College Green Plaza -- public consultation open

cgcsb

wakka12 wrote: »

I agree tbh, the current situation just doesnt cut it, traffic re routing and car ban in college green would have been preferrable but if its not possible then it should be done, there should also be car tunnel around christchurch cathedral, and at the kevin street/cuffe street patrick street cathedral junctions, so sad that the area around our citys ancient and beautiful cathedrals are so completely dominated by cars

Car tunnels in the City Centre? what year is it?building car tunnels = more car capacity = more cars. Solution is to reduce the amount of road space available for cars, replace it with wider footpaths, bus and bike lanes.

Sam Russell

cgcsb wrote: »

Car tunnels in the City Centre? what year is it?building car tunnels = more car capacity = more cars. Solution is to reduce the amount of road space available for cars, replace it with wider footpaths, bus and bike lanes.

Actually, removing 50% of public car parking spaces and putting a charge, payable to DCC, for all business parking spaces, including the privately owned car parks, would make a big difference.

If you cannot park in the CC then you might as well park outside the canals and get a bus in.

If there are few cars, then the bus flies through to the city centre. With a 90 minute ticket, why would you try and drive?

buffalo

cgcsb wrote: »

Councillors are there to represent their constituents. There are literally no ordinary members of the travelling public lobbying against a car free quays. The only detractors are the car park owners, 0.01% of the electorate. How else do you explain it being voted down?

There are plenty of ordinary members of the public who want to be able to drive down the quays - they drive that way every morning and every evening! See also the residents in the nearby areas who fear that car traffic might redirect through their neighbourhoods. So it's a potential vote-losing move.

Car park owners hide behind a facade of "Dublin businesses". If Dublin businesses are against something, of course councillors will take some notice.

See also councillors who just vote against any radical change without any apparent logic.

No need to bribe anyone.

wakka12

cgcsb wrote: »

Car tunnels in the City Centre? what year is it?building car tunnels = more car capacity = more cars. Solution is to reduce the amount of road space available for cars, replace it with wider footpaths, bus and bike lanes.

Yes but they are vital arteries of traffic for the city and will always be busy regardless of how unpopular driving becomes in dublin, putting them underground (it is a relatively small length of road Im talking about anyway) would give important central routes in the city back to the pedestrians of the city, dont need to be completely pedestrianised fully, but dealing with such intense traffic north south east and west at many of the locations I listed below is what gives those areas such an unpleasant and car dominated atmosphere

From cuffe lane to the patrick street- 680m long, put all east west traffic undergournd, pedestrians could then safely spill across from camden to aungier street and the other laneways nearby
Winetavern street 200 m long, put all north south traffic underground, would effectively create a new semi pedestrianised cook street linking dublin east to west, the green areas around wood quay would feel like a plaza and link templebar to the liberties, and itd be so nice to be able to walk under and around christchurch

Crescent from Cristchurch place to ushers Quay - approx 500 m length of road - would link up really nicely with the above and allow continuation of dame street to thomas street relatively uninterrupated, if they were put undeground I think it would result is a really lively and important civic plaza in the area around christchurch place


Camden-aungier-georges street would be so nice if pedestrianised but is obviously unfeasible and probably too costly to put such a long road undeground - 1.6km

Zebra3

Sam Russell wrote: »

Actually, removing 50% of public car parking spaces and putting a charge, payable to DCC, for all business parking spaces, including the privately owned car parks, would make a big difference.

If you cannot park in the CC then you might as well park outside the canals and get a bus in.

If there are few cars, then the bus flies through to the city centre. With a 90 minute ticket, why would you try and drive?

People would still use the city to drive through.

Sam Russell

Zebra3 wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

Actually, removing 50% of public car parking spaces and putting a charge, payable to DCC, for all business parking spaces, including the privately owned car parks, would make a big difference.

If you cannot park in the CC then you might as well park outside the canals and get a bus in.

If there are few cars, then the bus flies through to the city centre. With a 90 minute ticket, why would you try and drive?

People would still use the city to drive through.

Maybe, but all day parking would eliminate much of the peak time traffic, and reduce the day time traffic. The drive through traffic would find it easier to avoid the city centre if there was less congestion generally.

Remember how much illegal parking took place before clamping, then it became easy to park, well for a time. Upping enforcement and the fines to eye watering levels again might also help.

Garda enforcement would also help reduce the problem, plus the use of ANPR cameras to issue fines automatically for traffic offences.

Traffic takes the easiest route.

dfx-

KD345 wrote: »

This is the right decision IMO, they examined the impact and realised the negatives it would have on surrounding areas. As a bus user this plan would have been disasterous for services.

But it's so glaringly obviously wrong so this sort of proposal to get this far is infuriating.

prinzeugen

Zebra3 wrote: »

Shameful decision.

Another step backwards for the city.

Prioritising polluting vehicles that carry very small numbers of people over creating a healthier safer place in the heart of the city.

It’s stuff like this that causes the city to get left behind in quality of life rankings.

All to keep a small number of selfish self-entitled people happy.

It would have screwed bus passengers also not just car drivers. The only selfish people are the ones that wanted this.

Also banning traffic is not going to suddenly make Dublin city centre safer. There are social issues that can make it a dangerous place to be traffic or no traffic.

I am glad this is dead.

cgcsb

buffalo wrote: »

There are plenty of ordinary members of the public who want to be able to drive down the quays - they drive that way every morning and every evening! See also the residents in the nearby areas who fear that car traffic might redirect through their neighbourhoods. So it's a potential vote-losing move.

Car park owners hide behind a facade of "Dublin businesses". If Dublin businesses are against something, of course councillors will take some notice.

See also councillors who just vote against any radical change without any apparent logic.

No need to bribe anyone.

But this is all irrational

Nermal

There needs to be some method for projects of a certain size/importance to totally bypass ABP.

Sam Russell

Nermal wrote: »

There needs to be some method for projects of a certain size/importance to totally bypass ABP.

Well the reason given for rejection centred on the lack of proper studis - such as on the effect on pedestrian routes because of the narrow pavements etc.

It was quite a shoddy piece of work given the umber citations of missing studies.

Zebra3

prinzeugen wrote: »

It would have screwed bus passengers also not just car drivers. The only selfish people are the ones that wanted this.

Also banning traffic is not going to suddenly make Dublin city centre safer. There are social issues that can make it a dangerous place to be traffic or no traffic.

I am glad this is dead.

Buses could've been rerouted.

Remove the space wasters.

wakka12

prinzeugen wrote: »

It would have screwed bus passengers also not just car drivers. The only selfish people are the ones that wanted this.

Also banning traffic is not going to suddenly make Dublin city centre safer. There are social issues that can make it a dangerous place to be traffic or no traffic.

I am glad this is dead.

They should submit a new proposal where the busses pass through alongside the luas line. The plaza proposal is not to make Dublin safer

hmmm

Years of work and waiting around for a decision, wasted. As a commuter and as someone paying all these salaries through my taxes, it's infuriating.

Why does it take months to make a decision?
How can a proposal be made which would even be rejected in the first place? Can these proposals not be debated in advance in some way?
What is the plan B for if this doesn't work? Another plan to be drawn up, and another 3 years of waiting?

And now we are supposed to "trust" that our planners will get BusConnects right.

No. We need a new way of doing things in this city.

MJohnston

hmmm wrote: »

Years of work and waiting around for a decision, wasted. As a commuter and as someone paying all these salaries through my taxes, it's infuriating.

Why does it take months to make a decision?
How can a proposal be made which would even be rejected in the first place? Can these proposals not be debated in advance in some way?
What is the plan B for if this doesn't work? Another plan to be drawn up, and another 3 years of waiting?

And now we are supposed to "trust" that our planners will get BusConnects right.

No. We need a new way of doing things in this city.

Well, the NTA weren't designing the plaza for one thing (nor are they really designing BusConnects either)

buffalo

cgcsb wrote: »

But this is all irrational

What's your point?

_Kaiser_

I've said it before, I'll say it again... enthusiasts here aside, most people have zero faith in public transport (having been burned too many times before) and won't priotitise it over the workable (if far from ideal) alternative of driving.

People will not take the chance of being left stranded somewhere when a bus/tram inevitably (and frequently) fails to show, and seeing as Dublin's urban sprawl now extends almost 100 km away (thank you housing crisis), the time that would be wasted enduring this poorer choice is neither desireable or practical. Even inside the M50, it's generally too slow and inefficient to be worthwhile (the ongoing obsession with "An Lar"), not to mention increasingly expensive as well.

That's the reality of the situation for most of those "selfish/evil/polluting" motorists and why public transport will ALWAYS be the last resort for many - it's a bit like renting... seen as the option for those without a better choice.

But in truth I think the reason here is a lot simpler than alleged corruption (any proof of that?) just as it was with the shelving of BusConnects.... there's a potential election on the way, and none of the politicans involved want to be facing a backlash on the doorsteps because of the massive disruption and anger these changes would generate. Politics far outweighs buses and plazas I'm afraid.

MJohnston

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I've said it before, I'll say it again... enthusiasts here aside, most people have zero faith in public transport (having been burned too many times before) and won't priotitise it over the workable (if far from ideal) alternative of driving.

People will not take the chance of being left stranded somewhere when a bus/tram inevitably (and frequently) fails to show, and seeing as Dublin's urban sprawl now extends almost 100 km away (thank you housing crisis), the time that would be wasted enduring this poorer choice is neither desireable or practical. Even inside the M50, it's generally too slow and inefficient to be worthwhile (the ongoing obsession with "An Lar"), not to mention increasingly expensive as well.

That's the reality of the situation for most of those "selfish/evil/polluting" motorists and why public transport will ALWAYS be the last resort for many - it's a bit like renting... seen as the option for those without a better choice.

But in truth I think the reason here is a lot simpler than alleged corruption (any proof of that?) just as it was with the shelving of BusConnects.... there's a potential election on the way, and none of the politicans involved want to be facing a backlash on the doorsteps because of the massive disruption and anger these changes would generate. Politics far outweighs buses and plazas I'm afraid.

Classic. Let's not take steps to improve public transport because car drivers don't like the current state of public transport.

Grand so, keep things the way they are, good luck with the inevitable gridlock!

_Kaiser_

MJohnston wrote: »

Classic. Let's not take steps to improve public transport because car drivers don't like the current state of public transport.

Grand so, keep things the way they are, good luck with the inevitable gridlock!

The point is that telling people you're going to take away/reroute or significantly alter their existing choices (car OR public) and replacing it with massive disruption and the promise that "this time it'll be better... honest!" isn't going to wash with people who've been let down too many times before.

You want people to use buses/trams? Improve what's there now first ... improve reliability (buses that turn up as expected would be a start) , efficiency (routing - the aforementioned obsession with An Lar), costs (the same services that were there 10 years ago cost significantly more now), and make it a genuinely attractive and real alternative.

If the argument is that "we can't do that without the former" then no, I'm afraid it'll never happen .. as we saw with the overwhelmingly negative reaction to BusConnects from those NOT enthusiasts on dedicated forums like this one.

MJohnston

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

The point is that telling people you're going to take away/reroute or significantly alter their existing choices (car OR public) and replacing it massive disruption and the promise that "this time it'll be better... honest!" isn't going to wash with people who've been let down too many times before.

You want people to use buses/trams? Improve what's there now first ... improve reliability (buses that turn up as expected would be a start) , efficiency (routing - the aforementioned obsession with An Lar), costs (the same services that were there 10 years ago cost significantly more now), and make it a genuinely attractive and real alternative.

If the argument is that "we can't do that without the former" then no, I'm afraid it'll never happen .. as we saw with the overwhelmingly negative reaction to BusConnects from those NOT enthusiasts on dedicated forums like this one.

Hey man, guess what? The only way to significantly improve reliability, efficiency, and as a result costs, for buses (with or without BusConnects) is to get rid of cars from the city centre.
I'm past caring what 'washes' really, because the loudest members of the general public are usually the most ignorant. I only wish the more forward-looking majority were a bit more outspoken about their support of infrastructure projects.

Anyway, I'm done explaining this over and over again. The project is dead, the thread should be too.

wakka12

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

The point is that telling people you're going to take away/reroute or significantly alter their existing choices (car OR public) and replacing it with massive disruption and the promise that "this time it'll be better... honest!" isn't going to wash with people who've been let down too many times before.

You want people to use buses/trams? Improve what's there now first ... improve reliability (buses that turn up as expected would be a start) , efficiency (routing - the aforementioned obsession with An Lar), costs (the same services that were there 10 years ago cost significantly more now), and make it a genuinely attractive and real alternative.

If the argument is that "we can't do that without the former" then no, I'm afraid it'll never happen .. as we saw with the overwhelmingly negative reaction to BusConnects from those NOT enthusiasts on dedicated forums like this one.

The bus and luas are fine. I take them regularly and theyre both always on time, and theyre a little pricey but not outrageous

prinzeugen

MJohnston wrote: »

Hey man, guess what? The only way to significantly improve reliability, efficiency, and as a result costs, for buses (with or without BusConnects) is to get rid of cars from the city centre.
I'm past caring what 'washes' really, because the loudest members of the general public are usually the most ignorant. I only wish the more forward-looking majority were a bit more outspoken about their support of infrastructure projects.

Anyway, I'm done explaining this over and over again. The project is dead, the thread should be too.

Most of the recent proposed projects in Dublin are there to serve a minority with little thought to the majority.

And thats why they fail. This plaza and the Terenure - Ballsbridge quietway being good examples.

The minority shout the loudest and claim the majority are ignorant.

_Kaiser_

prinzeugen wrote: »

Most of the recent proposed projects in Dublin are there to serve a minority with little thought to the majority.

And thats why they fail. This plaza and the Terenure - Ballsbridge quietway being good examples.

The minority shout the loudest and claim the majority are ignorant.

That's always a sure-fire vote getter... proclaim that anyone who doesn't back your idea is ignorant/selfish/short-sighted/stupid/corrupt etc :rolleyes:

When you want to undertake big headline projects like this or BusConnects you ABSOLUTELY need mass public support... and insulting people just isn't gonna cut it.

hmmm

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

You want people to use buses/trams? Improve what's there now first ... improve reliability (buses that turn up as expected would be a start) , efficiency (routing - the aforementioned obsession with An Lar), costs (the same services that were there 10 years ago cost significantly more now), and make it a genuinely attractive and real alternative.

It seems to be all broad strokes. BRT. Bus Connects. College Green.

The relatively minor change at Bachelors Walk made a massive difference to bus commuters, until the broad-stroke LUAS was put through the middle of town and bus passengers were shafted every which way.

I fully agree - a focus on improving efficiency, reliability and relatively minor changes like building a few proper shelters would rebuild a small element of trust. The past year has shattered trust in public transport, and the public are resigned to a service which is pretty poor - and are resistant to change as a consequence.

Zebra3

prinzeugen wrote: »

Most of the recent proposed projects in Dublin are there to serve a minority with little thought to the majority.

And thats why they fail. This plaza and the Terenure - Ballsbridge quietway being good examples.

The minority shout the loudest and claim the majority are ignorant.

The car lobby is the minority selfish interest group.

The numbers speak for themselves.

prinzeugen

Zebra3 wrote: »

The car lobby is the minority selfish interest group.

The numbers speak for themselves.

College Green had nothing to do with the car lobby.

The only people promoting it were the greens and cyclist lobbyist groups.

Basically they wanted to inconvenience tens of thousands of people so they could get a little cycle lane through college green that most of them would never use.

You just need to look at the Twitter pages of these groups to see what the real agenda is. And it was never about a public space.

Zebra3

There was plenty of people who wanted it as a public space.

cgcsb

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

The point is that telling people you're going to take away/reroute or significantly alter their existing choices (car OR public) and replacing it with massive disruption and the promise that "this time it'll be better... honest!" isn't going to wash with people who've been let down too many times before.

You want people to use buses/trams? Improve what's there now first ... improve reliability (buses that turn up as expected would be a start) , efficiency (routing - the aforementioned obsession with An Lar), costs (the same services that were there 10 years ago cost significantly more now), and make it a genuinely attractive and real alternative.

If the argument is that "we can't do that without the former" then no, I'm afraid it'll never happen .. as we saw with the overwhelmingly negative reaction to BusConnects from those NOT enthusiasts on dedicated forums like this one.

So then things will only get worse with no change?
I disagree, I think there's enough intelligent people out there who aren't afraid of change. The only resistance to a car free quays was Arnotts car park. Most users of the North Quays are cyclists, followed by bus passangers. Car users are taking up most of the space and are a small minority of users.
If councilors represented the travelling public they'd want to improve the lot of the 70%+ users, granted there are exceptions there's a few Mannix Flynns and other regressive elements. The rest have to be bought.

cgcsb

prinzeugen wrote: »

Most of the recent proposed projects in Dublin are there to serve a minority with little thought to the majority.

And thats why they fail. This plaza and the Terenure - Ballsbridge quietway being good examples.

The minority shout the loudest and claim the majority are ignorant.

What are you smoking? a public plaza in the centre of the city is 'for a minority'?

Hurrache

prinzeugen wrote: »

It would have screwed bus passengers also not just car drivers. The only selfish people are the ones that wanted this.

Also banning traffic is not going to suddenly make Dublin city centre safer. There are social issues that can make it a dangerous place to be traffic or no traffic.

I am glad this is dead.

Preferring a public area for people to use as an amenity, as opposed to not wanting it so it can be used fleetingly in order to drive through it, and you're saying the former is selfish?

AndrewJRenko

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I've said it before, I'll say it again... enthusiasts here aside, most people have zero faith in public transport (having been burned too many times before) and won't priotitise it over the workable (if far from ideal) alternative of driving.

Are the hundreds of thousands of people who use public transport every day part of your clique ofy enthusiasts

cgcsb

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Are the hundreds of thousands of people who use public transport every day part of your clique ofy enthusiasts

Yes, 99% of them are travelling to the City Centre and want better pedestrian facilities when they get there. Bus issue can be solved by banning cars from the quays, and everyone can be happy.

prinzeugen

Hurrache wrote: »

Preferring a public area for people to use as an amenity, as opposed to not wanting it so it can be used fleetingly in order to drive through it, and you're saying the former is selfish?

Yes. Its like turning part of the M50 into a public park. And private cars have not been allowed through college green for ages. Bus users at all times of the day would be inconvenienced to suit a few cyclists going to/from the 9-5.

Consonata

dfx- wrote: »

But it's so glaringly obviously wrong so this sort of proposal to get this far is infuriating.

Oh, do give us an example of these "glaringly obvious" issues you see with this proposal

Shedite27

prinzeugen wrote: »

Yes. Its like turning part of the M50 into a public park. And private cars have not been allowed through college green for ages. Bus users at all times of the day would be inconvenienced to suit a few cyclists going to/from the 9-5.

What's it got to do with cyclists? It's a plaza for people

Hurrache

prinzeugen wrote: »

Yes. Its like turning part of the M50 into a public park. And private cars have not been allowed through college green for ages. Bus users at all times of the day would be inconvenienced to suit a few cyclists going to/from the 9-5.

Why are you fixated on cyclists? I never mentioned them.

However, to address your fixation with them, how do you not realise or understand that by making it more friendly to traverse the city by bike it will take more cars off the road, and people off buses and the Luas, making it more pleasant for everyone?

cgcsb

prinzeugen wrote: »

Yes. Its like turning part of the M50 into a public park. And private cars have not been allowed through college green for ages. Bus users at all times of the day would be inconvenienced to suit a few cyclists going to/from the 9-5.

The quays car ban will easily solve the bus issue, which is planned to happen anyway as part of busconnects. The number of cyclists is actually quite high, not 'a few' as you suggest, an building better infrastructure increases those numbers substantially.

n!ghtmancometh

Consonata wrote: »

Oh, do give us an example of these "glaringly obvious" issues you see with this proposal

The most obvious one would be by making the already miserable commute for the thousands of us plebs in the outer suburbs with no alternative to the bus, even worse by switching already ridiculously long routes like the 40, 13, 27 etc to use the quays alongside all of the the busses, coaches, taxis and private cars that currently make it a nightmare. All for the green line extension(which also should have never been built in it's current format, DCC ignored traffic models by Dublin bus that predicted the chaos it has caused) to be a bit faster and for people to sit and have lattes.

cgcsb

n!ghtmancometh wrote: »

The most obvious one would be by making the already miserable commute for the thousands of us plebs in the outer suburbs with no alternative to the bus, even worse by switching already ridiculously long routes like the 40, 13, 27 etc to use the quays alongside all of the the busses, coaches, taxis and private cars that currently make it a nightmare. All for the green line extension(which also should have never been built in it's current format, DCC ignored traffic models by Dublin bus that predicted the chaos it has caused) to be a bit faster and for people to sit and have lattes.

DCC dropped the ball on this one, I think due to corruption. The quays car ban and the college green plaza could have been put in place while luas was being built. None of these issues would have surfaced.

Neworder79

I don’t understand how the whole College Green discussion happens in isolation from Metro.

Dublin isn't alone in Europe in having to deal with a medevil city plan and bottlenecks. Many cities have developed cycle networks, removed road congestion, pedestrianised centers and regenerated public spaces.

Where Dublins is unique is our historical failure to deliver an integrated metro/rail network in the city. As noted in the An Bord Pleanála ruling infrastructure investment has been "very small". This left us with a city largely reliant on point to point bus and car transport, all funnelled through one core corridore.

College Green or any other initiative that removes road space will always become a flashpoint with business, planners and the public because there is NO TRANSPORT ALTERNATIVE for the majority of the population. It's always cart before horse. And sadly the transformative vision of the project is never even communicated or realised.

Sam Russell

When was Grafton Street pedestrianised? What happened to all the traffic? I remember seeing photos of it completely gridlocked.

What happened to the traffic when SSG was reorganised for traffic allowing better circulation?

The Quays were originally dual way on both N and S Quays, then it was East West on the N Quays, West East on the S Quays, and then that was reversed. Maybe we should have buses only on the S Quays and Cars only on the N Quays, or perhaps the other way.

Roads have become one way and pedestrianised from time to time because of congestion only for congestion to return after a while.

Pedestrianise College Green, and the traffic will sort itself out.

_Kaiser_

cgcsb wrote: »

DCC dropped the ball on this one, I think due to corruption. The quays car ban and the college green plaza could have been put in place while luas was being built. None of these issues would have surfaced.

Keep seeing this suggested here ... any actual evidence? It's a fairly serious accusation.

Shedite27

Neworder79 wrote: »

I don’t understand how the whole College Green discussion happens in isolation from Metro.

Coz if you applied for permission to build Metrolink/CGP/DU/BusConnects in one big whammy, you'd ahve 10 years of objections and hearing before you broke ground. Easier to get going on "smaller" chunks

dfx-

Consonata wrote: »

Oh, do give us an example of these "glaringly obvious" issues you see with this proposal

The very first one is right at the start - to close off the key pinchpoint for the city centre for a plaza without an alternative already established. This should've been where the idea was binned right away. Just rerouting around the narrow surrounding streets and the quays is not an alternative.

The city is nowhere near ready for it to be cut off. Build the metro, flyover, tunnel, spaceport or whatever else you like first.

monument

dfx- wrote: »

The very first one is right at the start - to close off the key pinchpoint for the city centre for a plaza without an alternative already established. This should've been where the idea was binned right away. Just rerouting around the narrow surrounding streets and the quays is not an alternative.

The city is nowhere near ready for it to be cut off. Build the metro, flyover, tunnel, spaceport or whatever else you like first.

What narrow streets are you talking about?

n!ghtmancometh

monument wrote: »

What narrow streets are you talking about?

The quays are narrow for bus purposes and for pedestrians when every bus route currently operating via CG and Dame St is funnelled down down them alongside the current coaches, buses, taxis and private cars that currently make them a nightmare to use. Pretending that you don't understand this makes you look like someone with very little consideration for the people who rely on these services daily who would have been severely impacted.

Perhaps you could combine your boards mod role with one in the NTA? You seem eminently qualified with facetious questions like that.

Stephen15

n!ghtmancometh wrote: »

The quays are narrow for bus purposes and for pedestrians when every bus route currently operating via CG and Dame St is funnelled down down them alongside the current coaches, buses, taxis and private cars that currently make them a nightmare to use. Pretending that you don't understand this makes you look like someone with very little consideration for the people who rely on these services daily who would have been severely impacted.

If you banned cars off the quays wouldn't be too narrow for buses. I personally think there should be limits on the number of private buses and taxis in the city centre at peak times. You could implement a system where only a certain amount of taxis are allowed trade at peak times in the city centre this could be done through special licensing system similar to the airport similar could be done with private buses. This would give buses, pedestrians, cyclists and trams in public service absolute priority at peak times.

AndrewJRenko

Stephen15 wrote: »

If you banned cars off the quays wouldn't be too narrow for buses. I personally think there should be limits on the number of private buses and taxis in the city centre at peak times. You could implement a system where only a certain amount of taxis are allowed trade at peak times in the city centre this could be done through special licensing system similar to the airport similar could be done with private buses. This would give buses, pedestrians, cyclists and trams in public service absolute priority at peak times.

If you removed parking (storage of private property on public spaces) from the quays, you'd have a lot more space for buses, or to widen the paths for pedestrians.

Marcusm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If you removed parking (storage of private property on public spaces) from the quays, you'd have a lot more space for buses, or to widen the paths for pedestrians.

I’d have to agree with this. I drive along the quays regularlyalthiugh I don’t need to plus I often park on Ormonde Quay etc. The reality is the quays would be much better suited to public transport only. Free up congestion, improve journey times and certainty of journey time, encourage intermodal shift. Plus shut College Green to all traffic. Be clear and be certain, not like the bus gate where it needs to be monitored to be certain. Use rising bollards where necessary to control access for taxis and delivery vehicles. Regulate delivery versus to minimise disruption.

AndrewJRenko

Marcusm wrote: »

Use rising bollards where necessary to control access for taxis and delivery vehicles.

Or, just use them for the lols

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIas-5pwpZk