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?