Advertisement
Boards are fundraising to help the people of Ukraine via the Red Cross at this horrific time. Please donate and share if you can, you will find the link here. Many thanks.

Global cities reducing car access

1515254565776

Comments

  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 16,370 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Sam Russell


    Isn't Capel St North South, so how do you go West along it?



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,729 ✭✭✭✭ AndrewJRenko


    Probably trying to send the message that she cycles regularly, which she does.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,940 ✭✭✭ cgcsb


    Ridiculous that they're still letting cars use the wooden bridge



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,786 ✭✭✭ wakka12


    Safety? Mate the chances of you dying in a car crash on your commutes are infinitely higher than being knifed by a knacker on the bus.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,987 ✭✭✭ haphaphap


    No, they usually wait for you to alight the Bus and then mug you at knifepoint. Don't remind people that buses in the city are especially prone to anti-social behaviour if you are trying to encourage people to use them.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,786 ✭✭✭ wakka12


    I'm not necessarily encouraging busses, who said I was, what I am definitely encouraging though is fair debate and rational thoughts on the topic. And in terms of that, cars are indisputably far more dangerous and a risk to your life than travelling by bus



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,987 ✭✭✭ haphaphap


    Bus generally won't be a danger to your life as you won't be taking it as it won't be going where you want to go and people will rely on bike or car to get to their destination. As you will see the majority of trips in Ireland are carried out with a car yet there were so few accidents last year because cars are only getting safer year by year.





  • Registered Users Posts: 9,786 ✭✭✭ wakka12


    I never said driving was dangerous. 'more dangerous' than something else, doesn't mean that it itself is a dangerous thing. I drive plenty myself and am not scared. I was just informing you that while being afraid for your life while driving is irrational, it's EVEN more irrational to fear for your safety while taking public transport in Ireland.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,045 ✭✭✭ McGrath5




  • Registered Users Posts: 16,579 ✭✭✭✭ namloc1980


    Cork City Council installed fake trees at a cost of €380k that consume electricity and water to operate, to tackle air quality on Patrick Street. The laugh being that they are too lazy to enforce the actual bus lane on Patrick Street, which is routinely clogged with private cars that shouldn't be there. Greenwashing at it's finest.



  • Registered Users Posts: 68,256 ✭✭✭✭ seamus


    Lyle Langley laughing all the way to the bank after selling those yokes to CCC.

    For the cost of just one of those things, they could easily have repaved the entire street to ban private vehicles, make more room for bikes and pedestrians, and plant multiple mature real trees.

    "Greenwashing", I like that.



  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 20,890 Mod ✭✭✭✭ bk


    I'm not sure if it is true or not, but I heard them saying that these moss walls absorb the equivalent pollution of 200 trees. So if true, they aren't a bad idea in and of themselves. I agree however that they just need to do more pedestrianisation and stop listening to the small, but vocal, local traders who are against it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,579 ✭✭✭✭ namloc1980


    Yes they are a bad idea. An absolutely terrible idea. That claim of 200 trees has never been verified and is only coming from the manufacturer. They also require electricity to operate and thousands of litres of water to be pumped into them as well as annual maintenance. Any possible benefit is immediately offset by that. Furthermore €380k would buy you c.7,000 or so native Irish trees of 2 to 4 metres in height. Trees don't need electricity or pumped water and require very little maintenance also. They are also beneficial for birds and insects and provide shade and reduce temperatures of exposed concrete/tarmac in built up areas. Those robo trees offer none of those benefits.




  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 20,890 Mod ✭✭✭✭ bk


    Come on, it is a bit much to get upset about using water in Ireland, it isn't like we are short of it. And news flash for you, trees use massive amounts of water too!

    Fair enough on electricity, though if it is coming from renewable resources, it isn't a big deal.

    Of course I'd prefer full pedestrianisation. But if there is there any truth to the 200 claim, then it really isn't a bad idea for dense city centers where lots of trees aren't usually possible. Though ideally in-conjunction with full pedestrianisation and trees where there is space for them.



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,579 ✭✭✭✭ namloc1980


    There is no truth to the 200 tree claim. Examiner even said the manufacturer had withdrawn that claim as there was no scientific basis to it. NEWSFLASH for you: Trees use rain water that falls from the sky. These things need a pumped supply of water that uses energy. Totally incomparable.

    Here's an article from the Netherlands where they installed these things in 2018 in Amsterdam to great fanfare. They were removed a year later due to being ineffective and actually turned out the fans inside them increased the circulation of dust and particulates. They ultimately removed less than 1% of what was promised. The moss inside also died and had to be replaced - not very green is it.


    But the experiment turned into a failure. Experts from the GGD and Wageningen University calculated that the City Trees provided less than 1 percent less particulate matter. Because the moss panels suck in air and blow it out again in one direction, they give not less but more nitrogen dioxide along the facades of valkenburgerstraat.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 41,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder


    CO2 levels are not an issue in an urban area that these trees could even *begin* to make a dent in. it's pure tokenism; street trees are not a solution to the CO2 issue and never have been.

    "One CityTree equals 275 natural trees and can convert 240 tons of CO2 equivalents from dust pollution and soot per year, it said. " ( https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/munster/arid-40356071.html )

    240 tons a year? i.e. 660KG *a day*? ye what?


    anyway, a normal (full grown) tree absorbs CO2 at maybe 20KG per year. a petrol car idling, not moving, produces about 1.5KG of CO2 per hour. or 30 times as much in an hour as a tree can absorb in a day.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 16,579 ✭✭✭✭ namloc1980


    If these robo trees could actually pull 240 tons of CO2 a year they'd collapse in a massive heap under the weight of that.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 41,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder


    i don't know if they've misquoted that - but let's say they are correct in their assertion that these things can beat an actual tree by a factor of 250, and let's say a real street tree can absorb 10KG of CO2 a year. so we're looking at 25 tons, rather than 240 tons, so it's still 70KG a day or thereabouts. and with trees, you know where the carbon is being captured, in the wood and soil. with moss, what are they doing with the moss so that the carbon doesn't re-enter the atmosphere? are they taking it away and placing it in storage?



  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 20,890 Mod ✭✭✭✭ bk


    Are these not more about removing PM's and NOX, the pollution that comes out of Diesel cars and can cause cancer, etc. rather then carbon capture.

    While of course reducing green house gases is incredibly important, we also have to remember that there are also other, different environmental and health issues.

    Of course, removing cars from our cities (and promoting EV's) are the best solution to this. Things like green walls, moss walls, just trees and vegetation in general can all help reduce pollution, improve air quality, reduce noise and make our cities generally more pleasant.



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,579 ✭✭✭✭ namloc1980


    But they are ineffective as demonstrated by their removal from a number of European cities in recent years where they were installed. And even if they "might" be slightly effective in the immediate area around them, overall they are pretty useless. Removing the source of the particulate pollution is what should be done (enforcing the bus lane would be a great start) rather than installing these expensive gimmicks. Oh and plant actual real life trees that aside from the obvious benefits are good for urban wildlife and don't need to be plugged in or need water pumped to them.


    Post edited by namloc1980 on


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 41,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder


    i see a lone tweet claiming that the judge has ruled against the woman who tried taking an injunction against the pedestrianisation of new street in malahide. no actual source cited, though.



  • Registered Users Posts: 69 ✭✭ densification


    Fingal CC have said the woman lost her case against them.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 41,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder


    i think she lost her injunction intended to revert the road back to previous use, pending a decision on the legality, but the judge is still going to examine the legality issue.



  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,166 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Peregrine


    The judicial review case is still ongoing. She wanted the pedestrianisation to be reversed while the judicial review was happening. That was refused today.



  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,113 Mod ✭✭✭✭ CatInABox


    Glad she lost, but her injunction wasn't entirely without merit (without morals, perhaps). She wanted the injunction to happen now, as she feared that by the time the courts got around to deciding her case, the pedestrianisation would be over.

    Such a selfish way of looking at the world.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,501 ✭✭✭✭ Podge_irl


    If the pedestrianisation is over by the time the judicial review is done then the scheme was clearly temporary and therefore, based on the rational of the Sandymount cast, not all that likely to succeed anyway.



Advertisement