Decision to close city centre public toilets reversed by Dublin City Council
Dublin City Council has gone back on its decision to close the public toilets next to St Stephen's Green Shopping Centre.
The initial news of the closure of the facilities at the top of Grafton Street resulted in major outcry from councillors and the public alike. The council had made the decision due to reduced demand and the current owner going out of business.
The facilities were installed during the Covid-19 pandemic and cost nearly €400,000 to maintain annually. The plans to shut the toilets down were slammed at a council meeting on Monday.
Green Party councillor Claire Byrne, called the "ongoing failure of this city to provide basic services to meet a basic human right' as 'abhorrent," the Irish Times reports. She also stated that very little was done in the five years the council had to set up alternative facilities.
Green Party's Hazel Chu added that she let people use the toilet in the Mansion House when she was Lord Mayor and called on the council to open public buildings with toilets to the public.
The council had opened two public toilets in 2020 — one at the top of Grafton Street and another one on Wolfe Tone Square, which was later relocated to Ryder's Row off Capel Street before being decommissioned in 2022.
Join our Dublin Live breaking news service on WhatsApp. Click this link to receive your daily dose of Dublin Live content. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTÉ News
7 hours ago
- RTÉ News
Concern raised over group patrolling Belfast streets
Concern has been raised over social media videos of a group patrolling streets and confronting migrants in east Belfast. The group calls itself the 'East Belfast Nightwatch First Division' and some of the videos have over 250,000 views on social media. The PSNI said it is aware of number of videos circulating on social media and does not tolerate any type of vigilante activity. In a statement, Chief Inspector Dunne cautioned "any individual or group against taking the law into their own hands". "It is the responsibility of the police service to enforce the law in Northern Ireland and we are committed to supporting the needs of all of our diverse communities," he said. "We will robustly review and deal with any offences reported to us." A local Green Party councillor said the videos are "feeding into the recent tensions across this island". Speaking on RTÉ's Morning Ireland, Councillor Brian Smyth said the group ask mostly non-white people for identification and for their addresses. "Do you think people fee safe here with a bunch of lawless thugs who have no authority, no background checks who are going around accusing people, threatening them for merely existing for being in a public place?," he asked. Cllr Smyth said he has been in contact with the PSNI but also called for political action. Meanwhile, Justice Minister Naomi Long said there is "absolutely no place for hate in whatever form it takes and towards whichever part of our society". "Such threatening and violent behaviour will not be tolerated and those carrying out such threats will be pursued and brought before the courts," she said. "The Department of Justice, the criminal justice system or legislation alone cannot solve the underlying issues which drive this behaviour. "It is both a societal and community problem and I will continue to work with Executive colleagues to tackle the issues which allow hate and intolerance to occur in the first place."
RTÉ News
9 hours ago
- RTÉ News
Why Metrolink is a much needed connection for North County Dublin
Analysis: Never has a transport project in Ireland been as analysed, appraised, criticised and debated as much as this By Brian Caulfield, Trinity College Dublin A rail line serving North County Dublin and the airport has been under discussion in the capital for over 30 years. Many factors are responsible for the lack of delivery of this project, including political indecision, cost and protracted debates over which option was best to deliver the required transport service. In 2011, the Metro North project received planning permission to proceed, but it was subsequently cancelled due to the economic recession. However, similar debates continued at the time about the best alternative to serve one of the country's fastest-growing populations in North County Dublin. From RTÉ Radio 1's Today with Claire Byrne, Prof Brian Caulfield and The Irish Times' Dublin editor Olivia Kelly discuss the long overdue Metrolink Around that time my team published a paper in the Journal of Transport Policy which examined several alternatives to the Metro North project. Our study looked at a DART spur line, a Luas line to the airport and a more efficient bus service operating via the Port Tunnel. Our findings showed that none of these alternatives were able to provide the capacity proposed by the Metro North project. 14 years later, a new plan to connect North County Dublin— Metrolink —is being proposed and is seeking planning permission. The project is very similar to its predecessor, and many of the arguments for its construction in terms of capacity and travel times remain largely the same. However, the narrative around the project still seems to be anchored in the belief that it is primarily an "airport train." This perception persists alongside arguments that other alternatives could be more efficient and concerns that a comprehensive Cost-Benefit Analysis has not been completed. From RTÉ News' Behind the Story podcast, will Dublin's Metro ever get built? Many of us are familiar with landing at international airports and using a direct rail line or metro system to travel onwards to our next destinations. Many believe that Metrolink in Dublin is just that; namely, a rail line that will connect the airport to the city centre. The airport is a stop on the Metrolink plan, but it is one of 16 stops. While it is projected to be the busiest stop, with approximately 18% of all passengers departing the metro there, the service is much more than just an airport link as it will provide much-needed connectivity to North County Dublin. Some say that other alternatives could provide the same transport capacity at a much lower cost. Unfortunately, the opportunity for a lower-cost option with the same capacity was lost when the original Metro North project was cancelled in 2011. Since that time, the population has grown, and so have the costs of constructing a metro. When evaluating possible alternatives, the key issues are capacity and travel time. A metro train can accommodate 500 people. Consider the following example: a metro train at 80% capacity would carry 400 people. To transport this number of people by bus, you would need 5.6 buses (assuming 80% capacity), or 200 private cars (assuming two people per car). Now, think of the amount of space these modes would occupy; the difference is significant. From RTÉ News, Transport Infrastructure Ireland says the Metrolink will 'revolutionise' public transport in the capital Metrolink can run a train every 90 seconds (40 trains per direction per hour), which would require 444 buses or 16,000 cars to provide the same level of hourly capacity. Even with dedicated tunnels, this would result in congestion. Furthermore, if the Port Tunnel were used, it would have significant impacts on freight movements due to the additional vehicles. What about a new Luas line as an alternative? The Luas Green Line has a capacity of just over 8,000 passengers per hour in each direction, but Metrolink's proposed capacity is 2.5 times greater. The Metrolink travel time of 25 minutes from Swords to the city could not be matched by any of these alternatives. Never has a transport project in Ireland been analysed, appraised and debated as much as the Dublin Metro. Every transport strategy written for the region in the past 30-plus years has indicated a metro line with the capacity currently under consideration is required. In 2021, a detailed business case, spanning thousands of pages of detailed design and appraisal, was published by the Department of Transport. The appraisal includes a cost-benefit analysis, which was reviewed by the Department for Public Expenditure and Reform and peer-reviewed by international experts. All of these steps are both prudent and responsible, considering the sum of public funding that will be spent on this project. The most recent cost-benefit analysis shows that the transport benefits of the project could amount to €15.6bn over 60 years. This does not take into account the wider economic benefits of improved air quality, reduced emissions or safety impacts. Assuming planning permission is granted and the final price for the project is known after the tendering process, the cost-benefit analysis exercise will be repeated to ensure that the final analysis still indicates the substantial benefits of proceeding with the project. From RTÉ Radio 1's Drivetime, Ryanair boss Michael O'Leary on why he says we don't need the Metrolink It's expected that 175,000 people and 250,000 jobs will be within walking distance of a metro stop. It will connect 127 schools, five hospitals and three universities. The project will connect with existing modes of public transport within the city, providing a network effect that will transform mobility in our capital. This is a project that will require political support for at least the next decade, as the timeline will span beyond the current Government and likely extend through the terms of perhaps two more. The project is at a pivotal stage and support from the government has been positive in the form of funding through the revised National Development Plan. Given that this will be the most expensive infrastructure project ever attempted in Ireland, this support will need to be steadfast and come from all political parties.
RTÉ News
19 hours ago
- RTÉ News
Ahead of DC deployment, who are the National Guard?
Donald Trump has ordered the mobilisation of hundreds of National Guard troops for deployment in Washington, DC as part of what the US president bills as a crackdown on crime. Mr Trump's move to deploy National Guard troops in the nation's capital comes after he took a similar step in Los Angeles in June, and the president has indicated that other cities should take note. Most National Guard forces answer to state governors and have to be "federalised" to be brought under presidential control, but in Washington, DC these troops already report only to the US president. Military reserve force The National Guard is a military reserve force within the United States Armed Forces, meaning that most of its members serve part-time while holding civilian jobs or conducting other activities. As a response force, the National Guard can be mobilized rapidly to address emergency situations on US soil, typically natural disasters. When needed, National Guard units can also be activated for deployments into combat zones, especially if the United States is at war. Unlike parts of the US military, the National Guard performs both state- and federal-level functions, and is organized into groupings based in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the US territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the US Virgin Islands. As a state-based force, generally it is the governor of a state or territory who activates and commands the National Guard when needed. However, in some situations the National Guard can be "federalised" by the president, bringing it under the president's control until the specific federal mission has ended - as was the case in Los Angeles. The latest budget from the Department of Defense authorizes 433,000 National Guard personnel in total, split across the Air National Guard and Army National Guard. This means that compared to other components of the US military, the National Guard is second only to the US Army in terms of size. Emergency response National Guard members are typically deployed during emergencies such as natural disasters at the request of governors and based on specific provisions in each state's laws. In the aftermath of events like hurricanes, wildfires, and floods, state National Guards are often called on to help evacuate dangerous areas, deliver supplies to places that would otherwise be cut off, or provide specialist equipment needed to clear hazardous debris. The largest National Guard deployment in recent years was during the Covid-19 pandemic, where troops helped construct and staff emergency care facilities, transport health supplies around the country, and coordinate other logistics. Outside of a natural disaster, deployment of the guard can be ordered in emergencies created by the breakdown of public order. History with protest The use of the National Guard to manage public unrest is not unique to Trump. During the widespread Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, more than half of US states activated National Guard troops to maintain order and help enforce curfews. Before that, they were also deployed to Los Angeles in 1992 to respond to riots that occurred after police officers who had beaten motorist Rodney King were acquitted at trial. At that time, riots, looting and arson attacks had spread across the city, with dozens of people killed and thousands injured. The National Guard was deployed during the 1950s and 60s Civil Rights era to help enforce school desegregation, following the Supreme Court's landmark Brown v Board of Education ruling. In one of the force's darkest moments, in May 1970, members of the Ohio National Guard clashed with anti-war protesters at Kent State University. As unrest swelled, the troops opened fire, killing four unarmed students. The shootings sparked outrage, but also led to reform of the guard's use-of-force guidelines.
