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

2024 - Dublin STILL ranked as second worst city in the Europe for traveling by car

2

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,133 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    Quite the deflection that someone has to use their car in Dublin because it's rains in Galway.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,589 ✭✭✭Mr. teddywinkles


    Because public transport is so reliable and convenient, cheap and actually takes you to your desired destination in this fair isle.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,741 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    That motorway was built quite a while ago now. So hardly to blame for the complete lack of progress with the metro.

    Over 4bn last year on ipas. That sort of annual appropriation would do wonders for public transport.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 29,499 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Well the topic is about congestion in Dublin, and the public transport in Dublin is mostly reliable, cheap and convenient and generally faster - if not much faster - then private transport. Wherever it is not is generally due to sharing space with cars.

    There will always be esoteric routes people throw up and public transportation can never account for everyone. Some people just don't like buses and that is just tough. Even with the metro most people will still be relying on buses.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 259 ✭✭Baseball72


    The sheer volume of cars entering the city is clearly a significant issue resulting in congestion. BUT, there are also some self inflicted blockages at some locations around the city that add to the congestion.

    Two simple examples I encounter on a regular basis.

    1. Bus Stop 1989 is located on the narrowest part of Emmet Road (city-bound direction). Move that bus stop maybe 30 metres nearer the city (near the lawnmower shop) so that vehicles can pass a bus at that bus stop.

    2. Hill Street, Dublin 1. Two issues here -: (a) why the need for traffic lights to control this staggered junction - it was fine before lights were installed about a year ago. But even if you want to keep the lights, (b) why is there a 2-bay parking area towards the bottom of Hill Street - on a narrowish part of the hill - no need for parking slots at that location - get rid so traffic can continue from Parnell Street, up the hill towards Dorset St.

    Two simple fixes in different parts of the city would help traffic in those locations. I am sure there must be many spots around the city where a little bit of common sense could be applied to make traffic move a bit better……



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,153 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    The M20 Limerick - Cork should have been built a long time ago, but it hasn't been built.

    It's not an either-or. We can easily afford both, and many other things besides.

    It's a full 50 years now since the first plans for a Metro in Dublin were announced… we now have a plan for half a line but we're still waiting…

    Compared to other European cities, or even the UK, there is far less usage of motorcycles and motor scooters in Dublin. Definitely the fastest way to get around the city (someone suggested a bicycle is the fastest way to get around - I can only assume they don't stop at red lights) and economical too. But successive governments, and our society in general, are extremely and unjustifiably anti-motorcycling.

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,133 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    There are lots places like that. But the engineers won't listen.

    On the flip side as soon as traffic moves a bit better more traffic will appear to fill that new capacity. So it never actually gets fixed except for a short window.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,741 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    Oh I misread as the Limerick and cork motorways to Dublin.

    Limerick and cork 100% should be connected by motorway regardless of metros built in Dublin



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,925 ✭✭✭Beta Ray Bill


    They are completely different projects.

    One is an 80km city inter connect (goods and people) that will take 4 years to build at a cost of €2B (we've built motorways before, we're good at it, we know what it will cost)

    The other is Mass transit project to move people withing a city. I want metro built but I'm so sceptical, in 2022 Leo Varadkar said in a worst case scenario the project could cost €23B. Going to plan it will be fully open by 2035. Going bad it could be 2040 or later.
    despite living in Swords, it's unlikely I will ever use it to comute, given my age an the rubbish route it's taking through Swords.

    In 2014 the Worst Case Scenario for the childrens hospital was €800M, a deliberate over estimate… and look how that turned out. (I get there are different people running the projects)

    If metro is to be built, there needs to be cut offs.
    EG: If after the first 6 month of work they're X% over budget then just pull the plug.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 97 ✭✭The Mathematician


    Your first point does hold up a few people in cars but it speeds things up for the far greater number of people on the bus.

    In fact I would argue that we go much further and make it illegal to overtake a bus stopped at a stop unless there is a specific bus lane. Whiie this would decrease the speed of cars, it would increase the speed of buses and the overall effect would be to increase the speed of an average person.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,133 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    Seems like they've been talking about undergrounds and metros as long as I remember. I doubt I'll see them in my lifetime, and not while I'll still working.

    That said I have seen great improvements in public transport. But it's been glacial and completely out of touch with demand.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,420 ✭✭✭✭John_Rambo


    If it's built it will go over budget and there'll be no plug pulled when it does!!

    That seems to be the way of big projects. But when they're done they're worth it, look at the Port Tunnel for instance. "the Tunnel of death" as it was called when it was being built!

    Post edited by John_Rambo on


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 42,832 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    There is absolutely no point in enacting new laws regarding busses untilk AGS (and the Dept, etc) get the finger out and start actually enforcing the existing laws!



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 29,499 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    That is completely absurd.

    Metrolink should be built if it ends up costing 3 times as much as budgeted because it is going to have to be built and the longer it takes the more and more expensive it is just going to be. Once the TBM is in the ground it is entirely a sunk cost and needs to be finished.

    It is not "the way" of big projects, many of the motorways and Luas cross city were on time and on budget. The Port Tunnel was hamstrung by unnecessary pandering to NIMBYs about drilling disruption, but such is the world we live in.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 259 ✭✭Baseball72


    why can’t we seek to speed up both, the motorist and the bus - it doesn’t have to be either / or….



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,133 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 97 ✭✭The Mathematician


    It wouldn't work. The problem is there are so many cars today that if we try to speed up cars, all it does is to encourage more people to use their cars and the speed of traffic remains the same. There seems to be a given speed that people accept in order to have the comfort of their cars. This is why we need as far as possible to have buses using lanes that are not used by cars, and where this is not possible, we should give buses priority. Otherwise everyone is stuck at the same slow speed.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,420 ✭✭✭✭John_Rambo


    They won't pull the plug of a project this big if it goes over budget.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,251 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    Sorry no, that's a nonsense idea. Buses at busy stops could be loading for several minutes. Imagine the traffic congestion this would cause behind it back to the next junction at least and likely include other buses as well.

    Current situation in that regard at least is perfectly fine. The bus is pulled in and stopped. So long as it's safe to pass it then other road users should do exactly that.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,298 ✭✭✭✭dulpit


    I suppose the point is if 10 cars are delayed it's likely going to affect 10 people during commutes. Whereas a bus delayed affects 50+ people if it's full



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,092 ✭✭✭✭Tusky




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 97 ✭✭The Mathematician


    My argument had nothing whatsoever to do with safety, my argument had to do with increasing the average speed that people travel. After all, the purpose is to get people to places, it is not the cars that want to get to places. While people in cars will be delayed slightly, this will be far outweighed by the people in buses that will be speeded up.

    Also, it is a long time since buses took minutes to load. With nearly everyone using the leap card, it takes only a minute to board 20 or 30 people.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,251 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    Still an idea that sounds more like anti-car sentiment than anything else … which is fine I suppose, but it still wouldn't work in the real world and nor should it.

    The city is bad enough with the ridiculous amount of traffic lights and poor timing sequences without making it worse by having traffic (cars, vans, trucks and even other buses) sit behind a stationary pulled in vehicle "just because".



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 97 ✭✭The Mathematician


    No, it is a pro-people sentiment. How on earth could it be considered an anti-car sentiment? I think that 80 people on a bus should have the priority over one person in a car, it's that simple. Of course it would work in the real world, why wouldn't it? It would be extremely easy to police, all you would have to have is a camera at the front of every bus.

    It is certainly true that the amount of traffic in the city is riduculous. If you look at the percentage of people crossing the canals using cars, who cause the majority of traffic, it is absolutely bonkers.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,251 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    It's fantasy. You want to hold up every other vehicle until that bus is ready to get on the move again. Multiply that by every bus and bus stop every few hundred metres (or less!) and nothing would be moving at all!!

    Rather than complaining about people using cars (which aren't cheap to run, tax and insure either), maybe it's worth looking at why these drivers are putting up with congestion and delays to get where they need to be vs sitting on that bus.

    I don't buy the excuse that it's laziness, at least not to the levels of traffic seen on the road. Rather I would suggest that driving is still - despite the above delays - the best or only option for many to get around. Having spent 30 years on Dublin buses myself before I bought a car I know from experience that buses are an exercise in frustration most of the time - they may not show up at all or late/leave early, they wander all around the housing estates before they actually start the run into town proper, they are overcrowded and uncomfortable particularly during bad weather, they're often filled with undesirables and undesirable behaviour, and the overall time taken is usually significantly more over a longer trip vs the car.

    Public transport generally is a poorer, more inconvenient, more time consuming choice. Cycling is even worse as you're dealing with the elements, terrain and poor roads and (as I said previously), people don't want to walk more than a few hundred metres generally given the number and proximity of bus stops.

    As I said, rather than trying to push cars out, acceptance of the above factors needs to come and planning/road space allocation altered accordingly.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,298 ✭✭✭✭dulpit


    You say you don't/won't use public transport because they take too long and stuff. Somebody suggests something that would improve this, but that's "anti-car", so can't happen. Do you not see the issue with your logic there?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,251 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    Suggestions and ideas are good, but not all of them make sense.

    Holding up a line of traffic unnecessarily to wait for a pulled in bus to get back on the move is a suggestion that falls into the latter, not the former category.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 97 ✭✭The Mathematician


    On the contrary, rather than slowing everything down, it would speed up things up overall. To give an idea of what I mean, say a bus was pulled up at a bus stop, and 5 cars go past to a line of traffic waiting at traffic lights. Due to those 5 cars, the bus misses the next light sequence. So 5 cars have got through the lights (probably only carrying 5 people) at the expense of 80 people on the bus who have to wait another 2 minutes for the next light sequence. With my plan, the bus would make it through the lights, and maybe 3 or 4 of the cars as well. A big net win.

    I absolutely agree that cars are more comfortable, that is precisely why we need to prioritise public transport, for otherwise more people will use cars and everything will get even slower.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 42,832 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Rather than complaining about people using cars (which aren't cheap to run, tax and insure either), maybe it's worth looking at why these drivers are putting up with congestion and delays to get where they need to be vs sitting on that bus.

    Without being flippant, why should we?
    The point is that the car is not an efficient mode of transport in a city. So regardless of the reason behind the vast majority of car based journeys around the city, it is still inefficient. Examining the reasons people drive into the city won't make the journey any shorter.

    The cost of owning a car certainly is not a reason to justify giving it any kind of priority within a city.

    I don't buy the excuse that it's laziness, at least not to the levels of traffic seen on the road. Rather I would suggest that driving is still - despite the above delays - the best or only option for many to get around.

    For some, maybe. Not for the majority - I would argue because they've chosen convenience over all else. I would also include myself in the group previosuly.

    Having spent 30 years on Dublin buses myself before I bought a car I know from experience that buses are an exercise in frustration most of the time - they may not show up at all or late/leave early, they wander all around the housing estates before they actually start the run into town proper, they are overcrowded and uncomfortable particularly during bad weather, they're often filled with undesirables and undesirable behaviour, and the overall time taken is usually significantly more over a longer trip vs the car.

    Ignoring the Thatcherisms within your post, is traffic in Dublin now any different to traffic 30 years ago? Have journeys become any quicker (bus or car)?

    In that period, what improvements were made for busses to give them priority over driving because I would argue that the few improvements were tokenistic at best? It is only since Bus Connects that we've had a proper discussion about making improvements to PT around Dublin. Now compare that against the resources allocated towards driving over those 30 years.

    Public transport generally is a poorer, more inconvenient, more time consuming choice. Cycling is even worse as you're dealing with the elements, terrain and poor roads and (as I said previously), people don't want to walk more than a few hundred metres generally given the number and proximity of bus stops.

    Until recently there was no proper investment in PT to allow it to become more convenient or efficient. There is next-to-no policing of the roads to enable PT be more efficient.
    As for cycling, doesn't Amsterdam get more rainfall than Dublin? Many people don't want to cycle because they're lazy (which is fine but they then use various excuses other than their laziness). Many are afraid of the potential risk from a driver hitting them! Again, pretty much nothing was done to alter that risk imbalance until Covid came along (and a line of white paint on the road is not infrastructure!).

    As I said, rather than trying to push cars out, acceptance of the above factors needs to come and planning/road space allocation altered accordingly.

    Nobody is trying to push cars out and you've been told this countless times. People needing ot wanting to sit in their car in Dublin (or most other cities) just will not be given priority over more efficient forms of travel. I'm really not sure why you continue to peddle the mistruth that you're being pushed out!



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,925 ✭✭✭Beta Ray Bill


    Not sure I agree with you. Are you saying that, if at 15% completetion, it is discovered that the final cost was something like €80B, that you wouldn't pull the plug? (€12B already spent).

    Allowing people to work from home is a far cheaper option that this, it's also way more scalable



Advertisement