Idea for a grant to modify driveways to accommodate cars

magicbastarder

Ush1 wrote: »

If you're in a suburb and both parents work, it's highly likely there will be two cars per household. Not even taking into account when kids grow older and get cars.

yes, but people living in the suburbs usually have parking provision already.

Ush1

TheBoyConor wrote: »

And even if you did do all that, the next problem you will have is speeding. Because cars parked either side of the road actually make for very effective passive traffic calming - they narrow the roadway and cause drivers to have to navigate their way through the street at a lower speed.

So you do all that, driveways and double yellows, no parking on street. Next thing cars are flying up and down unimpeded. Then you'll have residents bitching about speeding and wanting traffic calming and ramps and speed display signs. Then they might get ramps, then you have a whole other set of busybodies and cranky residents bitching about the noise of cars hitting the speed ramps and wanting them taken out.

I don't think having lots of cars parked on streets is a good traffic calming measure as people still do speed and have restricted vision because of the cars if a child for instance runs out. Seems an odd objection to be honest that I doubt many would agree with as you're basically saying private cars on public roads is the right place for them?

TheBoyConor wrote: »

The OPs proposition is absolutely brain dead thinking, and the traffic reason I have outlined above is only one of many reasons that it is a silly idea. It also flies in the face of any sort of sustainable transport policy as it facilitates the private car, and it is an attack on urban biodiversity as you'd be pulling up small green patches everywhere. Also would result in greater run-off entering sewers and, taken together, all these drive ways would exacerbate local flooding to some degree.

Very very bad idea and a very much outdated way of thinking. Probably belongs in the 1950s or 60s when car was king.

Plenty of estates have public green areas and verges for drainage, wouldn't be an issue there. Likewise, peoples front gardens are private property, it's not really up to them to maintain "biodiversity" and it would be their choice at the end of the day.

It's not facilitating the private car, it's facilitating clear roads. As I said previously any fear of induced demand could be restricted by date of when the car was registered to the owner but I personally don't think this would induce demand.

Ush1

magicbastarder wrote: »

yes, but people living in the suburbs usually have parking provision already.

They may have limited parking provision but have to store a second car on a public road. From my own estate and many around my suburb is that it's second or third vehicles which are stored on roads as the driveway only accommodates one car, but if modified could accommodate all three.

magicbastarder

your original post stated the driveways were big enough, that it'd just be the walls you'd need to modify. i can't fathom why someone should be given a grant to take out a metre or two of a wall.

Ush1

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I live in a suburb, but most people I know don't drive to work, except those with trades. Both my parents worked and there was only ever one car.
I really think 2 cars per household is something we should be trying to move away from given how packed the streets are with cars already.

Well your estate must have very clear roads so. I would imagine it's the exception rather than the rule from what I've seen in lots of West and South Dublin.

Ush1

magicbastarder wrote: »

your original post stated the driveways were big enough, that it'd just be the walls you'd need to modify. i can't fathom why someone should be given a grant to take out a metre or two of a wall.

Most cases it's modifying the wall or replacing grass area. Why a grant? Because it would result in less cars parked on the public road.

TheBoyConor

Ush1 wrote: »

I don't think having lots of cars parked on streets is a good traffic calming measure as people still do speed and have restricted vision because of the cars if a child for instance runs out. Seems an odd objection to be honest that I doubt many would agree with as you're basically saying private cars on public roads is the right place for them?



Plenty of estates have public green areas and verges for drainage, wouldn't be an issue there. Likewise, peoples front gardens are private property, it's not really up to them to maintain "biodiversity" and it would be their choice at the end of the day.

It's not facilitating the private car, it's facilitating clear roads. As I said previously any fear of induced demand could be restricted by date of when the car was registered to the owner but I personally don't think this would induce demand.

On street parking is a recognised and accepted way of providing passive traffic calming. One means of traffic calming is to restrict forward visibility so that drivers enticed to slow down. The chicaning effect of cars alternately parked on either side provides this effect and also the chicaning requires cars to slow down to negotiate the street.

Speed ramps are regarded as a technique of last resort for traffic calming.

What you and OP are suggesting is clear streets, with straight runs with good visibility. I can tell you, from experience and research, that means SPEED. High speeds and lots of it, because there is no barrier to speeding in the type of streetscape you suggest.


Much of the current design guidance for urban streets aims to restrict speeds by providing narrower lanes, restricting forward visibility and tighter junction radii and prioritising pedestrians over vehicles by creating more shared space. You and OP are thinking more along the lines of 50 years ago by providing clear "runways" for cars, and everything and everyone else must make way for the mighty motor car. Ye are half a century too late with that outlook.

Lets talk about that child running out into the road. It could happen on both types of street. On your wide open clear run of road, cars will be travelling much faster. if the child is hit it will be a bigger impact and likely much more serious. On the road with chicanes and parked cars speeds will be much much lower. I have established that on multiple different occasions and locations. If an impact were to occur it will be much less serious because of the lower speeds.


And on drainage - yeah runoff might go into verges and gulleys and whatnot. And then where? It does not just vanish. It goes on into storm or combined sewers and into watercourses. A few driveways would make no difference but paving hundred or thousands of gardens as the OP would suggest would all add up and together, have a not insignificant effect on flooding.

Sure, a private householder might not be obliged or compelled to provide biodiversity but it should be encouraged. To bring in a policy which knowingly will actively damage what little urban biodiversity remains would be a very poor practice.

Ush1

TheBoyConor wrote: »

On street parking is a recognised and accepted way of providing passive traffic calming. One means of traffic calming is to restrict forward visibility so that drivers enticed to slow down. The chicaning effect of cars alternately parked on either side provides this effect and also the chicaning requires cars to slow down to negotiate the street.

Speed ramps are regarded as a technique of last resort for traffic calming.

Encouraging poor visibility is not an effective calming measure and it is of course dangerous for obvious reasons. Same reason you are advised not to park on corners. If your concern is speed then speed bumps are far more effective whilst also not reducing visibility.

Again, you are arguing for why cars should be parked on public roads. I think you're not going to get much agreement on your side but if you have studies to show it's preferable to have cars parked on public roads, go ahead.

TheBoyConor wrote: »

What you and OP are suggesting is clear streets, with straight runs with good visibility. I can tell you, from experience and research, that means SPEED. High speeds and lots of it, because there is no barrier to speeding in the type of streetscape you suggest.
You advocate turning

I am the OP.

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Much of the current design guidance for urban streets aims to restrict speeds by providing narrower lanes, restricting forward visibility and tighter junction radii and prioritising pedestrians over vehicles by creating more shared space. You and OP are thinking more along the lines of 50 years ago by providing "runways" for cars, and everything and everyone else must make way for the mighty motor car. Ye are half a century too late with that outlook.

I haven't suggested anything which would impact pedestrians, indeed someone earlier in the thread parks on the path, which I often see and this grant could improve access for pedestrians and wheelchair users. Not to mention freeing up roads to be safer for cyclists(for whom visibility is crucial).

TheBoyConor wrote: »

And on drainage - yeah runoff might go into verges and gulleys and whatnot. And then where? It does not just vanish. It goes on into storm or combined sewers and into watercourses. A few driveways would make no difference but paving hundred or thousands of gardens as the OP would suggest would all add up and together, have a not insignificant effect on flooding.

Many would not even have gardens. People can privately remove their gardens regardless. Nothing stopping everyone doing this.

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Sure, a private householder might not be obliged or compelled to provide biodiversity but it should be encouraged. To bring in a policy which knowingly will actively damage what little urban biodiversity remains would be a very poor practice.

Not really, it's encouraging keeping roads and street clear with a view to restricting parking on public roads(depending on uptake).

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

How about ideas for reducing the number of cars on our roads? Not increase them?

Ush1

Dulce Some Groundhog wrote: »

How about ideas for reducing the number of cars on our roads? Not increase them?

That's exactly what this could do.

TheW1zard

I live on a road where we park up one side of the road. Sometimes people park on the other side of the road making it very hard for people to pass.
A fire engine for example would be unable to pass if someone on the other side of the road decides to park outside their house (which they are entitled to do)

Im currently getting planning to widen my driveway to park two cars. Even if we only had one I would prefer a visitor parking off the road. I hope i get it!

I dont think there should be a grant but I do think cars off the road is better than on.

Ush1

TheW1zard wrote: »

I live on a road where we park up one side of the road. Sometimes people park on the other side of the road making it very hard for people to pass.
A fire engine for example would be unable to pass if someone on the other side of the road decides to park outside their house (which they are entitled to do)

Im currently getting planning to widen my driveway to park two cars. Even if we only had one I would prefer a visitor parking off the road. I hope i get it!

I dont think there should be a grant but I do think cars off the road is better than on.

The problem is some people could not easily afford to have the work done.

TheBoyConor

Straighter, clearer roads mean higher speeds. That is guaranteed. Please don't tell me otherwise because i have direct experience.

No. If you look at any modern design guide, such as DMURS, or Traffic Management Guidelines by the DoT, you will see that speed ramps are absolutely the bottom of the list for traffic calming. Limiting forward visibility, chicaning and passive measures are the recommended means. Obviously, visibility at junctions and the like is to be maintained to an acceptable safe level.
I also told you that there are as many complaints about noise after ramps go in as there are about speed before they go in.

Clearer straighter roads with the resultant higher speeds are most certainly less inviting for pedestrians and the risks of accidents goes up, especially in a residential area where children may enter onto the road at any moment.

To intentionally provide an environment which facilitates higher speeds in a residential area would be a massive backwards step.

I feel that you have an ingrained car-centric view on this.

TheW1zard

Ush1 wrote: »

The problem is some people could not easily afford to have the work done.

Unfortunate for some I suppose.

Ush1

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Straighter, clearer roads mean higher speeds. That is guaranteed. Please don't tell me otherwise because i have direct experience.

No. If you look at any modern design guide, such as DMURS, or Traffic Management Guidelines by the DoT, you will see that speed ramps are absolutely the bottom of the list for traffic calming. Limiting forward visibility, chicaning and passive measures are the recommended means. Obviously, visibility at junctions and the like is to be maintained to an acceptable safe level.
I also told you that there are as many complaints about noise after ramps go in as there are about speed before they go in.

Clearer straighter roads with the resultant higher speeds are most certainly less inviting for pedestrians and the risks of accidents goes up, especially in a residential area where children may enter onto the road at any moment.

To intentionally provide an environment which facilitates higher speeds in a residential area would be a massive backwards step.

I feel that you have an ingrained car-centric view on this.

I think the backwards thinking is that private cars belong on public roads, but hey if don't agree with that, you're not going to agree with a grant like I'm suggesting.

This is indeed the opposite of car-centric, it makes the roads and paths better for all users.

Ush1

TheW1zard wrote: »

Unfortunate for some I suppose.

It is but hey, most grants aren't means tested anyway, they are done to encourage a particular behaviour or goal.

I have an electric car and got a grant to partially cover the install of the charger. It's not make or break but it may help encourage uptake.

TheW1zard

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Straighter, clearer roads mean higher speeds. That is guaranteed. Please don't tell me otherwise because i have direct experience.

No. If you look at any modern design guide, such as DMURS, or Traffic Management Guidelines by the DoT, you will see that speed ramps are absolutely the bottom of the list for traffic calming. Limiting forward visibility, chicaning and passive measures are the recommended means. Obviously, visibility at junctions and the like is to be maintained to an acceptable safe level.
I also told you that there are as many complaints about noise after ramps go in as there are about speed before they go in.

Clearer straighter roads with the resultant higher speeds are most certainly less inviting for pedestrians and the risks of accidents goes up, especially in a residential area where children may enter onto the road at any moment.

To intentionally provide an environment which facilitates higher speeds in a residential area would be a massive backwards step.

I feel that you have an ingrained car-centric view on this.

You can argue it states the exact opposite.
If there is no on street parking provided (paid parking) it encourages drivers to kerb mount and block footpaths.
If the street becomes saturated like in the Ops case - “if parking does not cater for user needs or is under provided it may encourage poor parking practices (including illegal ones) such as kerb mounting, parking on footpaths and within areas of open space.”
It also states “Perpendicular parking should generally be restricted to one side of the street to encourage a greater sense of enclosure and ensure that parking does not dominate the streetscape”
It also goes into not wanting to dominate the streetscape with cars.

TheW1zard

Ush1 wrote: »

It is but hey, most grants aren't means tested anyway, they are done to encourage a particular behaviour or goal.

I have an electric car and got a grant to partially cover the install of the charger. It's not make or break but it may help encourage uptake.

I agree with grant for an electric charger, because it encourages electric vehicles which is the future! Im currently trying to open up my driveway for 2 cars but I dont necessarily think the tax payers money should be used because I want to kill the planet with my 2 cars!
I dont think you should have to get PP to widen your driveway if your not knocking down a tree or anything buy hey!

Zebra3

magicbastarder wrote: »

for residents parking; i was wrong, it's €50, or €80 for two years. the car has to be insured at an address where you want to park it.
residents in permit parking areas can also buy 24 hour general passes for €1.25 each, for the aforementioned 'i've a plumber coming round' scenario.

That's an incredible subsidy from the taxpayer that the homeowner will directly gain from when selling up.

TheBoyConor

I think there is a happy medium to be reached in streetscape design.
Of course, a street dominated by cars is not attractive nor will it fucntion well. But a street that is converted into a clear run will have severe speed issues.
A measured approach to on-street parking as part of a wider implementation of traffic calming.

un5byh7sqpd2x0

MJohnston wrote: »

There should in no way be a grant for this imo. Governments should be spending on money on public transport that reduces people's need to store a car anywhere.

This modification requires planning permission anyway, which should tell you that the government/local authorities don't want it to happen.

I want somewhere to store my bus, would a grant be acceptable to you in that circumstance?

caff

Just get rid of the cars. In Japan you can't purchase a car unless you own a space to park it in.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Ush1 wrote: »

That's exactly what this could do.

This just shows that you haven't thought this through. You are suggesting a grant to improve infrastructure for cars. The city does not need that. It needs the opposite.

JohnC.

caff wrote: »

Just get rid of the cars. In Japan you can't purchase a car unless you own a space to park it in.

I was just about to mention that. Of course, that requires decent public transport to be in place, so there's a ways to go before we could do that.

Ush1

Dulce Some Groundhog wrote: »

This just shows that you haven't thought this through. You are suggesting a grant to improve infrastructure for cars. The city does not need that. It needs the opposite.

It's improving storage of existing cars.

Peregrinus

Ush1 wrote: »

It's improving storage of existing cars.

Existing and future cars. Unless your suggestion is that when people dispose of the car they now have, they are required to reconvert their driveways to gardens?

Markcheese

MJohnston wrote: »

Let me see, we want to tear up lawns and flora and replace them with driveways for cars....sure, of course, this is great.

To be fair most lawns ect aren't known for their biodiversity...

Markcheese

There are drainage issues with driveways ... ( Any hardsurface really, including roofs ... ) that can and do exacerbate flooding ...
Also ,just because you knocked the vat off the price, i'd probably still struggle to pay for a new driveway .. in honesty my van doesn't really cause a problem ,on the wide no through estate road ,
Done in a targeted way though ,freeing up major routes it's not a bad idea ...
The idea that you just abandon your car blocking the road ( while on or half on the roadway ) is seriously bonkers ..

Carawaystick

Ush1 wrote: »

But it's not subsidising private motoring, it's subsidising the clearing of public roads. As I said, you could introduce a date limit for when the car was purchased if there was a fear of induced demand.

I don't think it would cost much regardless compared to many other incentives.

If the subsidy is larger than the cost of double yellow lines (or single yellow lines and timeplate sign posts) then its a waste of money.

you don't judge it against incentives, you judge it against the cost of alternative methods to achieve the same aim.

Ush1

Carawaystick wrote: »

If the subsidy is larger than the cost of double yellow lines (or single yellow lines and timeplate sign posts) then its a waste of money.

you don't judge it against incentives, you judge it against the cost of alternative methods to achieve the same aim.

Not really, you also have to judge political appetite.

We could can ban all cars tomorrow but realistically it isn't going to happen.