Comments on: The “busgate” controversy. http://www.mcguirk.eu/?p=86 Conservative. Nationalist. Likes Cake. Sat, 04 Sep 2010 10:48:13 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Sam http://www.mcguirk.eu/?p=86&cpage=1#comment-26 Sam Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:50:20 +0000 http://www.mcguirk.eu/?p=86#comment-26 The car-based city is also a fantasy, and one that reduces the quality of life for all involved. I have had to drive and park in the city centre on a number of occasions. I had no choice. My car was packed full. It was inconvenient but I had to accept that. Motorists in cities cause inconvenience for all other city traffic. On all other occasions I cycle into the city centre. The public transport options are very unattractive for me. I pass many hundreds of stationary cars on my way in. These cars are for the most part containing just one driver, perhaps a briefcase and a blazer - nothing that could not be brought on the bus. The idea of the busgate was to improve the public transport situation in a cost effective way. Dublin has a very poor public transport infrastructure. Any measures to improve this situation are surely in the interest of the majority of the people doing business in the city centre, rather than the minority who choose to drive in. The car-based city is also a fantasy, and one that reduces the quality of life for all involved.

I have had to drive and park in the city centre on a number of occasions. I had no choice. My car was packed full. It was inconvenient but I had to accept that. Motorists in cities cause inconvenience for all other city traffic.

On all other occasions I cycle into the city centre. The public transport options are very unattractive for me. I pass many hundreds of stationary cars on my way in. These cars are for the most part containing just one driver, perhaps a briefcase and a blazer – nothing that could not be brought on the bus.

The idea of the busgate was to improve the public transport situation in a cost effective way. Dublin has a very poor public transport infrastructure. Any measures to improve this situation are surely in the interest of the majority of the people doing business in the city centre, rather than the minority who choose to drive in.

]]> By: Alan Kennedy http://www.mcguirk.eu/?p=86&cpage=1#comment-23 Alan Kennedy Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:34:47 +0000 http://www.mcguirk.eu/?p=86#comment-23 It was an interesting topic. Mostly because many of the people I have seen protesting for the retention of the traffic management were also those who oppose my views on Europe. While it was perfectly acceptable to have an publicly elected body making decisions for the public (as long as those decisions were in line with their own viewpoint) we not see them blast the City Council for doing the same thing. Apparently, vested interests are at play (namely, luxury retailers and the "car park lobby"). The irony is too delicious if not a little childish, oh well... The second issue, and once again I was castigated for suggesting it, is those who oppose the retention of the traffic management measures and those who called for it. You have what are essentially student and political party youth groups doing what they do, protesting and getting themselves in the paper, i.e. the same groups doing the same thing on the same issue. While, you have the villsins of the piece, the aforementioned uxury retailers and the "car park lobby" (rolls eyes) who are opposing the measures for economic reasons (albeit it with little by way of evidence) not simply to get their names in the paper... which I'm sure they would much rather do while promoting their respective businesses and not over this issue. For a number of reasons, not least of these the recession, there are less cars and less people in the city centre. I think it's hugely short sighted to deprive these businesses (one of which has been part of this city for around 140 years) of footfall at a time like this when many businesses are hanging in the balance. Today is indeed a good one for common sense. It was an interesting topic. Mostly because many of the people I have seen protesting for the retention of the traffic management were also those who oppose my views on Europe. While it was perfectly acceptable to have an publicly elected body making decisions for the public (as long as those decisions were in line with their own viewpoint) we not see them blast the City Council for doing the same thing. Apparently, vested interests are at play (namely, luxury retailers and the “car park lobby”). The irony is too delicious if not a little childish, oh well…

The second issue, and once again I was castigated for suggesting it, is those who oppose the retention of the traffic management measures and those who called for it.

You have what are essentially student and political party youth groups doing what they do, protesting and getting themselves in the paper, i.e. the same groups doing the same thing on the same issue.

While, you have the villsins of the piece, the aforementioned uxury retailers and the “car park lobby” (rolls eyes) who are opposing the measures for economic reasons (albeit it with little by way of evidence) not simply to get their names in the paper… which I’m sure they would much rather do while promoting their respective businesses and not over this issue.

For a number of reasons, not least of these the recession, there are less cars and less people in the city centre. I think it’s hugely short sighted to deprive these businesses (one of which has been part of this city for around 140 years) of footfall at a time like this when many businesses are hanging in the balance.

Today is indeed a good one for common sense.

]]>