Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Do city bypasses deliver the goods, and if so what's the evidence?
Options
Comments
-
I think it was a half hearted attempt to break the "love affair with the car".Meh, I have no idea what they were trying to accomplish with this: most people who own cars like to keep them as near hand as possible. I don't know what was expected to happen with this discordant, haphazard array of parking spaces that seem to be rather far from some peoples houses.
The houses should have been further back from the street.
In this situation, they (the council or the builders) should have installed bollards to prevent such parking and notified potential residents that they can't park on their front doors.
It would have been better to have had parking at the back of the houses with a laneway to allow acces to the rear for residents and common parking areas for visitors and no vehicular access to the front of the houses. Whether people would have bought them is another issue.0 -
Whatever they were trying to accomplish, its obviously failed and/or had the opposite effect. That failure, to mind, is not the residents fault (they have to live with the consequences) but the failure of the designers to design the bloody thing to anticipate/meet the requirements of the people who were supposed to live there.
I'm going to have to file this one under "What did you think was gonna happen?"
And FWIW there is already more than enough legacy buildings (e.g. from the 1800s etc) in Ireland built facing out onto narrow streets with inadequate/nonexistent parking. There was no need for any more IMO.
Furthermore I once lived in Drumcondra where I was lucky enough to have a place to park my car but also be close to the N1 bus corridor and train station. I did a lot of walking and a lot of public transport use, didn't use my car much, and it never crossed my mind that "oh gee, this place would be so much more pedestrian friendly if these cars (like my own) weren't ON THE ROAD. The only problem I had was walking through parts of Dorset Street where it's built much the same as that silly housing estate, no parking for the residents so they park on the footpath.0 -
Meh, I have no idea what they were trying to accomplish with this: most people who own cars like to keep them as near hand as possible. I don't know what was expected to happen with this discordant, haphazard array of parking spaces that seem to be rather far from some peoples houses.
The houses should have been further back from the street.
"Meh"?
No they shouldn't. The design is what it is, and and what you call a "discordant haphazard array of parking spaces" is an inherent part of the concept.
It works well in the UK, I believe. A not dissimilar concept in the Netherlands, woonerfen or home zones, also works well there.
In the Dutch woonerf, cars are often physically excluded from the living spaces. We stayed in one a few years ago, and we had to walk a few metres around the corner to a communal car park. It seems that's state oppression in this country, where apparently it is every motorist's right to drive door to door, including on public footpaths.0 -
Whatever they were trying to accomplish, its obviously failed and/or had the opposite effect. That failure, to mind, is not the residents fault (they have to live with the consequences) but the failure of the designers to design the bloody thing to anticipate/meet the requirements of the people who were supposed to live there.
I'm going to have to file this one under "What did you think was gonna happen?"
The potential residents knew what the design was before they moved there. They saw the design, they saw the parking spaces, they saw the Rules of the Road. They chose to break the law, discommode pedestrians and other motorists, and ignore the planners' intentions.
That kind of thing doesn't happen in certain other countries, the ones I have in mind being, for example, Sweden and Denmark.
What are we supposed to conclude? That if an urban design and the legal framework it exists in expect people to walk and park responsibly then we blame the design and the law for people's behaviour? If so, our post-colonial adolescence is worse than I thought.0 -
We can argue about what happened in Portlaoise until the cows come home. You see scofflaw motorists imposing their selfishness on everyone else, I see a failed experiment, a highly questionable design that doesn't meet the needs of the residents and cannot now be corrected. Obviously we're not going to agree on this.
But for a thread on bypasses this is somewhat OT, so would you care to deal with the points I raised in Post 120?0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,705 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 64683
From what I can see, IWH has spent pages now arguing about planning and Irish drivers attitudes to parking, none of which has ANYTHING to do with city bypasses.
Thread lock time?0 -
Iwannahurl wrote: »"Meh"?
No they shouldn't. The design is what it is, and and what you call a "discordant haphazard array of parking spaces" is an inherent part of the concept.
It works well in the UK, I believe. A not dissimilar concept in the Netherlands, woonerfen or home zones, also works well there.
In the Dutch woonerf, cars are often physically excluded from the living spaces. We stayed in one a few years ago, and we had to walk a few metres around the corner to a communal car park. It seems that's state oppression in this country, where apparently it is every motorist's right to drive door to door, including on public footpaths.
What on earth is all this anti-car obsession.
Now, I'm 38 and only have my full driving license since January. I've tried everything else like walking, cycling, trains, buses etc. Now, admittedly, I do live in the country, but acquiring a car has been a life changing development for me. Cycling was just too difficult, especially with the wind. With my modest Micra, I can go anywhere I want now. However, I still walk and I still get the train. The fact is that people use cars and cars are here to stay - even if oil peaks, there are alternative technologies in development.
About Co2, let's quit built in obsolescence in manufacturing first - I reckon that with the reduction in product demand, co2 output and oil usage would probably be cut in half. I can not accept more demands being placed on ordinary people in terms of environmental responsibility while big business behaves in such an atrocious manner in terms of wanton waste. Let's also target the gas guzzlers before targeting ordinary people who have ordinary cars like myself.
Just fed up!0 -
From what I can see, IWH has spent pages now arguing about planning and Irish drivers attitudes to parking, none of which has ANYTHING to do with city bypasses.
Thread lock time?
+1
This "grass is greener" notion simply wont fly. Comparing Portlaoise (where you are looking at residential areas) with Stockholm (where you are looking at main streets) borders on the ludicrious. You obviously wont be able to park that way towards Dublin city centre for instance.
Do me a favour please to get this thread back to borderling relevance. Find a small city in Sweden (Linkoping/Norkoping is probably a decent example) and a similar housing layout. Im sure you will find just as many inappropriately parked cars.
This behaviour isn't "an irish thing". Its a human thing. Countries where there are any differing perspectives are that way because of different logistics. E.g Better public transport, heavier enforcement of clamping etc.0 -
From what I can see, IWH has spent pages now arguing about planning and Irish drivers attitudes to parking, none of which has ANYTHING to do with city bypasses.
Thread lock time?veryangryman wrote: »+1
The (space)wagons being circled?
My original point on this particular topic was an aside, in a post referring to the putative traffic-reducing effects of bypassing Portlaoise, and I subsequently responded to specific posts focusing on the side issue. Yes it's OT, but I didn't notice you objecting to other posters' comments previously.0 -
Countries where there are any differing perspectives are that way because of different logistics
True, but only half the point - the reverse is also the case, perspectives drive logistics through the political process or by the manner in which infrastructure is used. Its recursive.
Portlaoise is a great example. Partly due to the M7/8 Motorway which bypassed the town (helloooo relevance!) and other obstacles between it and Dublin and partly due to some fairly mental zoning decisions by the LA, the town and county has seen some of the fastest growth in the country in the last intercensal period. This was concentrated on Portlaoise (the population of the rural ED grew by 32% in 5 years), but was seen all over the county to a lesser extent. The provision of high quality road infrastructure coupled with weak planning (I'm being polite), a housing boom, and the relative proximity to Dublin meant that you had an explosion of car dependent residential property building. The net result of this is that you have (a) far more traffic than expected when the road was built, (b) locked in several thousand people to an entirely car based society (and to a point where they will politically defend their 'right' to drive).
Logistics drove Perspectives (ah sure we can drive anywhere we want now), drove logistics (build build build!, and all over the place too), drove perspectives (ah sure you'd have to have a car to get around). And the traffic is TERRIBLE. Who could have predicted that?
Now, I'm not for a second suggesting that the M7 or M8 shouldn't have been built, of course they should have. Even just the Portlaoise bypass itself had massive positive effects on the town and its inhabitants. But the manifest failing of the LA (and mainly the elected officials) has been to oversee the development of a large car based sprawl of suburban housing, with no public transport links (not even to the railway station). The moral of the story being that providing infrastructure is critical, but so is how it used, and how local government adapts to it. Most people already own a car, and in general will take advantage of any opportunity to use it. Unfortunately, there simply isn't room for them to do so.0 -
Advertisement
-
For the most part, it is not: especially where there's lots of long distance traffic involved. E.g. Portlaoise, Moate and other intermediate points.
For two reasons:- Because taken to an extreme level, the question could be used to dismiss any road project, i.e. any road could theoretically "encourage car dependence" by making long distance car/truck travel quicker, more dependable and less stressful. At an extreme level, it could be argued that a traffic mess in a little hamlet makes the train more competitive etc and thus that it should be left as-is.
- Because it's asking two partially related questions in 1: i.e. "should the bypass be built?" and "What measures can be taken to reduce car dependency in the town/city in question?"
But in Ireland this hasn't been the case for a number of reasons.- Many small towns have little use for public transport, and the road space is sufficient for a little "vacuum" in any case, e.g. Moate, where I think it was mentioned earlier in thread that local merchants found that more people came into the town to shop (presumably by car) because it was no longer such a hellhole.
- Rising affluence and car ownership, e.g. Celtic Tiger and cultural changes in the entire Western world where children are considered to need to be "babied" more, e.g. most kids now have mobile phones to call Mammy whenever the need arises and are driven to school whereas in the past, children took the bus or walked to school and had to be resourceful if something came up.
E.g. I have a distant cousin in the U.S. who took the New York Subway to school as a little kid - a long time ago - do you see something like that happening today anywhere in the West? - Bad planning - as you rightly point out.
- Reluctance to properly invest in public transport - thanks Fianna Fail :mad:
Taken to an extreme level, pretty much anything can be used to argue anything else. I'm not arguing extremes -- I'm critiquing the case made for bypassing particular Irish towns and cities in the context of Irish land use and transportation policies and practices.
We certainly have had rising car ownership in Ireland, though I would seriously question whether we are (or were) "affluent" or prosperous in any solid sense of the word. Rolling in money for a while, sure, or so we thought, and certainly well clear of the levels of poverty experienced in former times. However, other European countries are much better off according to a range of metrics, and some have significantly higher car ownership rates, yet their level of car use and dependence is much lower. And yes, they have excellent road networks and super bypasses. As for transport policies, I'm not going to get overtly political here, but it's self-evident that the populace voted repeatedly for FF over many years.
Given the way national roads passed through small towns like Moate, it was inevitable that any increase in longer-distance traffic would cause them serious problems. I don't know when those colossal tailbacks became a constant occurrence outside Moate, but clearly the town should have been bypassed a long time previously.
Not every bypassed town or city is like Moate, though. With regard to "stated aims", I've already asked whether we build bypasses as permanent solutions to traffic congestion, for example, or whether we build them as short-term fixes for acute problems, but with no intention of sustaining their usefulness in terms of reduction in local traffic within the bypassed urban centre.
There is also the question of induced traffic. Portlaoise, mentioned by an earlier poster, was bypassed in 1997. As we have seen, there was a 41 per cent increase in population between 1996 and 2002 while the town itself recorded a marginal decrease. As is well known, Portlaoise became a commuter town for people working (and formerly living) in Dublin. The rail service was part of that, of course.
Can such outcomes be regarded as 'breathing new life' into either Portlaoise or Dublin? Is there a coherent and sustainable purpose in "giving the local streets" back to "the people" or are local post-bypass outcomes just left to the vagaries of local politics?0 -
True, but only half the point - the reverse is also the case, perspectives drive logistics through the political process or by the manner in which infrastructure is used. Its recursive.
[...]
Now, I'm not for a second suggesting that the M7 or M8 shouldn't have been built, of course they should have. Even just the Portlaoise bypass itself had massive positive effects on the town and its inhabitants. But the manifest failing of the LA (and mainly the elected officials) has been to oversee the development of a large car based sprawl of suburban housing, with no public transport links (not even to the railway station). The moral of the story being that providing infrastructure is critical, but so is how it used, and how local government adapts to it. Most people already own a car, and in general will take advantage of any opportunity to use it. Unfortunately, there simply isn't room for them to do so.
Well put.
I wasn't specifically aware that PT links to Portlaoise railway station were very poor or non-existent, but it doesn't surprise me in the least.
Here's a quote from the "good" old days of the Celtic You-Know-What. It's from the Commuting & Transport Forum, in a thread titled "How far is too far for Dublin commute", dated October 2005:i commute from south laois (coming from donaghmore, laois) everyday to eastpoint business park, dublin 3 (on your way out to fairview).
i leave my house at 6am. drive into portlaoise (30mins away) arriving at the train station at 6:30am. hop on the train. the train leaves at 6:45am arriving into heuston station dublin at 7:55am. i then hop the luas and go as far a bus aras. from there i walk around the corner and grab on the many buses which head out to annessly bridge (forgive my spelling). i walk the last 10 mins into work in eastpoint business park. i am usually at my desk from 8:30am.
reverse journey in much the same. my employer gives me an hour for lunch. so i have arranged with them to only take 30 mins. this means i can leave early because i do not take all of my allocated time for lunch and plus i am in early in the morning.
commute is crap, i know. but i am not the only one doing it. plenty of people commute from portlaoise, carlow, tullamore etc etc everyday.
--laoisfan0 -
Iwannahurl wrote: »Well put.
I wasn't specifically aware that PT links to Portlaoise railway station were very poor or non-existent, but it doesn't surprise me in the least.
Here's a quote from the "good" old days of the Celtic You-Know-What. It's from the Commuting & Transport Forum, in a thread titled "How far is too far for Dublin commute", dated October 2005:
That post sounds to me like a good reason to build roads - not to facilitate commuters but to break the economics centralization of the island on Dublin.
Why are people working in Dublin - services & access.
What does the rest of the country lack - services & access.0 -
Tbh I'm failing to see what urban-planning/urban-design or the lack of in Portlaoise has to with City bypasses
More an issue of the fact that "joint up thinking" isn't a strong point of Irish local authorities.0 -
Why are people working in Dublin - services & access.
What does the rest of the country lack - services & access.
Leaving aside the fact that your post is, in and of itself, Dublin centric, you implicitly make an interesting point.
Firstly, while Dublin is by far the largest city in the country, there are 4 other cities, each with at least some public transport infrastructure and, quite often, reasonably good road networks. So the argument is clear, if development was focussed on the cities it would be at least theoretically possibly to encourage even more investment in public transport (yes, and roads) in those cities due to the greater critical mass of economic activity.
Secondly, by dispersing population and economic activity out to to the environs of small towns, you actively weaken the ability of the State to create jobs in locations other than Dublin. Simples.
To get back to the topic at hand then, yes, bypasses are a great idea, but they are not a panacea. You still need integrated land use and transport planning, and public transport. Not much point getting all of the transit traffic out of a town, only to have it fill up with locally generated traffic in a few short years.0 -
antoobrien wrote: »That attitude is the cause of the problems in Galway - we want people to work in Galway City, but not provide the infrastructure to get there.
Providing a comprehensive PT service to tiny sparsely populated settlements is cost prohibitive, as are white elephant motorways whose primary function is to service a huge rural commuter hinterland, it's not 'attitude' it's real life, suck it up.antoobrien wrote: »Followed and dismissed as private car bashing.
Only ignoramuses would consider it as such.antoobrien wrote: »And for the love of god, loike, stop talking loike a d4 head loike.
I'll call these gombeens who you've elected what I like.antoobrien wrote: »You couldn't prove that by my, what with the attempt to "upgrade" Galway's roundabouts in support of a "PT friednly" traffic control system. Something that the mayor has apparently been told is unnecessary and the only reason for proceeding with it is the loss of 6m in funding.
Yeah that's just a rant against Galway city council, my point about PT not being a priority for central and local government is still valid.antoobrien wrote: »That post sounds to me like a good reason to build roads - not to facilitate commuters but to break the economics centralization of the island on Dublin.
Now there's a shock, the largest urban centre on the island is the main economic and population centre? I'm outraged!
A revealing insight into your mentality though, infrastructure should be built to combat the economic strength of Dublin? It's the same old story from the wesht is best crowd, build it and they will come:rolleyes:.0 -
-
-
antoobrien wrote: »That post sounds to me like a good reason to build roads - not to facilitate commuters but to break the economics centralization of the island on Dublin.
Why are people working in Dublin - services & access.
What does the rest of the country lack - services & access.
Dublin pays out around 50% of the overall tax take, Co Dublin has 30% of the population and the GDA another 10%, giving the GDA 40% of the population. Dublin is a net contributor to the State, it already subsidies other counties.0 -
Leaving aside the fact that your post is, in and of itself, Dublin centric, you implicitly make an interesting point.
Firstly, while Dublin is by far the largest city in the country, there are 4 other cities, each with at least some public transport infrastructure and, quite often, reasonably good road networks. So the argument is clear, if development was focussed on the cities it would be at least theoretically possibly to encourage even more investment in public transport (yes, and roads) in those cities due to the greater critical mass of economic activity.
Secondly, by dispersing population and economic activity out to to the environs of small towns, you actively weaken the ability of the State to create jobs in locations other than Dublin. Simples.
Interesting that you have somehow read that I support dispersing the population to the environs of small towns, when the point I've been trying to make is that these towns (which once were economically viable due to farming) are facing significant employment challenges due to the centralization of services.
In that regard we have two choices - move the jobs closer (i.e. not Dublin) to the people by creating regional centers (I think we need to go beyond the 5 cities on this, but not necessarily as par as the NSS) or facilitate the movement of people to the jobs. Part of this must be roads because we can't put rail everywhere. And we can't continue funneling traffic (public or private) into towns when it doesn't need to be there - so at least some bypasses will be required.
There is a third option, forcing people to leave their homes, but that'd just create Darndale mark II. (interesting sidebar I heard a committed socialist argue against using ghost estates for social house because it'd end up creating situations like Darndale).
Now there are other things that can be done, such as making places like Athenry or Oranmore train transport hubs, which might help to take traffic out of Galway, but I don't believe these are practical because people don't like multi modal trips (the train line is useless unless you're going to Eyre Square).
Personally I don't think investment in PT is anything but a waste of money at the moment if it's CIE backed project because an awful of the money goes into wage packets not into the services themselves.
Public transport laso has the problem of having to earn the peoples trust (not back because they never had it in the first place imo). Im my case, due to the predilection of BE in Galway to strike (I was left on buses in Ceannt station and on Eyre Sq on several occasions in the 90s when the sods wouldn't walk over the the bus to tell us they'd gone on strike) I don't trust them to deliver a service.To get back to the topic at hand then, yes, bypasses are a great idea, but they are not a panacea. You still need integrated land use and transport planning, and public transport. Not much point getting all of the transit traffic out of a town, only to have it fill up with locally generated traffic in a few short years.
I agree with you on this point (I don't think GCOB is the be all and end all of the issue for Galway), however it's not a particularly easy balance to strike (not saying we shouldn't try).0 -
Advertisement
-
Tbh I'm failing to see what urban-planning/urban-design or the lack of in Portlaoise has to with City bypasses
More an issue of the fact that "joint up thinking" isn't a strong point of Irish local authorities.
The OP referred to cities and large towns, though the thread title only mentions cities.
So, getting back to the OP, is there any example so far in Ireland where a bypass, quality urban planning/design and joined-up thinking have all worked together?0 -
Dublin pays out around 50% of the overall tax take, Co Dublin has 30% of the population and the GDA another 10%, giving the GDA 40% of the population. Dublin is a net contributor to the State, it already subsidies other counties.
I keep hearing these figures about the tax take, but nobody ever posts evidence of it.
But assuming that they are true, would you lie that situation to continue or would you like, say Laois to start to become a net contributor as well?
Dublin, in case you haven't noticed has hit a point of diminishing returns on investment - having to pour increasingly large amounts of money to get no noticeable return.0 -
Dublin pays out around 50% of the overall tax take, Co Dublin has 30% of the population and the GDA another 10%, giving the GDA 40% of the population. Dublin is a net contributor to the State, it already subsidies other counties.
Now close the port tunnel and the m50 and then ask
"do city bypasses deliver the goods, and if so what is the evidence?"0 -
Iwannahurl wrote: »So, getting back to the OP, is there any example so far in Ireland where a bypass, quality urban planning/design and joined-up thinking have all worked together?
Really that's the point of this thread?
Your OP doesn't mention "quality urban planning/design and joined-up thinking" at all.Bypasses of cities and large towns are often regarded as top priority infrastructure, although this is not necessarily reflected in the time it takes to bring them to fruition (eg the 40-year wait for a Waterford Bypass).
Bypasses are expected to give rise to economic growth and rejuvenation locally and regionally, partly due to the relieving of traffic congestion within the bypassed urban area and partly because of improved access in the region.
For example, according to the NRA the Waterford Byass, which opened in 2009, was expected to remove 10,000 to 12,000 vehicles per day from the city quays, which would have the added benefit of "allowing us to rejuvenate our city along the quays to the maximum commercial advantage". This would "breathe new life into the City residents and the Region as a whole, allowing business and industry to operate more efficiently [and] city dwellers, visitors and tourists [to] enjoy a more pleasant, healthier and safer environment."
What other cities and large towns have been bypassed in a similar way and with similar anticipated results? Are there reliable data available demonstrating the effects on traffic and transportation, the economy and residents' quality of life? What major changes have occurred and how have these been quantified?
I would imagine that the recession/national receivership crisis might be a major confounding factor, so earlier data might be more indicative of real effects.0 -
antoobrien wrote: »Really that's the point of this thread?
Your OP doesn't mention "quality urban planning/design and joined-up thinking" at all.
Hmmm, might that be an example of the way joined-up thinking is so sorely lacking in this country?
"For example, according to the NRA the Waterford Byass, which opened in 2009, was expected to remove 10,000 to 12,000 vehicles per day from the city quays, which would have the added benefit of "allowing us to rejuvenate our city along the quays to the maximum commercial advantage". This would "breathe new life into the City residents and the Region as a whole, allowing business and industry to operate more efficiently [and] city dwellers, visitors and tourists [to] enjoy a more pleasant, healthier and safer environment."0 -
Now close the port tunnel and the m50 and then ask
"do city bypasses deliver the goods, and if so what is the evidence?"
The M50 has worked better after serious remedial works, made necessary by poor planning of various kinds, including erosion of its supposed purpose by traffic-generating development around it.
The removal of HGVs out of Dublin city centre was a great move, IMO, as was the introduction of a 30 km/h zone, bus priority measures etc.
Joined-up thinking in Dublin City, then, albeit belated and slowly evolving?0 -
Iwannahurl wrote: »Hmmm, might that be an example of the way joined-up thinking is so sorely lacking in this country?
"For example, according to the NRA the Waterford Byass, which opened in 2009, was expected to remove 10,000 to 12,000 vehicles per day from the city quays, which would have the added benefit of "allowing us to rejuvenate our city along the quays to the maximum commercial advantage". This would "breathe new life into the City residents and the Region as a whole, allowing business and industry to operate more efficiently [and] city dwellers, visitors and tourists [to] enjoy a more pleasant, healthier and safer environment."
That's your evidence justification for the thread being about joined up thinking - very weak. Especially considering the blast into how PT & pedestrian facilities are lacking (roads are for both). You had long enough to edit your OP to include these, now you're trying to bring the tread away from an implicit criticism of road building.0 -
Iwannahurl wrote: »as was the introduction of a 30 km/h zone, bus priority measures etc.
Oh dear oh dear oh dear - it's not working because everybody, especially the taxis, ignore it when possible and at rush hour 30kmph is often an aspiration in the center of Dublin. In fact several city councilors are in fear of their seats over that hopelessly silly idea in the next council election.0 -
Iwannahurl wrote: »The M50 has worked better after serious remedial works, made necessary by poor planning of various kinds, including erosion of its supposed purpose by traffic-generating development around it.
The removal of HGVs out of Dublin city centre was a great move, IMO, as was the introduction of a 30 km/h zone, bus priority measures etc.
Joined-up thinking in Dublin City, then, albeit belated and slowly evolving?
Yet Galway is different :rolleyes:0 -
Advertisement
-
antoobrien wrote: »Oh dear oh dear oh dear - it's not working because everybody, especially the taxis, ignore it when possible and at rush hour 30kmph is often an aspiration in the center of Dublin. In fact several city councilors are in fear of their seats over that hopelessly silly idea in the next council election.
They don't have that much to worry about -- most of the more heated opposition was from people who drive into the city centre from outside the Dublin City Council area.
In the Dublin City Council area 77,300 households (out of 190,000) don't even have cars and lots of the others use buses, trains and walk or cycle into the city centre. The whole 30km/h limit was just a non-issue for so many people.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement