Cork developments

olearydc wrote: »

Average of 2 meters. Some 4 to 7 meters
Presently space to turn car(s) around. The average family having 2 cars with visitors space which is normal. There is absolutely no on-street parking anywhere except at/on their own land

When they take that space away, ability to turn around is gone
Hard to see them reversing in or backing out onto the main road

By backing out on to the main road, you of course mean backing out onto a footpath, then cycle lane, then bus lane, then the main road.

For clarity.

[Deleted User]

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Thanks for making the point: that's exactly one of the biggest issues in the city area. Private car use is off the wall completely for a modern city.

If people are living in Wilton, working in CUH and walking to work, then it does not matter if they have a car parked in the garden for out of hours use though, no?

Even when I had the LUAS I still had a car to get me to training/matches, back to Cork and such. I was not contributing to traffic chaos in the morning/evening but still needed a car for other activities not supported by public transport.

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

By backing out on to the main road, you of course mean backing out onto a footpath, then cycle lane, then bus lane, then the main road.

For clarity.

you are Totally right,

there will be more space before they hit the traffic and hopefully cyclist coming up will see them

We have all done it....

But I think we know that it is easier And safer to drive out of your drive going forward

sheff_

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

You get the odd car reversing in, holds up the show a lot.
In fairness, Glasheen rd is a lot less busy, has some on street parking (in parts) , more side streets with parking, and the gardens are about 10" to 6' long.

Yes, but the wilton road people will have a bus lane to reverse in from which would carry less traffic than Glasheen Road. 20/30 seconds delay for someone to back in shouldn’t be a big issue.

More and more it seems gardens/shrubs/bees etc is just a gimmick and all this is about is whether someone’s 3rd/4th/5th parking space in front of a house on a major road is the most important thing.

What’s yet to be mentioned too is the much needed widening of the footpaths under this plan. At present southbound is a disaster for pedestrians, cyclists and bus users, but feck it, people need all this parking at the front door.

Deleted User wrote: »

If people are living in Wilton, working in CUH and walking to work, then it does not matter if they have a car parked in the garden for out of hours use though, no?

Even when I had the LUAS I still had a car to get me to training/matches, back to Cork and such. I was not contributing to traffic chaos in the morning/evening but still needed a car for other activities not supported by public transport.

There is either need for multiple vehicles on-premise and entering and exiting throughout the day or there is not. This is among the best-served public transport routes in the country. Probably the best in the city. The idea that you need multiple cars entering and exiting each of those driveways raises all sorts of questions about what the purpose of the building is.

olearydc wrote: »

It is a lot of space, when you have no parking on a road, anywhere - -you really do need it...once that land is taking away, some folks wont be able to get 1 car to turn around

There are a few student accomandation places around but many are family homes

I may have further bad news for you...
The plan is to further remove on-road parking. And discourage cars in the city altogether.

olearydc wrote: »

you are Totally right,

there will be more space before they hit the traffic and hopefully cyclist coming up will see them

We have all done it....

But I think we know that it is easier And safer to drive out of your drive going forward

Exactly, you should always reverse in to your parking space, as is the rule on most sites I visit.

I'm not 100% sure what you're saying "we have all done" but I hope you don't mean "we have all nearly crashed because we were driving on the wrong side of the road in a cycle lane to get our speed up". Because I definitely haven't ever done that.

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Exactly, you should always reverse in to your parking space, as is the rule on most sites I visit.

Yap, again correct

Best to reverse in if they had to and had no choice
Even better, easier, faster to drive and in and do a uturn on their own car park

If you get my drift

sheff_ wrote: »

Yes, but the wilton road people will have a bus lane to reverse in from which would carry less traffic than Glasheen Road. 20/30 seconds delay for someone to back in shouldn’t be a big issue.

More and more it seems gardens/shrubs/bees etc is just a gimmick and all this is about is whether someone’s 3rd/4th/5th parking space in front of a house on a major road is the most important thing.

There's a lot of formally-painted spaces in the area.
I do wonder about their use as residential spaces.

sheff_ wrote: »

What’s yet to be mentioned too is the much needed widening of the footpaths under this plan. At present southbound is a disaster for pedestrians, cyclists and bus users, but feck it, people need all this parking at the front door.

As someone rightly commented earlier: "to facilitate the private transport choice of a small minority"

olearydc wrote: »

Yap, again correct

Best to reverse in if they had to and had no choice
Even better, easier, faster to drive and in and do a uturn on their own car park

If you get my drift

I don't think that's unreasonable, but I certainly don't have enough room to turn a car on my property. In fact most people I know don't have enough room for that. I certainly don't think it's the default / standard.

To be clear, I do believe they should be correctly reimbursed through CPO. But the weeping and gnashing of teeth over the loss of ability to turn your car on your property goes a little too far for me. The people with genuine gardens is a different story. But that's much less than 20% of the overall affected. To my mind they deserve the greatest CPO.

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

I don't think that's unreasonable, but I certainly don't have enough room to turn a car on my property. In fact most people I know don't have enough room for that. I certainly don't think it's the default / standard.

To be clear, I do believe they should be correctly reimbursed through CPO. But the weeping and gnashing of teeth over the loss of ability to turn your car on your property goes a little too far for me. The people with genuine gardens is a different story. But that's much less than 20% of the overall affected. To my mind they deserve the greatest CPO.

True, most people also dont live on a road that busy

For those folks, having that space is handy - -one of the reasons why they spent money in the first place to buy them -- but every one buys their place for their own reason

Traffic there is mental - Garden or Car space also gives them a buffer from the traffic

Even with a bus lane instead of another car lane brings traffic closer -on teh other side there is a bus lane that is used by cars anyhow

People would get annoyed if a small section was taken from them. In this case its massive, 16 --22 feet in some cases so its a massive change to their home

quietsailor

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Thanks for making the point: that's exactly one of the biggest issues in the city area. Private car use is off the wall completely for a modern city.

Yes, yes it is. BUT now that the city (and Ireland in general ) is that way you cannot remove access to car ownership and use until the alternatives are put in place. No one has suggested alternatives to this plan.

Secondly, this plan is supposed to reduce congestion, yet a large majority of the cars using this road are coming in from way outside the city, this plan wont remove congestion as there is no way to change transport for those drivers.

This money would be better spent putting park and rides far out, for example next to the agricultural grounds on the Ballincollig bypass, and have regular busses to the city.
Next congestion charges
And only then think of this plan.

Why spend all this money if you can remove the vast majority of the cars using this road. Remember you still have Dennehys cross, Victoria Cross and the roads closer in to the city. What land can they take there to widen the road, all this does is shove the cars further in before they bottle neck. It does nothing overall for the city's air quality. We need to remove the cars from the city to improve air quality and this plan doesn't provide that

quietsailor wrote: »

Yes, yes it is. BUT now that the city (and Ireland in general ) is that way you cannot remove access to car ownership and use until the alternatives are put in place. No one has suggested alternatives to this plan.

Secondly, this plan is supposed to reduce congestion, yet a large majority of the cars using this road are coming in from way outside the city, this plan wont remove congestion as there is no way to change transport for those drivers.

This money would be better spent putting park and rides far out, for example next to the agricultural grounds on the Ballincollig bypass, and have regular busses to the city.
Next congestion charges
And only then think of this plan.

Why spend all this money if you can remove the vast majority of the cars using this road. Remember you still have Dennehys cross, Victoria Cross and the roads closer in to the city. What land can they take there to widen the road, all this does is shove the cars further in before they bottle neck. It does nothing overall for the city's air quality. We need to remove the cars from the city to improve air quality and this plan doesn't provide that

Are you talking about removing the car lanes and putting in pedestrian, bike & bus only?
That will not be popular with locals, some of whom currently drive 7 cars a day.

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Are you talking about removing the car lanes and putting in pedestrian, bike & bus only?
That will not be popular with locals, some of whom currently drive 7 cars a day.

I actully thought we were having balanced/fair chat

If you cant see their view - - fair enough
Saying stuff like that when its not true..seems like you just want to casue friction

Shame

olearydc wrote: »

I actully thought we were having balanced/fair chat

If you cant see their view - - fair enough
Saying stuff like that when its not true..seems like you just want to casue friction

Shame

Lol don't be precious about it: just tell me where I'm wrong?

Either:
Locals have lots of cars coming and going: ingress and egress are significant concerns in the proposed design.
OR
Locals do not have lots of cars coming and going: ingress and egress aren't significant concerns in the proposed design.

The person above me is talking about P&R out west, better buses than at present, and removal of cars from this road: I'm making the point that cars will likely NEVER be removed from this road because locals also own cars. So we need to deal with that now. There's no point in pretending there's some future utopia "if only public transport were better". It's not going to get better without allocated space.

Nobody likes cycling in a bus lane. Nobody likes walking on a narrow footpath near heavy traffic. It's time to deal with it. And the cars aren't going away until we do. It's pointless pretending we'll get rid of cars and THEN allocate for others. We've been pretending that since the 60's. It hasn't worked.

Locals have a car, maybe 2 if both folks or working...maybe 3 if they have working kids...maybe like you, maybe not...but not like the 7 you mention.

Ain't precious but dont think I can help someone who thinks those folks have 7 cars each...

Just my opinion....

olearydc wrote: »

Locals have a car, maybe 2 if both folks or working...maybe 3 if they have working kids...maybe like you, maybe not...but not like the 7 you mention.

Ain't precious but dont think I can help someone who thinks those folks have 7 cars each...

Just my opinion....

It's immaterial to my point so I don't mind saying fine, take 2 cars per house: 200 cars on the road. They're not going away. Not until walking, cycling and bus are significantly more attractive.

Sustainable modes won't be more attractive until they have proper allocation.
So we need deal with the problem now, not in some future perfect world.

And Wilton Road is possibly just the start of this, too.

snotboogie

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Because there will be a wall/pillar/hedge blocking their view up the road. Reversing out of a tight driveway is always dangerous.

When you drive out forward your window normally clears sight line obstructions before your bonnet enters the carriageway. Reversing generally has your boot out on the road before you have a clear line of sight.

Not unless you have enormous walls or your driveway fronts directly onto the road, neither of which are the case here as there is a footpath between the driveways and the road. Back out slowly to the footpath watching your mirrors and from there the driver will have full view of the road. This is not an illegal maneuver but you need to take care. There is also the option to back in of course but if the road is too busy to do this there is a sensible alternative.

SouthernBelle

I walked past the recently sold ESB property in Ballincollig today and there’s a planning permission application displayed for apartments / duplexes. (Opposite Iceland).

fonecrusher1

^ Great location. Not far from the south link but not too much in the center of ballincollig. They'll fly up i'd say. Anyone seen how fast the corporate building on the other side of ballincollig has gone up? Just up the road from Tesco. Unreal

Padraig Mor

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Lol what do you suggest: removing all cars from Wilton road?
A reminder , the hierarchy of use is pedestrian>cycle>bus>private motors.

Surely we should be improving transport for all road users, especially those on public transport? Cycling is only suitable for a small minority of private commuters - why should their wish list be ranked above public transport? Why should a proportionally much greater amount of money be spent facilitating the lifestyle choices of this small number of people than is spent on providing decent public transport for all?

bladebrew

More information on the Dunkettle interchange upgrade, The goverment are holding up work due to spiralling costs!

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/100m-upgrade-to-cork-city-traffic-blackspot-in-peril-934891.html

cgcsb

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Surely we should be improving transport for all road users, especially those on public transport? Cycling is only suitable for a small minority of private commuters - why should their wish list be ranked above public transport? Why should a proportionally much greater amount of money be spent facilitating the lifestyle choices of this small number of people than is spent on providing decent public transport for all?

Not sure if this is real or a windup. For obvious reasons, there is a hierarchy in modern urban transport planning; it goes Walking->cycling->Public transport and cars are an afterthought. It's not about individual choices it's about promoting sustainability across society. Copenhagen has now achieved 40% of commutes by bike and their infrastructure isn't fancy.

bladebrew wrote: »

More information on the Dunkettle interchange upgrade, The goverment are holding up work due to spiralling costs!

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/100m-upgrade-to-cork-city-traffic-blackspot-in-peril-934891.html

Why can't I add links anymore?!

If this gets shelved then we might as well give up and will only confirm that public infrastructure in Cork is so far down the priority list with Government. Between this, the farce with the event centre, the never ending story of the M20 and the simply laughable CMATS report with its 20 year timelines to deliver anything decent (and most of it not funded anyway) - tells you all you need to know about where public projects in Cork are going i.e. nowhere.

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Surely we should be improving transport for all road users, especially those on public transport? Cycling is only suitable for a small minority of private commuters - why should their wish list be ranked above public transport? Why should a proportionally much greater amount of money be spent facilitating the lifestyle choices of this small number of people than is spent on providing decent public transport for all?

I'll be nice and say that your way of thinking is no longer best practice in terms of transport infrastructure design.

The hierarchy is pedestrian>cyclist>PT>Motors. In that order.

We're not just coming out with some spurious justifications here, this is laid down in detail in the Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets DTTAS 2013, page 28 onwards if you really do want to read more.

Thankfully the private sector are continuing to invest in our city with some much needed developments. But I do fear that the private sector will be ultimately constrained by poor public infrastructure and those developments will dry up once the easily developed sites get competed. I mean you'd be off your rocker to develop any further down the docklands at this point given the lack of infrastructure (Eastern Gateway Bridge first proposed c.20 years ago / MAYBE a Luas line in c.20 years).

Coveney and Martin have been utterly useless for Cork.

Roger Hassenforder

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Surely we should be improving transport for all road users, especially those on public transport? Cycling is only suitable for a small minority of private commuters - why should their wish list be ranked above public transport? Why should a proportionally much greater amount of money be spent facilitating the lifestyle choices of this small number of people than is spent on providing decent public transport for all?

Get kids out of cars and 4×4s, onto bikes for going to school, quality of life will be better for everyone, air pollution, traffic, mental and physical health. You're looking at cycling as an indulgence/past time, pandering to a few, rather than what it should be in a city.

Roger Hassenforder

namloc1980 wrote: »

Thankfully the private sector are continuing to invest in our city with some much needed developments. But I do fear that the private sector will be ultimately constrained by poor public infrastructure and those developments will dry up once the easily developed sites get competed. I mean you'd be off your rocker to develop any further down the docklands at this point given the lack of infrastructure (Eastern Gateway Bridge first proposed c.20 years ago / MAYBE a Luas line in c.20 years).

Coveney and Martin have been utterly useless for Cork.

Can you imagine the city if we had a few
Healy-rae types working together as a political block/party for the region in the Oireachtas.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Can you imagine the city if we had a few
Healy-rae types working together as a political block/party for the region in the Oireachtas.

Let's be honest. Martin and Coveney will be re-elected next time out so I suppose we get the politicians we deserve. Coveney in particular has underperformed spectacularly when it comes to his home constituency but I'd say he's going to be re-elected.

shnaek

cgcsb wrote: »

Copenhagen has now achieved 40% of commutes by bike and their infrastructure isn't fancy.

They also have a driverless metro that runs 24/7 and also runs to the airport. They haven't even managed that in Dublin.