Who to vote for to massively improve public transport?
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Cycle lanes are for cyclists, outside of city centers they are not used for commuting. Cyclists don't use them a lot of the time anyway. They are the most pointless endeavor as they help no one. We need prioritised bus routes, a luas expansion, and as you say, metro.
So the many people who cycle along the Sutton/Clonyarf promenade to and from the city each day aren't commuting?
There are cycle paths along my commute and they're shite so I generally won't use them. If they are designed with cyclists in mind then they are likely to be good. If they are designed to clear the road for people driving (as is usually the case) then they won't be used!
Cars are not evil although the Greens consider them to be the bête noire. They are a component of the holistic transport solution which the helpless commuter is forced to default to as the portions of the solution which aren't personally owned by the commuter are lacking.
I presume that your perception of the Green Party's agenda is based on Facebook rants rather than what the party actually claim (and I'm not a member!). I don't think at any point the GP have claimed that cars are evil or that they want to rid the world of them or whatever other daft notions some people have. They want sustainable transport, lower traffic congestion, shorter commutes, reduced energy use and emission outputs - is that not a good thing? (points taken from the Transport Policy page on their website). Would it not be a good thing to have less traffic on the roads so that those that *need* to drive can do so more easily? Is it not a good thing that kids can safely walk and cycle to school so that parents don't need to drive them there?
As for your comparison with Amsterdam, I'm sure that you were aware that it was a car dominated society until the 70s when the people said that they had had enough of children getting killed.
However, the problem with comparing the positives in Amsterdam and the negatives here is that here there is no political will to rock the boat which makes it more difficult for us to catch up with NL. Even the introduction of a cycle lane here will cause residents groups to be up in arms citing bogus crap about the end of their lives as they know it. Just look at the muppet in Fairview who closed up business blaming the cycle path works which hadn't even started. Look at all the muppets who still think his business was harmed by the works and continue to reference him in discussions. Look at the residents objecting to Bus Connects routes because their on-street parking spot will be taken away and they don't want to have to convert part of their garden into a parking spot.
This country over the last six or seven decades made the choice to go down a different transport path compared to Amsterdam. We chose to invest heavily in roads and underfund our public transport systems. The only proper investment project in maybe a century was the Luas. Only in the last few decade or so have we started trying to improve our public transport system and despite the constant NIMBYism, it is slowly getting there.
Now which political party will continue to advance that? Definitley the GP and maybe the SDs & Lab. I'm assuming the current trio will continue as they are doing. Would a SF led government continue investing (meaningfully) in PT? I honestly doubt it.
Post edited by Seth Brundle on7 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
