Parking and traffic in Phoenix Park

KaneToad

ronivek wrote: »

That’s literally one of the primary roles of a TD; to represent their constituents. What exactly do you think it is that they do?

I would suggest that a TDs role is to represent their constituents on issues of national importance.

Local councillors should be dealing with matters such as potholes, street lighting, bin collections, road closures.

Spanish Eyes

Larbre34 wrote: »

Well as you will have seen from the sh1tshow around the appointment of Ministers, especially in FF, that simply will not change until we move away from local multi-seat constituencies to a continental list system or hybrid list, but thats by the by.

As it happens, my representations were to take issue with the actions of a national body, i.e. the OPW, so why shouldn't I ask a national politician? If it was a Fingal CC or Dublin City Council issue, I'd have only contacted Councillors.

I'm laughing at your contention that the PP is for everyone, not just those in JCs constituency, thats been precisely my point all along!!

You seem to be mad as hell that the system is working pretty much as intended!

Ah not at all, it's nothing personal, and good on you for your tenacity with regard to the matter.

Glad you agree that PP is for everyone.

Spanish Eyes

ronivek wrote: »

That’s literally one of the primary roles of a TD; to represent their constituents. What exactly do you think it is that they do?

Legislate for us all. They are not local councillors.

The multi seat system means that they DO try to be the best at dealing with local issues to get ahead of their rivals at election time, and that often includes members of their OWN party. What a mess.

But I didn't intend for my posts to derail the thread into the sphere of politics, so let's move on I think!

ligerdub

bubblypop wrote: »

Pedestrians appearing from in between parked cars in the avenue, while cars speed up & down the road, is a road traffic safely issue.
Lazy drivers want to park in the avenue.
Along with commuters who don't want to pay for parking in town.

Oh for God sake! The first point is a ridiculous point in my opinion. It's an incredibly safe avenue. I can't for the life of me ever recall even a near miss down that place, and pedestrians for the most part are very visible to drivers. You'd have to go out of your way or do something pretty stupid to find yourself in trouble crossing that road, also you don't even have to cross it in most instances so it's a non-issue.

That's not to say it's impossible, but it's not a heightened risk. Also, these risks are part of parcel of everyday life, you might as well make the argument that every venture out of the house is problematic.

"Lazy drivers want to park in the avenue. " And? What's your point? If people want to be lazy then good luck to them, I'm not going to stand in their way. None of my business.

"Along with commuters who don't want to pay for parking in town." Again.....and? Let's say that's true for some, how do they complete the rest of their journey? Public transport? Cycle? If so then surely that's a good thing no. These people are clearly happy to take this option for part of their journey, so this suggests to me that the issue is more around the options available to people.

Also, it implies that parking there is supplied to people commuting into town....it isn't, and if it were used for that purpose there's only really a small bit of it that would be conveniently accessible via public transport to complete their journey.

ligerdub

ligerdub wrote: »

Oh for God sake! The first point is a ridiculous point in my opinion. It's an incredibly safe avenue. I can't for the life of me ever recall even a near miss down that place, and pedestrians for the most part are very visible to drivers. You'd have to go out of your way or do something pretty stupid to find yourself in trouble crossing that road, also you don't even have to cross it in most instances so it's a non-issue.

That's not to say it's impossible, but it's not a heightened risk. Also, these risks are part of parcel of everyday life, you might as well make the argument that every venture out of the house is problematic.

"Lazy drivers want to park in the avenue. " And? What's your point? If people want to be lazy then good luck to them, I'm not going to stand in their way. None of my business.

"Along with commuters who don't want to pay for parking in town." Again.....and? Let's say that's true for some, how do they complete the rest of their journey? Public transport? Cycle? If so then surely that's a good thing no. These people are clearly happy to take this option for part of their journey, so this suggests to me that the issue is more around the options available to people.

Also, it implies that parking there is supplied to people commuting into town....it isn't, and if it were used for that purpose there's only really a small bit of it that would be conveniently accessible via public transport to complete their journey.

First point is extremely valid, I have seen many near misses on the avenue.
Road safety issues are taken seriously, that's why there are laws etc, you may even think some if those laws are stupid, but they are there for a reason.

What's my point about lazy drivers? That there is no need for them to park on the avenue, they can park in a car park.

Commuters take up space that actual visitors to the park require. It's hardly fair that people who wish to visit the park cannot park in it because commuters are taking up all the spaces!

Pinch Flat

murphyebass wrote: »

As long as the cars don’t park in the trails I couldn’t give a ****e. Long live cyclocross!

Any road cyclist out for any sort of decent spin wouldn’t be cycling in the park anyway so it’s only those out for a toddle about the place on a Dublin bike or that who’d be affected by more traffic and pedestrians and sure they’re not in a rush anywhere so what’s the harm?

Let them in I say, great to see the park utilised and people enjoying it. Go watch the deer, kick a football, look at the trees, whatever. If that means you need to bring a car and park up so be it. It’s an amazing amenity that more people should enjoy.

It’s not just for Castleknockians.

You do realise that not everyone does cyclocross? plenty of commuting cyclists us it and it's also become popular with families - more more so during the recent during lock down when families felt much safer using it.

Larbre34

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Ah not at all, it's nothing personal, and good on you for your tenacity with regard to the matter.

Glad you agree that PP is for everyone.

Certainly I do.

My main point behind all of this is that the future traffic and access issues concerning the Park be dealt with in a comprehensive and transparent public consultation that is as participative as possible. Closing gates as an emergency measure and then just throwing away the key precluded that and I'm pleased that a proper course of action has been committed to.

beauf

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Yes you are correct, Chap Gate is one way going in. Forgot that. But traffic could exit at Islandbridge via Military Road. Thus avoiding the main avenue. But that would involve removing the barriers on Military Road.

I dunno, the park is so vast, I'm getting very confused now. Time for a tea break.

The problem with those gates is they are too narrow. They cause traffic jams. They did when they were too way. The issue is obviously too much traffic going through them.

But you can't fix the issues with the park without a holistic plan. Because its all interconnected. Both inside the park and around it.

murphyebass

Pinch Flat wrote: »

You do realise that not everyone does cyclocross? plenty of commuting cyclists us it and it's also become popular with families - more more so during the recent during lock down when families felt much safer using it.

Yeah so commuting cyclists are hardly rocketing through the park. And if you are for whatever reason use the road which you’re entitled to do.
Its only a few miles from one side to the other ffs.

And yeah for families use the cycle path and work around the odd random walker you encounter. You’re in no rush.

People making a mountain out of a molehill here.

Let cars in. Park up. Go and enjoy the park. Again it’s not just for a select few. Stopping cars coming in and parking is just restricting it to locals. BS of the highest order.

ronivek

KaneToad wrote: »

I would suggest that a TDs role is to represent their constituents on issues of national importance.

Local councillors should be dealing with matters such as potholes, street lighting, bin collections, road closures.

In general I would agree with you; however how would you suggest they adequately represent their local constituents if they’re unaware of the issues they’re facing? Hence people contacting them about the Park closures should be welcomed in my view.

I would also suggest closures impacting the largest urban park in Europe such that national news outlets cover it would probably count as ‘national interest’ to some degree also.

Also anecdotally I’ve often made representations to councillors and didn’t get much joy; eventually getting some assistance from various local TDs over the years.

Shefwedfan

Patser wrote: »

What's your answer to the polo grounds location then?
And cricketers?
And footballers?

Or you just going to throw abuse and ignore problem?

Are you honestly saying you don't understand that if the park is closed to general public that you wont allow any sort of vehicle into the park? Remember I did mention a parkNRide system. How do you think the bus gets into the park?


You do realize if they shut the park down to traffic the presidents car will still be allowed access, also cars to the US embassy. Or do you expect Michael D to hop out of car and walk up?

What about all the OPW vehilces? What is an ambulance needs access, are we going to tell them to walk to end of park?



Seriously a small bit of cop on.



A system with bollards on a buzzer, restricted people have the buzzer and can get access. THey have them all over UK and I seen them in Dublin before.


This is just common sense people.

Starting hyperbole about bringing horses on tram/trains, really??? do we need to go to that level?

beauf

bubblypop wrote: »

....Commuters take up space that actual visitors to the park require. It's hardly fair that people who wish to visit the park cannot park in it because commuters are taking up all the spaces!

Yeah, that doesn't explain the parking issues at the weekend, which are worse than a normal weekday.

They could simply fine all day parking if they were serious about removing commuter parking. The OPW could put its money where its mouth is on this issue.

Shefwedfan

KaneToad wrote: »

I would suggest that a TDs role is to represent their constituents on issues of national importance.

Local councillors should be dealing with matters such as potholes, street lighting, bin collections, road closures.

This is the problem in Ireland, nobody seem to know the difference between what a TD should do and what a councillor should do.


In reality Jack should have told them all to go to the councillors in area to resolve and the councillor would then escalate to him. That should be the way it works. But if he did that it would be a s**t storm, everyone would be on Joe telling about how a TD doesnt care, FF this, FF that. So he has to get involved.


ITs a political system which would work and should work but the general population doesnt know how it works

mrslancaster

It's probably a losing battle to try keeping the park open to cars as we'll probably follow the UK like always. https://www.mylondon.news/news/west-london-news/through-traffic-banned-2-londons-18574539

Clearly a brighter better world for the young, fit and healthy - forget about everyone else. Although it doesn't really surprise me after the way our older folk were treated for the past few months.

ligerdub

bubblypop wrote: »

First point is extremely valid, I have seen many near misses on the avenue.

Road safety issues are taken seriously, that's why there are laws etc, you may even think some if those laws are stupid, but they are there for a reason.

I find that hard to believe. In any event there are near misses all the time all over the place. It's not a particularly dangerous place whatsoever. Rather than posting the same point again I'd refer back to my previous response to you which explained why I find your overall argument on this to be weak.

I don't find traffic laws to be stupid and quite frankly I resent the implication that I said they were. You're not arguing in good faith with cheap tactics like that.

bubblypop wrote: »

What's my point about lazy drivers? That there is no need for them to park on the avenue, they can park in a car park.

Commuters take up space that actual visitors to the park require. It's hardly fair that people who wish to visit the park cannot park in it because commuters are taking up all the spaces!

Whose car park? Or they could just park in a place designated for public use, it's actually quite refreshing that such things still exist somewhere rather than the gouging of the general public that happens pretty much everywhere else on the island. Here's a mad idea, maybe they park on the avenue because that's exactly where they planned on going, not some hypothesized car park miles away.

I tell you what, when there's an issue where people can no longer visit the park because all the commuters are taking up the space otherwise taken up by visitors then I'll join in with you, but since that's not an issue I'm going to call balderdash on your claim.

I'm a regular user of the park, I'm up there about 4 days a week, sometimes more, at various times and days. I have no incentive to disagree with you as 1) I'm not a park in the park and commuter guy 2) I live about a 1km walk from the nearest park gate & 3) on the rare occasion where I do drive to it I've never once encountered a problem in parking in it.

There's some serious fantasyland stuff about what's going on in there in this thread.

Spanish Eyes

first day of reopening of park gates. No room at all for walkers cars on the footpath throughout. Not a nice look.

https://twitter.com/Pidge/status/1281621235865190406?s=20

Shefwedfan

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

first day of reopening of park gates. No room at all for walkers cars on the footpath throughout. Not a nice look.

https://twitter.com/Pidge/status/1281621235865190406?s=20

Is anyone surprised?



All because those people are afraid to walk a few extra yards, it is all pure laziness


Abosolute disgrace

mrslancaster

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

first day of reopening of park gates. No room at all for walkers cars on the footpath throughout. Not a nice look.

https://twitter.com/Pidge/status/1281621235865190406?s=20

well thats a disgrace. Would double yellow lines not solve that?

zerosugarbuzz

trellheim wrote: »

which 60 seconds ? The ones you are saving cos thats all anyones gonna save here.

And as for the poster complaining about statutory obligations the OPW can do what they like

"The Commissioners may from time to time make such alterations and improvements in the arrangement, laying out, planting, draining, and fencing of the Park as they think proper for all or any of the purposes aforesaid, and in particular may from time to time make, open, and maintain such new roads and paths in the Park, and from time to time close and break-up such then existing roads and paths in the Park, as they think proper." Phoenix park 1925 act .

As for Rights of way, none were infringed, anybody could walk anywhere they could before, hence no infringement.

Absolute balder dash. I loose at least 20 minutes by having to pass the chapilizod gate to enter the park via parkgate street to get to the papal cross car park. Same on the way back, 40 minutes minimum lost.
Sorry you lost, glad common sense prevailed.

trellheim

I loose at least 20 minutes by having to pass the chapilizod gate to enter the park via parkgate street to get to the papal cross car park

enter on foot at Chapelizod gate and within 5 mins you're up beside St Mary's hospital looking at the Papal Cross .... like I said its stroke politics

polesheep

mrslancaster wrote: »

well thats a disgrace. Would double yellow lines not solve that?

It's illegal to park on the footpath, why would they pay any attention to double yellow lines?

NasserShammaz

https://twitter.com/Pidge/status/1281621235865190406?s=20


Yes the skum are back. Me me me f@ck everyone else .....

Now we have fianna skum back sure why don't we concrete over the feckin place Johnny cockroach Ronan can build a resort...

mrslancaster

polesheep wrote: »

It's illegal to park on the footpath, why would they pay any attention to double yellow lines?

Maybe the clampers should spend more time in the Phoenix Park

Just reading previous post to this - what is fianna skum?

NasserShammaz

Start by Lifting the most expensive ones and crush the f#ckers cars then start on the rest....

NasserShammaz

Fianna failure

daymobrew

ronivek wrote: »

It's also about access. There are plenty of people who are unable to cycle for numerous health reasons but for example would not qualify for disabled parking. Limiting parking to a small number of car parks restricts their access to areas of the park.

I don't have a solution for the edge cases (health and mobility issues but no disabled persons blue badge) but there are more intelligent people than me out there.

I am appealing to those without mobility issues to be a little altruistic. Don't *always* take the car because walking or cycling is a little bit of inconvenient.
Take less trips or combine multiple tasks into one driving trip.

thelad95

Double yellow lines AND enforcement would clamp down (pun intended) very quickly on nuisance parking.

I hate the likes of APCOA to my core but I'd be happy enough to let them roam free in the Phoenix Park, I'm sure they'd happily accept the contract as well.

Larbre34

Dublin City Council clampers have no remit in the Park, nor should they.

The most interesting thing I learned today is that 3,000 people are employed within the Park. How amazing!

Spanish Eyes

Larbre34 wrote: »

Dublin City Council clampers have no remit in the Park, nor should they.

The most interesting thing I learned today is that 3,000 people are employed within the Park. How amazing!

There's a lot to do to preserve the integrity and wildlife etc. Good on them.

They seem to be snookered by the idiots parking on every pavement in sight though. The twitter clip above that I posted is but one example of walkers being funnelled into the middle of the road. And it looks very ugly too. Sorry now, I know you were only trying to challenge the OPW on their ability to just decide things on a whim and you achieved that.

But look what it has led to. As many suspected it would. I am so disappointed, and I am no Greenie/Vegetable either let it be said.

jackofalltrades

ligerdub wrote: »

To be fair I wouldn't disagree with you on that. In theory though it should operate efficiently. I think this could be resolved if instead of having the cycle lane adjacent to the road and the pedestrian one further in from the road, that this could be reversed? People are just getting out of cars and walking on the cycle path, whereas if this was a pedestrian lane then there's no motivation to take the lane further from the road.

That would make more sense, but you'll still get pedestrians who will want to use the path further from the road to get away from the traffic noise.
That and pedestrians have got used to using both paths during the lockdown and will continue to do so if the cycle path is moved.
There's been ongoing issues with them walking on cycle paths.

mrslancaster wrote: »

Lots of disabled people that can only access parks and other such places by car. Also older people may need to get there by car to enjoy the park or people with medical issues. A family member had cancer some years ago and his wife drove him to the park regularly - there is no way he could have used public transport, and as for walking or cycling

What percentage can only get to the park by car? Where others ways of getting there such as bus/train/tram/cycling and walking would create serious discomfort. I'd guess it's fairly low.
We've had a whole thread now of posters saying that they can only get there by car. And then on further explanation they actually live close enough that other options would be viable.