Dublin City car ban

markpb

DES440 wrote: »

The areas served could be served just as well and at a fraction of the price by building 2 spurs, 1 from Swords to the Dart line, and 1 from the airport to the Castleknock line.Essentially it is a vanity project rubber stamped by a Taoiseach from the constituency through which it runs.In the current climate it is a porrly thought out waste of money.No more no less.Of course it will have great public transport benefits, but it is not the most economical way of achieving them, thats all

How would you get a line from the airport to the Maynooth line (Drumcondra presumably, since it's the closest)? Underground would be the only option. That line would follow the same routing as Metro North does. The only advantage is that you don't need to tunnel through the city centre but since most of the cost of tunelling is the entry and exit points, you've hardly saved anything. The disadvantage is that you need to re-signal the Maynooth and Dart lines to handle the extra trains - the existing Dash2 project won't provide enough signally capacity to handle what MN and the Dart would. So all you've achieved is to put more pressure on the already crippled Dart network without saving any money at all.

ardmacha

Is this proposal a bus gate, i.e. mass transport vehicles given priority over individual transport? Or is it a typical bus lane where rich people can simply hop in a taxi? A proposal which restricts private cars possibly carrying two or three passengers and allows empty taxis drive around is not credible.

DES440

paulm17781 wrote: »

No one is questioning that. It may however shock you to learn that other people don't want to drive or don't like the fact the city is full of traffic..).

So a) Don't drive, no one's asking you to Paula
b) If you don't like traffic move to whatever rural backwater you please

paulm17781 wrote: »

Removing traffic from a pinch point will make buses run better. Someone from West Dublin can drive to any station on the Maynooth line and get the train to Connolly / IFSC or Kildare line, train to Heuston, Luas to Connolly (soon IFSC). Are you going to complain about these too?..)

Why should I drive miles out of my way, pay a fortune for parking and risk my car being broken into to get a train which is already over crowded.Or why should I pay for a train ticket on the Kildare line, and then pay for a Luas ticket as well from Heuston to Connolly and then walk a furthe KM to get to work, instead of the far cheaper option of driving.Maths clearly isn't one of your strong points

paulm17781 wrote: »

There are undoubtedly other routes too.?

Really....name them.I am dying to hear

paulm17781 wrote: »

This shows how little you actually understand about transport in the city. It is not an airport metro, I wish people would stop calling it that. It is a high capacity high frequency line linking Swords (a very large area) to the city, it is far from a vanity project

Re read my post, you will see that I address the Swords link as key to the project.My proposal costs far less than the 16bn currently being earmarked for metro north.You really should read posts properly before being so contradictory

paulm17781 wrote: »

Now, your posts are coming across as very aggressive, you imply those of us who like public transport are just tree huggers, no need for that, it weakens your argument. I live in Dublin city centre, I have done for 6 years. Removing cars from the city will make it nicer, it will probably do the traders a lot of good too (pedestrianisation of Grafton st.).

Agressive?Is that because you disagree with my point of view.Well I'm sure your 6 years in an urban area have given you enough deluded notions about who to make it a better place, but having lived here for 30 years, and planning to live here for the rest of my natural, I'm more concerned with people whose ideas are based on substance, figures and actual cost benefit analysis rather than environmentalists who have failed to adequately research proposals.You seem to fall into this category based on your unquantifiable support of the metro north, but this thread is actaully about the car ban in College Green, so to restate my point:

Without adequate alternative routes, the traffic will be re-reouted to already stretched roads such as the north quays.the result will be gridlock.

I am not against removing cars from specific areas or redrawing traffic flows, I am dead against doing so without analysing what the benefit will be, and what the detrimental affects will be.

The argument of most of the anti-car mob here seems to be "cars bad / car ban good", with no thought given to where the diverted traffic is going to be contained.

People seem to think there will be a rush to move to public transport because the buses MAY be a few minutes quicker.This will not happen as an intelligent person will know, because there is no incentive for people to leave their cars as there is no adequate alternatives. in place

DES440

markpb wrote: »

How would you get a line from the airport to the Maynooth line (Drumcondra presumably, since it's the closest)? Underground would be the only option. That line would follow the same routing as Metro North does. The only advantage is that you don't need to tunnel through the city centre but since most of the cost of tunelling is the entry and exit points, you've hardly saved anything. The disadvantage is that you need to re-signal the Maynooth and Dart lines to handle the extra trains - the existing Dash2 project won't provide enough signally capacity to handle what MN and the Dart would. So all you've achieved is to put more pressure on the already crippled Dart network without saving any money at all.

Wow, so resignalling costs the same amount as tunnelling from swords to stephens green.I'm not going to diginfiy this one with a response other than to say why would you tunnel from Drumcondra to the airport when you would obviuosly go over ground from Coolmine.

paulm17781

DES440 wrote: »

So a) Don't drive, no one's asking you to Paula
b) If you don't like traffic move to whatever rural backwater you please

I really hope Paula was a typo...

Now, as I said I live in the city, I've lived in Dublin my whole life. I've also been to many other cities and can see where Dublin has flaws and how it could be better.

DES440 wrote: »

Why should I drive miles out of my way, pay a fortune for parking and risk my car being broken into to get a train which is already over crowded.Or why should I pay for a train ticket on the Kildare line, and then pay for a Luas ticket as well from Heuston to Connolly and then walk a furthe KM to get to work, instead of the far cheaper option of driving.Maths clearly isn't one of your strong points

I'll hand back my computer science & maths degree so. :rolleyes: Have you looked at the cost of the train? Petrol is most likely costing you more. What are you spending on petrol every week?

DES440 wrote: »

Really....name them.I am dying to hear

New bridge going in at Macken st., go around by broadstone, go around the to the North circular, off the top of my head. I actually don't see how college green can affect you, in West Dublin, as much as you're making out.

DES440 wrote: »

Re read my post, you will see that I address the Swords link as key to the project.My proposal costs far less than the 16bn currently being earmarked for metro north.You really should read posts properly before being so contradictory

No you don't. You've taken no account of how the lines will get there, how it will be signalled, how the trains will run, what land needs to be acquisitioned. Your "proposal" actually has nothing in it. I'm not against the rail links you mention but they will not work as well as metro north. Fact. Also, is ~5Bn, but don't let facts get in the way, as you keep telling us.

DES440 wrote: »

Agressive?Is that because you disagree with my point of view.Well I'm sure your 6 years in an urban area have given you enough deluded notions about who to make it a better place, but having lived here for 30 years, and planning to live here for the rest of my natural, I'm more concerned with people whose ideas are based on substance, figures and actual cost benefit analysis rather than environmentalists who have failed to adequately research proposals.You seem to fall into this category based on your unquantifiable support of the metor north, but this thread is actaully about the car ban in College Green, so to restate my point:

So if someone disagrees with you (even thought I hadn't actually posted anything to you) you get aggressive, with that in mind I'm won't be replying to you again. You do seem aggressive, perhaps it's sitting in traffic so much. Also, your figures aren't based on fact at all and this has little to do with environmentalism, it's about making our city more pleasant. Also, you asked that people don't assume to know you, please then don't do the same to me. As stated your ideas have littel to do with substance, figures, cost benefit and you don't seem to have researched the proposals at all, if you did, you'd see the flaws in your "proposal".

monument

DES440 wrote: »

b) If you don't like traffic move to whatever rural backwater you please

You'll find that you'd be more at home in the average Irish town... here in Dublin, however, you are outnumber by commuters who are public transport users. Even a few cars slightly holding up traffic in the College Green area it disproportionally holds up bus users. And there are lots of cars in the area, it's a myth among car drivers that there are few cars in the area.

crocro

DES440 wrote: »

I am not against removing cars from specific areas or redrawing traffic flows, I am dead against doing so without analysing what the benefit will be, and what the detrimental affects will be.

Introduction of the bus gate followed years of discussion in Dublin council and the dept of transport (never accused of being rash). It was debated in the dáil transport committee and endless consultations were held with the AA the Dublin CCBA, etc. Opponents wanted it delayed and the result was a compromise, peak-only arrangement.

Of course it was analysed by the dublin city traffic dept and cost-benefit analysed and recommended by the independent Deloitte report for the dept of transport etc etc.

If it turns out to be a failure, it's a small matter to remove it.

Any inconvenience to cars is introduced in this way. Strongly opposed and delayed for years while people predict armageddon. Grafton street pedestrianisation was proposed in the 1960s and gradually restricted to traffic over a 10 year period from the 80s to the 90s.

Carawaystick

DES440 wrote: »

Has anyone ever seen much in the way of traffic jams in College Green?I think not.I drive through it twice a day at peak times, and the only delay is in the evening coming by Trinity College because of all the buses blocking lanes.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about College Green in Dublin, the one outside of the University of Dublin at the eastern end of Dame St??? where traffic is backed up every rush hour morning and evening I walked past for the last while. Sometinmes traffic is backed up by O'Neills and back to Nassau St and from the top of Parliament St

antoinolachtnai

I would say that I am a public transport guy. I have invested a lot of my own money in the idea that high quality public transport is critical for developing our city.

Please go easy on people who are concerned about this change. They have a legitimate concern. It is easy to say that you cannot improve services without reducing car traffic. But there is no plan or no promise to improve services as a result of the improvements that should be brought about by the bus gate.

Let's say it works really well, and it reduces average journey time by 5 percent on cross city buses and reduces the delays in bad weather by 20 or 30 percent. (making bus journeys consistent in duration is almost as important as making them shorter in duration. These are just my own estimates, I'm not basing them on the council's targets)

What will happen then? Will we get 5 percent more buses on existing routes? 5 percent more buses? A 5 percent cut in bus fares? Will there be a marketing campaign to drive patronage on the routes that benefit? Will the stops and routes be replanned?

There is really no plan here, or if there is, very few parties have had sight of it. It's not surprising that traders, commuters and residents are concerned that there will be no foll0w-through.

All credit to the traffic department and the Minister and everybody else for just hacking on through with the bus gate even though there is no clear objective and no clear strategic plan, but it really is no way to run a transport system.

You cannot badger people out of their cars. To get people out of their cars, you have to provide quality services that they actually enjoy using. There is no other way.

DES440

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I would say that I am a public transport guy. I have invested a lot of my own money in the idea that high quality public transport is critical for developing our city.

Please go easy on people who are concerned about this change. They have a legitimate concern. It is easy to say that you cannot improve services without reducing car traffic. But there is no plan or no promise to improve services as a result of the improvements that should be brought about by the bus gate.

Let's say it works really well, and it reduces average journey time by 5 percent on cross city buses and reduces the delays in bad weather by 20 or 30 percent. (making bus journeys consistent in duration is almost as important as making them shorter in duration. These are just my own estimates, I'm not basing them on the council's targets)

What will happen then? Will we get 5 percent more buses on existing routes? 5 percent more buses? A 5 percent cut in bus fares? Will there be a marketing campaign to drive patronage on the routes that benefit? Will the stops and routes be replanned?

There is really no plan here, or if there is, very few parties have had sight of it. It's not surprising that traders, commuters and residents are concerned that there will be no foll0w-through.

All credit to the traffic department and the Minister and everybody else for just hacking on through with the bus gate even though there is no clear objective and no clear strategic plan, but it really is no way to run a transport system.

You cannot badger people out of their cars. To get people out of their cars, you have to provide quality services that they actually enjoy using. There is no other way.

This is my point.This bus gate/car ban is just an ill thought out sound bite from the council.So they can say "look, we're doing something to tackle the traffic problem, and help the environment".

It will not get anyone extra onto busses, and will cause traffic chaos.

DES440

Carawaystick wrote: »

Sorry, I thought we were talking about College Green in Dublin, the one outside of the University of Dublin at the eastern end of Dame St??? where traffic is backed up every rush hour morning and evening I walked past for the last while. Sometinmes traffic is backed up by O'Neills and back to Nassau St and from the top of Parliament St

Sometinmes traffic is backed up by O'Neills and back to Nassau St and from the top of Parliament St

This is caused by the fact that there is little green time coming from Suffolk St to Dame St.You say you walked by it for the last while?Trust me as someone who has driven through College Green morning and evening everyday for years, it has never been a congestion point.

If trafic is backup to parialement street it is usually due to the 4 / 5 sets of traffic lights that break the traffic flow on Dame St

antoinolachtnai

I wouldn't say it's a bad plan. The trafic guys in DCC do think about this stuff and I think they generally do know what they're doing. It's just that it's happening in isolation. One half of the transport system (the road) is being radically revamped and the other half (the bus operations) is basically being left as it is.

I suspect that if they gave Suffolk St more green, that Dame St. would back up fairly catastrophically, but i don't know for sure. Junctions like that are monitored,and if a particular direction could benefit from more green, I'd say it would get it.

aliveandkicking

DES440 wrote: »

I drive through it twice a day at peak times

DES440 wrote: »

people prefer to drive.Its why they have cars

Des lets get to the nub of the issue. You have a problem with this because it will affect you not because it is a bad thing. Naturally you are going to have a negative opinion of something that will force you to change so you are unable to look at it objectively. If you did perhaps you would see it's in the interest of the common good that this goes ahead rather than take the selfish viewpoint only.

It has been pointed out to you already in this thread that you do have public transport options available aswell as alternative motoring routes.

Jip

paulm17781 wrote: »

Removing traffic from a pinch point will make buses run better. Someone from West Dublin can drive to any station on the Maynooth line and get the train to Connolly / IFSC or Kildare line, train to Heuston, Luas to Connolly (soon IFSC). Are you going to complain about these too?

They can drive to them alright but they won't be able to find parking, and when they eventually do they'll need someone standing behind them to wedge them onto the train. I take it you've never actually done this, and if you have not at rush hour.

paulm17781

Jip wrote: »

They can drive to them alright but they won't be able to find parking, and when they eventually do they'll need someone standing behind them to wedge them onto the train. I take it you've never actually done this, and if you have not at rush hour.

No, I understand that I live in a city and if I want a central location I have to live in an apartment rather than commuting from miles away as I want 3 bedrooms and a garden. Also, that was one example, there is cycling, cycling to the station, walking to the station, getting a lift to the station. Yes, I have gotten rush hour trains, I have also gotten them in London, New york and Paris. They get full. Whether you like it or not, it is another option. It is only busy because it is popular, are all those people wrong too?

DES440

aliveandkicking wrote: »

Des lets get to the nub of the issue. You have a problem with this because it will affect you not because it is a bad thing. Naturally you are going to have a negative opinion of something that will force you to change so you are unable to look at it objectively. If you did perhaps you would see it's in the interest of the common good that this goes ahead rather than take the selfish viewpoint only.

It has been pointed out to you already in this thread that you do have public transport options available aswell as alternative motoring routes.

Wow, this may just be the most patronising post I have ever seen.

Firstly, since I have not said where I live, nor the route I have to take since I have to drop people off on the way to work, I fail to see how someone can say I have public transport routes.

Secondly, don't be so patronising as to say I can't look at it objectively.I used my own case as an example, but the issue is that without any alternatives, the traffic currently going through CG will be forced on to already over packed roads, such as the north quays.

The fact remains that there has not been any real cost benefit analysis conducted into this car ban, it has simply been pushed through by city council, who lets be honest don't exactly have the past track record at managing this city.

Yes Dublin desperately needs public transport initiatives, and yes it needs a superior road netweork, but to simply introduce a car ban in the centre of the city during peak times serves no purpose unless it is done in conjunction with the provision of viable alternatives.

This is not an opinion, this is a fact.The green lobby on here seem to take great offence at the fact that someone is suggesting there are significant flaws in the "plan"

DES440

monument wrote: »

You'll find that you'd be more at home in the average Irish town... here in Dublin, however, you are outnumber by commuters who are public transport users. Even a few cars slightly holding up traffic in the College Green area it disproportionally holds up bus users. And there are lots of cars in the area, it's a myth among car drivers that there are few cars in the area.

You see this is the kind of stupid point that stops this from being a purposeful debate.

monument wrote: »

And there are lots of cars in the area, it's a myth among car drivers that there are few cars in the area.

Thats right....those pesky car drivers and their evil conspiracies.......how dare they have opinions on anything......

monument wrote: »

You'll find that you'd be more at home in the average Irish town... here in Dublin, however, you are outnumber by commuters who are public transport users.

Well if car drivers are so outnumbered, then sure there's no problem with them using CG, as there's so few of them.Thanks, you just proved the argument.With all these people using public transport its clearly the busses causing congestion

The Bus Gate proposal will have limited benefit to Dublin Bus in the absence of meaningful route redesign. There have not been any proper assurances as to improved cycling facilities. City centre traders feel that it will do them significant damage. Private motorists. ----This is from the AA, and I don't think you can argue with much of it

Jip

paulm17781 wrote: »

are all those people wrong too?

Apparently only those opposed to the bus gate are.

DES440

Jip wrote: »

Apparently only those opposed to the bus gate are.

Did you not realise?Its against the law to oppose the bus gate.If you do, (and god forbid if you drive a car as well) then you deserve to be vilified and are not allowed to ever have an opinion again, cos by having your own opinion you're just being selfish

paulm17781

Jip wrote: »

Apparently only those opposed to the bus gate are.

No, they are making a big deal over nothing.

Good selective quoting by the way. :rolleyes:

paulm17781

DES440 wrote: »

Did you not realise?Its against the law to oppose the bus gate.If you do, (and god forbid if you drive a car as well) then you deserve to be vilified and are not allowed to ever have an opinion again, cos by having your own opinion you're just being selfish

You told someone not to assume to know you. Pay us the same respect.

DES440

paulm17781 wrote: »

You told someone not to assume to know you. Pay us the same respect.

When did I claim to know you.You stated I was selfish for opposing the bus gate di you not?

Are you suggesting that all of my previous comment refers to you?Do you subscribe to those views?I never said you did, yet I seem to have hit some kind of a nerve.


Why are you so against people who oppose the bus gate actually holding such a view

DES440

paulm17781 wrote: »

No, they are making a big deal over nothing

Whose making a big deal?I'm against it, I am voicing my opinion.The PC lobby seem to be very angry that someone is against it.Also, maybe it is nothing to you (as you have stated above, but to others it is actually quite important, be they for against the proposal.

Can I suggest if as you say above it is "Nothing" to you, then you cease posting on the subject and leave it to people to whom the issue actually does matter

paulm17781

DES440 wrote: »

When did I claim to know you.You stated I was selfish for opposing the bus gate di you not?

No, no I didn't. Yet you said we're all tree huggers who vilify car drivers and don't allow them to have opinions. You keep posting on what we all think. You also referred to us as the green lobby. Get off your high horse, you look ridiculous on it.

DES440 wrote: »

Are you suggesting that all of my previous comment refers to you?Do you subscribe to those views?I never said you did, yet I seem to have hit some kind of a nerve.

Of course I'm not implying that, I don't have your ego. You've hit a nerve because you are extremely ignorant toward others here. You're not here to discuss, you're here to slate others, anger and insults are your best approach to discussion (as you said yourself) and you seem to think you're an expert in transport despite not having a clue about any of the current proposals.

DES440 wrote: »

Why are you so against people who oppose the bus gate actually holding such a view

Again, stop assuming to know me, you don't. Where did I say I was against people who oppose the gate holding such a view? No where. I am opposed to people thinking something like this is a big deal that will ruin their lives when in fact it will be a minor inconvenience you'll soon forget about. Much like all the other issues that cause NIMBYs to go ballistic and then improve the city, Luas off the top of my head. IIRC, in 1984 the DART was "a waste of money", Grafton st. pedestrianisation was going to ruin the traders there (according to them) when it was proposed. The only issue I have is people assuming any change to their routine is a problem when quite frequently it can make theirs and other people's lives better. Going by your attitude, if it were up to you, nothing would ever get done.

paulm17781

DES440 wrote: »

Whose making a big deal?I'm against it, I am voicing my opinion.The PC lobby seem to be very angry that someone is against it.Also, maybe it is nothing to you (as you have stated above, but to others it is actually quite important, be they for against the proposal.

Can I suggest if as you say above it is "Nothing" to you, then you cease posting on the subject and leave it to people to whom the issue actually does matter

It is something to me, I live in the city. In 6 months time you'll forget all about it and it will be "nothing" to you. Perhaps take a look at this from outside and stop thinking about your morning drive.

Ste.phen

Frankly I think the 'bus gate' is a terrible idea, and it will be proven so the first time some ass drives right up to it and everything piles up behind them.

Just ban private cars from using it, put a little extra enforcement on it, and the problem goes away without any of this 'bus gate' nonsense.

DES440

paulm17781 wrote: »

No, no I didn't. .

Yes you did

paulm17781 wrote: »

Yet you said we're all tree huggers who vilify car drivers and don't allow them to have opinions..

Because you don't

paulm17781 wrote: »

You also referred to us as the green lobby. Get off your high horse, you look ridiculous on it..

Losing the argument hear with petty insults Paul.Look ridiculous?I'm sure you mean sound ridiculous, and either way, here you go again berating someone for having an opposing view

paulm17781 wrote: »

you're here to slate others, anger and insults are your best approach to discussion (as you said yourself) ..

Never said that.You are now just making stuff up.Lies are the last bastion of a loser Paul

paulm17781 wrote: »

Again, stop assuming to know me, you don't. Where did I say I was against people who oppose the gate holding such a view? No where. I am opposed to people thinking something like this is a big deal that will ruin their lives when in fact it will be a minor inconvenience you'll soon forget about. Much like all the other issues that cause NIMBYs to go ballistic and then improve the city, Luas off the top of my head. IIRC, in 1984 the DART was "a waste of money", Grafton st. pedestrianisation was going to ruin the traders there (according to them) when it was proposed. The only issue I have is people assuming any change to their routine is a problem when quite frequently it can make theirs and other people's lives better. Going by your attitude, if it were up to you, nothing would ever get done.

Angry little man, I still don't get where I am supposed to have said I know you.

Anyway, since you have clearly stated and now reiterated that this issue isn't important to you:

paulm17781 wrote: »

I am opposed to people thinking something like this is a big deal.

Can you please stop wasting your time on an issue that isn't a big deal to you

DES440

paulm17781 wrote: »

It is something to me, I live in the city. In 6 months time you'll forget all about it and it will be "nothing" to you. Perhaps take a look at this from outside and stop thinking about your morning drive.

So why do you keep saying it means nothing?

Anyway, please stop assuming to know what I will be thinking in 6 months time.

You have not made one valid or constructive point.I have reasoned why I don't think it will work, and what needs to be done before successfully implementing such a proposal, you on the other hand have given out about every point made against the car ban, and offered no justification as to why it should be implemented before alternatives have been put in place

Try focusing on that last sentence:
why should it be implemented before alternatives have been put in place?

How will DCC handle the extra volume on the quays
What arrangements have been put in place to deal with the resulting gridlock
What are people who have no choice but to drive to do?

paulm17781

Last reply to you while I decide if I'll report that last post

DES440 wrote: »

Yes you did

Where?

DES440 wrote: »

Because you are

Proof?

DES440 wrote: »

Losing the argument hear with petty insults Paul.Look ridiculous?I'm sure you mean sound ridiculous, and either way, here you go again berating someone for having an opposing view

You're actually backing up my point...

DES440 wrote: »

Never said that.You are now just making stuff up.Lies are the last bastion of a loser Paul

DES440 wrote: »

Agressive?Is that because you disagree with my point of view.

QED.

DES440 wrote: »

Angry little man, I still don't get where I am supposed to have said I know you.

DES440 wrote: »

Because you are

Oh dear...

DES440 wrote: »

Anyway, since you have clearly stated and now reiterated that this issue isn't important to you:

Where?

DES440 wrote: »

Can you please stop wasting your time on an issue that isn't a big deal to you

What?

Last time I'm replying to you. Feel free to berate me all you like.

DES440

You see I really don't get your point.You object to every point made that opposes you.

You state on 3 occasions that the issue means nothing.I have quoted these above, a brief scroll back will shows you where you have said and repeated this

You offer no suggestions as to how this proposal is the best way forward.

All you actually seem concerned with is having a go at someone who disagrees with you.Not actually dismissing my points, just simply giving out.Calling me names, ducking any serious points.

I don't know why you are so angry at me refering to those in favour of the bus gate as the green lobby.Is this not an environmental issue?Public transport over private transport?Is "green" not a universally acceptable reference to such issues?


I never called you or anyone else a tree hugger.I said :

"Lets just go hug some trees and feel really good about ourselves because we've done something against people who drive."

I have explained why I am against the car ban, but this seems to really rile you.Do you hate the fact that I drive to work that much?