Cities around the world that are reducing car access

cgcsb

CMATS is essentially an American style road building program with some lip service to new buses and light rail, the plan it's self doesn't propose doing anything at all for PT in Cork until about 2028. That was a joint effort between Jacobs and Systra (an SNCF subsidiary). Jacobs are one of the more regressive companies, they don't allow their staff to cycle during working hours (e.g. to meetings).

bk

cgcsb wrote: »

Jacobs are one of the more regressive companies, they don't allow their staff to cycle during working hours (e.g. to meetings).

Ok, that is mad!

I can't speak for Limerick, but for Cork, I have to say it is realistic for Cork. Public transport is almost non existent in Cork, still of a very poor quality and most people down in Cork simply have no interest in public transport unfortunately.

Growing up in Cork, but live in Dublin now and it is simply a very different world. Buses aren't reliable at all in Cork, basically they are seen as only useful for elderly and students. On the other hand traffic congestion is nowhere near as bad as Dublin, overall pretty decent, so most people see the car as preferable.

Honestly, I'm not sure what needs to be done to change that. You could spend Billions on public transport and I don't think you would change most peoples minds down there unfortunately.

cgcsb

bk wrote: »

Ok, that is mad!

I can't speak for Limerick, but for Cork, I have to say it is realistic for Cork. Public transport is almost non existent in Cork, still of a very poor quality and most people down in Cork simply have no interest in public transport unfortunately.

Growing up in Cork, but live in Dublin now and it is simply a very different world. Buses aren't reliable at all in Cork, basically they are seen as only useful for elderly and students. On the other hand traffic congestion is nowhere near as bad as Dublin, overall pretty decent, so most people see the car as preferable.

Honestly, I'm not sure what needs to be done to change that. You could spend Billions on public transport and I don't think you would change most peoples minds down there unfortunately.

The solution to public transport being poor and people being over relient on the car is not just spending loads of money on new roads, that will certainly worsen the situation as we have seen the world over.

River Suir

bk wrote: »

Ok, that is mad!

I can't speak for Limerick, but for Cork, I have to say it is realistic for Cork. Public transport is almost non existent in Cork, still of a very poor quality and most people down in Cork simply have no interest in public transport unfortunately.

Growing up in Cork, but live in Dublin now and it is simply a very different world. Buses aren't reliable at all in Cork, basically they are seen as only useful for elderly and students. On the other hand traffic congestion is nowhere near as bad as Dublin, overall pretty decent, so most people see the car as preferable.

Honestly, I'm not sure what needs to be done to change that. You could spend Billions on public transport and I don't think you would change most peoples minds down there unfortunately.

You’ve answered your own hypothetical question. If, as you say, people in Cork aren’t interested in public transport because it is infrequent and unreliable; then by making it frequent, reliable and not reliant on road traffic levels it becomes an attractive proposition.

Sam Russell

River Suir wrote: »

You’ve answered your own hypothetical question. If, as you say, people in Cork aren’t interested in public transport because it is infrequent and unreliable; then by making it frequent, reliable and not reliant on road traffic levels it becomes an attractive proposition.

Or make it free. 50% of the population have it free anyway.

I'm sure the people of Cork would use it if it was free, and if it proves popular, it would be cheaper to buy a few extra buses than build a few km of motorway.

bk

Sam Russell wrote: »

Or make it free. 50% of the population have it free anyway.

I'm sure the people of Cork would use it if it was free, and if it proves popular, it would be cheaper to buy a few extra buses than build a few km of motorway.

It is a good idea, but most people still wouldn't use it.

It is hard to get across to people just how bad and unreliable buses are in Cork. My parents live near the city, suppose to be a bus every 20 minutes outside their house. Most of the time you would be waiting at least an hour for a bus. My parents only live a 40 minute walk from the city center!

In Dublin public transport modal share is near 80%, in Cork it is 7% !!

In Cork, if you drive, you do, it is pretty quick and easy to drive around Cork compared to Dublin and far more reliable.

Don't get me wrong, we should absolutely make a big effort to improve public transport in Cork. But don't underestimate what a massive job it is going to be. It will take decades to change minds and likely it won't massively change until after traffic congestion gets much worse in Cork.

Just getting those BE routes to actually match what they are supposed to be, every 20 minutes, would be a good start. Maybe even get it down to 10 minutes.

It really is a very different world from Dublin and while I certainly support improving it, I do think folks need to take into account the reality on the ground there and just how different from Dublin it is.

Seth Brundle

I think from what we see with the idea of introducing cycle lanes in Cork, then first barrier in terms of changing the mindset is with the council itself.
The council could make several subtle changes to encourage bike and PT usage without having too much of an impact on drivers. They aren't doing this though. They seem to be completely (excuse the pun) car-driven.

what_traffic

Sam Russell wrote: »

Or make it free. 50% of the population have it free anyway.

I'm sure the people of Cork would use it if it was free, and if it proves popular, it would be cheaper to buy a few extra buses than build a few km of motorway.

Make it faster and less expensive(which NTA are doing with LEAP cards), get on bus 15 minutes. Get in your car same journey will take longer 25minutes and be more expensive to store car on street or multi-story.

hans aus dtschl

Just stepping in to say there is a huge appetite for sustainable transport in Cork, if meetings between business groups and the NTA are anything to go by.

It's very much a case of the NTA sticking their fingers in their ears rather than a lack of local interest. Some of the reasons they come up with for not investing in Cork sustainable transport infrastructure beggar belief.

Seth Brundle

Get ta feck...
https://twitter.com/FredPLogue/status/1303779748456341505

CatInABox

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Get ta feck...
https://twitter.com/FredPLogue/status/1303779748456341505

Well, I mean, any time that I see anti-social behaviour going on, I always think "if only there was a bunch of taxis driving around, that'd sort this right out."

Jesus wept.

Pete_Cavan

Is he volunteering his members to deal with any anti-social behaviour they see on streets on which they are allowed to drive around Drogheda?

Thelonious Monk

So the sandymount strand cycle infra has been cancelled even though it was a majority in favour. And the 30kmh scrapped. Dublin is hopeless, the dinosaurs will always prevail.

magicbastarder

the problems with plans like this is that disruption is specific, but benefit is diffuse. and that plays into local politics where it's easier for a councillor in an affected area to point to disruption, than it is for a councillor for the next ward over to point out the benefits to his or her constituents.

Sam Russell

Well, the Sandymount Strand cycle-way project was daft.

The proposal did not even indicate which way the one-way traffic would go. How can anyone support a project when the most basic element was missing?

The project would have some point if the closing of Merrion Gates was included in the plan. The two-way cycle-way should have either gone onto the pavement with pedestrians walking through linear park, or the other side of the road, or the cyclist would go through a new track in the park.

There is plenty of space. A half baked plan.

MJohnston

Sam Russell wrote: »

How can anyone support a project when the most basic element was missing?

It was supported by the public with 2 to 1 in favour. Of course, DCC voted to long-finger it BEFORE the public consultation closed. Including one unnamed Labour councillor who loves to go on about the importance of public consultation.

riddlinrussell

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, the Sandymount Strand cycle-way project was daft.

The proposal did not even indicate which way the one-way traffic would go. How can anyone support a project when the most basic element was missing?

The project would have some point if the closing of Merrion Gates was included in the plan. The two-way cycle-way should have either gone onto the pavement with pedestrians walking through linear park, or the other side of the road, or the cyclist would go through a new track in the park.

There is plenty of space. A half baked plan.

I'm wondering if someone actually tried to follow the hierarchy set down in the design manual for once, "Ok pedestrians are the priority so we cant move them, then cyclists, ok we will need to add space for them as there isnt any at present, we can take it from cars, as they are lower down the priority listing, perfect!" Doesn't seem to have taken on this occasion, but I hope they continue to try.

MJohnston

The DCC planning report said that they cycleway could not go on the pavement because there are sections of no pavement, which would force shared road use again, which would defeat the whole point.

You can't do it on the other side of the road because there are hundreds of private accesses that side.

I believe you can't add a new track in the park because it's part of the biosphere preserve.

You either do it as the plan stated, or you don't do it at all.

Also this is incorrect:

The proposal did not even indicate which way the one-way traffic would go.

It was indicated:

LXFlyer

It was another example though, like the scheme in Dundrum, of users of the bus service being penalised, in this case by having to walk up to 700m to/from an alternative bus stop.

There's nothing "temporary" about these schemes, and why should public transport users be penalised in the long term?

Somehow there needs to be some joined up thinking that gives the cyclists the safe and well designed cycle lanes, but also does not penalise public transport users unnecessarily.

MJohnston

LXFlyer wrote: »

It was another example though, like the scheme in Dundrum, of users of the bus service being penalised, in this case by having to walk up to 700m to/from an alternative bus stop.

There's nothing "temporary" about these schemes, and why should public transport users be penalised in the long term?

Somehow there needs to be some joined up thinking that gives the cyclists the safe and well designed cycle lanes, but also does not penalise public transport users unnecessarily.

Hmmm I'm not seeing where there's a 700m walk introduced?

By the layouts, only the 1 and the 47 between Newgrove Avenue and St Johns Road would have had their route changed. I can only see an approx 450m additional walk (and then only for the handful of residents living directly on Strand Road).

LXFlyer

MJohnston wrote: »

Hmmm I'm not seeing where there's a 700m walk introduced?

By the layouts, only the 1 and the 47 between Newgrove Avenue and St Johns Road would have had their route changed. I can only see an approx 450m additional walk (and then only for the handful of residents living directly on Strand Road).

Both routes would be redirected along Gilford Road and Park Avenue.

Anyone that uses stops between St John's Church and Sandymount Village is now going to have to walk further to get a bus. That is not a good change for those bus users, especially given the older population in the area.

The furthest would be stop 376 would be between 600 and 700m from either of the stops at the Tesco in Sandymount Village or the stop on Gilford Road before Park Avenue (currently used for school services).

That's not a good result for public transport.

Again, my point is that these measures might be called temporary, but let's be honest they're going to be damn hard to reverse after CoVid.

I'd prefer a solution that respects public transport as well as cyclists.

It just seems to be that bus users can go and jump, as long as cyclists are sorted, as has happened in Dundrum.

MJohnston

LXFlyer wrote: »

Both routes would be redirected along Gilford Road and Park Avenue.

Anyone that uses stops between St John's Church and Sandymount Village is now going to have to walk further to get a bus. That is not a good change for those bus users, especially given the older population in the area.

The furthest would be stop 376 would be between 600 and 700m from either of the stops at the Tesco in Sandymount Village or the stop on Gilford Road before Park Avenue (currently used for school services).

That's not a good result for public transport.

In fairness, 376 is a total outlier, and I'm sure that stop near Gilford Road/Park Avenue could easily be repurposed for general use.

That all said, I think this is a real red herring argument — there are zero houses to the east of the existing 1 and 47 routes on Strand Road.

Moving those routes to Gilford Road/Park Avenue puts far more residences closer to them.

LXFlyer

MJohnston wrote: »

In fairness, 376 is a total outlier, and I'm sure that stop near Gilford Road/Park Avenue could easily be repurposed for general use.

That all said, I think this is a real red herring argument — there are zero houses to the east of the existing 1 and 47 routes on Strand Road.

Moving those routes to Gilford Road/Park Avenue puts far more residences closer to them.

I did say up to 700m. That's the upper limit, but it is a valid point to make. Do we not count all stops in assessing this?

My point stands. It's inconveniencing the existing users who will all have to walk a not insignificant distance to their bus.

You seem to think that they don't count at all in this as indeed do most of the cyclists, in the same way as has happened in Dundrum.

We need a balanced solution to this.

loyatemu

LXFlyer wrote: »

Both routes would be redirected along Gilford Road and Park Avenue.

Anyone that uses stops between St John's Church and Sandymount Village is now going to have to walk further to get a bus. That is not a good change for those bus users, especially given the older population in the area.

Are there no old people living on Gilford Road and Park Avenue? It would bring the bus closer to them.

Peregrine

loyatemu wrote: »

Are there no old people living on Gilford Road and Park Avenue? It would bring the bus closer to them.

Old people only ever live on streets that buses are redirected from. They never live on streets that buses are redirected to.

MJohnston

LXFlyer wrote: »

I did say up to 700m. That's the upper limit, but it is a valid point to make. Do we not count all stops in assessing this?

My point stands. It's inconveniencing the existing users who will all have to walk a not insignificant distance to their bus.

You seem to think that they don't count at all in this as indeed do most of the cyclists, in the same way as has happened in Dundrum.

We need a balanced solution to this.

No response to my last point about this increasing the number of homes close to the bus routes? Why don't they count?

LXFlyer

loyatemu wrote: »

Are there no old people living on Gilford Road and Park Avenue? It would bring the bus closer to them.

That bus route has been the same going back years. Why should it be changed without any proper assessment of the impact?

It isn't generally a good idea to change long established bus routings away from existing roads. That much came out loud and clear from the BusConnects network redesign when there was the harebrained plans to remove bus routes from local communities.

I happen to think that this plan (and the changes in Dundrum) were being forced through without any real thought on the impact on bus services which are going to be long term, not "temporary".

I would prefer a proper full assessment and consultation on this particular project, rather than forcing it through on the back of Covid-19.

MJohnston

Assessment and consultation. Assessment and consultation. Assessment and consultation. Assessment and consultation. Assessment and consultation. Assessment and consultation. Assessment and consultation. Assessment and consultation. Assessment and consultation.

Vomit. No thanks. This is how it's been forever, and we've gotten nowhere, slowly. It's a broken process!

I'd rather we take a progressive approach with a very minor bus route change like this — trial it now, watch how it impacts things, and then decide whether to roll back, adjust, or progress.

Nobodies lives (especially nobody who can afford to live on Strand Road!) will be ruined by giving these changes a temporary run out.

LXFlyer

MJohnston wrote: »

No response to my last point about this increasing the number of homes close to the bus routes? Why don't they count?

Well if that was so important, there would have been a campaign for it years ago.

People often buy homes on the basis of public transport being close.

Anyone on the suggested routing would have already bought their home full in the knowledge of where the bus routes were and that they weren’t going outside their homes.

Look all I’m saying is that this is not a minor change and I don’t think it should be allowed through under the guise of Covid measures without the normal
assessments and consultation processes.

LXFlyer

MJohnston wrote: »

Assessment and consultation. Assessment and consultation. Assessment and consultation. Assessment and consultation. Assessment and consultation. Assessment and consultation. Assessment and consultation. Assessment and consultation. Assessment and consultation.

Vomit. No thanks. This is how it's been forever, and we've gotten nowhere, slowly. It's a broken process!

I'd rather we take a progressive approach with a very minor bus route change like this — trial it now, watch how it impacts things, and then decide whether to roll back, adjust, or progress.

Nobodies lives (especially nobody who can afford to live on Strand Road!) will be ruined by giving these changes a temporary run out.

With due respect take the BusConnects network change proposal.

The original one was rejected out of hand by the public as a result of the consultation. It was based on barking mad parameters by the NTA that Jarrett Walker had to follow.

We got a much improved proposal last November, basically redesigned from scratch without the ludicrous assumptions that the original one had.

We have planning laws and we should have to abide by them. This proposal is riding roughshod over them. They are there for a reason.

There wasn’t even a consultation in Dundrum and bus users yet again have been the losers from the changes there and have a worse bus service as a result.

I just happen to think that the long term nature of these projects (none of them are temporary if we are honest about it) that bus routes shouldn’t be regarded as an afterthought.

I will not apologise to anyone for my pro-public transport stance in this. Buses just tend to be an afterthought and I don’t think that is fair.

I’d also say that the people on the roads that the Strand Road traffic is diverted onto might not view it as benignly as you do. Most of the traffic is cross-river and it’s very simplistic to think that it’ll evaporate. DCC seem to have copped that and are now going to assess the traffic impact. Shades of College Green again.