WE DID IT!
Councillors have just decided in favour of pedestrianising Lower Liffey Street! #StreetsAreForPeople
Onwards!
— Michael Pidgeon (@Pidge) September 2, 2019
This afternoon.
Dublin City Council.
Following a campaign organised by @dublincycling, @IrishPedestrian and @DublinCommuters
In fairness.
Sponsored Link
Brilliant! From when?
Hopefully next year but their have been suggestions that car park owners such as Arnotts plan a legal challenge.
Of course! The motorist lobby get their love handles in a twist as usual.
Wee. Piecemeal pedestrian without any consideration as to the knock-on effect, particularly in an already fupped-up city centre is clueless muck The idea that this a ground-up proposal is bullpoo. This is at the instigation of City CEO Keegan and his home brew wine-swilling Green buddies scrounging around for a political base. We need a City of Dublin Act to preserve what is left of the city. Such an Act would have to be enforced by individuals who are at least less than 23% bicycle
There was consideration. There are 1000 cars a day versus 32000 pedestrians who are restricted to very narrow paths. There is a short diversion for cars resulting from this.
You want to preserve the narrow pavements?
Twaddle. This is driven by zealotry which is positively anarchistic in it’s approach. You do not improve the quality of life in the city by lobbing in isolated planning grenades on the basis that anything that makes the movement of existing traffic more difficult or more unpleasant for those compelled to drive, is a good idea. To put (without planning permission) and take down (and then put up again) a multiplicity of coloured traffic signs – courtesy of Sorcerer’s Apprentice Mr Keegan cost several million euro over the last 15 years and has caused utter chaos, Yes we need to reclaim the city. But perhaps Housing might be a better focus for lobbyists. And I have no objection to either the lycra or the Quinoa burgers
Well
Better out than in
•-)
Cyclists aren’t allowed in the new plan, Kevin. You call my response twaddle but there are no facts in your criticism and I have given the figures on people using the street.
Cyclists aren’t allowed, good luck trying to stop them.
” There are 1000 cars a day versus 32000 pedestrians”
—
“Twaddle”
You haven’t demonstrated that the above is twaddle; maybe you disagree with it, sure. But you haven’t really provided any evidence to the contrary to show it to be inaccurate.
What’s wrong with positive anarchy?
Why? because the city is all about… CARS!!! Wrong. It’s about people. The city existed for 1000 years without cars. Your little world won’t collapse because of 200 yards or so of roadway being made available for people to walk on/shop in.
In a civilised future driving giant metal boxes around the city spewing poisons and killing children will be looked on with the same derision as smoking in a cinema or on a plane.
We must preserve the city in it’s current state forever because we have just managed to get everything perfect!
Isn’t it better for retail to have people strolling through a district rather than shut up in their cars, though? Unless your shop sells only parking places.
Once it’s only people strolling through and not cyclists using it as a shortcut.
Why would providing for cycling and pedestrians be worse for local businesses than the current set up?
Where did I say it wouldn’t be? I just don’t want cyclists using pedestrianised streets as a shortcut.
I’m all for the pedestrianisation of parts of Dublin but if the North Lotts road (which is for all intents and purposes a one way/one lane road) is now closed off from Liffey St, how the hell are the cars supposed to get out? Reverse down Litton Lane onto Bachelor’s Walk?
The plan allows cars to cross from North Lotts to Strand Street.
If you walk there in the first place you won’t be worried about getting your car out…
I hope we get some outdoor seating for the pubs and restaurants along there.
Not enough choice to have a pint out side on Northside.
Ummm yes lovely That should narrow the footpaths more, double their insurance premia but it’s all worth it to set off our Mediterranean climate
Narrow the footpaths? They just announced that they are pedestrianising the street. That being the entire point of this post which you may have missed.
Look at those narrow pavements in the mock up! Terrible and of course there hasn’t been a day this summer when you could sit outside.
Frankly I don’t think I have missed the point about a single logistical/environmental change in Dublin in half a century. More importantly I have never misunderstood the forces behind such changes – their motivation -good or bad -the stupidity or economic or social malevolence as often or not underpinning them. And as that doughty journal ‘of record’ shows I almost lost my life trying to protect a significant part of the city’s architectural heritage more than four decades ago. I don’t miss much dude
You’ve missed plenty. This is an improvement to the street and you’ve only made spurious comments attacking it. Embarrassing.
You don’t miss much.
Dude.
I put my name to what I write Sweetie. You could be Bungle or Zippy for all I know and not ‘George’ at all
You may put your name to it but it is still “twaddle” all you’ve done is rant about cyclists (not allowed on the street) and insurance premiums. You’ve ignored the small number of drivers and large number of pedestrians and are very worked up about a 400m diversion.
Good to know you’re as pretentious as the twaddle you like to spew and dress up as ‘insightful’.
That’s literally all anyone needs to know. Sweetie.
Now ‘George’ if all that were so, then (and here’s a little campaigning advice) you should just ignore me but do consider that we all (well most of us) have greater hinterlands than being defined as ‘cyclists’ or ‘motorists’
Never suggested otherwise. This about the allocation of space for walking and driving and I have shown that the allocation of space does not reflect the actual demand.
Here is a little advice for you though: read your own first post. You brought cycling into it. I have pointed out already that there is no cycling provision in this plan. You are the one who suggested antagonism between cycling and driving.
Time for bed said Florence and Zebedee agreed. NN Dougal
You must be right so. You’ve clearly made the better argument.
1000÷5=200