permeability/interesting challenge

magicbastarder

saw this on twitter this morning - people trying to find extreme examples of low permeability. i wonder what the least permeable example which might exist in the country could be?

https://mobile.twitter.com/JulesNagi/status/1321390038131892227

AngryLips

And yet housing estates continue to be gated and built only with entrances that suit cars at the expense of pedestrians.

L1011

And Residents Associations and Councillors put submissions in to get entrances removed from plans all the time.

magicbastarder

it's one of the issues - permeability - which is a flashpoint in regards to the placing of the greenway along the royal canal between the castleknock and coolmine railway stations. people in delwood do not want access to the greenway from the cul de sacs there; one reason is probably valid (woudl make the cul de sacs more attractive for people looking for free park and ride to the railway station), some less concrete (greater crime/antisocial behaviour).

McGrath5

Not far from me, there are railings on the boundary between these 2 estates. If there was a even a gate to facilitate pedestrians it would help to alleviate the appalling levels of school traffic in the area. What could be a potentially 10 minute walk to the local secondary school is currently a 27 minute walk.

loyatemu

the planning guidelines have improved - most of the new estates around here have some permeability to local facilities, though not necessarily between different estates.

Duckjob

McGrath5 wrote: »

Not far from me, there are railings on the boundary between these 2 estates. If there was a even a gate to facilitate pedestrians it would help to alleviate the appalling levels of school traffic in the area. What could be a potentially 10 minute walk to the local secondary school is currently a 27 minute walk.

According to Google that's a 2.5km journey from one road to the other - which is not even 10m away.

"Shure why does that matter, don't you have your car anyway ?"

Scandalous that backward bulls**t has been standard practice by developers and endorsed by our backward councils and planning authorities for decades.

Muahahaha

Theres a spot on the Snugborough Road not far from Weatherspoons in Blanch where you see people hopping a 2m high wall from an estate the other side. Not just children or teenagers, have seen adults do it too so they can get access to shops.Not sure how long the walkaround would be but probably a fair distance as the same wall runs all along the Snugborough Road for a good few hundred metres.

magicbastarder

yeah, worst case scenario for someone living in summerfield, it adds 1.5km to a walk to get to wetherspoons.
i suspect the sheer number of people who would walk through the estate would be what would prevent a pedestrian gate from happening; especially people leaving wetherspoons at night and walking back to roselawn and the surrounding area. i can't see a gate being put in there any time soon.

my mother walks through coolmine woods when she wants to walk to the shopping centre.

Muahahaha

magicbastarder wrote: »

yeah, worst case scenario for someone living in summerfield, it adds 1.5km to a walk to get to wetherspoons.
i suspect the sheer number of people who would walk through the estate would be what would prevent a pedestrian gate from happening; especially people leaving wetherspoons at night and walking back to roselawn and the surrounding area. i can't see a gate being put in there any time soon.

my mother walks through coolmine woods when she wants to walk to the shopping centre.

yeah I think these things are always based on estate v estate politics. Those closest to where a pedestrian gate might go dont want it to the detriment of everybody else further away. It always seems to be a case of the desires of the few trumping the needs of the many.

When you think of it its a bit mad that people in estates like Summerfield have 100+ shops in the shopping centre available to them but the best way to get there is by driving, not by walking.

McGrath5

Duckjob wrote: »

According to Google that's a 2.5km journey from one road to the other - which is not even 10m away.

"Shure why does that matter, don't you have your car anyway ?"

Scandalous that backward bulls**t has been standard practice by developers and endorsed by our backward councils and planning authorities for decades.

I agree its crazy, forgot to mention, in my example an anti climb paint is applied to the railings, meaning you're hands and clothes would get destroyed if you tried to traverse it!

Mrs OBumble

McGrath5 wrote: »

What could be a potentially 10 minute walk to the local secondary school is currently a 27 minute walk.

Anyone who won't do a 27 minute walk will not do a 10 minute walk either.

Stark

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Anyone who won't do a 27 minute walk will not do a 10 minute walk either.

BS

Peregrine

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Anyone who won't do a 27 minute walk will not do a 10 minute walk either.

It makes a big difference to a lot of people.

Muahahaha

Peregrine wrote: »

It makes a big difference to a lot of people.

especially older people who would be able for a short walk but not a longer one.

Stark

Muahahaha wrote: »

especially older people who would be able for a short walk but not a longer one.

Or people who simply do not have the time for a 54 min round trip to where they need to get to but do have time for a 20 min trip. I'm young, fit and healthy and enjoy walking places but quite often I'll choose the car instead of the 55 min walk due to time pressure whereas for a 20 min round trip walk, the car is not worth the hassle.

magicbastarder

placing this in a dublin context - anyone who wouldn't be willing to walk from fairview to o'connell bridge would also balk at walking from connolly station to o'connell bridge.

Muahahaha

Stark wrote: »

Or people who simply do not have the time for a 54 min round trip to where they need to get to but do have time for a 20 min trip. I'm young, fit and healthy and enjoy walking places but quite often I'll choose the car instead of the 55 min walk due to time pressure whereas for a 20 min round trip walk, the car is not worth the hassle.

yeah thats very true, a 20 minute round trip is about the upper limit most people will walk before they decide to take the car instead. People are tied for time and dont have almost an hour to walk to the shops and back. Ultimately bad permeability results in more car use for what could otherwise be a 10 minute walk.

beauf

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's one of the issues - permeability - which is a flashpoint in regards to the placing of the greenway along the royal canal between the castleknock and coolmine railway stations. people in delwood do not want access to the greenway from the cul de sacs there; one reason is probably valid (woudl make the cul de sacs more attractive for people looking for free park and ride to the railway station), some less concrete (greater crime/antisocial behaviour).

Easy enough to test. Record the issues for 3 months before you open it up, then open it for 3 months and record any incidents. If there a increase in negative activity, (parking or antisocial or crime) let them close it again.

magicbastarder

well, you could directly compare crime rates in brompton with the delwood cul de sacs; the brompton cul de sacs are cul de sacs for cars, but open onto the green for pedestrians, so a good proxy for the potential issues in delwood.
so if that *is* a genuine issue, you'd see burglars, etc., favouring brompton over delwood already.

beauf

magicbastarder wrote: »

well, you could directly compare crime rates in brompton with the delwood cul de sacs; the brompton cul de sacs are cul de sacs for cars, but open onto the green for pedestrians, so a good proxy for the potential issues in delwood.
so if that *is* a genuine issue, you'd see burglars, etc., favouring brompton over delwood already.

Not the same. There really isn't any through traffic there in the same way you get by opening up the canal.

You can sell the idea of opening up access in most of these situations by running a fair trial run. But most non resident won't agree to this, which is interesting.

For sure the design of many new estates is poor they don't plan good cycling or walking routes. But if you want to avoid using the car why choose to live in a location with poor accessibility. It would make more sense to just move to somewhere with easy non car access to local amenities.

Another solution is cycling. Have an old hack bicycle in the garden for popping to local shops. Shrinks all distances.

Mrs OBumble

Muahahaha wrote: »

yeah thats very true, a 20 minute round trip is about the upper limit most people will walk before they decide to take the car instead. People are tied for time and dont have almost an hour to walk to the shops and back. Ultimately bad permeability results in more car use for what could otherwise be a 10 minute walk.

A 10 min walk is not a 20 minute round trip though, unless you're doing no more than posting a letter. At very least it's 25 mins, and that's assuming you can do whatever you're going for in 5 minutes. Usually it's more, and you're running the risk of meeting someone you know and simply cannot avoid having at least some chat with. So fior anyone who is time-poor, 10 min walk each way isn't viable either.

And as soon as you start factoring age / fragility into it - a 10 minute walk for me is probably a sub-5 minute walk for many on here. I'm not even all that old yet, just careful of my knees and ankles. So what you'd see as perfectly acceptable permeability, I see as not as all. Case in point: there's a supermarket near one of my current offices. Others in the team get there in literally 5 minutes. I cannot manage the wall that needs climbing, so for me it's a 15 minute walk.

Carawaystick

There's a cul de sac in my estate with a 4' high wall across the end, low enough to allow young lads or anyone "dodgy" to hop over but blocks anyone "respectable" or elderly or needing wheels

Theres also houses facing about 20m of grass, or a 500m walk around to get to the shop, grand in summer, but a sloppy mess now

PhoenixParker

Shared route
From Rathborne Walk to Ashington Dale via Glenbrook Rd.

36 min (2.9 km)

To see this route visit https://maps.app.goo.gl/NuJaCaizxAsKJjPF6

As the crow flies it's a few hundred metres.

They are finally putting in a bridge that will help.

Muahahaha

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

A 10 min walk is not a 20 minute round trip though, unless you're doing no more than posting a letter. At very least it's 25 mins, and that's assuming you can do whatever you're going for in 5 minutes. Usually it's more, and you're running the risk of meeting someone you know and simply cannot avoid having at least some chat with. So fior anyone who is time-poor, 10 min walk each way isn't viable either.

And as soon as you start factoring age / fragility into it - a 10 minute walk for me is probably a sub-5 minute walk for many on here. I'm not even all that old yet, just careful of my knees and ankles. So what you'd see as perfectly acceptable permeability, I see as not as all. Case in point: there's a supermarket near one of my current offices. Others in the team get there in literally 5 minutes. I cannot manage the wall that needs climbing, so for me it's a 15 minute walk.

Not sure what your point is here on the topic of permeability. Whatever people are doing at the shops takes time regardless of whether they walked there or drove there.

For people with mobility issues they currently take their car because climbing walls or long walks obviously isnt an option. But if there were pedestrian routes through housing estates instead of walls then they also have the option of getting a mobility scooter to go to the shops. Now they have two ways of getting to the shops whereas the car was the only option previously.

Good permeability gives people another option that means they dont *have* to take the car. Without it people will always have to drive because there simply is no other viable way to do it without hopping walls like a teenager.

Spanish Eyes

Bring up the drawbridge quick!

Seems to be a particular issue in D15, but it is everywhere. People want to be in their own bunker. TBH given the amount of ASB going on everywhere now, it is an issue.

There must be ways around it.

I remember years and years ago my parents lived on Sundrive Road prior to moving elsewhere. There was a huge concrete wall built to separate what they called the "purchase" houses from the council houses at the back.

Is this still an issue or what?

magicbastarder

PhoenixParker wrote: »

Shared route
From Rathborne Walk to Ashington Dale via Glenbrook Rd.

to be fair, there *is* a canal in the way. often it's just a wall which is unnecessary.

what_traffic

Anybody aware of a Council in Ireland who CPO'd a house to knock to create permeability between estates?

Duckjob

I find the attitudes in Ireland around mobility so backward.

People don't want walkways / access between estates etc because they're afraid of attracting anti-social behavior. But anti-social behavior is driven away by regular circulation of regular people on the streets, which is eradicated when you start blocking off access and forcing people into their cars.

People don't seem to get that cars going up and down the road don't provide the social presence necessary to deter anti-social behavior. I'm firmly of the belief that our car centric ways are one of the main reasons why we have much more severe and brazen levels of visible scumbaggery on our streets than other European cities where people are more present on the streets.

beauf

Duckjob wrote: »

... I'm firmly of the belief....

You don't have to guess You can just open up a route beside, shops or a pub, nightclub and measure the statistics and and see does crime and anti social behavior increase with more footfall than with less. If it does close it.

PreCocious

Muahahaha wrote: »

Good permeability gives people another option that means they dont *have* to take the car. Without it people will always have to drive because there simply is no other viable way to do it without hopping walls like a teenager.

That's a point that often seems to be lost. Same in debates about cycling lanes and bus lanes. It's all about adding an option for those that can use that option, and, that modal shift will help - so if there a more pedestrians walking to the shops then that means fewer cars which will help parking at the destination.

beauf

PreCocious wrote: »

That's a point that often seems to be lost. Same in debates about cycling lanes and bus lanes. It's all about adding an option for those that can use that option, and, that modal shift will help - so if there a more pedestrians walking to the shops then that means fewer cars which will help parking at the destination.

You could measure that aswell. are there more car spaces free in the car park when you open up a route.

wench

I live in an area of Dublin built about a hundred years ago, when there was no expectation of private transport beyond a bike.
Hence there is good walking access to shops, schools, churches, etc.

You see plenty of locals in their 80s and 90s still walking to the shops, and the streets are a very sociable place, with people stopping to talk.
Having people out and about like that does far more to deter "loitering youths" etc, than blocking off access.

beauf

There more to it than loitering youths.

That aside you choose where you want to live. Pick a place to live that gives you good walking access.

magicbastarder

beauf wrote: »

That aside you choose where you want to live.

i think for most people, they choose where they can afford to live.

wench

beauf wrote: »

Pick a place to live that gives you good walking access.

That doesn't always work.
I grew up in a 70s built estate that had fairly good walking access, but gradually the "concerned citizens" got most of the pathways closed off.

3d4life

wench wrote: »

That doesn't always work.
I grew up in a 70s built estate that had fairly good walking access, but gradually the "concerned citizens" got most of the pathways closed off.

I'll wager that the the "concerned citizens" were well supported by AGS and sundry public 'representatives'.

beauf

wench wrote: »

That doesn't always work.
I grew up in a 70s built estate that had fairly good walking access, but gradually the "concerned citizens" got most of the pathways closed off.

A few I've lived in or near have also had it closed off. But it always dramatically reduced the amount of robberies and car thefts, and anti social behaviour.

Muahahaha

Duckjob wrote: »

I find the attitudes in Ireland around mobility so backward.

People don't want walkways / access between estates etc because they're afraid of attracting anti-social behavior. But anti-social behavior is driven away by regular circulation of regular people on the streets, which is eradicated when you start blocking off access and forcing people into their cars.

People don't seem to get that cars going up and down the road don't provide the social presence necessary to deter anti-social behavior. I'm firmly of the belief that our car centric ways are one of the main reasons why we have much more severe and brazen levels of visible scumbaggery on our streets than other European cities where people are more present on the streets.

All good points. The problems though are while more access means more pedestrians and less anti social behaviour during the daytime when the sun goes down there isnt the same volume of pedestrians to deter gangs of teenagers congregating at walkways between housing estates. Then the houses bordering these passageways campaign to get them closed, their neighbours support them and they get onto their local councillor who sees easy votes from multiple households/members of the residents association so they support it and the access gets blocked up.

Dick Turnip

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

A 10 min walk is not a 20 minute round trip though, unless you're doing no more than posting a letter. At very least it's 25 mins, and that's assuming you can do whatever you're going for in 5 minutes. Usually it's more, and you're running the risk of meeting someone you know and simply cannot avoid having at least some chat with.

What are you talking about?! For the purposes being discussed here, a 10min walk equals a 20 min round trip, we're not going to factor in how chatty someone is or the likelihood of them bumping into someone in their social circle.

Also, this 10 v 27 min walk was talked about in the context of going to school. That makes a huge difference to choices on how the kids will get to school. If it's nearly half an hour, it's far more likely that parents will drive kids to school therefore clogging the roads more. If it's 10 mins, it becomes much easier to get the kids to walk.

L1011

Every single laneway etc near me that wasn't closed by concerted efforts of residents associations + councillors in their pockets has instead been solved by high intensity lighting. You don't get "loitering youths" or any of the more Helen Lovejoy style made up concerns in those situations.

A laneway with a single crappy mercury vapour light that's been missed in every retrofit scheme as its not on a main road is asking for trouble; get multiple LED heads in there and its fine.

beauf wrote: »

That aside you choose where you want to live. Pick a place to live that gives you good walking access.

Plenty of people did, then had that access cut down by busy bodies.

what_traffic

L1011 wrote: »

Every single laneway etc near me that wasn't closed by concerted efforts of residents associations + councillors in their pockets has instead been solved by high intensity lighting. You don't get "loitering youths" or any of the more Helen Lovejoy style made up concerns in those situations.

A laneway with a single crappy mercury vapour light that's been missed in every retrofit scheme as its not on a main road is asking for trouble; get multiple LED heads in there and its fine.

Plenty of people did, then had that access cut down by busy bodies.

Ya agree - have noticed this in my area as well since just the LED lights have replaced the Sodium(Orange lights)? not even new lamp posts added. Just replacements.
To add a slight positive note to this - majority of such closures I have seen are just gates, easily dismantled. Problem with some new estates is that the odd one may require an actual house to be knocked to create a proper linkage. Would start with taking down walls in a neighborhood first though.

beauf

L1011 wrote: »

Every single laneway etc near me that wasn't closed by concerted efforts of residents associations + councillors in their pockets has instead been solved by high intensity lighting. You don't get "loitering youths" or any of the more Helen Lovejoy style made up concerns in those situations.

A laneway with a single crappy mercury vapour light that's been missed in every retrofit scheme as its not on a main road is asking for trouble; get multiple LED heads in there and its fine.



Plenty of people did, then had that access cut down by busy bodies.

The issue isn't solely with loitering. I guess if your only concern is walking the shortest distance to everywhere the "busy bodies" won't really have a lot of empathy for that either. Its a two way street, (pun intended).

beauf

what_traffic wrote: »

Ya agree - have noticed this in my area as well since just the LED lights have replaced the Sodium(Orange lights)? not even new lamp posts added. Just replacements.
To add a slight positive note to this - majority of such closures I have seen are just gates, easily dismantled. Problem with some new estates is that the odd one may require an actual house to be knocked to create a proper linkage. Would start with taking down walls in a neighborhood first though.

I think the old white lights had a better balance between the new harsh blue lights and the fuzzy visibility from the yellow ones. Maybe they could be tweaked a bit to get the best compromise.

what_traffic wrote: »

To add a slight positive note to this - majority of such closures I have seen are just gates, easily dismantled. Problem with some new estates is that the odd one may require an actual house to be knocked to create a proper linkage. Would start with taking down walls in a neighborhood first though.

Some places had gates opened during the day and closed at night. Gates can obviously be trialed easier than walls. Not that anyone here is interested in compromise.

But on the subject walls...

Carawaystick wrote: »

There's a cul de sac in my estate with a 4' high wall across the end, low enough to allow young lads or anyone "dodgy" to hop over but blocks anyone "respectable" or elderly or needing wheels....

The logical conclusion here is that wall serve no purpose at all. Which seems strange then that people still use them for all sorts of things.