. Original plans removed ALL non-Luas traffic completely, and from my perspective as a cyclist, there's very little in here that makes life better for us, it's mostly about simply providing an open, pedestrianized civic plaza, and then the rest of the reasoning is about incorporating the new Cross City line into the area.

    You are comparing the negation in bus service provision against the perceived benefits for cyclists, but that's a tiny, tiny part of the plan. You have to weigh it against a whole heap of intangibles like "making the city centre more pleasant", "increasing the draw for tourism", etc.

    Anglesea St will probably never be a go-er because it'd involve removing Temple Bar cobbling (and if you don't remove it, cyclists are not going to use it). Aston Quay is also a mess thanks to taxis and buses competing with each other for stopping spaces - it's probably the worst part of the quays to cycle on (though Batchelor's on the opposite side is pretty bad too).

    But, here's the thing - you can mitigate the need for north-south cyclists to use College Green by opening up the Trinity campus to them a bit, but cyclists aren't to blame for buses not being able to travel east-west anymore, that's because of the above.

    The original plan (as per the official documents) was for the northern half of College Green (between Trinity and Church Lane) to become a plaza and for buses to continue along the southern half with a T junction with Grafton St and the rest of College Green.

    Buses would continue to operate through College Green to & from Dame St and Grafton St. There was NEVER any suggestion in the public realm that buses would be permanently removed at all.

    This was then changed by DCC because they decided that by putting in the two way cycle lane along the BOI it meant insufficient space for all the buses and trams and that as a result they could make a much bigger plaza. That's where we are today.

    I'd agree - the cobbling would have to go for part of Anglesea St if that option were used, and yes I would prefer to see a cycle route through Trinity opened up as well.

    This complete lack of joined up planning is farcical. This should have been an integral part of the ABP hearings for the LUAS line and is a disgrace that far more public transport users on buses face longer journey times to facilitate far fewer LUAS users. It makes no sense whatsoever.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,460 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    It's to facilitate tourism and public spaces, it's not to facilitate the Luas. The Luas is just the trigger.

    Edit: or to put it more correctly - the drive for this change comes from DCC's long standing push to form College Green into a civic space. Any east/west traffic movements were never going to fully align with that idea.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,483 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    MJohnston wrote: »
    It's to facilitate tourism and public spaces, it's not to facilitate the Luas. The Luas is just the trigger.

    Edit: or to put it more correctly - the drive for this change comes from DCC's long standing push to form College Green into a civic space. Any east/west traffic movements were never going to fully align with that idea.

    Well let us disagree on that - the official line for the change in the plans was that there was insufficient space to combine the buses coming from Dame St with the buses coming from Grafton St and the trams.

    Part of the reason for that is that at least one entire traffic lane is removed and replaced by a two-way cycle lane. That is one aspect that is causing the conflict here.

    I honestly think that these plans as stand are unworkable from a public transport perspective. The negative costs in terms of reduced interchanges, increased journey times and potentially increased resource requirements to maintain the existing service levels are too high a price.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,460 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    lxflyer wrote: »
    Well let us disagree on that - the official line for the change in the plans was that there was insufficient space to combine the buses coming from Dame St with the buses coming from Grafton St and the trams.

    Part of the reason for that is that at least one entire traffic lane is removed and replaced by a two-way cycle lane. That is one aspect that is causing the conflict here.

    You can disagree with me if you like, but here's DCC's own words from their presentation:

    "The space created by this measure can now be used to meet the City Council’s objective of creating a major civic space.
    This will allow DCC to fulfil it’s stated policies and objectives in the creation of an improved public realm “ the assembly room of the city “ at College Green."

    The wording of this clearly indicates that all of the change is driven by this objective. Here's another quote from the public consultation doc that they choose to highlight in the introduction:

    "The introduction of Luas Cross City in the College Green area provides a catalyst for major transport change"

    The word 'catalyst' being key there. It's very clear that the civic space is the primary objective, and Luas Cross City provides the kick up the arse to get it done.

    As for whether the new cycle path is what is causing east-west access to be removed, it seems doubtful when the presentation specifically talks about "conflicting traffic movements" such as the diagrams on page 12 and 14. Cyclists or not, they've clearly indicated that they think the conflict between east-west and north-south movements would be a big problem.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,483 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    MJohnston wrote: »
    You can disagree with me if you like, but here's DCC's own words from their presentation:

    "The space created by this measure can now be used to meet the City Council’s objective of creating a major civic space.
    This will allow DCC to fulfil it’s stated policies and objectives in the creation of an improved public realm “ the assembly room of the city “ at College Green."

    The wording of this clearly indicates that all of the change is driven by this objective. Here's another quote from the public consultation doc that they choose to highlight in the introduction:

    "The introduction of Luas Cross City in the College Green area provides a catalyst for major transport change"

    The word 'catalyst' being key there. It's very clear that the civic space is the primary objective, and Luas Cross City provides the kick up the arse to get it done.

    As for whether the new cycle path is what is causing east-west access to be removed, it seems doubtful when the presentation specifically talks about "conflicting traffic movements" such as the diagrams on page 12 and 14. Cyclists or not, they've clearly indicated that they think the conflict between east-west and north-south movements would be a big problem.

    I appreciate the desire by DCC to have a plaza, but they are to a degree creating artificial reasons to push it - such as these conflicts which are in part caused by the reduction in traffic lanes from the existing four to what appears to be two. Were there four lanes retained that argument about conflicts would be greatly reduced.


Advertisement