Mar 2017 proposal: park & ride to be charged. Jun 2017 WCC vote no charge

cocker5

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Such patronising arguments that because you can afford an extra €10 a week everyone else can. I'd love to see your proof of this! You seem to be asserting it as a fact with nothing backing the fact up other than your opinion.

Not only that but you seem to ignore everything in this discussion apart from the cost.

Ill just say the people who are "freaking out" over a possible charge of €2 for an entire days parking fee :rolleyes: must really have little else going on in the life. I'm sorry but the reality it is €2 - end of...

jobless

cocker5 wrote: »

Ill just say the people who are "freaking out" over a possible charge of €2 for an entire days parking fee :rolleyes: must really have little else going on in the life. I'm sorry but the reality it is €2 - end of...

its not just 2 euro if you use it everyday, it all adds up over the year..... 500 a year is a lot of money to some people....

recedite

jobless wrote: »

its not just 2 euro if you use it everyday, it all adds up over the year..... 500 a year is a lot of money to some people....

And all those 500's add up to a lot of money for WCC.
All this petty squabbling over the money, and no real attempt at a creative solution.
They do say people get the politicians they deserve

Wicklow Will

I'd be very interested to know just how many of the people who've contributed here, have actually submitted objections to the proposed introduction of parking charges?

We can all complain here as much as we like, but unless we submit objections to WCC, it'll all count for nothing!

Annasopra

recedite wrote: »

And all those 500's add up to a lot of money for WCC.
All this petty squabbling over the money, and no real attempt at a creative solution.
They do say people get the politicians they deserve

I am not sure what your point is really. There is a discussion here on local government policy. There was a call for a public consultation on parking bye laws. Some agree with the proposal to charge at the park and ride. Others don't.

loyatemu

people were handing out fliers about this at the station this morning.

CramCycle

cocker5 wrote: »

and ill go back to my actual point €2??? even €5 come on people its hardly first world problems here!!!

For you maybe, for others it is the fine line between eating well and barely surviving.

recedite wrote: »

All this petty squabbling over the money, and no real attempt at a creative solution.
They do say people get the politicians they deserve

I am not a town planner and have no idea what is feasible, allowed or would be welcomed by the community. I know that the current suggestion is not a suitable one, maybe the town planners and engineers employed by the tax payer might make some alternative suggestions? Constructive engagement with Irish Rail would be a good start, what are they willing to provide if moves are made to make it more attractive? Could they partially co fund any solution, or provide rebate based on increasing numbers over time?

Wicklow Will wrote: »

I'd be very interested to know just how many of the people who've contributed here, have actually submitted objections to the proposed introduction of parking charges?

I have, I presume most people who have responded aginast, I know several friends in the area have also written in.

patrickpc

CramCycle wrote: »

For you maybe, for others it is the fine line between eating well and barely surviving.
I am not a town planner and have no idea what is feasible, allowed or would be welcomed by the community. I know that the current suggestion is not a suitable one, maybe the town planners and engineers employed by the tax payer might make some alternative suggestions? Constructive engagement with Irish Rail would be a good start, what are they willing to provide if moves are made to make it more attractive? Could they partially co fund any solution, or provide rebate based on increasing numbers over time?
I have, I presume most people who have responded aginast, I know several friends in the area have also written in.

@Cramcycle -

Do you mind me asking what points you put in your objection. I am going to email today but I think it would be best if we sang off the same hymn sheet.

While €2 a day may not seem much it adds up to about €500 / year after tax or about a €1,000 before tax. I can't see why anyone should accept a €1000 pay cut without putting up a protest or at least send an email to parkingbyelaws@wicklowcoco.ie to complain. The more people complain the less likely this new tax will be introduced.

eigrod

patrickpc wrote: »

@Cramcycle -

Do you mind me asking what points you put in your objection. I am going to email today but I think it would be best if we sang off the same hymn sheet.

I think the opposite. You should put forward your own objections as to how it will affect you, not ones you've plagiarised from someone else or from the internet.

patrickpc

eigrod wrote: »

I think the opposite. You should put forward your own objections as to how it will affect you, not ones you've plagiarised from someone else or from the internet.

Fair enough putting forward your own objections but I'm sure that there are plenty of grounds for objection (or other solutions to propose) that I won't think of but wish I had so no harm in hearing what other people think.

I notice you didn't mention what your own objections are - care to share and not just knock?

CramCycle

patrickpc wrote: »

@Cramcycle -

Do you mind me asking what points you put in your objection. I am going to email today but I think it would be best if we sang off the same hymn sheet.

While €2 a day may not seem much it adds up to about €500 / year after tax or about a €1,000 before tax. I can't see why anyone should accept a €1000 pay cut without putting up a protest or at least send an email to parkingbyelaws@wicklowcoco.ie to complain. The more people complain the less likely this new tax will be introduced.

eigrod wrote: »

I think the opposite. You should put forward your own objections as to how it will affect you, not ones you've plagiarised from someone else or from the internet.

I agree with eigrod, that putting it in your own words would be most beneficial but here is what I wrote, not elegant and better ways to say it have come up since:

Hello,

In reference to Page 34, (Page 4 of Schedule . While the fee is not particularly high for the park and ride, it is extremely short sighted and narrow minded to start charging for a facility that is effectively reducing traffic and promoting public transport. Bar petitioning Irish rail for subsidies if you promote the option, it really should be left alone.

Having a useful park and ride facility, not only promotes public transport use but also may encourage people who use said transport to increase footfall in the general area, therefore being beneficial to local businesses and by extension, everyone in the locality.

Regards

recedite

Has anybody come up with an argument that still applies if the car park remains full after parking charges are introduced?

CramCycle

recedite wrote: »

Has anybody come up with an argument that still applies if the car park remains full after parking charges are introduced?

What difference does that make? If it doesn't remain full, then it has effectively ruined the point of it, if it does remain full, all it does is show that the problem was never tackled, just some tried to kick it down the road. Despite being a capitalist country, not everything is about making money.

recedite

The points people are making in their e-mails to WCC about "promoting the use of public transport" are not valid if the car park is still likely to be full after the charges are introduced.

For those points to be valid, you would have to be proposing more parking capacity and/or more trains.

Annasopra

recedite wrote: »

The points people are making in their e-mails to WCC about "promoting the use of public transport" are not valid if the car park is still likely to be full after the charges are introduced.

For those points to be valid, you would have to be proposing more parking capacity and/or more trains.

Bit of a pedantic argument really. The point isnt about promoting more use of public transport but continuing the policy of promoting use of public transport. And also just because people are not necessarily supporting charging doesnt mean they don't support more space.

recedite

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

And also just because people are not necessarily supporting charging doesnt mean they don't support more space.

But more space does not seem to be on the cards. And the thing people are writing in to complain about is the onset of the parking fees.
So if moving from a situation where its "first come first served" to a situation where its "those who are willing to pay", which is the more environmentally friendly option?

I suspect the latter. As was already mentioned...

loyatemu wrote: »

.. Some users may switch to walking or cycling to the station freeing up spaces for people driving from further away. Obviously if they bring in the charge and the carpark ends up half-empty, then they've got the price wrong, but I suspect the correct price is more than €0.

I completely understand people's feeling that their money is better in their own pocket than in WCC's pocket, and I totally agree with it. But lets not pretend this is about high-minded ideals to promote sustainability. Its about public officials trying to grab money from the people, and the people trying to resist that.

Annasopra

recedite wrote: »

But more space does not seem to be on the cards. And the thing people are writing in to complain about is the onset of the parking fees.
So if moving from a situation where its "first come first served" to a situation where its "those who are willing to pay", which is the more environmentally friendly option?

I suspect the latter. As was already mentioned...


I completely understand people's feeling that their money is better in their own pocket than in WCC's pocket, and I totally agree with it. But lets not pretend this is about high-minded ideals to promote sustainability. Its about public officials trying to grab money from the people, and the people trying to resist that.

Who said more space isn't on the cards? There's a council owned piece of land on the other side beside the doctors.

As for your second argument. No, not everyone is purely looking at this selfishly. There are many who are genuine in their argument here about good public policy. So please don't falsely portray everyone in this as purely motivated by selfish greed. It's not true.

CramCycle

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

As for your second argument. No, not everyone is purely looking at this selfishly. There are many who are genuine in their argument here about good public policy. So please don't falsely portray everyone in this as purely motivated by selfish greed. It's not true.

I live nearby, I pretty much cycle everywhere. There is no personal benefit to me to having more space, less space or leaving it as is. I still firmly believe that as public policy, more space makes more sense in regards promoting public transport, it also makes more sense for the local economy as the more people who use the park and ride, the more likely you are to get people who will stop in on their way home. Charging people, even a small amount and it still makes more sense to use P&R is off putting to some, they will start to fill in spaces in residential areas, the council will then get complaints and have to introduce parking permits and in the long run, there is a strong chance, less people who might have availed of it will use it. It will be long term detrimental to the local economy.

recedite

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

There's a council owned piece of land on the other side beside the doctors.

We're going around in circles now;I'm the one who mentioned that land earlier, and the other piece of under-used land on the other side, containing the house.

I'd suggest if people are going to lobby the council, they should lobby for more spaces instead of just complaining about the proposed charges. Unfortunately though, charges are all that is on offer. Nothing else.

Annasopra

jobless wrote: »

http://www.greystonesguide.ie/park-ride-for-e2-anyone/

looks like the council are going to charge people for the park and ride this year....
so essentially taking the incentive away from people to use public transport and add to the already congested traffic on the n11.... so short sighted

Great news today that Wicklow County Council voted to not introduce a charge at Greystones park and ride

eleMental

wow excellent news!!!!!!! perhaps all our lobbying helped in some way!

recedite

Or maybe they are making more money from the clamping by maintaining the status quo (ie a hopelessly overcrowded car park)

eleMental

What a difference a summer makes!! I've been using the 145 from Bray all summer (because the DART is so expensive from Greystones). Yesterday i drove down to the park'n'ride around 08:15 to get the 08:30 dart. There used to always be 20-30-40 spaces free at that time (I've not used the car park at that time since early June). Yesterday I was there at 08:17 and there wasnt a space to be found - there were cars already parked fully up on the footpaths, blocking the wheelchair / buggy ramps, on the grass verges, pretty much abandoned everywhere. They'd've needed 30+ clamps if they were going to clamp everyone illegally parked. It will be interesting to see how this progresses once Glenheron and other similar developments start to fill up. Theres no point building 100's of houses if you dont expand existing public transport services / facilities / amenities to cater for the growth in population...... (Same is true of the 84X which is now generally much much fuller in the mornings and evenings..)

This isnt a complaint, more just an observation as someone who has lived here for 10+ years. You can see how developer greed doesnt align with government, county council and public transport providers indifference!!!

FirstIn

Going to get worse alright. A Main Street that's backed up with a traffic jam each morning. Nowhere to park your car or bike. Clubs and activities you can't get your kids in to. Schools oversubscribed.

Wait till all the houses are built at the harbour. Sorry marina. Jink's hill will be awful.

Unfortunately Greystones is a victim of its own success. They'll keep building houses , out of step with the infrastructural improvements. Greystones is most certainly not as good a place to live in now as it was. And it's going to get worse.

I though this was interesting.
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/taoiseach-leo-varadkar-defends-objections-to-constituency-development-claiming-area-has-been-blighted-36155759.html

karma_coma

If Greystones wants to succeed where other towns have failed, Wicklow County Council should prohibit anymore development on greenfield sites and should encourage densification of the town centre.

We should be happy more people want to live in Greystones.

If we want to stop problems with lack of car spaces and high traffic volumes we should encourage new development to be centred near the DART station/ mainstreet. Allow high-storied apartment complexes so that people can actually live in the centre of the town and have amenities (schools, shops, out of town public transport links) within walking distance.

More people in a smaller area will also facilitate stronger business cases for more shops and services opening in said area, thus further improving life for residents.

It's very frustrating watching and sitting in ever increasingly worsening traffic during school runs/rush hour all the while more and more housing estates are getting built on ever expanding edges of the town. This is unsustainable, economically damaging development that I thought town planners, property buyers and developers would have learnt from after the last crash..

All these new residents of the town could have been housed in three or four attractive, architecturally unique and interesting high rises on vacant sites on/ near the mainstreet. Think the La Touche Hotel, The DART carparks, the massively underutilized land in the Burnaby?

REFLINE1

karma_coma wrote: »

If Greystones wants to succeed where other towns have failed, Wicklow County Council should prohibit anymore development on greenfield sites and should encourage densification of the town centre.

We should be happy more people want to live in Greystones.

If we want to stop problems with lack of car spaces and high traffic volumes we should encourage new development to be centred near the DART station/ mainstreet. Allow high-storied apartment complexes so that people can actually live in the centre of the town and have amenities (schools, shops, out of town public transport links) within walking distance.

More people in a smaller area will also facilitate business cases for more shops and services opening in said area, thus further improving life for residents.

It's very frustrating watching and sitting in ever increasingly worsening traffic during school runs/rush hour all the while more and more housing estates are getting built on ever expanding edges of the town. This is unsustainable, economically damaging development that I thought town planners, property buyers and developers would have learnt from after the last crash..

All these new residents of the town could have been housed in three or four attractive, architecturally unique and interesting high rises on vacant sites on/ near the mainstreet. Think the La Touche Hotel, The DART carparks, the massively underutilized land in the Burnaby?

This is Greystones not the IFSC, most of the people who have purchased recently in the area have done so because they have young families and want 3/4bed semi-d's not high rise apt's. Totally agree there is infrastructural demands associated but i think you're oversimplifying it.

loyatemu

yeah, realistically people are moving here to raise families in semi-ds; there just isn't that much demand for apartments. What the town will need (probably does already) is smaller homes for people to downsize to once their kids have grown up. The older estates around the town are full of empty-nesters.

As for traffic - the only solution I can see is to encourage more cycling and walking. The southern end of the town is well provided with cycle paths but once you hit the town centre, they disappear and you're thrown into traffic. With most of the schools at the northern end, this really discourages people from getting their kids to cycle to school. The only way to provide more space for cycling is to remove on-street parking which the council doesn't want to do because it generates income for them.

karma_coma

loyatemu wrote: »

yeah, realistically people are moving here to raise families in semi-ds; there just isn't that much demand for apartments.

See, I take your point about who the demographic is in terms of who's wanting to move here ; families/couples intending to raise a family.

The issue i'd take with the sentiment that "there isn't that much demand for apartments" is part of the Irish mentality that we need to raise a family in a semi-d with a garden.
This is what creates the knock on issues you raise of people needing to drive to shops/ schools/ amenities = traffic and difficulty planning for appropriate places to put shops/ schools.

Apartment blocks can be built specifically to cater for this demographic and do a better job at providing centralized services and facilities for the occupants & in my opinion, when done right, create happier, more connected communities:

Aparment buildings can be built to a high-spec, managed and maintained by a leasing company. The buildings have:

• Communal TV/function rooms where persons can socialise/ get to know their neighbours.
• Creche in house for when parents are out in work.
• Communal exercise room/ gym equipment.
• Communal laundry facility.

loyatemu wrote: »

As for traffic - the only solution I can see is to encourage more cycling and walking. The southern end of the town is well provided with cycle paths but once you hit the town centre, they disappear and you're thrown into traffic. With most of the schools at the northern end, this really discourages people from getting their kids to cycle to school. The only way to provide more space for cycling is to remove on-street parking which the council doesn't want to do because it generates income for them.

It's difficult to encourage this when a walk or cycle to shops/ amenities takes more than 10 minutes. Any longer and people will opt to travel by car.

You cluster three or four high rise aparment buildings near the centre of Greystones (or any town) and then town planning agencies can then more effectively and logically provide services like where schools should go to be walkable, shops, Garda stations, bus routes etc..



Anyway, perhaps this should have a thread of its own.

karma_coma

REFLINE1 wrote: »

This is Greystones not the IFSC, most of the people who have purchased recently in the area have done so because they have young families and want 3/4bed semi-d's not high rise apt's. Totally agree there is infrastructural demands associated but i think you're oversimplifying it.

Providing a logical solution isn't oversimplifying it. Yes, we'd need to tackle the attitudinal barrier to families looking to raise kids in sprawling, copy/paste housing estates but in my opinion there's really only two logical options:

1. Stop any further development altogether and cap the population of the town where it is. Perhaps not a bad idea..
2. Limit development to within 500m of the Dart station/mainstreet & enforce a high-density (persons per km² ) policy for new housing development within that space.