The public consultation phase may be over, but the arguments continue to rumble on over the radical plan to pedestrianise parts of Dublin city centre.
And that’s no bad thing. It’s important that such major decisions are not taken lightly.
Pedestrianisation offers obvious advantages. Nobody’s idea of a working, breathing city centre involves multiple lanes of bumper to bumper traffic. It is more likely to feature pedestrians, cyclists, sleek new public transport modes and restaurants with tables spilling out onto generously sized pavements, as is the norm across continental Europe.
In a city with a barely adequate public transport network, it would be naive to dismiss the relevance and importance of the motor car. A balance is required to ensure that the environment of the city centre is improved without damaging its commercial and economic core, or to put it plainly, that the baby isn’t thrown out with the bath water.
Retailers in the city centre are nervous about the proposals. They worry that if people are not able to drive into the city centre, they will do their business elsewhere, particularly in out-of-town shopping centres with free parking.
Advertisement
Such concerns are not new, nor are they unique to Ireland. When the proposal was made to pedestrianise Grafton Street in the early 1980s, there were protests at what was then considered a hugely radical option. It seems ridiculous now given the iconic nature of the car-free street today and how successful it is as a city centre hub.
Mainland European countries such as Germany embraced the concept of pedestrianisation far earlier than we have, but similar concerns to ones now being heard in Dublin were expressed by businesses back then.
Research from the likes of Germany, and indeed the UK, goes some way towards ameliorating those concerns.
Extensive studies from cities in both countries showed, aside from an early transition period, a growth in turnover for businesses operating in the car-free areas, and that shops inside those areas were more successful than those immediately outside. The research showed spectacular increases in pedestrian flow on the streets affected, with growth of 20-40 per cent in the number of people walking along the route not uncommon.
The success in German cities of these schemes has even led to experiments in what they refer to as “autofreie Städte” — car-free cities.
Advertisement
That is clearly too ambitious for Dublin, but restricting access to relatively small parts of the city centre — and in the process greatly improving the public realm — is not, however radical it might now seem.
There is also a strong argument that if the city is to continue to function, then there is no choice but to take this action. With the economy back on a strong growth path, the expected increase in commuter traffic over the next decade cannot be met through more car journeys.
Those working and living in Dublin must be encouraged to embrace other ways of accessing, and moving around, the capital. The success of the Dublin bike scheme (despite huge early scepticism) and the two Luas lines shows there is a real appetite among the public for well-thought through alternatives. Such alternatives will not be viable if the car continues to be allowed to dominate.
Change is always difficult and will inevitably bring opposition, not just from vested interests. Ultimately, it comes down to a choice of what we want our capital’s city centre to be: a US-style downtown with six-lane highways, severing access for those on foot, or a vibrant and usable public space where cyclists, walkers and public-transport users are prioritised. Surely, there can only be one answer.
What is envisaged will not in itself massively shift Dublin from its dependency on the car — that will require far more extensive and expensive measures, but it would represent a significant statement of intent.