Knocknacara Houses knocked for access?

Chicken1

Pinch me and tell me this is not April 1st, does this guy really think they should demolish a family home for a cyclist.

http://galwaybayfm.ie/cyclists-say-knocknacarra-homes-may-need-demolished/

Mrs OBumble

Chicken1 wrote: »

Pinch me and tell me this is not April 1st, does this guy really think they should demolish a family home for a cyclist.

http://galwaybayfm.ie/cyclists-say-knocknacarra-homes-may-need-demolished/

I don't see any reference to "a cyclist" in that link - maybe there was reference to a specific case in the non mobile version.

But I tend to agree re the cul de sac model, it just makes places difficult to live in for anyone who's not driving a car.

pmasterson95

Chicken1 wrote: »

Pinch me and tell me this is not April 1st, does this guy really think they should demolish a family home for a cyclist.

http://galwaybayfm.ie/cyclists-say-knocknacarra-homes-may-need-demolished/

Probably. I'm sure some of the regulars will pop up soon to claim how its about time cyclists got respect. Give it an hour or so.

JONJO THE MISER

Lunatics, give these cyclists a inch they take a mile.

fergiesfolly

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I don't see any reference to "a cyclist" in that link - maybe there was reference to a specific case in the non mobile version.

But I tend to agree re the cul de sac model, it just makes places difficult to live in for anyone who's not driving a car.

http://www.google.ie/url?q=http://www.galwaycycling.org/&sa=U&ved=0CAwQFjAAahUKEwjZ5NPYjqnHAhUKMNsKHTtuAO8&usg=AFQjCNFdIkgrSIXezh5xMBSQCAtr9sPRvQ

fergiesfolly

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Lunatics, give these cyclists a inch they take a mile.

And a house

Mrs OBumble

How many houses will be taken by the Knocknacarra-Parkmore expressway?

Crumbs868

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

How many houses will be taken by the Knocknacarra-Parkmore expressway?

If we set that as the benchmark can we knock houses willy nilly and say it's okay?

Each proposal should be evaluated on its own merits and not have ridiculous non relevant comparisons included, or before we know it people will be crying school buses / water charges and nothing will get done!

Wompa1

Why do they want to knock houses??...Why couldn't they just build between the houses. A bike path doesn't require much space.

thesandeman

They could build a cycle bridge over the houses. Wouldn't cost that much.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

pmasterson95

Patww79 wrote: »

First things first, they could build a bridge and get over themselves.

Absolute arrogance of the highest order even suggesting it.

Genuinely suprised the usual suspects havent tried making excuses for it.

biko

Let's stick to the topic here and not trying to have a go at other users.

Iwannahurl

Chicken1 wrote: »

Pinch me and tell me this is not April 1st, does this guy really think they should demolish a family home for a cyclist.

http://galwaybayfm.ie/cyclists-say-knocknacarra-homes-may-need-demolished/

How would you retrospectively solve the permeability issue in Knocknacarra, OP?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=96418390&postcount=1204

fergiesfolly

High walls with no access and cul de sacs would, I imagine, be a deterrent to walk through thieves and those intent on anti social behaviour.
I would rather offer extra security and peace of mind to residents than shortcuts to cyclists or pedestrians.

Storm 10

Iwannahurl wrote: »

How would you retrospectively solve the permeability issue in Knocknacarra, OP?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=96418390&postcount=1204

Well if it was me I would not be knocking houses it's a joke to think would knock a family home so a cyclist can travel around

Delicia

What utter scutter - name one cul de sac in Galway that seriously impedes a pedestrian, cyclist or car. There isn't one. Each estate links on to the main road of that area & off you go, job done.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

How many houses will be taken by the Knocknacarra-Parkmore expressway?

This attitude annoys me as this really isn't about Knocknacarra heading east. Salthill, Bearna, Spiddal, Moycullen & the whole of Connemara occasionally head that way too. Believe it or not they're not always headed into Galway city, or its surrounds, either so to call it a Knocknacarra-Parkmore expressway is shortsighted.

pmasterson95

Delicia wrote: »

What utter scutter - name one cul de sac in Galway that seriously impedes a pedestrian, cyclist or car. There isn't one. Each estate links on to the main road of that area & off you go, job done.



This attitude annoys me as this really isn't about Knocknacarra heading east. Salthill, Bearna, Spiddal, Moycullen & the whole of Connemara occasionally head that way too. Believe it or not they're not always headed into Galway city, or its surrounds, either so to call it a Knocknacarra-Parkmore expressway is shortsighted.

Never let facts get in the way of an agenda

fergiesfolly

fergiesfolly wrote: »

High walls with no access and cul de sacs would, I imagine, be a deterrent to walk through thieves and those intent on anti social behaviour.
I would rather offer extra security and peace of mind to residents than shortcuts to cyclists or pedestrians.

+1 on this, it's much more pleasant to live in a cul de sac where only the neighbours come down the road rather than people walking through. It's much quieter and much more private. In fact I would say people purposely buy in cul de sacs for these reasons.

These walk through paths are a hot spot for anti-social behaviour also, threads often pop up in the accommodation and property form with people wondering how to deal with youths in these alley ways etc.

Iwannahurl

fergiesfolly wrote: »

High walls with no access and cul de sacs would, I imagine, be a deterrent to walk through thieves and those intent on anti social behaviour.
I would rather offer extra security and peace of mind to residents than shortcuts to cyclists or pedestrians.

What is the evidence that, all other things being equal, the level of crime is lower in estates with high walls and cul-de-sac layouts?

Incidentally, as do thousands of others in Galway, I live in a cul-de-sac estate. Over the past decade or so there have been a few clusters of burglaries, to the extent that the local residents association felt obliged to hold general meetings about security, attended by AGS and experts on locks etc.

Living in a cul-de-sac didn't prevent theft of my bike either.

Why should children have to climb over high walls to walk to school, so that residents can indulge their beliefs about alleged security?

Storm 10 wrote: »

Well if it was me I would not be knocking houses it's a joke to think would knock a family home so a cyclist can travel around

It's not about "a cyclist". It's about the viability of walking, public transport and cycling in the suburbs. You may recall that we are being told there's a traffic congestion crisis in the city.

So how would you retrospectively solve the permeability issue?

FortySeven

fergiesfolly wrote: »

High walls with no access and cul de sacs would, I imagine, be a deterrent to walk through thieves and those intent on anti social behaviour.
I would rather offer extra security and peace of mind to residents than shortcuts to cyclists or pedestrians.

I'm afraid you would be imagining there. It makes policing the area an absolute nightmare. Housing estates in the UK have had to be adapted for this very reason. 1 wall hopped and a car has to travel miles to get to the other side. The estates are rabbit warrens for those with criminal intent.

Imagine responding to a burglary, pulling into the street and the criminal has hopped a wall, you have the option of driving the outskirts and going in and out of spurs looking for the perpetrators. They just hop another wall and you start again. Patrolling is also very time consuming and innefective with criminals able to set up only 1 spotter with a mobile to advance warn.

Rights of ways can end up with anti social behaviour but only if built as compromises, trying to save an area by adding an underpass is asking for issues. Knocking a few houses and creating an open, airy area, less so.

pmasterson95

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What is the evidence that, all other things being equal, the level of crime is lower in estates with high walls and cul-de-sac layouts?

Incidentally, as do thousands of others in Galway, I live in a cul-de-sac estate. Over the past decade or so there have been a few clusters of burglaries, to the extent that the local residents association felt obliged to hold general meetings about security, attended by AGS and experts on locks etc.

Living in a cul-de-sac didn't prevent theft of my bike either.

Why should children have to climb over high walls to walk to school, so that residents can indulge their beliefs about alleged security?




It's not about "a cyclist". It's about the viability of walking, public transport and cycling in the suburbs. You may recall that we are being told there's a traffic congestion crisis in the city.

So how would you retrospectively solve the permeability issue?

I agree why on earth should children be made climb over a wall to get to school? I also lived in a cul-de-sac and in my experience they do tend to have an entrance/exit. If you can manage to find the exit you actually dont have to and should definitely not be made climb these walls.

Iwannahurl

FortySeven wrote: »

I'm afraid you would be imagining there. It makes policing the area an absolute nightmare. Housing estates in the UK have had to be adapted for this very reason. 1 wall hopped and a car has to travel miles to get to the other side. The estates are rabbit warrens for those with criminal intent.

Imagine responding to a burglary, pulling into the street and the criminal has hopped a wall, you have the option of driving the outskirts and going in and out of spurs looking for the perpetrators. They just hop another wall and you start again. Patrolling is also very time consuming and innefective with criminals able to set up only 1 spotter with a mobile to advance warn.

Rights of ways can end up with anti social behaviour but only if built as compromises, trying to save an area by adding an underpass is asking for issues. Knocking a few houses and creating an open, airy area, less so.

Nice to see someone thinking rationally about this issue.

Open, well-connected public spaces, which are also well-lit at night, feel safer and benefit from passive surveillance. As for 'active surveillance', police can patrol (and pursue?) more easily when estates are more permeable. I have heard reports -- which galwaycyclist can confirm -- of Community Gardai having to haul their bikes over walls built by the Council to close off pedestrian routes through estates. How does that enhance security for residents?

Of course we rarely if ever see Gardai patrolling our housing estates, whether by bike or on foot. In our locality AGS drives in once in a blue moon (parking on the footpath even if the street is empty). I'm told they need "special training" just to use a bike in the course of their work.

Meanwhile the "planners" have designed the city as if they were determined to make public transport, walking and cycling as impractical as possible. They are decades behind in their thinking, as are the car addicts who support them.

Allison Shy Industry wrote: »

+1 on this, it's much more pleasant to live in a cul de sac where only the neighbours come down the road rather than people walking through. It's much quieter and much more private. In fact I would say people purposely buy in cul de sacs for these reasons.

These walk through paths are a hot spot for anti-social behaviour also, threads often pop up in the accommodation and property form with people wondering how to deal with youths in these alley ways etc.

All part of the current Irish culture of 'Mé Féin über alles'. A few years ago, after a trip abroad, I briefly investigated the possibility of getting a playground installed in our estate. I gave up when I realised the utterly stupid obstacles in the way, and in that regard one comment I heard stayed with me as an example of the reactionary attitudes infecting the Irish psyche these days. I asked a resident of a neighbouring cul-de-sac estate, cut off from ours by a high wall, whether anyone in their street had ever thought of having a playground. Nobody had ever suggested anything of the sort, and her personal objection to such an idea was that a playground would bring "outsiders" into the estate.

Delicia wrote: »

What utter scutter - name one cul de sac in Galway that seriously impedes a pedestrian, cyclist or car. There isn't one. Each estate links on to the main road of that area & off you go, job done.

There are numerous impermeable estates around the city. Some had pedestrian access routes from the start, and then these were closed off to keep the reactionary curtain-twitchers happy. It can take decades to get the Council to install traffic calming, for example, but ask them to close off a pedestrian route and you'll get a much more enthusiastic response.

Newer estates were deliberately made impermeable by the "planners". Around Knocknacarra there are estates that don't even have footpaths -- neither the developers nor the "planners" could conceive of the need to accommodate anyone but car users.

My childrens' cousins live 150 metres away from each other, as the crow flies. Because our respective cul-de-sacs are separated by a high wall (actually the boundary wall between private houses as well as estates) they cannot freely walk or cycle what would otherwise be a trivial distance. The actual journey is ten times longer, and therefore the kids have to be accompanied along busy high-speed roads with no traffic calming or pedestrian crossings, or else driven, especially in wet weather.

Delicia wrote: »

This attitude annoys me as this really isn't about Knocknacarra heading east. Salthill, Bearna, Spiddal, Moycullen & the whole of Connemara occasionally head that way too. Believe it or not they're not always headed into Galway city, or its surrounds, either so to call it a Knocknacarra-Parkmore expressway is shortsighted.

Where have you been for the last six months? It was ARUP's Associate Director who first used the term expressway and who said that just 5% of traffic would travel the entire length of an outer "bypass".

The impermeability of Knocknacarra housing estates is just one reason for the utterly stupid level of car dependence in Galway, which is the main driver of demands for an alleged "bypass".

pmasterson95

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Nice to see someone thinking rationally about this issue.

Open, well-connected public spaces, which are also well-lit at night, feel safer and benefit from passive surveillance. As for 'active surveillance', police can patrol (and pursue?) more easily when estates are more permeable. I have heard reports -- which galwaycyclist can confirm -- of Community Gardai having to haul their bikes over walls built by the Council to close off pedestrian routes through estates. How does that enhance security for residents?

Of course we rarely if ever see Gardai patrolling our housing estates, whether by bike or on foot. In our locality AGS drives in once in a blue moon (parking on the footpath even if the street is empty). I'm told they need "special training" just to use a bike in the course of their work.

Meanwhile the "planners" have designed the city as if they were determined to make public transport, walking and cycling as impractical as possible. They are decades behind in their thinking, as are the car addicts who support them.




All part of the current Irish culture of 'Mé Féin über alles'. A few years ago, after a trip abroad, I briefly investigated the possibility of getting a playground installed in our estate. I gave up when I realised the utterly stupid obstacles in the way, and in that regard one comment I heard stayed with me as an example of the reactionary attitudes infecting the Irish psyche these days. I asked a resident of a neighbouring cul-de-sac estate, cut off from ours by a high wall, whether anyone in their street had ever thought of having a playground. Nobody had ever suggested anytrhing of the sort, and her personal objection to such an idea was that a playground would bring "outsiders" into the estate.

Whatever about the policing you seem to misunderstand cul-de-sac's. Its also a shame that the supposed "car bias" is so ridiculously exagerated its almost a parody.


I'm not a car addict and rely on buses and walking. Walking really isnt that difficult in the town/city, as I explained earlier but I guess you missed/ignored it as it ruins your agenda. Estates have entrances. Find this and you find freedom. I dont know about you but in my experience at least 95% of estates are not Alcatraz and have this entrance/exit and it allows people to walk/cycle/skip/backflip out of the estate.


Some people can claim that the city is to complicated but from my own experience walking and public transport are not majorly hindered. If your agenda is just cycling say it. Should prentend it affects those that it really doesnt.

Iwannahurl

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Estates have entrances. Find this and you find freedom. I dont know about you but in my experience at least 95% of estates are not Alcatraz and have this entrance/exit and it allows people to walk/cycle/skip/backflip out of the estate.

Irish "planners" have a level of understanding similar to your own.

pmasterson95

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Irish "planners" have a level of understanding similar to your own.

I guess maybe that is bad a bad thing. The planners shouldnt make my mistake and assume they are dealing with functioning humans. Obviously only one exit is simply not enough. You cant expect people to find and work one exit. At least 5 exits must be supplied to avoid confusion.

Iwannahurl

pmasterson95 wrote: »

I guess maybe that is bad a bad thing. The planners shouldnt make my mistake and assume they are dealing with functioning humans. Obviously only one exit is simply not enough. You cant expect people to find and work one exit. At least 5 exits must be supplied to avoid confusion.

The main exit missing is one through which incompetent Local Authority "planners" can be ejected, permanently. Unfortunately our diseased system of local government doesn't allow for such strategic culling, which is why we've been stuck with the incompetents for many years or even decades.

Still, even if they can't be sacked, maybe they can be forced to read:

It was commonplace for ... developments to be characterised by a preponderance of cul-de-sacs, high walls or railings with no breaks along long distributor roads, and with no linkages to existing development areas or to local services. ... The social objectives of planning ... were not met. In fact the exact opposite was achieved in many locations throughout Ireland, as segregation between development areas contributed to a general failure to foster community spirit and boost social capital.

...

These ... patterns, evident in many locations, have resulted in unprecedented dependency on the private car for trips for all purposes nationally. While public transport has also suffered due to the creation of complex and impenetrable road layouts, it is the ability to walk and cycle to local services, jobs and public transport itself that has been most noticeably affected.

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Permeability_Best_Practice_Guide_NTA_20151.pdf

Mearings

Bloody cyclists. They need a clip around the ankles.

dloob

Chicken1 wrote: »

Pinch me and tell me this is not April 1st, does this guy really think they should demolish a family home for a cyclist.

http://galwaybayfm.ie/cyclists-say-knocknacarra-homes-may-need-demolished/

Seems genuine, closing every bridge except the quincentenary to traffic too.
Surprised at that concession, could they not send drivers around by cong?
I wouldn't worry I'd say it will go straight in the filing cabinet marked Bruscar.
And it has the added advantage of making the militant cyclists look like lunatics to normal people.
Don't forget to mention to everyone you meet from knocknacarra that the cyclists want to demolish their house.

Mrs OBumble

pmasterson95 wrote: »

I guess maybe that is bad a bad thing. The planners shouldnt make my mistake and assume they are dealing with functioning humans. Obviously only one exit is simply not enough. You cant expect people to find and work one exit. At least 5 exits must be supplied to avoid confusion.

One and one only exit from an area is madness. What happens if there's a collision and the roadway is close? Oh that's right, no one goes anywhere.

Making humans walk the long way around to that one exit, when that could an an extra kilometre to the trip just forces people to use their cars for journeys that shouldn't need to be by car. Scummers just jump the walls anyway.

schemingbohemia

pmasterson95 wrote: »

I guess maybe that is bad a bad thing. The planners shouldnt make my mistake and assume they are dealing with functioning humans. Obviously only one exit is simply not enough. You cant expect people to find and work one exit. At least 5 exits must be supplied to avoid confusion.

If someone is going to be forced to walk "through the one entrance" 15 minutes to get to a bus stop and then take a longer journey by public transport they're more likely to take their car instead.
It really is quite simple, permeability is about making walking, cycling and using public transport an easier option for people, is it really that difficult to understand?

pmasterson95

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

One and one only exit from an area is madness. What happens if there's a collision and the roadway is close? Oh that's right, no one goes anywhere.

Making humans walk the long way around to that one exit, when that could an an extra kilometre to the trip just forces people to use their cars for journeys that shouldn't need to be by car. Scummers just jump the walls anyway.

schemingbohemia wrote: »

If someone is going to be forced to walk "through the one entrance" 15 minutes to get to a bus stop and then take a longer journey by public transport they're more likely to take their car instead.
It really is quite simple, permeability is about making walking, cycling and using public transport an easier option for people, is it really that difficult to understand?

well as I've said before. I would just walk those 15 minutes. I dont drive. So its really not that confusing. Some people can walk without the need to martyr themselves. If you want to walk you can walk. Apparently its the simple art of walking that is too complicated.

fergiesfolly

Well, I don't have any facts or figures to back me up.
Just twenty odd years of living in various estates throughout the city and the anecdotes of family and friends.
There tended to be more experiences of occasional crime in estates where people could walk through unhindered.
I've lived in estates where there were both cul de sacs and multiple access points and always felt safer and saw less occasional crime in the cul de sacs.
Whilst the Gardaí may hate traversing through these small spur estates, their response time is so slow as to make it irrelevant what kind of estates their calling to. Again personal experience and anecdotes of family and friends.

And it is of course a Me Feinism, but very few people want hoards of strangers(cyclist, pedestrian or motorist) passing by the front of their home everyday...ask some of the disgruntled residents in Murrough or Renmore.
It's human nature to want to feel safe and protected( perceived or otherwise) and it's why these estates have become more popular.
It won't suit everyone, but until a majority want to change, the status quo will remain.

Zzippy

fergiesfolly wrote: »

Well, I don't have any facts or figures to back me up.
Just twenty odd years of living in various estates throughout the city and the anecdotes of family and friends.
There tended to be more experiences of occasional crime in estates where people could walk through unhindered.
I've lived in estates where there were both cul de sacs and multiple access points and always felt safer and saw less occasional crime in the cul de sacs.
Whilst the Gardaí may hate traversing through these small spur estates, their response time is so slow as to make it irrelevant what kind of estates their calling to. Again personal experience and anecdotes of family and friends.

And it is of course a Me Feinism, but very few people want hoards of strangers(cyclist, pedestrian or motorist) passing by the front of their home everyday...ask some of the disgruntled residents in Murrough or Renmore.
It's human nature to want to feel safe and protected( perceived or otherwise) and it's why these estates have become more popular.
It won't suit everyone, but until a majority want to change, the status quo will remain.

Murrough/Renmore residents are plagued by motorists using their roads as ratruns, not by pedestrians or cyclists though. If the roads were closed to cars at one end it would make their life a lot nicer, while still allowing pedestrians through access. Not quite the same.

Personally, I live in a cul de sac. The most direct route for me to shops, work, bus stop is via the main entrance. But I live about 100m from a lovely park, that I use occasionally. However, the walk to the park is over a kilometre because of the cul de sac. A pedestrian walkway would make amenity use of the area so much better.

fergiesfolly

Zzippy wrote: »

Murrough/Renmore residents are plagued by motorists using their roads as ratruns, not by pedestrians or cyclists though. If the roads were closed to cars at one end it would make their life a lot nicer, while still allowing pedestrians through access. Not quite the same.

Personally, I live in a cul de sac. The most direct route for me to shops, work, bus stop is via the main entrance. But I live about 100m from a lovely park, that I use occasionally. However, the walk to the park is over a kilometre because of the cul de sac. A pedestrian walkway would make amenity use of the area so much better.

Residents in Murrough/Renmore also have to put up with random students walking through at all hours of the day and night.
If opening a pedestrian access to the playground also made it easier for randomers (scummers) to stroll through your estate, would you still be happy about your shorter walk? Would your neighbours?
And... Why did you choose to live there, if it doesn't suit your needs?
Or is just the shortcut to the park that's bothering you?
If so, you haven't much to complain about.

Unrealistic

I'm not directly impacted on either side of this debate. I don't have a commute that requires me to drive across the city and I don't live in an enclosed estate that forces me to do take roundabout routes when walking. But I can't help noticing that the attitude of 'you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs' with regards to knocking dozens of houses to make some car journeys a few minutes quicker gets completely reversed when it comes to making the journeys of pedestrian's or cyclists a few minutes quicker. In some cases it's even the same posters who were advocating for houses to be knocked to facilitate cars but are now ridiculing the idea that this might be done to facilitate cyclists or pedestrians. It makes me wonder whether the original suggestion about knocking houses in Knocknacarra was made not with any serious intent but just to highlight this hypocrisy.

schemingbohemia

pmasterson95 wrote: »

well as I've said before. I would just walk those 15 minutes. I dont drive. So its really not that confusing. Some people can walk without the need to martyr themselves. If you want to walk you can walk. Apparently its the simple art of walking that is too complicated.

You would, I would probably too, but lots of people won't, that's the problem. Transport planning shows that a ten - twelve minute walk is the most that "most" people will walk to a bus stop, once it gets beyond that people decide to drive instead.
When it comes to cycling the choice of going through your estate in a low speed environment rather than going the long way around to get to a busy main road will obviously impact on people's decisions as to whether they cycle or drive.

Are there any real world examples? Kids being driven to a school behind their house because the walk is too long?

Impermeability is probably adding to congestion.

I understand the feeling that a cul-de-sac is safer but I'm not sure if statistics would see any great difference - a dead end won't stop an opportunistic thief, being spotted by a randomer walking past might.

pmasterson95

schemingbohemia wrote: »

You would, I would probably too, but lots of people won't, that's the problem. Transport planning shows that a ten - twelve minute walk is the most that "most" people will walk to a bus stop, once it gets beyond that people decide to drive instead.
When it comes to cycling the choice of going through your estate in a low speed environment rather than going the long way around to get to a busy main road will obviously impact on people's decisions as to whether they cycle or drive.

Well if people are too lazy to walk then thats a separate problem. I cant see how knocking a few houses will suddenly increase their desire to walk and magically eradicate the laziness. It would just make the drive even shorter for them. People who are lazy will drive. People who arent will walk/cycle. People who want to bitch will bitch.

Zzippy

fergiesfolly wrote: »

Residents in Murrough/Renmore also have to put up with random students walking through at all hours of the day and night.
If opening a pedestrian access to the playground also made it easier for randomers (scummers) to stroll through your estate, would you still be happy about your shorter walk? Would your neighbours?
And... Why did you choose to live there, if it doesn't suit your needs?
Or is just the shortcut to the park that's bothering you?
If so, you haven't much to complain about.

I see randomers jumping the wall all the time anyway so it's not a deterrent. Opening it up would not suddenly bring a rush of randomers walking past my house, it would however make the enjoyment of a local amenity much more convenient for residents and increase the healthy use of said resource by encouraging people to walk more.
Also, I wasn't complaining, just giving an example of how how cul de sacs restrict the movement of pedestrians and discourage walking. Thanks for telling me I haven't much to complain about though...

Mrs OBumble

Deleted User wrote: »

Are there any real world examples? Kids being driven to a school behind their house because the walk is too long?

There are number of examples given here: http://www.galwaycycling.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/2015_GCC_Submission_Galway_City_Integrated_Traffic_Management_Programme.pdf

I can almost name others. Almost because I don't actually live in the areas, so may get the details wrong - or in some cases solutions (eg pedestrian gates in fences) have been provided since people complained.

Iwannahurl

Zzippy wrote: »

Murrough/Renmore residents are plagued by motorists using their roads as ratruns, not by pedestrians or cyclists though. If the roads were closed to cars at one end it would make their life a lot nicer, while still allowing pedestrians through access. Not quite the same.

Personally, I live in a cul de sac. The most direct route for me to shops, work, bus stop is via the main entrance. But I live about 100m from a lovely park, that I use occasionally. However, the walk to the park is over a kilometre because of the cul de sac. A pedestrian walkway would make amenity use of the area so much better.

As the NTA has pointed out, the deliberate segregation of residential estates has meant that, in addition to the damage done to sustainable transport, the societal objectives of planning (aka social capital) have not been achieved. It says a lot about modern Irish society that we prefer to have people we barely know driving past our house in their cars to people from neighbouring estates walking or cycling past. That's a sick society, in my view. Of course the people who favour such community severance don't feel sick, so they call this sorry state of affairs "the status quo". Our current president has identified this culture as one of "corrosive individualism", and he's right.

Stay away from that park! You might meet a stranger/"randomer"/"scummer"...

Unrealistic wrote: »

I'm not directly impacted on either side of this debate. I don't have a commute that requires me to drive across the city and I don't live in an enclosed estate that forces me to do take roundabout routes when walking. But I can't help noticing that the attitude of 'you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs' with regards to knocking dozens of houses to make some car journeys a few minutes quicker gets completely reversed when it comes to making the journeys of pedestrian's or cyclists a few minutes quicker. In some cases it's even the same posters who were advocating for houses to be knocked to facilitate cars but are now ridiculing the idea that this might be done to facilitate cyclists or pedestrians. It makes me wonder whether the original suggestion about knocking houses in Knocknacarra was made not with any serious intent but just to highlight this hypocrisy.

The impact that really matters is the cumulative one experienced by communities, regardless of whether that impact is consciously felt by individuals. The same principle applies to other permeability issues, such as the total absence of one-way street exemptions for cyclists in the city. A single one-way street may not be a significant barrier to one cyclist on any one occasion or even on repeated occasions, but the aggregate effect is to reduce the general utility and hence the prevalence of cycling generally.

Likewise, impermeable residential estates make walking, cycling and public transport less convenient for the entire community. Individuals may regard this as normal, and may adapt by climbing the walls, by continuing to walk/cycle or by going out less. The generalised effect is less use of sustainable modes of travel and more reliance on cars.

With regard to the demolition of houses, you are right to point out that it is seen as an unfortunate necessity for the facilitation of cars but an "April Fool's" joke when suggested in the context of promoting public transport, walking and cycling.

I've noticed that the OP and his/her supporters has not replied to my question: how would they retrofit housing estates to solve the permeability issue, in situations where there are no suitable gaps between private houses?

Denial that a permeability problem exists is not a satisfactory answer, as the National Transport Authority and others have made clear.

Galway City Council has literally cemented this problem in place. How can it be solved without breaking down walls?

FortySeven

A classic example of this was Fionn Uisce in Doughiska, Galway. A 10ft wall seperated the estate, (mixed residential with large apartment blocks and houses) from the new primary care unit and the doctors, also Lidl was over that wall. If you wanted to walk it was a 1.1km walk, google reckons 14 minutes. More like 20. Hell of a walk with shopping.

https://www.google.ie/maps/dir/53.2853703,-8.9889128/53.2854729,-8.9877521/@53.2847545,-8.9844959,16.25z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e2

fergiesfolly

I suppose the solution would be for residents of individual cul de sacs to approach the local authority to improve access for pedestrians and cyclists. Residents in Castlepark and (I think) Castlelawn convinced them to close off alleys behind some houses.
I personally wouldn't be happy to open any access where I live, but if it suits those it affects the most, fire ahead.

Iwannahurl

FortySeven wrote: »

A classic example of this was Fionn Uisce in Doughiska, Galway. A 10ft wall seperated the estate, (mixed residential with large apartment blocks and houses) from the new primary care unit and the doctors, also Lidl was over that wall. If you wanted to walk it was a 1.1km walk, google reckons 14 minutes. More like 20. Hell of a walk with shopping.

https://www.google.ie/maps/dir/53.2853703,-8.9889128/53.2854729,-8.9877521/@53.2847545,-8.9844959,16.25z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e2

Absolutely standard for Galway, in my experience. I've spoken to officials about the obvious ramifications of this sort of "planning", and the response I've got can be summed up as "it has nothing to do with me".

My understanding is that each "planning" application is looked at individually, and no account is taken of wider issues such as accessibility, permeability, public transport, walking and cycling at district level. This means that, for example, a new supermarket can be deemed to have satisfied traffic and transport conditions if it has a few bike parking stands and a pedestrian entrance somewhere. It is of no relevance or consequence to the "planners" that the development is cut off from neighbouring residential estates, because they are required only to consider the application before them, without reference to the bigger picture.

It also means that, to cite another actual example, the "planners" can claim that a proposed new school development satisfies sustainable transport conditions because there were bike lanes, footpaths and a bus turning circle drawn on the map submitted with the planning application, even though in real life there are no safe and convenient routes for children living in the district to walk or cycle to the school, cars are routinely parked on the bike lanes and footpaths and there is no school bus service.

This is the Irish "planning" process in action, and it's why we are where we are (eg the second highest level of car dependence in the EU28).

fergiesfolly wrote: »

I suppose the solution would be for residents of individual cul de sacs to approach the local authority to improve access for pedestrians and cyclists. Residents in Castlepark and (I think) Castlelawn convinced them to close off alleys behind some houses.
I personally wouldn't be happy to open any access where I live, but if it suits those it affects the most, fire ahead.

This is another aspect of our dysfunctional "planning" system that needs urgent reform. I don't know how it works in practice, but it seems to me that a small group of well-connected or vociferous residents can succeed in thwarting the greater good (ie sustainable urban planning, public transport, walking and cycling) for the benefit of their own private interests.

I've been told of a situation where a community garden and playground, with pedestrian access from two sides, was proposed in association with a school development. A small group of well-connected locals got together and shot down the plan, dictating that there could be a garden or a playground, but not both. They also succeeded in restricting pedestrian access. Of course, in the end neither a playground nor a community garden was provided, and car traffic dominates the entire area.

In contrast, get a group of concerned residents together and try to have some traffic calming installed. It'll take years. I've heard it took fifteen years of campaigning to get traffic calming in Shantalla.

Reactionaries rule.

fergiesfolly

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Absolutely standard for Galway, in my experience. I've spoken to officials about the obvious ramifications of this sort of "planning", and the response I've got can be summed up as "it has nothing to do with me".

My understanding is that each "planning" application is looked at individually, and no account is taken of wider issues such as accessibility, permeability, public transport, walking and cycling at district level. This means that, for example, a new supermarket can be deemed to have satisfied traffic and transport conditions if it has a few bike parking stands and a pedestrian entrance somewhere. It is of no relevance or consequence to the "planners" that the development is cut off from neighbouring residential estates, because they are required only to consider the application before them, without reference to the bigger picture.

It also means that, to cite another actual example, the "planners" can claim that a proposed new school development satisfies sustainable transport conditions because there were bike lanes, footpaths and a bus turning circle drawn on the map submitted with the planning application, even though in real life there are no safe and convenient routes for children living in the district to walk or cycle to the school, cars are routinely parked on the bike lanes and footpaths and there is no school bus service.

This is the Irish "planning" process in action, and it's why we are where we are (eg the second highest level of car dependence in the EU28).




This is another aspect of our dysfunctional "planning" system that needs urgent reform. I don't know how it works in practice, but it seems to me that a small group of well-connected or vociferous residents can succeed in thwarting the greater good (ie sustainable urban planning, public transport, walking and cycling) for the benefit of their own private interests.

I've been told of a situation where a community garden and playground, with pedestrian access from two sides, was proposed in association with a school development. A small group of well-connected locals got together and shot down the plan, dictating that there could be a garden or a playground, but not both. They also succeeded in restricting pedestrian access. Of course, in the end neither a playground nor a community garden was provided, and car traffic dominates the entire area.

In contrast, get a group of concerned residents together and try to have some traffic calming installed. It'll take years. I've heard it took fifteen years of campaigning to get traffic calming in Shantalla.

Reactionaries rule.

Well, I didn't mean a "small group of well-connected or vociferous residents", I meant a majority of residents in a given area, who might want to make changes that would be beneficial to them.
Or are you suggesting that they should have no rights in regard to their own neighbourhood.

Iwannahurl

fergiesfolly wrote: »

Well, I didn't mean a "small group of well-connected or vociferous residents", I meant a majority of residents in a given area, who might want to make changes that would be beneficial to them.
Or are you suggesting that they should have no rights in regard to their own neighbourhood.

As is probably clear by now, for me the greater good in the present context means things such as mixed development, sustainable transport, energy efficiency, healthy communities etc. EU, national and local policy is supposedly based on such principles, even if in these parts they're honoured more in the breach than in the observance.

Therefore, even if only a minority of residents in a given area want such policies implemented, then they have a right to have their voices heard and the required changes made according to public policy.

Conversely, even if a majority of residents want something that is contrary to public policy at EU, national or local level, then they have no right to get what they want.

Ideally the benefits accruing to people in a particular neighbourhood should be benefits to society as a whole. Unfortunately it's too easy in this country for small local groups to achieve the opposite, ie a benefit for them at the expense of the greater good.

Of course these things are open to debate within a society. Some people -- most likely a majority in this country, given the level of car dependence -- think that more cars on more roads is A Good Thing, which is why, for example, the vast majority of (impermeable) residential estates still have a 50 km/h speed limit and no traffic calming, even though national legislation and policy ought to have led to a very different situation by now.

As an example, I have heard of one neighbourhood where a group of concerned residents asked a Councillor to help them get traffic calming installed. The Councillor went away and had plans drawn up, and returned to present the community with the proposals only to be "ran out of it" by a more dominant group of reactionaries (mostly retirees I'll bet) who would not tolerate having to drive their precious cars over such monstrosities. The greater good -- eg the safety of families with young children cycling and walking to school or just crossing the road -- came a poor second to influential private interests, and greater clout trumped greater concern. As for elected representatives, they will find that there are more votes to be had from pleasing the reactionaries than from advocating things such as traffic calming and permeable housing estates.

fergiesfolly

I'd be of the opinion that people have the right to have their neighbourhood laid out and developed to suit themselves(within reason)
And if this puts a hardship on those who don't live there, but will only be using it to ease their own commute, well so be it.
Ten or fifteen miutes added to your journey doesn't compare to the upset it might cause some one who has to live with increased access to their neighbourhood.

On a side note, I'd prefer speed cameras to speed bumps.
They're usually breaking up within months on installation,needing constant attention from council workers, do damage to cars in the long run(regardless of how slow you travel over them) and don't deter the scumbags they're supposed to stop.
Every motorist hates speedbumps, not just OAPs.
I hate them when I'm cycling ffs.

Also, and this is from personal experience as well as parents, family and friends, I've never found any instance where a Councillor will be bullied into making a decision by a few busybodies, when there is a natural majority to do the opposite.
There are occasions where a small vocal minority may want their own way, but if the majorty stand up, it usually comes to nought.
And this includes traffic access, pedestrian access, right of ways, park and recreational areas.

Iwannahurl

Public roads are for the public good. If people want to live out of the way in private enclaves then they can pay for it themselves, although I would also argue that the 'gated community' mindset, imported from the USA or some such bastion of conservative individualism, is also bad for social capital.

Iwannahurl

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Therefore, even if only a minority of residents in a given area want such policies implemented, then they have a right to have their voices heard and the required changes made according to public policy.

Conversely, even if a majority of residents want something that is contrary to public policy at EU, national or local level, then they have no right to get what they want.

What absolute nonsense. Majority rules and non-locals should have no say in what happens in an area. Particularly for people who own their homes and have invested a lot of money in living in an area they should have control over what happens in the area.

I would be massively against the opening up of an estate I was living in. One way in one way out makes for a much nicer, quieter place to live and cuts out people passing through the estate who have no business being there other than walking through it.

Reasons like the above is why I want to build my own house in the country where I dont have to put up with any of this crap and can have a big gate to stop people entering and surrounded by our own land so no passers by either and no one being able to have any control over what happens in my surrounds only ourselves.

pmasterson95

Allison Shy Industry wrote: »

What absolute nonsense. Majority rules and non-locals should have no say in what happens in an area. Particularly for people who own their homes and have invested a lot of money in living in an area they should have control over what happens in the area.

I would be massively against the opening up of an estate I was living in. One way in one way out makes for a much nicer, quieter place to live and cuts out people passing through the estate who have no business being there other than walking through it.

Reasons like the above is why I want to build my own house in the country where I dont have to put up with any of this crap and can have a big gate to stop people entering and surrounded by our own land so no passers by either and no one being able to have any control over what happens in my surrounds only ourselves.

Ah yeah but you cant listen to retirees. Or follow a majority. Following a majority and listening to members of the community (especially those retiree's) who may disagree is clearly an abomination. Who cares what the majority want.