M50 to be made even more unbearable

markpb

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

A 60 KM/H limit on the M50 would be absolute madness. If this is another attempt at inconveniencing motorists, it really is incredibly inconsiderate

Did you read the article before producing that conspiracy theory? It clearly sets out the reasons why they suggested it. "They" being the National Roads Authority, a body only responsible for motorways and one unlikely to be populated by people who either hate motorists or have any interest in pushing people towards public transport. Seriously.

selous

Am I wrong in saying that the minimum speed limit on our motorways including M50 is 50kmh and they want the max to be 60kmh (in parts) a 10kmh window, sounds a little dodgy

slimjimmc

selous wrote: »

Am I wrong in saying that the minimum speed limit on our motorways including M50 is 50kmh and they want the max to be 60kmh (in parts) a 10kmh window, sounds a little dodgy

There is no minimum speed limit only a requirement that all vehicles be capable of driving safely at 50km/h or more on a level road.

markpb

selous wrote: »

Am I wrong in saying that the minimum speed limit on our motorways including M50 is 50kmh and they want the max to be 60kmh (in parts) a 10kmh window, sounds a little dodgy

Ignoring the fact that you're wrong about the minimum speed limit, you're also wrong about it being dodgy. A road where all vehicles are traveling at approximately the same speed is very efficient. No more flying up behind someone traveling at half your speed, braking to slow down and then changing lanes. All those things cause congestion because of the ripple effect they cause in the traffic behind you.

patrickbrophy18

markpb wrote: »

Did you read the article before producing that conspiracy theory?

I did read it and some of the logic mentioned therein is daft. As someone who uses the M50 both ways Monday-Friday, I don't see a problem with the speed limit as it currently is. In fact, I think that the 100 KM/H speed limit on most of it is too low. From Sandyford northwards, the road becomes three lanes in width but, the speed limit drops by 20 KM/H which is complete nonsense.

markpb wrote: »

It clearly sets out the reasons why they suggested it.

The reasons as set out in the article are very simplistic. The reduction of the speed limit comes across as a "one size fits all approach" to the so-called problem. Either-way, I cannot see any benefit to this proposal at all?

_Kaiser_

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I did read it and some of the logic mentioned therein is daft. As someone who uses the M50 both ways Monday-Friday, I don't see a problem with the speed limit as it currently is. In fact, I think that the 100 KM/H speed limit on most of it is too low. From Sandyford northwards, the road becomes three lanes in width but, the speed limit drops by 20 KM/H which is complete nonsense.

I'd agree that once you get past Exit 11/Tallaght southbound the limit should be 120, but before that there are a lot of exits/merges over a few km (particularly junctions 10-6). There 100 km/h makes sense.

The real issue is idiots who can't join/leave a motorway properly (diving across multiple lanes at the last minute), tailgating muppets, and morons who bring the whole show to a halt so they can have a look at some accident on the other side of the road etc

As usual it comes down to poor driver education and even poorer enforcement of anything beyond "speeding" and tax disc checks!

selous

markpb wrote: »

Ignoring the fact that you're wrong about the minimum speed limit, you're also wrong about it being dodgy. A road where all vehicles are traveling at approximately the same speed is very efficient. No more flying up behind someone traveling at half your speed, braking to slow down and then changing lanes. All those things cause congestion because of the ripple effect they cause in the traffic behind you.

You must not enter a motorway if:
• you are a learner driver or do not hold a full licence for the category of vehicle you are driving;
•your vehicle cannot travel at a speed of at least 50km per hour;
• your vehicle has an engine capacity of 50cc or less;
• your vehicle does not use inflated tyres;
• you are walking, cycling or moving animals;
• you drive a motorised wheelchair (also known as an invalid carriage).

The Republic of Ireland has a minimum speed of 30 mph on motorways, but generally in the UK, minimum speeds are temporary and are usually highlighted by circular road signs.

Alun

selous wrote: »

•your vehicle cannot travel at a speed of at least 50km per hour;

That's it though, the only requirement here is that the vehicle must be capable of travelling at more than 50km/h, NOT that it must travel at more than 50km/h.

selous

The Republic of Ireland has a minimum speed of 30 mph on motorways, but generally in the UK, minimum speeds are temporary and are usually highlighted by circular road signs.[/QUOTE]

But i'll also say that it has a max of 100-120, depends which part you're on, but that is ignored too, but if there was enough Traffic corp to enforce the rules there probably wouldn't be need to drop speed limit, this is just another rule for a dwindling force to try and enforce,

Alun

selous wrote: »

The Republic of Ireland has a minimum speed of 30 mph on motorways, but generally in the UK, minimum speeds are temporary and are usually highlighted by circular road signs.

Re-quoting stuff from Wikipedia that is wrong won't make it correct, however many times you do it.

Carawaystick

There is no minimum speed limit on motorways. How else could they have traffic lights on motorways, if you could not stop?

markpb

Carawaystick wrote: »

There is no minimum speed limit on motorways. How else could they have traffic lights on motorways, if you could not stop?

Where!?

patrickbrophy18

Carawaystick wrote: »

There is no minimum speed limit on motorways.

The third criterion down on Motorway Ahead Signs begs to differ:

selous

Alun wrote: »

Re-quoting stuff from Wikipedia that is wrong won't make it correct, however many times you do it.

Not Wikipedia at all. but an E.U road safety site, but sure like all the rules of the road it's only another one to ignore to the ones that know it all..
like the sign that's on the above post as you enter the motorway.

markpb

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

The third criterion down on Motorway Ahead Signs begs to differ:

selous wrote: »

Not Wikipedia at all. but an E.U road safety site

This is getting silly. There's only one place you can quote when talking about what is and isn't legal and it's not some random page on the internet or photos of road signs, it's the law. Anything else is just someones interpretation or summation of the law.

Section 8 of the Road Traffic Act 2004

8.—(1) There is a speed limit (“motorway speed limit”) of 120 kilometres per hour in respect of all motorways for all mechanically propelled vehicles.

(2) The motorway speed limit does not apply in respect of any motorway or part of it where a special speed limit or road works speed limit applies to that motorway or part.)

Section 9 of the Local Government (Roads and Motorways) Act of 1975

9.—(1) The Minister may prescribe the classes of mechanically propelled vehicles which may use a motorway and different classes of mechanically propelled vehicles may be prescribed in relation to different motorways or different parts of a motorway.

(2) Pedestrians, pedal cyclists and persons driving mechanically propelled vehicles of a class other than a class prescribed pursuant to subsection (1) of this section shall not use a motorway, and persons in charge of, or having control over, animals shall not permit them to be on a motorway.

S.I. No. 396/1977

3. (1) Any mechanically propelled vehicle or combination of vehicles (other than an invalid carriage) which—

( a ) is driven by a person holding a driving licence referred to in section 22 (1) of the Act of 1961 authorising him to drive the vehicle, and
( b ) is so constructed that its entire weight is transmitted to the road surface by circular wheels which are equipped with pneumatic tyres, and
( c ) being propelled by an internal combustion engine is so propelled by an internal combustion engine exceeding 50 c.c. in cylinder capacity, and
( d ) is so constructed and in such a condition and so loaded as to be capable of maintaining a speed of 50 kilometres per hour on the level, solely under its own power,
may use a motorway

There is no minimum speed limit on Irish motorways. Can we put this to bed please? If you still believe there is a minimum speed limit, produce proof on the only authoritative source, the Irish Statute Book.

monument

Note to all: Back on topic please.

As markpb etc point out above: There is no minimum speed limit on motorways in Ireland. A minimum capability is not a minimum speed limit.

Posts claiming otherwise after posted after this post will be viewed as going off-topic and ignoring moderator instructions and will likely be subject to a warning or infraction.

-- moderator

patrickbrophy18

markpb wrote: »

There's only one place you can quote when talking about what is and isn't legal and it's not some random page on the internet or photos of road signs, it's the law. Anything else is just someones interpretation or summation of the law.There is no minimum speed limit on Irish motorways. Can we put this to bed please? If you still believe there is a minimum speed limit, produce proof on the only authoritative source, the Irish Statute Book.

Okay. I didn't realise that I needed to cite the deeper laws behind road sign criteria.

Back to the subject at hand, my initial contribution to the thread was a tad overly dramatic in hindsight and conspiracy theoretical (if there is such a thing) especially with the "chip on their shoulder" part. I still disagree with the blanket lowering of the speed limit as it should be variable like it is in the UK and based on the road conditions on certain stretches. Would you agree?

markpb

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I still disagree with the blanket lowering of the speed limit as it should be variable like it is in the UK and based on the road conditions on certain stretches. Would you agree?

I do agree with you, as it happens. Ignoring the people who automatically moan about any reduction in speed limits and assume they know more about traffic management than anyone else, what I disgree with is the entire premise behind this thread. The article in the OP says

one of the options the Government could consider was reducing the speed limit to about 60 km/h which would help offset “the accordion effect”.

There's not an awful lot of detail to go on there. It doesn't say a reduction to exactly 60km/h, it could be higher. It doesn't even say a reduction to *only* 60 km/h - it could be variable. It doesn't even say how long it might be in effect for each day, it might only be for 20-30 minutes each peak.

That's assuming they're seriously looking at this (which they should be). It could just be a way of making the government look more kindly at one of the other options which might be more politically palatable than reducing the speed limit.

BoatMad

Irish Steve wrote: »

Not needed yet, if they wanted to try an experiment, put a temporary barrier up and make the right hand 2 lanes for through traffic only from south of Valleymount to North of Blanchardstown. Would be very interesting to see what that does for traffic flows on that section.

Theres a fundamental design flaw on the western M50. Ballymount should have been serviced from a higher capacity Tallaght or even Knocklyn junction, Three junctions with insufficient grade entrances and exists. Thats the key issue.

If you look at the M50 , almost all the issues are a result of terrible engineering and project design decisions, remember this was a plan , that had the two busiest roads in the state connected via traffic lights.

It has nothing to do with congestion, road charging or luas etc . The simple fact is that the M50 should have been designed to facilitate interchange between a couple of heavy duty radial roads, not a substitute for removing interurban rat runs ( by providing everyone with an exit)

BoatMad

gandalf wrote: »

The big mistake made was not to lay Dart or Luas lines along the M50 when they upgraded it. That way you could link up all the major arteries into the city and give people options on linking up public transport routes. They could also then build light rail systems in along each of the motorways into the city. Do that with proper park and ride facilities and they will remove an awful lot of the traffic from our roads.

Could only have been done when the M50 was being originally planned and built ( long before LUAS was thought of) . Adding double track light rail , to a three lane motorway would have created a monster land footprint , for very little gain, since the idea of an orbital motorway is to connect other major radial roads. I see little advantage for it to have a co-placed railway.

BoatMad

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

The BRT is the equivalent of closing the barn door after the horse has long bolted. Massive disruption for very little (if any) gain. It's a fancy CitySwift, nothing more and a waste of the money they intend to spend on it. Ditto LUAS BXD which will only move the Red Line problems onto the Green Line IMO.

Put that money into heavy rail and the existing bus services (but with SLAs and penalties to match - not just another cash pit) and you'd see a much more significant improvement, much quicker, and with less disruption to already congested arteries.

In other words - just for once - we should do something that ACTUALLY makes a real difference, rather than just APPEARS to!

LUAS has proven to be a virtually unqualified success and actually as a result should be significantly expanded, decades after the construction disruption has faded from memory , people will be congratulating themselves on the farsightedness of install light rail.

Heavy rail has virtually no future in Ireland.

Carawaystick

markpb wrote: »

Where!?

We'll ignore the toll turnpikes for obviousness.

On the M1, at the M1 mainline/M1W spur for Dublin Airport
At the western end of that spur

On the M50 throughout the underground section.
On the M50 onramp Northbound from the R104
On the M50 Mainline southbound, approaching the underground section.
On the M50 Eastbound, approaching the M1/R139 interchange.

dowlingm

First off this (managing traffic flow to prevent bunching) isn't a new idea by any means - it was seen in the M25 in London years ago:

He said one of the options the Government could consider was reducing the speed limit to about 60 km/h which would help offset “the accordion effect”.

This occurs when vehicles on heavily trafficked route brake, causing increasing congestion as vehicles behind brake more severely.

Traffic travelling at slower speeds can avoid this scenario and deliver a better overall level of service and shorter journey times, he said.

Variable speed limits would also allow a bit more management during poor driving conditions rather than trusting drivers to take heed of the roadway no matter what their car brochure said about ABS.

The issue I have with M50 widening is simply whether an alternatives analysis was ever done with an option to spend the money elsewhere to get the same impact. Because of the segmentation of NRA and NTA, the assumption is always that roads money is for roads and public transport is bad - no notion that the cost of extra M50 tarmac and reconfiguring the roads might go a long way to paying for a build out of the Kildare Route Project as originally planned, for example, or electrification of the Maynooth Line, or LUAS Line F1. Furthermore - induced demand in road traffic is not a makeyuppy thing.

If the price of housing is driving people into the suburbs as asserted upthread and that is now being blamed for needed more road space, that is not just related to price but to supply. There is only so large a proportion of Dublin's employment that can be supplied from outside the M50 without excessive ancillary costs, so increasing density inside the M50, specifically vertical growth and especially in areas which can accommodate the required public transport and utilities demand, must be faced up to.

_Kaiser_

BoatMad wrote: »

LUAS has proven to be a virtually unqualified success and actually as a result should be significantly expanded, decades after the construction disruption has faded from memory , people will be congratulating themselves on the farsightedness of install light rail.

Heavy rail has virtually no future in Ireland.

The Green Line LUAS maybe.. the Red Line by all accounts is beset by anti-social problems that the operators/Gardai seem to be unable or unwilling to tackle. I can only see these issues spreading when the aforementioned troublemakers can take their antics to Dundrum and such.

With people being pushed out into the surrounding counties because of a lack of suitable/affordable housing for many and rents spiking, coupled with an apparent unwillingness to build up not out within the city boundaries, pressure on the motorways will get worse (to paraphrase a line from Battlestar Galactica - "all of this has happened before and it is happening again")

As such, if the notion is to reduce the number of cars coming back into the city, it absolutely makes sense to invest in additional Commuter rail and DART services.. unless the LUAS is going to run to Navan/Kildare/Drogheda etc.

Aard

^To add to dowlingm's post above:

The M50 as it exists today (Dublin Port anticlockwise to Cherrywood) was not conceived of as a whole. It's been piecemeal all along. Due to project splitting and the age of some stretches of the route, there was never an SEA (Strategic Environmental Assessment) done for the entire M50 as a whole. As such, no alternatives were ever considered. Furthermore, there was no landuse planning accompanying the new road, which led to mass suburbanisation of retail and office space. Not to mention shady deals like Quarryvale that only served to increade car dependence.

SEA would have highlighted a more well rounded approach to facilitating the movement of people and goods. It also would have identified mitigation measures for the inevitable "victim of its own success" scenario.

The only longterm solution, imo, is for there to be a comprehensive plan for the M50 that has buy-in from all four Dublin authorities. One that chooses the best sites for future trip-generating uses to minimise congestion while maximising accessibility.

Carawaystick

One point about the nra running variable speed limits is the fact the nra seem unable to run variable messaging in anything like a realtime fashion.

I have seen:
vms signs warning about a broken down car ahead, a km after the broken down car was being recovered
long delays to J(X) - and driven at or above 100kmh to past where the junction was.

inane messages like wet surface use your lights, at night!
Fog ahead - and the fog has burnt off already

BoatMad

With people being pushed out into the surrounding counties because of a lack of suitable/affordable housing for many and rents spiking, coupled with an apparent unwillingness to build up not out within the city boundaries, pressure on the motorways will get worse (to paraphrase a line from Battlestar Galactica - "all of this has happened before and it is happening again")

As such, if the notion is to reduce the number of cars coming back into the city, it absolutely makes sense to invest in additional Commuter rail and DART services.. unless the LUAS is going to run to Navan/Kildare/Drogheda etc.

Housing supply in Ireland is a private industry undertaking in the main, is is driven by demand. That demand is not for apartments, hence the desire for young couples with kids to own a semi-d with a bit of a garden, etc. Remember this is still a largely rural population even if transplanted into a urban area.

Ireland is a very under populated country by European standards , we are not short of "space". While public transport is advanced in Europe by Irish standards, so too are its road networks

The is no reason why living in say Athlone or Wexford and commenting to the capital ( or its industrial outskirts) shouldn't be possible, its not an unsolvable problem, Our approach to roads has been characterised by poor planning , lack of joined up thinking etc. One only has to look at the current M11 Rathnew Gorey to see screwed thinking where two motorways were left with a crappy road in-between

Our issues are not the same as high or higher density European countries, most of our bottle necks and and road issues are actually engineering based and a result of poor execution.

Its mirrored in the fact that for example it was not deemed useful to connect BxD with the Red line, ( even though there will be an engineering track connection !!). No doubt in a few years we'll be digging up O'Connell St to install same.

Nor do I think cars into the city are the primary issue here. Most employment in Dublin is located around the centre rather then in the centre, its a rather Victorian perspective that all commuting is into the city centre, this is a throwback to the days when little industry or business was located outside the centre of Dublin and Rathgar was a country village !.

Whats needed is to ensure that where road schemes are being designed that pinch points are removed, one only has to experience the M11 /N11 near bray to understand what a mess County Councils made of the national primary road engineering in the past. AT least the NRA in its recent designs are avoiding this nonsense.( well most of this nonsense ) . Yet you still get issues where the Glen of the Downs was reduced to 80Km, despite a direct quote from the NRA that the road was designed and specified to be safe at 100Km.

hmmm

BoatMad wrote: »

That demand is not for apartments, hence the desire for young couples with kids to own a semi-d with a bit of a garden, etc.

I'm sick of hearing this "there is no demand for apartments" mantra. There is barely one to be had anywhere near the IFSC.

What isn't in demand is pokey little one beds that are one step above tenaments. If international experience is any guide, younger generations are abandoning suburbs and car ownership, and are eager to live in the city centre. There is also a growing immigrant, highly educated, population in our cities who aren't as snobbish as the Irish who want a semi D and a bit of grass, and who don't want to spend their lives in traffic.

What is missing is proper long-term rental security (not rent fixing, long term rentals that can't be ended just because a landlord wants to sell), and decently built, spacious and modern apartments with a public transport infrastructure worthy of the name.

BoatMad

hmmm wrote: »

I'm sick of hearing this "there is no demand for apartments" mantra. There is barely one to be had anywhere near the IFSC.

What isn't in demand is pokey little one beds that are one step above tenaments. If international experience is any guide, younger generations are abandoning suburbs and car ownership, and are eager to live in the city centre. There is also a growing immigrant, highly educated, population in our cities who aren't as snobbish as the Irish who want a semi D and a bit of grass, and who don't want to spend their lives in traffic.

What is missing is proper long-term rental security (not rent fixing, long term rentals that can't be ended just because a landlord wants to sell), and decently built, spacious and modern apartments with a public transport infrastructure worthy of the name.

what ever you say, you cannot deny the demand for the infamous semi-d. Ireland has a fairly unique demographic in that our age profile is much lower then other European countries, and the young childless and the old empty nesters are probably the best candidates for apartment living.

You can sneer all you like, but the people want what the people want and they are clearly prepared to commute to get it.

As for spacious apartments, well Dublin is an old city where land use is high, can't see spaces apartment blocks going up anytime soon that ordinary people can afford. unless you went to go to 40 stories or more.

as for rents, as a recently renter, now home owner, ( renting for a few years between houses), I can sympathise with the rented situation, however the solution to that is complex. Anyone renting commercial premises will know what a double edged sword long leases are. I see no medium term solution to the rental issues as it requires constitutional, legal and societal changes.

IN the meantime, we have to engineer commuter routes that actually work.

_Kaiser_

BoatMad wrote: »

The is no reason why living in say Athlone or Wexford and commenting to the capital ( or its industrial outskirts) shouldn't be possible, its not an unsolvable problem,

You think that spending 2 hours (each way) a day in a car - or longer again on a bus/train - is a sustainable idea over the long term? As someone who's done it, the fuel/toll costs alone are massive never mind the additional wear and tear on the car and the expense that causes, time lost commuting, impact on families etc

Encouraging/forcing people back into the hinterlands is not the answer.

Nor do I think cars into the city are the primary issue here. Most employment in Dublin is located around the centre rather then in the centre, its a rather Victorian perspective that all commuting is into the city centre, this is a throwback to the days when little industry or business was located outside the centre of Dublin and Rathgar was a country village !.

Actually getting to "An Lar" is probably the easier bit (by public transport anyway)... it's getting to the outer business parks (Blanch, Sandyford etc) that's the problem. It's virtually impossible by public transport unless you live along a direct bus/train route, or are prepared to waste hours as well.

In real terms getting to these means driving which means dealing with M50 which is fast becoming a parking lot again thanks to poor driving standards and zero enforcement of the rules we do have.

Again.. long distance commuting is not the answer here - we need to start building proper affordable high-rise, euro spec family apartments in the city and around the industrial estates with amenities/shops/entertainment, infrastructure and efficient public transport to get people where they want/need to go - not where CIE thinks they should!

BoatMad

You think that spending 2 hours (each way) a day in a car - or longer again on a bus/train - is a sustainable idea over the long term? As someone who's done it, the fuel/toll costs alone are massive never mind the additional wear and tear on the car and the expense that causes, time lost commuting, impact on families etc

Spending an hour commuting is in effect nothing
Athlone to the M50 at motorways speeds is an hour. many people in Europe spend that or more commuting, we are not unique in that regard.
The cost of motoring in this country is almost soley determined by the state , therefore it is in itself a function of public policy. That policy could be changed

Again.. long distance commuting is not the answer here - we need to start building proper affordable high-rise, euro spec family apartments in the city and around the industrial estates with amenities/shops/entertainment, infrastructure and efficient public transport to get people where they want/need to go - not where CIE thinks they should!

The fact is, all you "types" want to engage in some form of forced social engineering. Land availability and costs in DUBlin will mean that large apartments and associated green spaces will be beyond the means of many if not all ordinary families and the preserve of the rich.

This is true in many European countries where centre city living is for the rich , the poor live in multi story apartments on the edge of towns that make Ballymun flats look like disney land. Any trip around a largest French city will demonstrate that directly.


It is simply not possible to build what you suggest and make it affordable, land availability and pricing make it impossible. on the other hand Ireland has large amounts of unpopulated open spaces in its hinterlands. There is an argument for the development of New Towns etc, but this requires significant monies spent in advance to build motorways and rail links etc to service these "New" towns. It was tried in the UK and wasn't a great success either.

We live in a predominately private market , capitalist economy, the consumer ( house purchaser) decides where he or she lives and for what amount. As a tax payer that person has some claim to suggest that the state spends some of its taxes facilitating his or her ability to get to work and pay those taxes etc).

The answer is not to social engineer and simply herd people into high rises


The current motorway programme has revolutionised travelling in Ireland, If we have to build a few more , so what

Aard

BoatMad wrote: »

As for spacious apartments, well Dublin is an old city where land use is high, can't see spaces apartment blocks going up anytime soon that ordinary people can afford. unless you went to go to 40 stories or more.

You seem to think that building taller means cheaper rent!

Aard

BoatMad wrote: »

The current motorway programme has revolutionised travelling in Ireland, If we have to build a few more , so what

Planning for people to commute from Athlone to Dublin is in no way sustainable.

The average commute time is about 30 minutes. Building-in a 60 minute commute to future homeowners' lives as if it forms some sort of realistic plan is completely unsustainable by any measure.

BoatMad

Aard wrote: »

You seem to think that building taller means cheaper rent!

better land use means cheaper buildings, hence more of them , hence rents are more affordable, In Dublin that means high rise, not a popular choice and contary to current development planning

BoatMad

Aard wrote: »

Planning for people to commute from Athlone to Dublin is in no way sustainable.

The average commute time is about 30 minutes. Building-in a 60 minute commute to future homeowners' lives as if it forms some sort of realistic plan is completely unsustainable by any measure.

I see no issue with a 60 minute commute, thats a typically door to door commute in Dublin,

Ireland is not the USA, its a tiny country, an efficient road system can easily transport people across it quickly,

Lets just leave all the " received" wisdom to one side ( and the utopian stuff ) . explain why a 60 minute commute is " unsustainable" , I suspect it will be a surprise to the 1000s getting home at the moment

Irish Steve

Try adding a few more issues to the list about apartments.

Management fees. Have to be affordable, value for money, and provide proper management services for things like waste, group area lighting, parking management, communal area management and refurbishment, and all the other things that too often are NOT provided properly or for a reasonable price.

Construction standards, we don't need more Priory Hall fiascos, for people to accept apartments, they have to be constructed to a much higher basic standard than some of the rubbish that was thrown up during the Celtic Tiger years, and have things like cable TV, broadband, phone lines, and the like already installed and available, communal areas have to be safe and acceptable standard, things like lifts have to work, reliably, and that's just for starters.

Noise transfer through walls, insulation standards, window quality, heat retention, all of these are fundamental issues if apartments are to become acceptable to families. Accessible storage for things like bikes is another issue, and multiple bins per apartment is just not workable from a space and control aspect, Even basic issues like the problems of WiFi congestion in high density areas has to be addressed, so that all residents can get an acceptable level of service.

Space. There needs to be space around apartments that can be accessed by children and used for play/games, and it has to be safe.

Public Transport. Needs to be providing transport to the areas that people want it to go to, not just the city centre, which is becoming less and less important in the scale of things, and likely to become even more so if DCC don't get their act together and make the centre of the city a place where people want to live and work, it's becoming increasingly less attractive in both of those categories, and going via the city centre to get to anywhere else is no longer an acceptable option.

_Kaiser_

BoatMad wrote: »

Spending an hour commuting is in effect nothing
Athlone to the M50 at motorways speeds is an hour. many people in Europe spend that or more commuting, we are not unique in that regard.
The cost of motoring in this country is almost soley determined by the state , therefore it is in itself a function of public policy. That policy could be changed

It might be an hour when you GET to the motorway, but it could easily be that much again to get out of the city at rush hour. It used to take me about 90 mins to get from Fairview to Virginia in Cavan and that was at slightly off-peak hours. You only have to watch the AA updates on Twitter to see the times it takes to get down the M50/M7 at rush hour.

As for the policy points.. the State makes far too much from the motorist in fuel taxation, VRT, motor tax and general VAT to ever change it.

The fact is, all you "types" want to engage in some form of forced social engineering. Land availability and costs in DUBlin will mean that large apartments and associated green spaces will be beyond the means of many if not all ordinary families and the preserve of the rich.

Er.. not sure what you're on about in regards to "you types" and "social engineering" but the reality is that apartments and associated green spaces are ALREADY beyond (or fast becoming beyond) the reach of many ordinarily families... which is why in turn we're seeing traffic increases on the M50 and surrounding motorways in the last year as people are being pushed out into the surrounding counties (again!)

This is true in many European countries where centre city living is for the rich , the poor live in multi story apartments on the edge of towns that make Ballymun flats look like disney land. Any trip around a largest French city will demonstrate that directly.

It is simply not possible to build what you suggest and make it affordable, land availability and pricing make it impossible. on the other hand Ireland has large amounts of unpopulated open spaces in its hinterlands. There is an argument for the development of New Towns etc, but this requires significant monies spent in advance to build motorways and rail links etc to service these "New" towns. It was tried in the UK and wasn't a great success either.

So wait... you want to drive people into the ass-end of nowhere and make them commute to Dublin or the few other centres of employment we have? Did you miss the last 10 years of people stuck with property they can't get rid of, ghost estates etc

We live in a predominately private market , capitalist economy, the consumer ( house purchaser) decides where he or she lives and for what amount. As a tax payer that person has some claim to suggest that the state spends some of its taxes facilitating his or her ability to get to work and pay those taxes etc).

The answer is not to social engineer and simply herd people into high rises

Soo.. your argument is that a house owner should be entitled to live wherever they want and the State should subsidise this choice by providing the infrastructure and services.

Again, did you miss the last decade or two.. ghost estates, one-off McMansions everywhere, poor infrastructure.. it's simply not viable to do this.

Also, why are we so different to the rest of Europe where apartment living in and around the city centres is the norm? Is it the usual Irish "entitlement"?

The current motorway programme has revolutionised travelling in Ireland, If we have to build a few more , so what

Hey I love and have no intention of giving up my big car but even *I* can see that pushing everyone into a 3-4 hour daily commute is not the answer!

BoatMad

Irish Steve wrote: »

Try adding a few more issues to the list about apartments.

Management fees. Have to be affordable, value for money, and provide proper management services for things like waste, group area lighting, parking management, communal area management and refurbishment, and all the other things that too often are NOT provided properly or for a reasonable price.

Construction standards, we don't need more Priory Hall fiascos, for people to accept apartments, they have to be constructed to a much higher basic standard than some of the rubbish that was thrown up during the Celtic Tiger years, and have things like cable TV, broadband, phone lines, and the like already installed and available, communal areas have to be safe and acceptable standard, things like lifts have to work, reliably, and that's just for starters.

Noise transfer through walls, insulation standards, window quality, heat retention, all of these are fundamental issues if apartments are to become acceptable to families. Accessible storage for things like bikes is another issue, and multiple bins per apartment is just not workable from a space and control aspect, Even basic issues like the problems of WiFi congestion in high density areas has to be addressed, so that all residents can get an acceptable level of service.

Space. There needs to be space around apartments that can be accessed by children and used for play/games, and it has to be safe.

Public Transport. Needs to be providing transport to the areas that people want it to go to, not just the city centre, which is becoming less and less important in the scale of things, and likely to become even more so if DCC don't get their act together and make the centre of the city a place where people want to live and work, it's becoming increasingly less attractive in both of those categories, and going via the city centre to get to anywhere else is no longer an acceptable option.

great stuff, all of these push prices up , which means only the rich can afford them ,

BoatMad

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Er.. not sure what you're on about in regards to "you types" and "social engineering" but the reality is that apartments and associated green spaces are ALREADY beyond (or fast becoming beyond) the reach of many ordinarily families... which is why in turn we're seeing traffic increases on the M50 and surrounding motorways in the last year as people are being pushed out into the surrounding counties (again!)

The M50 is busy because people have jobs to go to, business have more business etc . People are still living where they lived

So wait... you want to drive people into the ass-end of nowhere and make them commute to Dublin or the few other centres of employment we have? Did you miss the last 10 years of people stuck with property they can't get rid of, ghost estates etc

Another two to three years of growth , you'll see very few " ghost estates" and the rest will be bought for social housing anyway,. Very temporary 3 year thing.

Soo.. your argument is that a house owner should be entitled to live wherever they want and the State should subsidise this choice by providing the infrastructure and services.

within reason yes. its a small country

Again, did you miss the last decade or two.. ghost estates, one-off McMansions everywhere, poor infrastructure.. it's simply not viable to do this.

very temporary problem caused by sudden lack of money, is in the process of being reversed

Also, why are we so different to the rest of Europe where apartment living in and around the city centres is the norm? Is it the usual Irish "entitlement"?

Unlike you , I suspect, Ive lived in central paris and elsewhere in Europe, to get good quality apartments in central locations costs a veritable fortune. The lower orders end up in dumps on the edge of these towns, Thats then european experience.

We in Ireland actually have superb housing in comparison, in that the middle and lower incomes can aspire to their own home with 3 beds, two baths, a piece of garden etc. Thats a dream for most Europeans, When I brought a resident of Singapore through Cabra recently, his first comments was " wow the houses are so big and far part "

You and others push a "European illusion" that can be seen threw if you actually lived with a family in any larger European city

I stayed with a family in Hannover recently, 1 ½ rail commute by rail, actually quicker but car !, to their workplace, house was in a jungle of small semi-aprtments , cramped ( albeit built well) , they were trying to buy it , but simply couldn't get a bank loan, they didn't like renting, as I say the reality is not as you portray it

Hey I love and have no intention of giving up my big car but even *I* can see that pushing everyone into a 3-4 hour daily commute is not the answer!

I know 4 families that voluntary choose to live in rural Westmeath and accept the extensive commute that entails. They balance the benefits with the drawbacks and wouldn't change.



The fact is we have one thing that many European countries don't have - space and short distances . It makes NO sense to build cities that mirror demographically more denser populations. We need to look at solutions that suit what we want , not what some European Town planner wants.


PS nothing wrong with big houses, whats wrong in Ireland is that planning doesn't emphasise quality over quantity

Irish Steve

BoatMad wrote: »

great stuff, all of these push prices up , which means only the rich can afford them ,

Well your alternative is Priory Hall style construction, which will become urban ghettos in a very short period of time, assuming that they don't kill people in the meantime. Do you REALLY want apartments that have to have fire engines on standby within the complex because they were so badly constructed?

300 Individual bins for 100 apartments isn't going to work, and the management companies that seem to be around for most blocks at present only seem to be interested in making massive profits for themselves, rather than providing the levels of service that the residents need.

V_Moth

BoatMad wrote: »

great stuff, all of these push prices up , which means only the rich can afford them ,

Not necessarily. Housing co-operatives are common in Germany and are responsible for keeping accommodation at reasonable levels*, as well as maintaining the buildings to a good standard. In most cases, the housing stock is a mixture of flats, multi-family houses** and single occupant houses. It is not without problems, but the main advantage is that if implemented correctly it should give people options on where to live and at what cost.

At the moment, a large swathe of housing inside the M50 consists of single occupant hosing which makes the provision of services very inefficient. I don't think this can continue (especially with problems such as Global warming and depletion of oil in the not too distant future).

By now, countries such as Germany, France, etc have tried so many different things in relation to housing, transportation that we can look at what has worked and what hasn't (eg. large housing projects with no services) and how that could be adapted to Dublin and the rest of Ireland. Munich would be a good example of a city that works.


*There is a very complicated assessment of the "reasonable level" in some German cities and has been a lot of controversy.

** Each family/person gets one floor of a large building.

BoatMad

Irish Steve wrote: »

Well your alternative is Priory Hall style construction, which will become urban ghettos in a very short period of time, assuming that they don't kill people in the meantime. Do you REALLY want apartments that have to have fire engines on standby within the complex because they were so badly constructed?

300 Individual bins for 100 apartments isn't going to work, and the management companies that seem to be around for most blocks at present only seem to be interested in making massive profits for themselves, rather than providing the levels of service that the residents need.

I'm all for quality of construction, even if the current building regulations enforcement is a mess and is being changed as we speak. The Uk system is much better.

Thats not the point, the point is that better and bigger centre city apartments with green spaces, high quality construction, recycling etc etc etc all raise the price. Already they are beyond ordinary couples , who are forced to seek housing in the greater Dub area. What you suggest will make such apartments even dearer , creating a rich mans ghetto. ( and this is what has happened in Europe )

BoatMad

V_Moth wrote: »

Not necessarily. Housing co-operatives are common in Germany and are responsible for keeping accommodation at reasonable levels*, as well as maintaining the buildings to a good standard. In most cases, the housing stock is a mixture of flats, multi-family houses** and single occupant houses. It is not without problems, but the main advantage is that if implemented correctly it should give people options on where to live and at what cost.

At the moment, a large swathe of housing inside the M50 consists of single occupant hosing which makes the provision of services very inefficient. I don't think this can continue (especially with problems such as Global warming and depletion of oil in the not too distant future).

By now, countries such as Germany, France, etc have tried so many different things in relation to housing, transportation that we can look at what has worked and what hasn't (eg. large housing projects with no services) and how that could be adapted to Dublin and the rest of Ireland. Munich would be a good example of a city that works.


*There is a very complicated assessment of the "reasonable level" in some German cities and has been a lot of controversy.

** Each family/person gets one floor of a large building.

There are aspects of German housing that will never transplant to Ireland, so we have to be careful how we compare.

Purchasing a house in German is a very expensive business, often only undertaken quite late in life. As a result Germans have very poor mobility and often are in one dwelling their whole life. If thats a great area that good, if its not , it can be very difficult to move.

personally I would say that urban European housing has as many problems as we have ,just they are different.

What we have however is an extra-ordinary level of house ownership that is the envy of many other countries . despite our criticisms , we also have quite an exceeding good standard of accommodation and space in the typical 3 bed semi.


We are too quick to think we havent it as good as the next fellow, when in reality we have it better.

Irish Steve

BoatMad wrote: »

I'm all for quality of construction, even if the current building regulations enforcement is a mess and is being changed as we speak. The Uk system is much better.

Thats not the point, the point is that better and bigger centre city apartments with green spaces, high quality construction, recycling etc etc etc all raise the price. Already they are beyond ordinary couples , who are forced to seek housing in the greater Dub area. What you suggest will make such apartments even dearer , creating a rich mans ghetto. ( and this is what has happened in Europe )

Building regulation here is a sick joke, and unlikely to improve any time soon, the political will to make it happen is not there. The ONLY way to make it work is to have proper inspections by the building control department of the local authority, and there's not the staff, or the will, to make that happen, and any other system has been shown already to be a failure, if for no other reason than that there's no liability or consequences for the people that certify junk, they can do it with the certainty that they won't have to accept the consequences of their actions. That's no longer acceptable, but we don't have politicians with the cojones to make change happen, and stick.

If we can't find a way to construct affordable multi use apartment style accommodation within the M50, then the centre of Dublin is a dead concept, and we need to find an acceptable way to change how Dublin is used, and operates, and yes, it IS that simple.

V_Moth

BoatMad wrote: »

There are aspects of German housing that will never transplant to Ireland, so we have to be careful how we compare.

Purchasing a house in German is a very expensive business, often only undertaken quite late in life. As a result Germans have very poor mobility and often are in one dwelling their whole life. If thats a great area that good, if its not , it can be very difficult to move.

personally I would say that urban European housing has as many problems as we have ,just they are different.

What we have however is an extra-ordinary level of house ownership that is the envy of many other countries . despite our criticisms , we also have quite an exceeding good standard of accommodation and space in the typical 3 bed semi.


We are too quick to think we havent it as good as the next fellow, when in reality we have it better.

Yes, there are significant issues in some cases in relation to housing/transportation in mainland Europe. But, a large percentage of the population living in one-off houses causes other problems (traffic, higher pollution levels, higher costs for services such as water...) and the only solution is to provide a good mix of options for people to choose.

BoatMad

Irish Steve wrote: »

Building regulation here is a sick joke, and unlikely to improve any time soon, the political will to make it happen is not there. The ONLY way to make it work is to have proper inspections by the building control department of the local authority, and there's not the staff, or the will, to make that happen, and any other system has been shown already to be a failure, if for no other reason than that there's no liability or consequences for the people that certify junk, they can do it with the certainty that they won't have to accept the consequences of their actions. That's no longer acceptable, but we don't have politicians with the cojones to make change happen, and stick.

If we can't find a way to construct affordable multi use apartment style accommodation within the M50, then the centre of Dublin is a dead concept, and we need to find an acceptable way to change how Dublin is used, and operates, and yes, it IS that simple.

you are obviously completely unaware of the recent massive revamp to the building regulations and the certification process. It was so draconian that it stopped all self build dead in the water

We can't control the housing market, thats done by supply and demand. Or perhaps you'd like to change the constitution as well.

V_Moth

It is also just so frustrating to realise that so many of the issues in relation to transport in Dublin and elsewhere could have been reduced or even prevented 30 to 40 years ago. It just shows what damage the mixture of corruption and poor planning oversight prevalent then has had on the city and Ireland.

BoatMad

V_Moth wrote: »

Yes, there are significant issues in some cases in relation to housing/transportation in mainland Europe. But, a large percentage of the population living in one-off houses causes other problems (traffic, higher pollution levels, higher costs for services such as water...) and the only solution is to provide a good mix of options for people to choose.

Not sure what you determine as one-off housing, do you mean estates or rural houses. in reality rural housing has little effect on traffic, its simply not dense enough , but I agree that such houses should be subject to realistic levels of service charges that reflects the costs of servicing them , however thats not current Gov policy,

can't see the pollution angle though

the fact is we have lots of space. foolish to discount that advantage

V_Moth

BoatMad wrote: »

Not sure what you determine as one-off housing, do you mean estates or rural houses. in reality rural housing has little effect on traffic, its simply not dense enough , but I agree that such houses should be subject to realistic levels of service charges that reflects the costs of servicing them , however thats not current Gov policy,

can't see the pollution angle though

the fact is we have lots of space. foolish to discount that advantage

Yes, space is an advantage but is it being used most effectively at the moment?

Sorry, I forgot that one-off relates to rural housing. I meant semi-detached houses.

BoatMad

V_Moth wrote: »

Yes, space is an advantage but is it being used most effectively at the moment?

Sorry, I forgot that one-off relates to rural housing. I meant semi-detached houses.

I think you mess with the semi-d at your peril