nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

How we think and talk about reducing car use in cities

monument

A few things in recent threads and discussions off boards has got me thinking...

Most of the time when we talk about “restrictions on cars” we’re actually talking about “improvements for others” or reallocating priority and space to others.

For anybody who supports a more liveable and sustainable city, it’s far more constructive to look at it from the perspective of providing a reallocation of priority and space.

And I’m not just saying that from a perception perspective — as CF from the AA says, you can put up road blocks and the city won’t be any better. I actually think he’s half right. For the road blocks to be a positive, you need to be planning to improve walking, cycling, and public transport, not just disproving car access.

But in other cities of a similar size to Dublin, the link between provision of public transport, “restrictions on cars”, and use of cars is at best weak or mixed or not as strange forward as people think.

Amsterdam and Copenhagen put in significant relocation of space before having metro lines in place and Amsterdam has just used the opening of its new North-South metro line as an excuse to block east-west car movements — the link there is tenuous.

In Dublin the volume of cars looks large but the numbers of people they are carrying is low compared to the numbers carred in bus lanes, tram lanes and narrow cycle lanes. Often you’re only taking about a few hundred people in cars per hour on many routes — easily transferred to other modes.

Even in larger cities like Paris or London — with far greater public transport — they still get opposition to surface improvements on the bases that motorists will lose out, be they for buses or trams or decent cycle paths.

Another thing is that Dublin already has around 10% cycling modal share and even if some of the planned major routes are built, that modal share will grow. Dutch cities have up to 50%+ but the NTA in Dublin has low enough targets for cycling.

Also we have to look at modal shift as not as strange forward as most people think of it as.

For example, one car driver might in reaction to a change in road layouts change to a different route and it might be any other driver on that route who switches to walking, cycling or public transport.

If someone from far out switches to the bus, some guy who used to commute on the same route but living closer to the city centre might then switch from the bus to walking or cycling.

Or some people already combine driving with cycling once they get near the city centre or get a lift to the edge of the city centre and then cycle etc.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

magicbastarder

troyzer wrote: »

it'll be possible to get in a car which drives you to work and then can park at home ready to pick you up when needed.

this thread is about reducing car use - the scenario you posit is a doubling of it.

troyzer

magicbastarder wrote: »

this thread is about reducing car use - the scenario you posit is a doubling of it.

I doubt it would double it but it does massively reduce the negative impact of car use.

magicbastarder

but your car is making the return trip twice instead of once. your car is driving you to work and immediately driving home?

you're suggesting that empty cars driving around the streets - to reduce the impact on parking - is a lesser evil than the parking. that's a debate to be had, sure, but i know where i'd sit on that.

LeChienMefiant

How does an autonomous car decide when I'm allowed cross the road as a pedestrian?

Borderfox

troyzer wrote: »

It should also be said that all of this might be completely pointless once autonomous cars come along.

Within the next 10-15 years it'll be possible to get in a car which drives you to work and then can park at home ready to pick you up when needed.

Once that happens you can start getting rid of parking spaces in the city centre which in the case of on street parking can be turned into cycle lanes and the multi storeys turned into housing/commercial units. Autonomous cars also allow for the abolition of traffic lights which allows for free flowing junctions all the time.

They won't solve everything, but they'd be a huge dent in the problem.

I thought the point of driverless cars is you don't own it and when your not using it another user gets it.

LeChienMefiant

Borderfox wrote: »

I thought the point of driverless cars is you don't own it and when your not using it another user gets it.

Careful now. That might be offensive to those in extra platonic relationships with their cars.

troyzer

LeChienMefiant wrote: »

How does an autonomous car decide when I'm allowed cross the road as a pedestrian?

When the light is red?

Borderfox wrote: »

I thought the point of driverless cars is you don't own it and when your not using it another user gets it.

Forgot to mention this aspect of it. While it's true that in theory you'd have more cars on the road, the traffic flow would be much smoother. This video sums it up really well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHzzSao6ypE

El Tarangu

troyzer wrote: »

It should also be said that all of this might be completely pointless once autonomous cars come along...

I think that the idea of hybrid/electric/automonous cars being a magic solution to congestion is a bit of a cod; single occupancy vehicle of any of the types above is still as inefficent a use of road space as the single occupancy vehicles that are congesting the roads now.

LeChienMefiant

troyzer wrote: »

Autonomous cars also allow for the abolition of traffic lights which allows for free flowing junctions all the time.

LeChienMefiant wrote: »

How does an autonomous car decide when I'm allowed cross the road as a pedestrian?

troyzer wrote: »

When the light is red?

magicbastarder

Borderfox wrote: »

I thought the point of driverless cars is you don't own it and when your not using it another user gets it.

they're two separate issues. i don't see the automatic link others are making that shared car ownership is part and parcel of autonomous cars - we have something similar already (e.g. go car) with normal cars, but it's at best a marginal impact based on how many you see on the street.

LeChienMefiant

magicbastarder wrote: »

they're two separate issues. i don't see the automatic link others are making that shared car ownership is part and parcel of autonomous cars - we have something similar already (e.g. go car) with normal cars, but it's at best a marginal impact based on how many you see on the street.

It's early days on car sharing. A car is a big sunk cost for people and hence difficult to get people to give up their own cars. It makes most sense now for new immigrants and possibly young drivers (not sure how the insurance works for them).

Mrs OBumble

prinzeugen wrote: »

And another poster suggested delivering at nights... Ridiculous suggestion. This came up before and it was clear that the majority of people are quite ignorant as to how the stuff gets into a shop or businesses or how other people go about work.

Indeed.

Or about how services are provided to sick, disabled or housebound people.

Public transport or slow individual transport (ie bicycle) is fine for many people who do all their work in one site. But there are many jobs which aren't like that.

cgcsb

troyzer wrote: »

It should also be said that all of this might be completely pointless once autonomous cars come along.

Within the next 10-15 years it'll be possible to get in a car which drives you to work and then can park at home ready to pick you up when needed.

Once that happens you can start getting rid of parking spaces in the city centre which in the case of on street parking can be turned into cycle lanes and the multi storeys turned into housing/commercial units. Autonomous cars also allow for the abolition of traffic lights which allows for free flowing junctions all the time.

They won't solve everything, but they'd be a huge dent in the problem.

Won't happen, there'll be large scale car bans on many City Centre streets in virtually every European City before this happens. The only issue that autonomous cars 'solves' is parking. It worsens congestion and worsens the modal share and energy efficiency of transport.

cgcsb

troyzer wrote: »

I doubt it would double it but it does massively reduce the negative impact of car use.

Not really, it makes car use a much more attractive commuting mode by removing the parking cost/hassle, something that we're trying to avoid. If that were the case PT users would be attracted back to the car.

troyzer

Apologies, you'd still have pedestrian lights in this scenario of course.

It doesn't increase congestion actually, that's the whole point. You should watch that video.

But basically by abolishing junction lights (except pedestrian lights) cars can freeflow across junctions all of the time bumper to bumper. It's far more efficient and reduces congestion.

cgcsb

troyzer wrote: »

Apologies, you'd still have pedestrian lights in this scenario of course.

It doesn't increase congestion actually, that's the whole point. You should watch that video.

But basically by abolishing junction lights (except pedestrian lights) cars can freeflow across junctions all of the time bumper to bumper. It's far more efficient and reduces congestion.

It'll increase congestion because everyone currently on PT will be attracted to the autonomous car.

LeChienMefiant

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Indeed.

Or about how services are provided to sick, disabled or housebound people.

Public transport or slow individual transport (ie bicycle) is fine for many people who do all their work in one site. But there are many jobs which aren't like that.

The name of the thread is "How we think and talk about reducing car use in cities". But I would tend to agree that you can't eliminate commercial vehicle traffic. Private cars should be the main focus IMO.

LeChienMefiant

troyzer wrote: »

But basically by abolishing junction lights (except pedestrian lights) cars can freeflow across junctions all of the time bumper to bumper. It's far more efficient and reduces congestion.

That's not suitable for cities, at least not where pedestrians and cyclists are treated like human beings. The technology is a long way off being sophisticated enough.

troyzer

cgcsb wrote: »

It'll increase congestion because everyone currently on PT will be attracted to the autonomous car.

It increases the number of cars on the road but this isn't the same as congestion.

The M50 for example theoretically has unlimited capacity. The problem is the queues that form up at light on off ramps and the phantom traffic caused by people changing lanes or otherwise braking suddenly. This doesn't happen with autonomous cars.

Obviously the M50 isn't the city centre but the principle is the same.

LeChienMefiant wrote: »

That's not suitable for cities, at least not where pedestrians and cyclists are treated like human beings. The technology is a long way off being sophisticated enough.

Of course it's not suitable yet and it wouldn't work until you had a critical mass of autonomous cars anyway.

TheBoyConor

troyzer wrote: »

Apologies, you'd still have pedestrian lights in this scenario of course.

It doesn't increase congestion actually, that's the whole point. You should watch that video.

But basically by abolishing junction lights (except pedestrian lights) cars can freeflow across junctions all of the time bumper to bumper. It's far more efficient and reduces congestion.

That's actually nonsense in the real world.

That scenario assumes and requires that all of the vehicles on the road will be autonomous and able to operate as a hive mind. Firstly, a situation where all vehicles are autonomous will not happen for a very very long time if ever. You will still need signalled junctions because the roads will carry a huge mix of vehicles in the foreseeable future.
- a portion of autonomous cars/vans/trucks
- older non-autonomous cars/vans/trucks
- utility trucks for waste collection, road maintenance etc for which AV would not be really suited for.
- work vehicles for construction, tractors, cranes etc etc which very often have life spans much longer than domestic cars for which AV tech isn't really all that useful. So you could still have heavy machines 20 years old in regular road use.
- cyclists and motorbikes
- pedestrians
- classic or vintage vehicles
-

To remove lights would result in absolute chaos. So it is not going to happen for many decades yet.

There is an awful lot of Walter Mittyism when it comes to anything to due with autonomous or electric vehicles. It is not a simple subject.

cgcsb

I think the thread is on a tangent now. Increasing car numbers, decreasing PT users and thus exponentially increasing the amount of energy expended per passenger per km (in a future where energy is scarce) is not going to be a policy position of any government going forward, even if the wild theory of congestion being purely a function of breaking and lane changing is correct.

The thread is abut reducing car use in Cities, not the opposite (which will never happen).

[Deleted User]

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Public transport or slow individual transport (ie bicycle) is fine for many people who do all their work in one site. But there are many jobs which aren't like that.

Bikes are faster than cars in most cities most of the time

Shefwedfan

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Indeed.

Or about how services are provided to sick, disabled or housebound people.

Public transport or slow individual transport (ie bicycle) is fine for many people who do all their work in one site. But there are many jobs which aren't like that.

So what services are provided to sick, disbled or housebound that

1. Require a car
2. Can't be provided by electric vehicle if required?

As someone else mentioned, a bicycle is faster in city centre. So are electric scooters etc. They would be a lot faster if the roads were closed and they could use them freely

What are these jobs? which ones don't work on a single site? 1% maybe or less?

Shefwedfan

prinzeugen wrote: »

You must not have read my post right. Environmental Health use pesticides not plumbers. I use pesticides and if I was to decant them into smaller amounts and take them on public transport or on a cycle, I would find myself getting nailed to the floor in the courts.

Medicine is delivered by van. Only live tissue/blood is moved by bike.

There are strict regulations on the carriage of dangerous goods. Its not rocket science!

Electric vans for plumbers (and other trades) wont work. Its the parking that is the problem. Why have a guy spending hours walking back and forth to his van and only getting paid for one job, when he could get 3-4 other jobs done in the same amount of time elsewhere.

Dynorod etc need access all day. Do you think a business is going to shut up shop while they slowly fill up with crap from a blocked drain? No they need the guy in the van outside asap. They cant wait until the night. Could be thousands of Euros worth of damage by that point.

And another poster suggested delivering at nights... Ridiculous suggestion. This came up before and it was clear that the majority of people are quite ignorant as to how the stuff gets into a shop or businesses or how other people go about work.

As I mentioned, if you go around and around in circle you can make up a job that might require someone to drive. They will be the 1%. The other 99% don't need it.

None of the rest makes sense to be honest, if a trade person does get access to city centre why would they be walking from hours??? dynorod....:P:P:P:P

Come on, make up some jobs. It is funny :P:P:P:P:P

To save you time, go back to the persons suggestion about debt collectors....:P:P:P:P:P

Also you do realize most building sites at the moment actually open at 2 or earlier in the morning. Concrete etc is poured in the middle of the night so they dont have to deal with traffic. By 7 o clock those workers go home, then painters etc arrive who dont need parking etc because they will have dropped equipment in previous days. This has been going on for years.

Shops get deliveries in the middle of the night all the time. This happens daily. Even going back to 1998 when I worked in tesco, a member of staff was in the shop at 4 in morning to take in delivery of fresh fruit.

I think someone is ignornat alright.....not sure who it is though........

howiya

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Also you do realize most building sites at the moment actually open at 2 or earlier in the morning. Concrete etc is poured in the middle of the night so they dont have to deal with traffic. By 7 o clock those workers go home, then painters etc arrive who dont need parking etc because they will have dropped equipment in previous days. This has been going on for years.

The permissible hours of operation of a building site within Dublin City are;

Monday to Friday 07.00 – 18.00

Saturday 08.00 – 14.00

Sundays and Public Holidays No noisy work on site.

http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-services-water-waste-and-environment-air-quality-monitoring-and-noise-control-noise/types

Shefwedfan

howiya wrote: »

The permissible hours of operation of a building site within Dublin City are;

Monday to Friday 07.00 – 18.00

Saturday 08.00 – 14.00

Sundays and Public Holidays No noisy work on site.

http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-services-water-waste-and-environment-air-quality-monitoring-and-noise-control-noise/types

Read on and it says in planning permission stage

The sites in D4 work at nighttime(the large office buildings).....probably because the area is not residential

howiya

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Read on and it says in planning permission stage

The sites in D4 work at nighttime(the large office buildings).....probably because the area is not residential

Which specific development are you referring to?

Shefwedfan

howiya wrote: »

Which specific development are you referring to?

http://www.thecomergroup.com/development/no-1-ballsbridge

howiya

Shefwedfan wrote: »

http://www.thecomergroup.com/development/no-1-ballsbridge

Thanks, Dublin 4 is a big area.

But we're gone from building sites to some building sites. Since we're talking about the city a lot of sites will be restricted to normal hours due to their location.

Shefwedfan

howiya wrote: »

Thanks, Dublin 4 is a big area.

But we're gone from building sites to some building sites. Since we're talking about the city a lot of sites will be restricted to normal hours due to their location.

As I said..if there is a will there's a way

The negative nellies on here will come up with all sorts of petty little excuses. It is already shown that some people in Ireland can actually think outside the box and come up with idea's and solution to problems.

Not sit complaining and coming up with excuses.

Go back over thread, all this minor little excuses have all reasonable easy answers from people. But some people will just keep on firing out excuse after excuse after excuse.