Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

permeability/interesting challenge

2»

Comments

  • #32
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #33
    wench
    Registered Users Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭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.


  • #34
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #35
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,282 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #36
    wench
    Registered Users Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    3d4life
    Registered Users Posts: 805 ✭✭✭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'.


  • #38
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #39
    Muahahaha
    Registered Users Posts: 19,610 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #40
    Dick Turnip
    Registered Users Posts: 982 ✭✭✭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. :confused:

    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.


  • #41
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,600 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    what_traffic
    Registered Users Posts: 4,867 ✭✭✭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.


  • #43
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭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).


  • #44
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭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.


Advertisement