Quasi Realistic Blue sky thinking

kidneyfan

What is a 'blue sky' idea that could help this country in terms of infrastructure.

Please don't reply with silly answers like dragons but please do be quite silly.

For example:
Drone based public transport
One long motorway and train line running Coleraine to Cork with spurs off it for connection.
Spirit of Ireland project

etc. ...

McAlban

M50 East/DPT extension.

Thought they should have just turned 1 TBM towards DU and the other off towards the southside. Come up in Leapordstown Race Course and join the M50 there at J15.

Maintain a through lane in each direction in East wall. Would seriously reduce congestion on the M50 West.

GetWithIt

kidneyfan wrote: »

......
Spirit of Ireland project
.....

lol

Sam Russell

Can't have blue sky thinking in Ireland - it rains too much!

magicbastarder

kidneyfan wrote: »

Drone based public transport

how would this work?

antoinolachtnai

Well, one thing we could do is to work to have, say, 85 percent of our mechanised road traffic between the canals as self-driving vehicles by 2030.

The benefit of this would be that:

- the roads would be more comfortable for bikes and pedestrians (cars can be programmed to drive slowly and smoothly in the presence of pedestrians, and to move in compact groups of three or four cars travelling closely together, leaving large gaps between groups)

- the roads would be safer (less human error, smoother driving)

- traffic flows would be faster (vehicles would move through junctions much more quickly with less distance between cars, doubling the junction capacity)

- you greatly reduce the need for city centre parking (cars can leave the city when they they have delivered their passengers)

- you can provide a taxi-type service at a low cost per km (because there is no labour cost involved).

- there would be no major capital investment required to get this increase in comfort, safety and capacity (i.e., no new roads, no new rail tunnels). Just replacement of vehicles with automatic vehicles as they are being renewed.

There are also major advantages for self-driving cars in suburban and rural situations.

kidneyfan

Is this possible and what state and private measures could make it work>

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Well, one thing we could do is to work to have, say, 85 percent of our mechanised road traffic between the canals as self-driving vehicles by 2030.

The benefit of this would be that:

- the roads would be more comfortable for bikes and pedestrians (cars can be programmed to drive slowly and smoothly in the presence of pedestrians, and to move in compact groups of three or four cars travelling closely together, leaving large gaps between groups)

- the roads would be safer (less human error, smoother driving)

- traffic flows would be faster (vehicles would move through junctions much more quickly with less distance between cars, doubling the junction capacity)

- you greatly reduce the need for city centre parking (cars can leave the city when they they have delivered their passengers)

- you can provide a taxi-type service at a low cost per km (because there is no labour cost involved).

- there would be no major capital investment required to get this increase in comfort, safety and capacity (i.e., no new roads, no new rail tunnels). Just replacement of vehicles with automatic vehicles as they are being renewed.

There are also major advantages for self-driving cars in suburban and rural situations.

Sam Russell

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Well, one thing we could do is to work to have, say, 85 percent of our mechanised road traffic between the canals as self-driving vehicles by 2030.

The benefit of this would be that:

- the roads would be more comfortable for bikes and pedestrians (cars can be programmed to drive slowly and smoothly in the presence of pedestrians, and to move in compact groups of three or four cars travelling closely together, leaving large gaps between groups)

- the roads would be safer (less human error, smoother driving)

- traffic flows would be faster (vehicles would move through junctions much more quickly with less distance between cars, doubling the junction capacity)

- you greatly reduce the need for city centre parking (cars can leave the city when they they have delivered their passengers)

- you can provide a taxi-type service at a low cost per km (because there is no labour cost involved).

- there would be no major capital investment required to get this increase in comfort, safety and capacity (i.e., no new roads, no new rail tunnels). Just replacement of vehicles with automatic vehicles as they are being renewed.

There are also major advantages for self-driving cars in suburban and rural situations.

I think these are called buses or taxis, with a driver for safety.

Zubeneschamali

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think these are called buses or taxis, with a driver for safety.

If a self driving car is not safer than a human driven car, it should not be made legal.

antoinolachtnai

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think these are called buses or taxis, with a driver for safety.

Won't give you any increase in capacity. The junctions will still be the pinch points. Labour cost is also too high.

kidneyfan wrote:

Is this possible and what state and private measures could make it work

We would have to position ourselves as a test bed for this technology initially, and then give substantial special benefits to people who switch to automatic cars.

Local authority would need to give a high level of cooperation to the big car companies. One example of cooperation would be to give access to the cars to the luas lines and bus lanes where there is excess capacity.

The main thing is to have a vision for it, and to accept that without building underground roads or railways, this is the only way the city can grow its capacity and avoid gridlock.

LeinsterDub

Sam Russell wrote: »

Can't have blue sky thinking in Ireland - it rains too much!

Giant roof with Tarzan ropes , weather sorted , public transport sorted too.

Sam Russell

Would not the best idea to make public transport free be the first step? If it is free to use the bus, Dart, and Luas then why use the car with the trouble of parking, tolls, etc.?

The free transport could be funded by parking fees and tolls. The more cars that are abandoned would cut congestion and the public transport (or at least the buses) would move quicker, thus being less expensive to run. This would compensate for the reduced parking income.

Now there is blue sky thinking.

Chemical Byrne

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Giant roof with Tarzan ropes , weather sorted , public transport sorted too.

Will also solve all our flooding woes and what's more, we can put big hydro power turbines on all the big downpipes off if and solve our energy woes. We could also have a big water park up there and use it for recreational boating and stuff too. Failte Ireland should be all over this.

antoinolachtnai

Sam Russell wrote: »

Would not the best idea to make public transport free be the first step? If it is free to use the bus, Dart, and Luas then why use the car with the trouble of parking, tolls, etc.?

The free transport could be funded by parking fees and tolls. The more cars that are abandoned would cut congestion and the public transport (or at least the buses) would move quicker, thus being less expensive to run. This would compensate for the reduced parking income.

Now there is blue sky thinking.

Public transport would become more expensive to run, because you would certainly need more capacity.

You would need immensely better public transport operations. The operations are basically awful as they are, and removing the cash imperative would make them even worse.

Just making public transport free doesn't automatically mean the operations get better.

There are said to be serious public order problems with operating free public transport. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_public_transport

jobbridge4life

High speed rail Dublin to Cork, Limerick, Galway, and Belfast. With an under the sea connection to the Liverpool, Mancherster conurbation.

Double height extension to the m50 and out the n7 to just past Nass.

The M50 should be come a fully orbital route with a tunnel going from howth along the bay to dun laoighre.

Sam Russell

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Public transport would become more expensive to run, because you would certainly need more capacity.

You would need immensely better public transport operations. The operations are basically awful as they are, and removing the cash imperative would make them even worse.

Just making public transport free doesn't automatically mean the operations get better.

There are said to be serious public order problems with operating free public transport. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_public_transport

Obviously it does not go from expensive to free overnight.

Public order does not appear to affect all the grannies with free travel.

As public transport gets cheaper, more commuters will start to use it instead of private cars and so congestion is eased, increasing the average speed of buses and so increasing capacity for free.

As I said, this is blue sky thinking.

kidneyfan

Milton Keynes is introducing driverless cars.

cgcsb

Sam Russell wrote: »

Would not the best idea to make public transport free be the first step? If it is free to use the bus, Dart, and Luas then why use the car with the trouble of parking, tolls, etc.?

The free transport could be funded by parking fees and tolls. The more cars that are abandoned would cut congestion and the public transport (or at least the buses) would move quicker, thus being less expensive to run. This would compensate for the reduced parking income.

Now there is blue sky thinking.

The problem in Dublin is not that there are too few people using public transport, quite the opposite, existing public transport is overloaded. The problem is we lack high capacity rail along the major corridors and depend on slow, low capacity buses that get stuck in regular traffic.

cgcsb

Sam Russell wrote: »

Obviously it does not go from expensive to free overnight.

Public order does not appear to affect all the grannies with free travel.

As public transport gets cheaper, more commuters will start to use it instead of private cars and so congestion is eased, increasing the average speed of buses and so increasing capacity for free.

As I said, this is blue sky thinking.

so when you are waiting on your bus in the morning, and 3 go past full, what are you supposed to do?

Sam Russell

cgcsb wrote: »

so when you are waiting on your bus in the morning, and 3 go past full, what are you supposed to do?

Campaign for: a congestion charge inside the canals; elimination of free civil service parking within the canals; the building of the Dart Underground and Metro North and the Clongriffin spur; more illegal parking clamping; reduction in taxi fares; etc. etc. etc.

Alternatively work from home.

magicbastarder

kidneyfan wrote: »

Milton Keynes is introducing driverless cars.

source?

Godge

Sam Russell wrote: »

Campaign for: a congestion charge inside the canals; elimination of free civil service parking within the canals; the building of the Dart Underground and Metro North and the Clongriffin spur; more illegal parking clamping; reduction in taxi fares; etc. etc. etc.

Alternatively work from home.

Why do you target civil servants? The Department of Finance looked at a tax on car spaces but it proved impractical.

What about school inspectors? They are probably in the Department of Education once of twice a week and spend the rest of the time on the road. If one lives in Malahide and has an inspection in Naas in the morning but needs to be in the Department in the afternoon, should he get a 1.00 bus from Naas leaving the car, then a 5.00 bus back to Naas and drive home to Malahide from there?

When you deal with that, I can move on to Agriculture inspectors, OPW engineers and architects, Labour inspectors, Revenue officials and many more civil servants who need to travel with their job. You want rid of their parking places as well?

cgcsb

Godge wrote: »

Why do you target civil servants? The Department of Finance looked at a tax on car spaces but it proved impractical.

What about school inspectors? They are probably in the Department of Education once of twice a week and spend the rest of the time on the road. If one lives in Malahide and has an inspection in Naas in the morning but needs to be in the Department in the afternoon, should he get a 1.00 bus from Naas leaving the car, then a 5.00 bus back to Naas and drive home to Malahide from there?

When you deal with that, I can move on to Agriculture inspectors, OPW engineers and architects, Labour inspectors, Revenue officials and many more civil servants who need to travel with their job. You want rid of their parking places as well?

Plenty of private sector workers need to drive around with their job.

Sam Russell

Godge wrote: »

Why do you target civil servants? The Department of Finance looked at a tax on car spaces but it proved impractical.

What about school inspectors? They are probably in the Department of Education once of twice a week and spend the rest of the time on the road. If one lives in Malahide and has an inspection in Naas in the morning but needs to be in the Department in the afternoon, should he get a 1.00 bus from Naas leaving the car, then a 5.00 bus back to Naas and drive home to Malahide from there?

When you deal with that, I can move on to Agriculture inspectors, OPW engineers and architects, Labour inspectors, Revenue officials and many more civil servants who need to travel with their job. You want rid of their parking places as well?

I think there are a lot of all-day parking in Dublin that should be eliminated. Perhaps I was unfair to pick on Civil Servants, but there are many who have free all day parking that should be charged for or eliminated. The survey probably failed because it would affect senior public representatives, and senior Civil Servants and we can't have that.

The groups that you cite could be excepted quite easily, but I suspect that they are quite a small percentage of the whole.

But park and ride is the way forward.

jobbridge4life

cgcsb wrote: »

Plenty of private sector workers need to drive around with their job.

And plenty of private sector workers get free parking if their employers bother to provide it. Some even get free food and doctors on call. So what is your point.

bk

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Well, one thing we could do is to work to have, say, 85 percent of our mechanised road traffic between the canals as self-driving vehicles by 2030.

I actually wouldn't call that blue sky thinking.

While I'm not certain of the date it will happen, I'm 100% certain that the future of the automobile industry is electric powered automated vehicles, where most people rent (pay as you go or subscription service) from the likes of Uber, Google, etc. rather then own their own vehicle.

I've read a great deal of academic research into this area and the numbers are such that these will be a massive revolution of transport and perhaps even society as we know it.

The numbers estimate that it will cost roughly half of my Dublin Bus fare to rent an on demand automated electric car to make the same journey!!!

This will have a number of pros and cons, on the pros:

- Big reduction in automobile deaths and injuries due to drunk, drugged and distracted driving.
- Greater freedom and mobility for elderly and disabled people, as well as children who will be able to travel by these vehicles.
- Big reduction in peoples spending on transport, averaging 10 to 50% of the cost of owning a car.
- Big reduction in pollution in cities due to no tail pipe emissions.
- Big reduction in noise disturbance as electric cars are much quieter.
- Big increase in road capacity as these electric cars will better fit our actual needs. Most of them will be one or two seater small vehicles with just enough battery power to complete your indicated journey. This will mean more vehicles can fit on the road.
- Also because all these vehicles will be communicating with one another, they will be able to use the road space much more efficiently.
- Package, grocery and take out deliveries will be delivered by driver less vehicles.

Cons:

- Big lose of jobs for anyone who works in driving, taxi drivers, bus drivers, delivery people, etc.
- Also potentially big reduction in car dealerships, mechanics, etc.

antoinolachtnai

The thing that is different is to take advantage of the extra road capacity that automatic cars generate and use this as an alternative to building transport tunnels of one sort or another.

All the points about pros and cons are true, but as you say, all these things will happen anyway, sooner or later.

a.

bk

Another thing I just thought of.

It has often been suggested that schools should start before or after rush hour, in order to reduce traffic. But that has generally failed to get popular support due to parents wanting to drop kids off on their way to work.

However with self driving cars, you could change school starting times to 10:00am and it would be less of an issue as the parents could continue to go to work for 9am, while the kids jump in the self driving car for 10am school start.

This could help greatly to stager the morning commute.

jobbridge4life

Underground roads and car parks. taking people into the city centre undeground leading to various large underground car parks at appropriate locations and access to public transit. Toll the underground roads but less so than tolls on above ground roads.

bk

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Underground roads and car parks. taking people into the city centre undeground leading to various large underground car parks at appropriate locations and access to public transit. Toll the underground roads but less so than tolls on above ground roads.

Well maybe underground roads, but underground car parks would be a massive waste of money in a future with self driving cars.

With self driving cars we will need far less premium city center parking. The self driving car will simply drop you off at work and then it will drive itself to a car park a little further out of the city (close, but not right in the city center) where it will park for the day and charge. It would then automatically return to your office just in time for when you finish work.

jobbridge4life

bk wrote: »

Well maybe underground roads, but underground car parks would be a massive waste of money in a future with self driving cars.

With self driving cars we will need far less premium city center parking. The self driving car will simply drop you off at work and then it will drive itself to a car park a little further out of the city (close, but not right in the city center) where it will park for the day and charge. It would then automatically return to your office just in time for when you finish work.

Assuming we privilege sprawl over an immediate investment. The underground car parks could also be used to provide parking for those without car parking associated with their accommodation in the driver-less future.

bk

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Assuming we privilege sprawl over an immediate investment. The underground car parks could also be used to provide parking for those without car parking associated with their accommodation in the driver-less future.

In the driver less future you don't need car parks at apartment buildings, the driverless cars will park at car parks on cheap land in industrial estates, etc. and they will automatically position themselves in the morning for the time you usually leave. If you leave at a different time then normal then they will simply dispatch whichever vehicle is closest.

Also in apartments that do have parking already, then the same space we currently have will be able to hold far more of these automated vehicles and likely apartment buildings will rent out their parking space to the likes of Uber, etc.

Carawaystick

Godge wrote: »

Why do you target civil servants? The Department of Finance looked at a tax on car spaces but it proved impractical.

This would have nothing to do with such a proposal impacting on dept of Finance staff would it?

Sam Russell

How much would it cost to use driverless cars? Would it be cheaper the driven cars (taxis)?

bk

Sam Russell wrote: »

How much would it cost to use driverless cars? Would it be cheaper the driven cars (taxis)?

Much cheaper, the reports I saw were predicting 50 cent per mile, versus $5 per mile for a taxi in New York City.

It isn't just the savings on the cost of the driver (which is a big one), but also:

- Electricity is about 1/4 the price of fuel.
- You wouldn't need as many vehicles, just enough to handle the peak demand. At the moment most cars sit there for 22 hours a day which is super inefficient.
- Most vehicles will be much smaller, just one or two seat jobs with just enough battery for the daily commute, thus major cost savings there.
- The companies who run this like Uber, Google, etc. are likely to bypass the traditional car manufacturers and dealerships, etc. and are likely to design their own cars and have them built for much less money in China.
- These companies will likely have their own in-house mechanics to look after the vehicles so big cost savings there.

Sam Russell

bk wrote: »

Much cheaper, the reports I saw were predicting 50 cent per mile, versus $5 per mile for a taxi in New York City.

It isn't just the savings on the cost of the driver (which is a big one), but also:

- Electricity is about 1/4 the price of fuel.
- You wouldn't need as many vehicles, just enough to handle the peak demand. At the moment most cars sit there for 22 hours a day which is super inefficient.
- Most vehicles will be much smaller, just one or two seat jobs with just enough battery for the daily commute, thus major cost savings there.
- The companies who run this like Uber, Google, etc. are likely to bypass the traditional car manufacturers and dealerships, etc. and are likely to design their own cars and have them built for much less money in China.
- These companies will likely have their own in-house mechanics to look after the vehicles so big cost savings there.

So not only will drivers of taxis and buses be out of a job, so will car workers (not that we have any in Ireland) and car mechanics, and car salesmen. Now, will car park attendants get a look in at all, and presumably train drivers will be redundant as well.

Sounds a great new world.

jobbridge4life

bk wrote: »

In the driver less future you don't need car parks at apartment buildings, the driverless cars will park at car parks on cheap land in industrial estates, etc. and they will automatically position themselves in the morning for the time you usually leave. If you leave at a different time then normal then they will simply dispatch whichever vehicle is closest.

Also in apartments that do have parking already, then the same space we currently have will be able to hold far more of these automated vehicles and likely apartment buildings will rent out their parking space to the likes of Uber, etc.

Yes but again thats assuming we think having sprawling carparks on industrial estates outside the CC would be preferable to underground facilities.

antoinolachtnai

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Yes but again thats assuming we think having sprawling carparks on industrial estates outside the CC would be preferable to underground facilities.

Well, underground car parking is fairly expensive to construct. I don't think we'd see much of it if there were alternative.

An automatic car car park would take up only half the space of a present day car park because the cars would be bumper to bumper. The roof heights would also be lower and there would be no need for ventilation systems.

The vehicles also take up less road space which is the biggest advantage for a congested, growing city like Dublin.

jobbridge4life

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Well, underground car parking is fairly expensive to construct. I don't think we'd see much of it if there were alternative.

An automatic car car park would take up only half the space of a present day car park because the cars would be bumper to bumper. The roof heights would also be lower and there would be no need for ventilation systems.

The vehicles also take up less road space which is the biggest advantage for a congested, growing city like Dublin.

Well all those savings are equally applicable to the underground model, significantly reducing costs.

bk

Sam Russell wrote: »

So not only will drivers of taxis and buses be out of a job, so will car workers (not that we have any in Ireland) and car mechanics, and car salesmen. Now, will car park attendants get a look in at all, and presumably train drivers will be redundant as well.

Sounds a great new world.

Yes, it will put a lot of people out of work and that sucks.

On the other hand automobile accidents are the number one killer of people under 30. So reducing this is well worth it as is the increases in mobility for elderly and disabled people.

To be honest with the waves of coming automation over the next few years, we are going to have to have a serious rethink on how capitalist society operates.

We probably need to look at introducing a living wage for all and question if it makes sense for everyone to continue to work 40 hours a week or more.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Yes but again thats assuming we think having sprawling carparks on industrial estates outside the CC would be preferable to underground facilities.

Given how expensive building massive underground car pars in city centers is, then yes, it is far preferable and much cheaper to store them on cheap land in sprawling industrial estates.

Obviously underground car parks for them would make a lot of sense in very dense cities like Hong Kong, Tokyo, etc. But it just wouldn't make financial sense in Ireland.

Sam Russell

With blue sky thinking, are you all not missing a trick.

Park the cars on the roof. A lift (small because they are tiny and light) carries them up to the roof for storing and recharging. Most large buildings have a flat roof, with the occasional service like AC units and ventilation but still room for little noddy cars.

bk

Sam Russell wrote: »

With blue sky thinking, are you all not missing a trick.

Park the cars on the roof. A lift (small because they are tiny and light) carries them up to the roof for storing and recharging. Most large buildings have a flat roof, with the occasional service like AC units and ventilation but still room for little noddy cars.

We will likely be covering roofs of buildings with solar panels. Also many apartment buildings actually have roof gardens up top, as required by planning permission.

Again all unnecessarily expensive (for Ireland) when the self driving car can simply drive itself anywhere cheaply to park.

Sam Russell

bk wrote: »

We will likely be covering roofs of buildings with solar panels. Also many apartment buildings actually have roof gardens up top, as required by planning permission.

Again all unnecessarily expensive (for Ireland) when the self driving car can simply drive itself anywhere cheaply to park.

All roofs? Every roof to have solar panels or roof gardens? Solar panels are not heavy structures and could permit little cars to park underneath them.

bk

Sam Russell wrote: »

All roofs? Every roof to have solar panels or roof gardens? Solar panels are not heavy structures and could permit little cars to park underneath them.

Most roofs will eventually end up with solar panels, unless they have roof gardens. Yes, you could place the solar panels higher on a structure and park cars underneath, but that would then require planning permission.

To be honest it just doesn't make financial sense, the cost of reinforcing roofs (they really aren't designed to take that sort of weight), building a lift, getting planning permission, etc. it simply doesn't make sense when the self driving cars can simply drive themselves 2 or 3 km outside the core city center and park in multistorey car parks in industrial estates.

jobbridge4life

bk wrote: »

To be honest it just doesn't make financial sense, the cost of reinforcing roofs (they really aren't designed to take that sort of weight), building a lift, getting planning permission, etc. it simply doesn't make sense when the self driving cars can simply drive themselves 2 or 3 km outside the core city center and park in multistorey car parks in industrial estates.

Not to be a mole-troll but I am all about the underground option. While obviously the capital investment would be higher and maintenance higher I think it is still a preferable choice to the industrial estate option and would vote for it even given the increased cost. We'd be saving more space above ground for parks or nature generally or for productive use.

antoinolachtnai

It is just not a significant amount of land. You could fit 800 driverless cars in an acre. 50,000 cars in the space that Dublin Zoo takes up. It is just not a big issue. There are plenty places to store these cars.

bk

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

It is just not a significant amount of land. You could fit 800 driverless cars in an acre. 50,000 cars in the space that Dublin Zoo takes up. It is just not a big issue. There are plenty places to store these cars.

Yup, especially when you consider that these driver less vehicles will be parking within a few cm's of one another, there is no need for opening doors etc. or access roads like you would have in a normal car park. Also most of these vehicles will be much smaller one or two seaters, so taking far less space.

The reality is 2 or 3km's outside the city you are in to two storey semi-d's. We use space incredibly inefficiently as it is.

I appreciate your point of view of building as many parks as possible, but here is another way of thinking about it. For all the extra money you spend building underground, you could build acres upon acres of extra park land. That would be a much better use of money IMO.

FreudianSlippers

2 words: MAG LEV


Belfast-Dublin-Cork


Totally overkill, but so sweet!

Carawaystick

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

2 words: MAG LEV


Belfast-Dublin-Cork


Totally overkill, but so sweet!

Can it be on a monorail too?