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

Dublin is the ‘second-slowest city centre in the world’ for drivers

  • 10-01-2024 2:14pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,337 ✭✭✭Francis McM


    New data shows that Dublin city centre is the second slowest urban centre in the world for drivers.

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/dublin-is-the-second-slowest-city-centre-in-the-world-for-drivers/a2120301602.html

    No surprise there, but after getting so much money from the EEC and EU for infrastructure, it it still not a shame that travel is still so slow?

    It makes our capital the second slowest in the world among the 387 cities in the 55 countries which were surveyed. Only London (a city much bigger than Dublin) is slower for drivers, but at least over there you can take the tube and get around relatively quickly and efficiently.



«13

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,337 ✭✭✭Francis McM


    Incidentally we were not always second last in the world when it came to transport for commuters : The world's first commuter railway, the Dublin & Kingstown Railway (D&KR) opened between Dublin and Kingstown (now Dún Laoghaire), covering a distance of six miles. That was in 1834.



  • Registered Users Posts: 448 ✭✭eastie17


    I hate to jump on the "Ireland sucks" bandwagon, because it clearly doesnt, ubt I think its fair to say that our system of Government as it realates to infrastructure development, planning and execution is really not fit for purpose.

    It will never happen, but in my mind the solution would be clear devolved responsibility. Local government deals with everything locally (roads, big projects etc) and is funded and elected accordingly in local elections. National government, TDs cant have anything to do with local stuff, make it illegal to get involved in medical cards, potholes etc as a TD, and we will be electing them solely on their ability to be effective legislators and governors nationally.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,228 ✭✭✭Bobson Dugnutt


    They’ve never been in Galway city on a rainy Monday morning coming in from the Dublin motorway.


    Reformed character.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭orangerhyme


    I remember Bertie Ahern saying they centralised road building to speed up building the motorway network. They went to Spain and learned from them.

    I think the government have good ideas but it takes too long to implement them.

    For example Finglas Luas is 4km with four stops. Besides a couple of bridges, it's a simple project. They could do it in a couple of years really but it's put off til the 2030s.

    Dart+ and Busconnects are far more complex so it's understandable they take time.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,303 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    It used to happen up until 1978. But in the election of 1977 FF got the biggest majority in the history of the State on the policy to abolish Property Tax. This spelled the end of local government funding which had any connection to communities.

    This year we will have the chance to elect 949 local politicians. But some electoral areas will probably have fewer than an average of two candidates per seat. Even though the next rung on the ladder would lead to untold riches available to TD's. We used to have about 600 more on town councils but they were turfed out a few years ago. But apparently there is going to be an elected Mayor in Limerick.

    "Outside of the Oireachtas, Ireland's National Parliament, local authorities are the only bodies whose members are elected by direct vote of the Irish electorate. There are 949 councillors in Ireland, who are elected in local government elections every five years."



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 219 ✭✭Carlito Brigantes Tale


    Let's give FG another 12 years in government, that'll fix it for sure.



  • Registered Users Posts: 900 ✭✭✭sameoldname


    Until public transport becomes a big enough issue with the electorate that parties are going to win or lose votes over it, we're not going to see any quick progress on it. As long as the vast bulk of drivers care more about bringing their cars with them than about being able to leave it behind I don't see how the government can change much. Look at all the moaning about busconnects, cycle lanes, path widening, tree's being cut down (drivers who wouldn't give a damn if the tree's were cut down to add an extra traffic lane but when it's a bus or cycle lane, suddenly they care about the enviroment), etc.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭orangerhyme


    I never saw the big deal about protecting trees.

    More can be planted anyway. Lots of them fall down naturally anyway in storms.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,911 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,911 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    Chicken and Egg though.

    If there is no decent PT, why would you give up your car?

    Dublin needs an Underground Network. Thats really the only way to make PT work on a large scale and entice drivers out of cars.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭orangerhyme


    The only solution in short and medium term is to get as many people as possible onto bikes and buses.

    Maybe when Bus Connects is close to completion they can have a big promotion and have very cheap annual tickets.

    I think it's about 1000 a year for an adult (I know there's tax deductions).

    Maybe they could offer €200 for an annual ticket and cheaper again for children and students.

    They could have a media and marketing campaign comparing cost and journey times of car, bike and bus.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,303 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    Dublin drivers lose about 5 minutes per 10 kilometres travelled, compared to New York in 20th place. The difference between cities in the top 20 would not be a consideration for me if I was choosing somewhere to live and drive. The best cities have an average speed of over 60 kmh per 10 km travelled. That sounds a bit unsafe to me in any urban setting.

    https://www.tomtom.com/traffic-index/ranking/



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 161 ✭✭CWMMC


    Not surprising, the small road and narrow roads around Ireland are not able to cope with the traffic compared to other countries around the world.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,337 ✭✭✭Francis McM


    The study compared Dublin with other cities, not Ireland with other cities.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,628 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Note the glide from post 1 . . .

    New data shows that Dublin city centre is the second slowest urban centre in the world for drivers.

    . . . to post 2:

    Incidentally we were not always second last in the world when it came to transport for commuters

    The slowest city for drivers and the slowest city for commuters are not the same thing.

    If you look at the full TomTom list, the slowest city are all large cities - urban region with a population of well over 1 million - with relatively small, dense centres that date from when the city was much smaller. The centres were not designed or constructed, and did not organically grow, on the basis that everyone coming into the urban centre would bring half a ton of metal with them.

    The only ways you can improve driving speeds in this situation are:

    1. Demolish much of the city centre and to create space for a lot more vehicle infrastructure — enough infrastructure to cater for as much traffic as the few remaining bits of the city centre that actually have something worth going to in them can possible generate. Quite a number of American cities have done this, but the social, cultural, human etc impact is severe. The "sweet spot" where there is enough vehicle space for all the vehicles coming into the city centre to be unimpeded seems to be about 60% of the land area of the urban centre given over to roads, parking, etc and 40% given over to all other uses. The only European cities to have done this are those were the necessary demolition was done in the 1940s courtesy of the RAF and the USAAF — most rebuilt their centres much as they were before, but a few opted for new, specious, car-friendly but basically soulless centres.
    2. Drastically restrict access by private cars so the the limited streets in the urban centre do not get overly congested. That can work to deliver short driving times, but of course most drivers don't benefit because they are kept out of the urban centre, so that's not a universally popular approach.

    Most cities faced with this issue, and not willing to tear themselves apart so that 60% of the urban centre can be given over to cars and storage for cars, opt for providing alternatives to driving in the urban centre. I no longer live in Dublin but, when I did, my options for commuting to work, starting with the shortest, were (1) cycle (2) public transport (3) walk (4) drive. That actually strikes me as the optimal order for a human-friendly city.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,970 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    It's the old story of when the cup is overflowing with water then what do you do? Get a bigger cup until that starts overflowing and so on and so on.. Until all you're left with is a city that's just one big motorway where people drive a motor vehicle just to get to the other-side of the road... Sounds like the USA! 😁



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,303 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    Co-operation between drivers. Arrange with two other people to have three people in one car as often as possible, rather than one person in three separate cars.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 161 ✭✭CWMMC


    Because Dublin isn't in Ireland nor does it have small roads?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,983 ✭✭✭randd1


    Why does it always have to be underground. What about elevated trams? Other cities have them.

    There's enough low height housing in Dublin city centre to get away with a few elevated routes.

    I know there's the argument it would affect the aesthetics of the area. But you know what else does? Traffic jams, poor air quality, lack of trees from being cut down so tens of thousands of vehicles can clog up roads. Not to mention dilapidated and run down buildings that give off a nuclear holocaust vibe. And the Luas is very quiet in comparison to most trains/trams. A full network of them would do the job.

    Not everyone's cup of tea, but surely worth a go?

    Cheaper too I'd imagine.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,983 ✭✭✭randd1


    Surely you mean three separate people in three separate cars?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,303 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,983 ✭✭✭randd1


    I think you misunderstand. How can one person be in three cars, unless they can dismember or clone themselves?

    Surely it would take three separate people to be in three separate cars?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭orangerhyme


    They mean a person in each car. Don't be pedantic.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,303 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    On different days it could be three people in three cars, two people in one car, or three people in one car. Somebody might be staying at home, or going a different route. If enough people got together, it would cut down on traffic. A downsized park and ride idea.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,384 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,911 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    I wouldnt argue against a fully integrated elevated tram network, but its just never going to happen in "historic Dublin."

    Underground is the viable option as it doesnt disrupt the "urban framework" but would still be much faster and cheaper than travelling by car.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,911 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    Buses are outdated, unatrractive & are slower than driving.

    We will not get people out of cars by trying to shunt them on to buses.

    Buses are basically for students and retired folks and that mind set isnt about to change at scale.

    There isnt a single 30 or 40 something I know that drives that would even consider moving to bus travel. Even if the bus was free.

    Especially the drivers with kids whom need to run around to sports practices/shops/friends houses etc on tight timelines.

    Not to mention the fact that BusConnects has no completion date, due to driver shortages.

    BusConnects is a cheap substitute for a proper underground system and it will fail to move people out of cars.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭orangerhyme


    I just mean for commuting. I don't mean literally every journey.

    If you're on a frequent spine and its pretty direct to your workplace, then I think it's a viable option.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,303 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,911 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    If its A to B ( a straight line) you might consider it for work. but youre still gonna keep your car for every other journey.

    If its not A to B to work, its car all the way.



Advertisement