Banning cars in Dublin city centre.

I don't trust 'negative' approaches to getting things changed... I am more in favour of using positive means to encourage people to make alternative choices - so making it easier for cars not to use the city centre; and making it easier to use public transport.

So...
Remove the toll on the East Link bridge.
Setup bus intersection\transfer points in the city centre. Think this would be more do-able on northside where there is more free space. All buses should go through a central hub so you can change as needed instead of having to cross multiple roads etc, figure out where stop is, get soaked in rain while changing buses. Or create more mini-hubs based on same idea.
Ideally the bus transfer would be near LUAS \ DART.
 
What will the removal of the East Link toll achieve?

There's a whole section on Interchange points in the report, between Luas and Bus/Rail/BRT. It's all there.
 
dereko1969 said:
If Clery's closed due to Car Parking issues as you believe, why didn't it close down years ago?
Click to expand...
Well, it did. It went into receivership in 2012 and limped on until now.

dereko1969 said:
As for a land grab, I just don't understand what you mean. ?
Click to expand...

The NTA did not build the streets of Dublin. This was done hundreds of years ago and they were inherited by the people of Ireland as a commonwealth asset. Of course, like any asset they should be appropriately managed for the benefit of all the people. The proposed plan, which includes excluding arbitrarily certain classes of citizens from use of a commonwealth asset, smacks more of the road to serfdom than traffic management.

The problem with the proposed plan (http://dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/RoadsandTraffic/Traffic/Documents/Full%20Report%20DublinCityCentreTransportStudy.pdf) is that it's very difficult to take seriously any proposls for major changes that will affect citizens' lives if the propsoals are not quantified. There is no estimate of costs in the plan. There is no assessment of quantifyable benefits. There are no proposals for how it could be financed or how much it's likely to cost, both in direct and indirect costs. It's just unacceptable that a state body would propose major changes that affect the lives of citizens without making even ballpark estimates of the likely costs and how they would be financed.
For example, it proposes that multi-story car parks could be transformed into cycle parks (p 38). But, there is no assessment of how much cyclists would be required to pay for parking if car park owners are to continue to receive their current return on their investments. (And would cyclists be likely to pay for parking?) You also have to question the appropriateness of a state body questioning or proposing changes to the commercial use of private property, without some assessment of how this might impact on the property owner's investment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top