On a recent Tuesday morning, it was apparent that there was considerably less traffic in Dublin’s city centre, coinciding with a yellow weather warning issued for Dublin and the eastern regions of the country. One could hypothesize that an increase in remote working or perhaps holiday-related reasons may have been responsible. The inclement weather conditions undeniably advocated for the postponement of unnecessary city outings, typically observed to heighten congestion in Dublin’s inner city and suburbs.
As I was pondering this, my thoughts directed towards the ongoing dispute concerning Dublin’s traffic reduction scheme. While the complete support expressed in this newspaper’s editorial is not something I reciprocate, I remain sceptical as to whether the scheme will enhance urban livability or rejuvenate the city centre, as some proponents argue.
Arguably, the latest blueprint should have been subjected to a broader consultation phase. Any beneficial components of the strategy should have deployed in a phased manner, enabling a more meticulous evaluation of their positive or detrimental impacts.
Remarkably, there’s now a pronounced, almost doctrinal, dissent regarding the potential exclusions of the proposed vehicle prohibitions during the 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. window. Dublin Bus suggests that these time restrictions are frequently overlooked unless converted to a round-the-clock ban. Even slight implementation with corresponding penalties could deter motorists, both private and commercial, from routine violations.
Interestingly, there is rhetoric from the pro-ban faction that labels the opposition as being “populist”, a term that begs clarification. Perhaps intended to denote “alarmist” or warrantless concerns, it raises questions on whether such an ideological description of opponents as “centre-right” is pertinent. Does this imply that the traffic plan boasts a left-wing bias?
The apprehensions expressed by city centre traders and businesses regarding the implications of the newfound regulations are not unfounded. There is genuine reason to believe that this scheme might push city residents to seek leisure and shopping experiences in suburban malls or those situated outside of town.
While vocal in their advocacy, the cycling community’s viewpoints are just one among many stakeholders. Their presence among the pro-plan demonstrators outside City Hall on Monday was conspicuous. However, there are quieter voices that also hold legitimate stakes in these discussions.
Many individuals residing adjacent to the canals are car owners, who use their vehicles everyday for commuting to work and participating in social activities as they journey across and through the city. Taxis are unaffordable, bikes or e-scooters are considered impractical for numerous reasons including weekly grocery shopping, and the bus service or the Luas network don’t provide a convenient or desirable route, for these people.
Recognising the government’s goals and ambitions for electric vehicle usage, we must carefully examine the potential effects on the city’s vibrancy when formulating plans that could significantly and permanently alter its dynamics, where quick emissions and pollution reduction is the focus. A slow and steady change may be the safer route than a drastic transformation.
The BusConnects scheme may not necessarily be the miracle solution the National Transport Authority’s traffic engineers believe it to be. Instead of spending an estimated €20 billion to build underground connections from Swords to the airport and Dartmouth Square, it might make more sense to fast-track the expansion of the Luas surface network to link the city centre with more of Dublin’s outskirts.
It is troubling that such matters have been determined through an unclear process, where expensive transit plans for the capital have already been conceived and eventually discarded.
It is predicted that future weather patterns will be wetter, which may not dismay the tough, lycra-wearing bicyclists, but might encourage others to favour suburban shopping centres over a potentially less bustling city retail area.
There is a convincing argument for establishing safe commuting routes for cyclists into the city. I personally support the idea of constructing dedicated cycling superhighways for commuting cyclists, including Amsterdam-style cycle bridges over the canals, and the redesign of roads and lanes to create a secure cycling network.
It is odd that no serious attempt has been made to employ compulsory purchase orders (CPOs) to establish such a network. As an illustration, linking Leeson Lane off Lower Leeson Street to Ely Place and Hume Street could provide an alternative route for cyclists and help them bypass the congestion at St Stephen’s Green. Many other similar opportunities exist throughout Dublin city centre, inner suburbs, and outer suburbs.
What we need is a more effective implementation of CPOs to improve our city’s habitability. A divisive stance does not contribute positively to the conversation or make Dublin a better place occupationally or socially. Throwing the term “populism” around carelessly when dealing with the genuine concerns of residents for their city is inappropriate.