Road infrastructure and policy that benefits everyone - possible?

SeanW

Some may consider this very naieve, indeed I'm beginning to think so, but a point of view I've held very firmly up until recently is that it was possible to make good decisions in the are of transport that benefited all users of roads, public transport, and other needs.


Basically I used to think that good transport policy that would benefit everyone would involve:

1. Investing in public transport; in the past I actively campaigned for projects such as the DART Underground, what was then referred to as the Interconnector, part of Irish Rails's mid-200s "Dublin Rail Plan" and promoted as good policy by citizens independently by an "Extend the DART" campaign.
   Plans for good public transport would also involve more trams and where none of that applied, a good bus system for anyone who needed it and it would be practical.
2. Pedestrians - another group I am frequently a member of - should be catered to with plenty of good footpaths all over the place, good street crossing facilities.
3. Cycling. You wanna build a cycle lane? Sure, why not, go for it!
4. Motorists? Again, positive policy towards motorists. Investment in motorways, bypasses in particular have always struck me as a good idea, likewise I had the bizarre idea that parking facilities should always be appropriate to the needs of the people who live or travel to the area.

I use 3 of the 4 methods of transport as a matter of routine and I see no physical or fundamental reason why making things work for all 4 groups should not be possible. No good reason.

I would still like to believe this is possible but the message I am starting to understand very clearly, from clowns like Don Nozzi, and those who I believe to be kindred spirits in certain quarters closer to home, is that this is not possible. Mr N. takes the view that motorists don't pay enough tax for anything (fuel, parking), aren't regulated enough by a large margin and supports things like "planned congestion" :rolleyes: and most crucially, it is his view that nothing you can do for pedestrians, cyclists, public transport etc are any good unless motorist hostility is explicitly a central, primary part of the plan. :mad: Want to widen a road to add a pair of cycle lanes to a 4 lane road? Absolutely unforgivable, no matter what the circumstances the plan must involve something like a "road diet" especially if it causes causes traffic congestion, because this and other measures will amount to "planned congestion" which will be a "tax of time" that forces people out of their cars out of abject misery.
Speeds must be cut.
Motoring taxes must be raised.
Parking should be expensive, strictly rationed and inconvenient (like with the Essex design of housing). And so on.
Yes, all the financial penalties being advocated will hit the poor the hardest. So much the better.
"The Car is the Enemy" ...
It's "War on Cars" ...
Etc.

In my naievete I was shocked to realise that there were people like this out there, until I read some posts on boards and realised that Mr. Nozzi seems to have a lot of kindred spirits closer to home.

Most of whom seem to be cyclists.

As a result, I would like to believe that making things work for everyone is still a worthwhile goal. But regarding my list above, I am beginning to believe that points 3 and 4 are mutually exclusive.

I.E. that if Ireland spent billions on cycle tracks in cities and hard shoulders in rural areas, grade separated cycle facilites all over the place, cyclist priority measures at junctions, put cycle parking facilites everywhere, and kept everything spick and span absolutely perfect for the next 100 years, the usual suspects would still moan bitterly that motorists aren't regulated enough, don't pay enough tax, think they have too many "entitlements" and - as per Dom Nozzis view - are still being catered for with motorways and not being driven off the roads in misery and taxes that cause financial ruin, (not that our motoring taxes are not enough to do that in some cases as it is).

Am I wrong here? Is there any point in trying to make policy that works for people, regardless of transport mode? Or do the views in certain quarters make any attempt to do so an impossible contradiction?

Every where I turn I see hostility from cyclists. Staying in Dublic City Centre at the moment for work reasons, walking around the city usually involves playing "chicken" with some fool on a bike disregarding red lights/green men and FOOTpaths, at least once a day and frequently more. But as a motorist I get much the same feeling when it comes to policymaking. So much so that if I were to admit I've just had to leave my car off the road because I could no longer afford €800 a year in road tax on a 15 year old, bog standard saloon (if it were a property tax it would be more than 100% of value and were it to be an income tax, at present, it would be a noticeable percentage, i.e. it is hateful, extortionate and totally regressive) that was my single largest motoring related expense (greater than insurance, NCT related repairs, parking charges, tolls and in some cases even fuel), in fact road tax until two days ago was always among my top 3 expenses total for a all or most of the last few years.

the response I expect to this admission from the usual suspects would be less than sympathetic, indeed some might consider my - artificial, government caused - perdicament to be a reason for celebration!

This may seem hyperbolic but it is the genuine sense that I have got from cyclists who - God in heaven help us - would like to be policymakers. The same people who show me and tens of thousands of other routine pedestrians utter contempt on the streets every day.

Cookie_Monster

oh, another thinly disguised anti-cyclist rant, what a surprise...

KwackerJack

No pot-holes and I would be pretty happy

markpb

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

oh, another thinly disguised anti-cyclist rant, what a surprise...

There was a disguise?

bigar

SeanW wrote: »

Every where I turn I see hostility from cyclists.

And as a cyclist, I see hostility from pedestrians, cars, trucks and buses everywhere.
I am starting to think that it should become mandatory to cycle one whole month before you can go for a driving licence. Then you know what difficulties you encounter along the way as a cyclist and you can then sympathise with them when you are driving.

To answer the questions you posed: yes you can easily have road infrastructure and policy to fit all but you will need to have different ones depending on the location

In city centres for instance road infrastructure should follow the priority that pedestrians come first, cyclist second, public transport and then private cars.
Outside city centres: private cars, public transport and then pedestrians/cyclists.

Others could apply in suburbs, industry/business parks, ...

I use 3 of the 4 methods of transport as a matter of routine and I see no physical or fundamental reason why making things work for all 4 groups should not be possible. No good reason.

No guesses for which one you do not use. As I said become a cyclist for a short time and your eyes will open.

Aard

You readily admit to not being a cyclist. Hop on a bike for a few months, then come back and post about your "naivete".

hardCopy

The more parking you provide, the more traffic you will create. It's a no-win game.

The only solution is to make private cars unwelcome in the city.

Edit to add: Removing cars from the city does benefit everyone.

dowlingm

Clearly motoring is more convenient in that it is point to point and available on demand but there simply isn't room for everyone to have it. If there are no disincentives to drive, then what?

monument

SeanW wrote: »

...In my naievete I was shocked to realise that there were people like this out there, until I read some posts on boards and realised that Mr. Nozzi seems to have a lot of kindred spirits closer to home.

You've got around ten warning or infractions in less than two months (on this board alone) for basically the same thing -- attacking the poster and not the point etc -- and you're at it again so quickly after the last infraction -- so you're well overdue a ban for a month.

When you return and you keep it up you'll be in poll position for a permanent ban.

corktina

hardCopy wrote: »

The more parking you provide, the more traffic you will create. It's a no-win game.

The only solution is to make private cars unwelcome in the city.

Edit to add: Removing cars from the city does benefit everyone.

Much as it pains me (as a petrol head and speed freak) I agree.city streets need to be reclaimed for people and the place to start is less cars and more public transport.

Take the Quays in Dublin...how many of the vehicles using them are actually not just passing through and could find an alterantive route if the conveniance of the QUays was removed from them? Visited London the other week and walked the South Bank from Westminster Bridge to Tower Bridge...thriving Tourist area with Bars and Restaurants and entertainment...and not a car in sight....this could be the quays in Dublin with a bit of investment

bk

In rural or semi-urban areas with lots of space it is possible and it should be encouraged.

In fact given the absolute dominance of cars and motoring infrastructure in such areas at the moment, such a policy would result in a significant improvement in infrastructure for cyclists and pedestrians.

However in our cities, such a policy simply isn't possible. There simply isn't the space on our streets to cope with everyone who wants to drive.

In cities where they have attempted to meet the demands of motorists, it has been a complete disaster, turning the cities into horrible places to be and live. Just look at places like Atlanta, LA. And despite all the car infrastructure that destroys the cities, it still isn't enough, they still suffer from awful congestion.

Now think of the nicest cities you have visited, Prague, Amsterdam, etc. cities where cars have been banned from for the most part. Cities where it is safe and easy to stroll around, sit outside in a nice square enjoying a coffee. Liveable cities.

Supporting cars in our cities has been proven to be a failed policy. Pushing cars out of our cities and making them safe and comfortable places to be and live has time and time again proven to be excellent policy.

limklad

corktina wrote: »

Much as it pains me (as a petrol head and speed freak) I agree.city streets need to be reclaimed for people and the place to start is less cars and more public transport.

Take the Quays in Dublin...how many of the vehicles using them are actually not just passing through and could find an alterantive route if the conveniance of the QUays was removed from them? Visited London the other week and walked the South Bank from Westminster Bridge to Tower Bridge...thriving Tourist area with Bars and Restaurants and entertainment...and not a car in sight....this could be the quays in Dublin with a bit of investment

They can start reducing the Dublin Tunnel tolls for cars which would help for traffic going to the Dublin Port area of the city from outside the city centre.

Several years ago I was in Grenoble in France, near Lyon. It is a car heavy city, yet there was a clear order of Traffic. Emergency services, Pedestrians, Cyclist, Public Transport, Large vehicles/cars. Despite people in cars driving at speed, they obey every traffic lights and allow other road/street users to pass such as when cyclist path crosses the road, they stop to allow them to pass. They allow Trams to pass. For several morning and evening, I counted how many vehicles move in approx 1 second of lights going green actually start moving. and the very instance the Lights go green, not only does the first car move, I counted up to ten within a second. If you are slow then the horns goes off in the vehicles behind you. Here in Ireland it ridiculous slow for the first car to move, never mind the remaining cars behind who are still asleep. It causes huge delays here, the awareness here and entitlement here is very poor. It is an attitude thing that badly need adjustment.

Personally I prefer to use park and ride when traveling abroad or when up in Dublin. I tend to use public transport and walk while within cities as it is usually faster. I personally believe we need a better public transport system and cheaper costs of travel here in Ireland.

Look at Washington DC they have a metro stretching far out into the countryside into neighboring states. In those areas and in DC, the Public bus have Routes that takes you to those metro lines and not compete with them. They also have large park and ride fatalities. Having a basic good infrastructure such as the metro which is fast, unencumbered by traffic and it goes through the main thoroughfare and buses to link up other area to the metro help getting around that whole area fast. You can get to any major site in no time. It was the best way to travel as a tourist, let alone as a local. It was far easier than getting a car to drive around unless you are the President of the US.



Same goes for many major city with Underground and above ground rapid public transport such as London/Paris/Berlin/New York/Boston. All cites I have been to.

munchkin_utd

limklad wrote: »

<snip>
Same goes for many major city with Underground and above ground rapid public transport such as London/Paris/Berlin/New York/Boston. All cites I have been to.

I'd add the 9.4km long Rennes metro which has allowed them to virtually ban all busses from the city centre (they are now feeders to the relatively short metro) and makes travelling by public transport to the city much more attractive.
And at a cost to the taxpayer of 385million its barely more than the 370millon the government is spending on the cross town luas.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A9tro_de_Rennes

Victor

SeanW wrote: »

I use 3 of the 4 methods of transport as a matter of routine and I see no physical or fundamental reason why making things work for all 4 groups should not be possible. No good reason.

Money.

patrickbrophy18

Okay, I'm going to come at this from a realistic point of view.

Financially, we all know that Metro North and DART Underground aren't going to be implemented for the foreseeable future despite the fact that they were key projects in relieving congestion from the city center.

However, I do realize that Dublin City Center has become something of a part time car park which will have to become more suitable for pedestrians and cyclists. Congestion charges or an outright ban on access for cars will need to be put in place in many of the key areas of the city. Grafton Street and Henry's Street are two main shopping areas which have been pedestrianized and are very pleasant to do ones shopping during the day. As someone who has walked around town countless times within the last year, two streets which come to mind as being particularly hostile to someone on foot are Westmoreland and D'Olier Streets. They are a whopping five and four lanes wide respectively. In such cases, one lane could be allocated to the installation of a median. This way, it breaks a rather daunting cross into two significantly smaller crosses. Perhaps, an additional pedestrian crossing could be installed half way up each stretch.

Trucks and buses would still need the same level of access at present as one delivers goods to the various shops and offices while the other drops and collects commuters (a blinding statement of the obvious).

Anyway, to make a city like Dublin congestion free, there needs to be a three pronged approach to incentivise availing of alternative transport modes:

1. Buses: This "use it or loose it" approach to route provision by Dublin Bus is threatening, discouraging and unfriendly to would-be passengers. A large portion of routes connecting outer suburbs with the city itself take unnecessary detours through housing estates making them indirect. Routes of this nature should behave more like rapid transit systems. Leave detours to local bus routes. People still use cars because they are quicker than many bus routes. I still believe that journeys which currently take over an hour could be cut to 40-45 minutes. In theory, this should do away with a huge portion of the city's congestion leading to the next prong.
2. Cycling: The space freed up from a sensible and faster network of buses routes should reduce the amount of car spaces needed in Dublin City. In turn, this space could then be used for installing proper cycle lanes and not the pink lick of paint job currently practiced. Also, where there are parking spaces, do not have them right on top of cycle lanes. If I were a frequent cyclist, I would want a cycle lane with a buffer (perhaps, a meter) separating it and me from the parking space. The reason being that when someone opens their car doors, the door wont end up flying into the path of a cyclist. The same thing would also apply to contra-flow cycle lanes.
3. Carpooling: This practice is still scarce in many urban areas of Ireland where people both living and working in close proximity to one another take separate cars to and from their employment quarters. I would only heavily encourage this practice for people traveling in excess of say, 8 miles. Shorter trips wouldn't take too long by public transport or cycling going by many enthusiasts on similar threads.

Nevertheless, I do think that suburbs should have distributor roads and/or QBC's to provide quick access primarily for buses and cyclists to the center so that each mode can achieve maximum potential. Unlike many distributor roads developed in the 70's, scarce permeability for pedestrians and cyclists would need to be heavily addressed through a mixture of bridges, underpasses and ground level crossing (pedestrian and cycle lights). Wide angled turns for buses and trucks turning left would still be needed to prevent them from crossing the center line of adjoining distributor roads. These would be equipped with speed ramps to prevent joy riders from taking them fast. Moreover, 100-200 meters in advance of such junctions, a set of lights for each type of road user (bus, cyclist and car) would allow them to proceed separately. The purpose of this would be that, if a cyclists is going straight on or turning right, they wouldn't have to worry about being cut off from a motorist. There's a bit of food for thought.:D

bk

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

As someone who has walked around town countless times within the last year, two streets which come to mind as being particularly hostile to someone on foot are Westmoreland and D'Olier Streets. They are a whopping five and four lanes wide respectively. In such cases, one lane could be allocated to the installation of a median. This way, it breaks a rather daunting cross into two significantly smaller crosses. Perhaps, an additional pedestrian crossing could be installed half way up each stretch.

This is a very big one for me, many bus routes stop on D'Olier Street and there is a pedestrian crossing relatively central on D'Olier Street near the bus stops that naturally leads to Fleet Street and then onto Westmoreland Street directly across from Temple Bar, where unsurprisingly many people want to go.

But there is no crossing on Westmoreland street, instead every day you have people scurrying across four lanes of oncoming traffic!!

How someone hasn't been killed there yet, I don't know! It has to be one of the most dangerous streets in the country.

A pedestrian crossing badly needs to be put in place on Westmoreland Street from Temple Bar to Fleet Street. I also think Dublin Bus parking should be taken off Fleet Street, the street width reduced to one lane and the footpath widened significantly and perhaps a contraflow cycle lane added.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

[*]Cycling: The space freed up from a sensible and faster network of buses routes should reduce the amount of car spaces needed in Dublin City. In turn, this space could then be used for installing proper cycle lanes and not the pink lick of paint job currently practiced.

It is a great idea and I agree greatly with it, remove on street parking and build proper segregated cycle lanes and wider footpaths. But the problem is the councils get so much of their money from parking, they are very slow to give it up.

This is the key problem faced in Ireland. The councils know that they should really be pushing cars out of our cities, but they get so much of the revenue from onstreet parking and their car parks, that instead their engineers design our cities to encourage cars into the cities to keep up this revenue!

hardCopy

bk wrote: »

This is the key problem faced in Ireland. The councils know that they should really be pushing cars out of our cities, but they get so much of the revenue from onstreet parking and their car parks, that instead their engineers design our cities to encourage cars into the cities to keep up this revenue!

I think the real problem is the lobbying by private multi-story car park owners and certain high-end retailers.

LXFlyer

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

1. Buses: This "use it or loose it" approach to route provision by Dublin Bus is threatening, discouraging and unfriendly to would-be passengers. A large portion of routes connecting outer suburbs with the city itself take unnecessary detours through housing estates making them indirect. Routes of this nature should behave more like rapid transit systems. Leave detours to local bus routes. People still use cars because they are quicker than many bus routes. I still believe that journeys which currently take over an hour could be cut to 40-45 minutes. In theory, this should do away with a huge portion of the city's congestion leading to the next prong.

Would you care to be more specific about which large portion of routes take unnecessary detours?

Last time I checked virtually every main bus route along each of the QBCs had been straightened out to operate along the QBC.

LXFlyer

bk wrote: »

This is a very big one for me, many bus routes stop on D'Olier Street and there is a pedestrian crossing relatively central on D'Olier Street near the bus stops that naturally leads to Fleet Street and then onto Westmoreland Street directly across from Temple Bar, where unsurprisingly many people want to go.

But there is no crossing on Westmoreland street, instead every day you have people scurrying across four lanes of oncoming traffic!!

How someone hasn't been killed there yet, I don't know! It has to be one of the most dangerous streets in the country.

A pedestrian crossing badly needs to be put in place on Westmoreland Street from Temple Bar to Fleet Street. I also think Dublin Bus parking should be taken off Fleet Street, the street width reduced to one lane and the footpath widened significantly and perhaps a contraflow cycle lane added.



It is a great idea and I agree greatly with it, remove on street parking and build proper segregated cycle lanes and wider footpaths. But the problem is the councils get so much of their money from parking, they are very slow to give it up.

This is the key problem faced in Ireland. The councils know that they should really be pushing cars out of our cities, but they get so much of the revenue from onstreet parking and their car parks, that instead their engineers design our cities to encourage cars into the cities to keep up this revenue!

Fleet Street could be removed as a bus terminus once the contra-flow bus lane and bus termini on Eden Quay are restored. I suspect the latter will be needed for the buses currently terminating on Hawkins Street too.

Cookie_Monster

lxflyer wrote: »

Would you care to be more specific about which large portion of routes take unnecessary detours?

Last time I checked virtually every main bus route along each of the QBCs had been straightened out to operate along the QBC.

off hand 7 and 145 still have a few silly ones. Not using the Sallyglen Rd (7) and the 145 doing the loops of estates in Bray

LXFlyer

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

off hand 7 and 145 still have a few silly ones. Not using the Sallyglen Rd (7) and the 145 doing the loops of estates in Bray

Given that the 145 diverts pretty much at the very start of the route, it isn't going to make that much difference frankly. To be honest south of Bray the 145 is effectively a local bus route - the key section of the route is that between Bray and the city centre and that is operated along the QBC.

I think you probably have a point with the 7, but I'm still wondering what large portion of bus routes take detours that cost them 15-20 minutes journey time that the previous poster was apparently thinking of.

Neither of these would come close to that.

Alun

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

... and the 145 doing the loops of estates in Bray

It does exactly one short detour off the most direct route onto Herbert Road instead of heading straight down Killarney Road. Hardly "loops of estates".

Given the timings of the traffic lights at the junction of Killarney Road and Kilkbride Lane, on the inward leg it makes barely any difference, but rather more on the way back, but then it has less impact.

patrickbrophy18

lxflyer wrote: »

Would you care to be more specific about which large portion of routes take unnecessary detours?

Last time I checked virtually every main bus route along each of the QBCs had been straightened out to operate along the QBC.

Aside from the 7 and 145 which Cookie_Monster mentioned, there's the 16 route which takes a detour through Beaumont Road and Collin's Avenue West which (I've heard from a regular user) can take 30 minutes sometimes. Remember that this is a route which goes from the Airport to Ballinteer. By it's very nature, this is a long haul route. Instead, this type of bus journey should take to the N1 from the bridge adjacent to Ellenfield Park and straight into town. Heaven forbid that the residents of Beaumont Road and Collin's Avenue would have to walk less than half a mile to get the bus. There are many other routes which do same which I could spend all day listing which I won't. Anyway, Speaking of the 7 (as well as the 8), it still operates via Newtown Avenue which can take up to 15 minutes as opposed to availing of the Blackrock Bypass.

Back on topic, I think re-standardization of roads linking villages, towns and hubs is badly needed for most urban and suburban areas in Dublin and indeed nationwide. In other words, a minimum road width should be set for medium to prominent roads inclusive of cycling and walking surfaces. For example, some roads might need to be pedestrianized while others would need to be widened. If the balance is right, this would result in a high quality network of distributor roads where buses, bicycles and trucks deliver people and goods to pedestrianized thoroughfares. A few questions spring to mind:

1. What road width should be defined as suitable for all users?
2. What level of permeability is needed where the population adjacent to a distributor road is particularly high?
3. Can permeability for cyclists and pedestrians be achieved without installing speed ramps or pedestrian lights in quick succession (which would negatively impact bus journeys)?
4. Could permeability be maximized through a mix of pedestrian crossings, foot bridges and underpasses?

Feel free to enlighten me!

Markcheese

hardCopy wrote: »

The more parking you provide, the more traffic you will create. It's a no-win game.

The only solution is to make private cars unwelcome in the city.

Edit to add: Removing cars from the city does benefit everyone.

So everyone uses out of town shopping centres and business centres, and the city centre dies and we end up with us style cities .... All about balance ....

bk

Markcheese wrote: »

So everyone uses out of town shopping centres and business centres, and the city centre dies and we end up with us style cities .... All about balance ....

As has already been pointed out, as cars in cities are reduced or even outright banned, the number of people living in the city increases. These people then shop in the city, go to bars, cafes, restaurants, clubs, etc.

Also cities with few cars, and very walkable tend to attract far more tourists, think Amsterdam or Prague, who then spend lots of money in a city.

Research has also shown that pedestrians (public transport users) and cyclists actually spend more in city center shops then motorists do.

Motorists who are speeding through the city along the canals on the way from one side of the city to the other is of very little benefit to businesses in the city.

patrickbrophy18

bk wrote: »

As has already been pointed out, as cars in cities are reduced or even outright banned, the number of people living in the city increases. These people then shop in the city, go to bars, cafes, restaurants, clubs, etc.

Also cities with few cars, and very walkable tend to attract far more tourists, think Amsterdam or Prague, who then spend lots of money in a city.

Research has also shown that pedestrians (public transport users) and cyclists actually spend more in city center shops then motorists do.

Motorists who are speeding through the city along the canals on the way from one side of the city to the other is of very little benefit to businesses in the city.

This just in, an article has just been posted in The Irish Times detailing ambitious plans to improve the city "for those on bike and foot":

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/dublin-city-revamp-to-make-life-easier-for-those-on-bike-and-foot-1.1520481

The artists impression of Westmoreland Street should more than address the problem I was talking about earlier in this thread!

Amirani

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

This just in, an article has just been posted in The Irish Times detailing ambitious plans to improve the city "for those on bike and foot":

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/dublin-city-revamp-to-make-life-easier-for-those-on-bike-and-foot-1.1520481

The artists impression of Westmoreland Street should more than address the problem I was talking about earlier in this thread!

Had just read that article, it makes me happy. Hopefully the normal interest groups don't mess the whole thing up by lobbying against it.

The proposed redesign of Westmoreland Street looks fantastic:

galwaycyclist

Markcheese wrote: »

So everyone uses out of town shopping centres and business centres, and the city centre dies and we end up with us style cities .... All about balance ....

bk wrote: »

As has already been pointed out, as cars in cities are reduced or even outright banned, the number of people living in the city increases. These people then shop in the city, go to bars, cafes, restaurants, clubs, etc.

Also cities with few cars, and very walkable tend to attract far more tourists, think Amsterdam or Prague, who then spend lots of money in a city.

Research has also shown that pedestrians (public transport users) and cyclists actually spend more in city center shops then motorists do.

Motorists who are speeding through the city along the canals on the way from one side of the city to the other is of very little benefit to businesses in the city.

Ok Markcheese does have a point. The Netherlands, Germany, Denmark etc historically had planning restrictions regarding Hypermarkets and large out of town shopping centres. We had a planning free for all.

Also these countries retained legislation banning below-cost selling by supermarkets - this provides a level playing pitch so that town/city centre shops of all sizes can better compete with large multiples. We got rid of our "groceries order" despite opposition from the cycle campaigns, RGDATA etc

If we are talking about supporting our town centres then we will also need to look at measures to actively reduce the unfair advantages of out of town-shopping centres that should never have been permitted in the first place.

Aard

galwaycyclist wrote: »

If we are talking about supporting our town centres then we will also need to look at measures to actively reduce the unfair advantages of out of town-shopping centres that should never have been permitted in the first place.

One of the least contentious ways of reducing the advantages of out of town retail is to bolster the advantages of town centre retail. It is much easier to "give" rather than take away. Unfortunately there is very little that can be done in the cases of existing out of town retail - they have been through the planning process. It's a difficult legacy issue to tackle fairly and (of course) legally.

It is smaller towns with this 'fringe' retail that will suffer most. The big cities will be dynamic enough to absorb it. I'm familiar with a few examples of 'bypass development' that will only serve to undermine the town centre in years to come - Longford and Youghal. On the other hand, Sligo has bucked the trend by building a huge retail centre bang in the middle of town, using amalgamated back-land areas. It is very successful, and a wonderful example of planning in what is otherwise a highly market-led development country.

This is the type of in-town investment that could save our town centres in the long run.

dowlingm

bk wrote: »

As has already been pointed out, as cars in cities are reduced or even outright banned, the number of people living in the city increases. These people then shop in the city, go to bars, cafes, restaurants, clubs, etc.

Problem is that there is a negative connotation in Ireland with urban living - can't raise families downtown as insufficient greenspace and parking, developers not obliged to include family sized units in apartment buildings and then there's the Irish hostility to "high rise" (i.e. more than 3 stories) generally. Even if you took naysayers to Copenhagen or Madrid or wherever and showed them mid-rise 3-8 storey residential, they'd just tell you them oul foreigners are wired differently, we're tied to the land (continues ad nauseam...)

galwaycyclist

Aard wrote: »

One of the least contentious ways of reducing the advantages of out of town retail is to bolster the advantages of town centre retail. It is much easier to "give" rather than take away. Unfortunately there is very little that can be done in the cases of existing out of town retail - they have been through the planning process. It's a difficult legacy issue to tackle fairly and (of course) legally.

It is smaller towns with this 'fringe' retail that will suffer most. The big cities will be dynamic enough to absorb it. I'm familiar with a few examples of 'bypass development' that will only serve to undermine the town centre in years to come - Longford and Youghal. On the other hand, Sligo has bucked the trend by building a huge retail centre bang in the middle of town, using amalgamated back-land areas. It is very successful, and a wonderful example of planning in what is otherwise a highly market-led development country.

This is the type of in-town investment that could save our town centres in the long run.

Sure but one obvious measure would be to impose a parking levy on the shopping centres. There are town centre retailers up and down the country screaming about parking charges. However we cannot allow a parking free for all either.

The real problem for town-based retailers is not the parking charges so much as the fact that the out-of-town centres can charge nothing despite the indirect costs they are placing on the state and society as a whole. So one obvious measure to protect town centres would be to levy the parking in out-of-town shopping centres.

richiek83

Aard wrote: »

One of the least contentious ways of reducing the advantages of out of town retail is to bolster the advantages of town centre retail. It is much easier to "give" rather than take away. Unfortunately there is very little that can be done in the cases of existing out of town retail - they have been through the planning process. It's a difficult legacy issue to tackle fairly and (of course) legally.

It is smaller towns with this 'fringe' retail that will suffer most. The big cities will be dynamic enough to absorb it. I'm familiar with a few examples of 'bypass development' that will only serve to undermine the town centre in years to come - Longford and Youghal. On the other hand, Sligo has bucked the trend by building a huge retail centre bang in the middle of town, using amalgamated back-land areas. It is very successful, and a wonderful example of planning in what is otherwise a highly market-led development country.

This is the type of in-town investment that could save our town centres in the long run.

Same here in newbridge, Whitewater Shopping Centre was built in the town centre and has aided regeneration of former industrial lands just off Main Street. The Avenue provides a nice pedestrianised public realm in that part of the town. As a result, newbridge is always busy especially at week-ends. Contrast that with Naas Town Centre which has a shopping centre and two retail parks on the towns ring road which takes thousands of people away from its town centre every day.

Aard

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Sure but one obvious measure would be to impose a parking levy on the shopping centres. There are town centre retailers up and down the country screaming about parking charges. However we cannot allow a parking free for all either.

The real problem for town-based retailers is not the parking charges so much as the fact that the out-of-town centres can charge nothing despite the indirect costs they are placing on the state and society as a whole. So one obvious measure to protect town centres would be to levy the parking in out-of-town shopping centres.

I would wonder about the current legality of imposing a parking levy on private parking. If there is no legal impediment, well and good. If there is, then that would require legislation which could prove very difficult: councils get a lot of revenue in rates from out of town centres, retailers will cry out about potential job losses, not to mention the average Joe who likes his free parking. (I know that a parking levy needn't surface as a direct charge to the consumer in a per-hour fee, but I can't see shopping centres absorbing the cost, and I can see them using an introduction of a parking levy as a chance to charge for parking à la Dundrum, especially in the Dublin shopping centres.)

Cookie_Monster

Aard wrote: »

I would wonder about the current legality of imposing a parking levy on private parking. If there is no legal impediment, well and good. If there is, then that would require legislation which could prove very difficult: councils get a lot of revenue in rates from out of town centres, retailers will cry out about potential job losses, not to mention the average Joe who likes his free parking. (I know that a parking levy needn't surface as a direct charge to the consumer in a per-hour fee, but I can't see shopping centres absorbing the cost, and I can see them using an introduction of a parking levy as a chance to charge for parking à la Dundrum, especially in the Dublin shopping centres.)

no need for that. The simplest way to do it would be adjusted rates. Given the size of car parks it would be easy to use a sq metre calculation for chargable rates on them.

markpb

Aard wrote: »

I know that a parking levy needn't surface as a direct charge to the consumer in a per-hour fee, but I can't see shopping centres absorbing the cost, and I can see them using an introduction of a parking levy as a chance to charge for parking à la Dundrum, especially in the Dublin shopping centres.

IIRC Dundrum was actually the other way round - DLR CoCo ordered Dundrum to charge for parking as a condition of their planning permission. It was part of a very long list of traffic management conditions, part of which was to discourage staff from driving to work.