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

[Deleted User]

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.

Perhaps you need to explain your theory to Walls Construction, who are building at the old Notre Dame schools site in Churchtown - because the lads parking the white vans and NI-reg Skodas taking up all the pay parking at Dundrum library for months now are heading into that site.

And you could also explain it to the lads doing the fit out at the site beside Tesco Ranelagh, because they have 5-10 cars parked in the clearway/bike lane every morning in rush hour for weeks now.

There is a very real problem of construction crews taking up large amounts of parking round the city for weeks and months on end. Site operators should really be required to arrange parking as a planning condition.

animaal

I take the train to and from work, even though I own a car. For me there are two important factors; convenience and price.

Convenience: The car has somewhat more comfort, but there's a lot to be said for reading a book on the train. The journey by train takes slightly more time if I consider the overall door-to-door journey. But overall I find the train slightly more convenient.

Cost: Train has been cheaper, with the Taxsaver tickets.

But I have found that over the past few years, the advantages of the train have been eroded. I may reconsider using the car in the next year or two.

The train costs are increasing, faster than the alternatives. The train ticket itself is getting more expensive each year, as is the parking at the station.

The crowds are getting larger on the train, without capacity being increased. This means it's more common for me to spend my 30-40min commute standing in a crowded carriage. Iarnrod Eireann don't show that in their ads.

I don't think the right solution is to artificially make the alternative modes of transport less attractive. Just make PT more attractive. Or at least stop making it less attractive! Why would somebody who owns a car choose a mode of transport that takes longer, has less comfort and will present them a similar marginal cost for their journey?

liamog

For me it comes down to flexibility.

I live and work around 1km away from the M3 Parkway - Docklands line, it should be a no brainer for me to take the train everyday.
The service frequency is too high for a commuter line.

The trains are every 30 minutes at peak and finish at 7:25.
It's enough that I have to plan around the train instead of not worrying about it.

If it was a 10 minute frequency, I would check the timetable but not worry too much, at 5 minutes I would just turn up at the station.

Shefwedfan

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Perhaps you need to explain your theory to Walls Construction, who are building at the old Notre Dame schools site in Churchtown - because the lads parking the white vans and NI-reg Skodas taking up all the pay parking at Dundrum library for months now are heading into that site.

And you could also explain it to the lads doing the fit out at the site beside Tesco Ranelagh, because they have 5-10 cars parked in the clearway/bike lane every morning in rush hour for weeks now.

There is a very real problem of construction crews taking up large amounts of parking round the city for weeks and months on end. Site operators should really be required to arrange parking as a planning condition.

So you are making my point for me, if they can't go into the city they wont be blocking up the bike lanes

Shefwedfan

liamog wrote: »

For me it comes down to flexibility.

I live and work around 1km away from the M3 Parkway - Docklands line, it should be a no brainer for me to take the train everyday.
The service frequency is too high for a commuter line.

The trains are every 30 minutes at peak and finish at 7:25.
It's enough that I have to plan around the train instead of not worrying about it.

If it was a 10 minute frequency, I would check the timetable but not worry too much, at 5 minutes I would just turn up at the station.

The current government are looking to abandon the M3 parkway by the looks of it. Between not enought carriages in morning/evening to carry the people and then stopping at off peak for a bus instead is a joke after the huge investment made in the station and line.

With the huge developments in the Clonee/Dunboyne/Ongar area it should be automatic the service is increased but instead they are reducing.

The problem is, where is the complaints?

prinzeugen

Shefwedfan wrote: »

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........

On the defence there? All the smiley faces.. You dont have a fan dango about what you are talking about.

This is just one wee bit of the laws.

http://www.hsa.ie/eng/Legislation/Acts/Carriage_of_Dangerous_Goods_by_Road/Carriage_of_Dangerous_Goods.html

We use this as best practice.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/biocides/copr/

Shefwedfan

prinzeugen wrote: »

On the defence there? All the smiley faces.. You dont have a fan dango about what you are talking about.

This is just one wee bit of the laws.

http://www.hsa.ie/eng/Legislation/Acts/Carriage_of_Dangerous_Goods_by_Road/Carriage_of_Dangerous_Goods.html

We use this as best practice.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/biocides/copr/

You still stuck in that circle....

Hop out of it.....:D

defrule

There is an interesting rail and property model that could work:
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/capital-projects-and-infrastructure/our-insights/the-rail-plus-property-model

The key insight is that where a train station is built, value the area around it rises. Allowing the rail company to benefit from that provides incentive for it to expand the network.

In the context of Hong Kong, you'll find many stations are not just "stations". They are huge complexes with shopping malls, office spaces and apartments that belong to the rail company and generate a **** ton of revenue, more than the rail fares itself.

Qrt

defrule wrote: »

There is an interesting rail and property model that could work:
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/capital-projects-and-infrastructure/our-insights/the-rail-plus-property-model

The key insight is that where a train station is built, value the area around it rises. Allowing the rail company to benefit from that provides incentive for it to expand the network.

In the context of Hong Kong, you'll find many stations are not just "stations". They are huge complexes with shopping malls, office spaces and apartments that belong to the rail company and generate a **** ton of revenue, more than the rail fares itself.

Hamburg Hbf is like that, they have a massive "Wandelhalle" that's basically a shopping centre.

Mrs OBumble

Shefwedfan wrote: »

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.

....

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
....

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.

Making up jobs? You're saying that the ones I listed don't exist? Maybe you need to widen your social circle a bit, the level of ignorance of how people make their living - and how some people live in cities - is blocking your vision.

Large supermarkets and department stores have staff in during night hours to receive deliveries and stock shelves, for sure. (I wonder how these people get to work: cycling friends tell me it's not safe to ride in the city centre at night due to harassment from drunks). But small to medium shops, and offices of all sizes, typically don't. They receive deliveries during the day when the staff would be there anyway. Making them have staff on receive stuff at night would be a game-changer in terms of profitability for many.

Shefwedfan wrote: »

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

An electric car is still a car.

A car is a 3+ wheeled vehicle with seats for several adult non-drivers, and enough space to carry equipment. It's waterproof, and windproof. It has heating for wintertime. It can be locked in place, and most times this will provide enough security features to make sure it's still there when you come back to it. It has panels that absorb energy in a crash, and airbags. It has indicators and brake lights to get the driver communicate with other road users. It has anti-skid-braking, and various other engineered features to make it safer. Achieve all this, it has a certain width, and that width is the only reason that cars are slower than two-wheeled vehicles in some traffic conditions. If the proportion of two-wheeled vs four-wheeled vehicles swapped around, then the two-wheeled vehicles would likely not be faster than four-wheeled once, simply due to the volume of them.

If we want to make a difference to road congestion then the focus has to be on getting people who can use shared transport out of individual vehicles (cars and bicycles) and into shared ones and walking.

Shefwedfan wrote: »

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

I've already named a number of jobs. There are like quite a lot more. (You may scoff - but I've met people who do every one of those, in today's economy.)

I have no idea of the %-ages, but I'll guess that it's more than 1% of the all jobs. Not sure if it would be more than 1% of the workforce, because there are some occupations that have a large number of people in the one site (eg product-builders, hospital-nurses).

Stephen15

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Large supermarkets and department stores have staff in during night hours to receive deliveries and stock shelves, for sure. (I wonder how these people get to work: cycling friends tell me it's not safe to ride in the city centre at night due to harassment from drunks). But small to medium shops, and offices of all sizes, typically don't. They receive deliveries during the day when the staff would be there anyway. Making them have staff on receive stuff at night would be a game-changer in terms of profitability for many.

The SMEs are being driven out of Dublin City Centre and being replaced by multinationals that's not exclusive to Dublin it's happening in almost every major city in the Western world. SMEs can't afford the rent as it is too expensive and they can't compete as rates and rent are just too expensive for them in the city centre. It wouldn't surprise me if small businesses were virtually extinct in Dublin CC in ten to twenty years time I'm not saying it's right or wrong but it's a fact.

[Deleted User]

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Making them have staff on receive stuff at night would be a game-changer in terms of profitability for many.

I'm sure that lots of businesses could improve their profitability if they could choose which laws to ignore. Is it OK to ignore employment law, or H&S laws to improve profitability, or just traffic law?

monument

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm sure that lots of businesses could improve their profitability if they could choose which laws to ignore. Is it OK to ignore employment law, or H&S laws to improve profitability, or just traffic law?

It’s really not clear what you’re getting at here — what are you on about ignoring employment law, or H&S laws?

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Making up jobs? You're saying that the ones I listed don't exist? Maybe you need to widen your social circle a bit, the level of ignorance of how people make their living - and how some people live in cities - is blocking your vision.
.......

I've already named a number of jobs. There are like quite a lot more. (You may scoff - but I've met people who do every one of those, in today's economy.)

I have no idea of the %-ages, but I'll guess that it's more than 1% of the all jobs. Not sure if it would be more than 1% of the workforce, because there are some occupations that have a large number of people in the one site (eg product-builders, hospital-nurses).

Is anybody really scoffing at the jobs rather than scoffing at those jobs been used as wider excuses?

It’s not that the jobs that you listed don’t exist, it’s a mixture of a number of things:

(1) most of the jobs listed amount to a relatively small number of jobs (ie if everyone else didn’t drive, it would make a big impact, allowing space for sustainable travel and space for those who really need to drive)

(2) many of the people can actually transfer to more sustainable modes (ie plumbers in Paris on cargo bicycles), and this has happened in other cities or their car / van etc use is not at hours that generally matter.

(3) overall you’re not addressing the point that these workers exist in other cities which have or are curtailing car use and these cities not just survive but are better places because of it.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Large supermarkets and department stores have staff in during night hours to receive deliveries and stock shelves, for sure. (I wonder how these people get to work: cycling friends tell me it's not safe to ride in the city centre at night due to harassment from drunks). But small to medium shops, and offices of all sizes, typically don't. They receive deliveries during the day when the staff would be there anyway. Making them have staff on receive stuff at night would be a game-changer in terms of profitability for many.

Very few cities do strictly night time only deliveries.

Most cities do a mix — full time and restricted loading bays, loading on side streets, loading on pedestrian streets between x hours, deliveries using smaller vehicles in the core city centre (ie Cargo Hopper in Utrecht and Amsterdam), deliveries using bicycles and cargo bicycles (already happening in Dublin, with delivery companies and small businesses using their own).

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

An electric car is still a car.

Agreed. But smaller electric cars are part of the mix for some people.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

A car is a 3+ wheeled vehicle with seats for several adult non-drivers, and enough space to carry equipment. It's waterproof, and windproof. It has heating for wintertime. It can be locked in place, and most times this will provide enough security features to make sure it's still there when you come back to it. It has panels that absorb energy in a crash, and airbags. It has indicators and brake lights to get the driver communicate with other road users. It has anti-skid-braking, and various other engineered features to make it safer. Achieve all this, it has a certain width, and that width is the only reason that cars are slower than two-wheeled vehicles in some traffic conditions.

A few point...

There’s a range of cars from everyday sport-like cars to Smart cars etc which don’t conform to your thinking of several adult non-drivers and cargo bikes can hold more equipment / shopping etc than many small cars.

If you really feel the need you can get ABS breaking on bicycles and people on bicycles can by just fine communicating with other road user (the again there’s not a high bar when so many motorists think there no need for indicators on roundabouts etc) but if you want you can get indicators for bicycle too. These things have little or no impact on the size of cars.

But the main point is that width is not the only reason — there’s a number of link factors, including the width of the car, the length of the car, the manoeuvrability, the use of non-logical speed (ie speeding up massively with breaks in traffic or between junctions etc), and even the generally accepted urban speeds of 50km/h results in more congestion than if the max was closer to 30km/h or lower.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

If the proportion of two-wheeled vs four-wheeled vehicles swapped around, then the two-wheeled vehicles would likely not be faster than four-wheeled once, simply due to the volume of them.

Where do you get ideas like this from?

You can fit more bicycles in use and parked into a smaller space than cars in use and parked — a fraction of the space.

Furthermore, when bicycles become dominant as in places like Amsterdam and Utrecht and replace the bulk of car use, they are giving more space to bicycles while freeing up space which can also be given over to public transport or green space or public spaces like square, parklets etc.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

If we want to make a difference to road congestion then the focus has to be on getting people who can use shared transport out of individual vehicles (cars and bicycles) and into shared ones and walking.

Except most cities the scale of ours and larger which are reducing car use successfully are doing so with a mix of walking, cycling and public transport.

Utrecht, Amsterdam, London, Paris, Oslo, Copenhagen, Seville, Berlin, Vienna, Munich, Helsinki, Montreal, etc doing what you are indicating can’t be done with bicycles... strange, that. Isn’t it?

Dutch cities have 50%+ rates of cycling — this alone proves you wrong.... in fact, of smaller cities, bicycle cities have managed to get modal change far more successfully than cities that have tried to mainly do it with public transport.

That’s because, when conditions are improved, cycling is far more suitable as a car replacement for more trips than public can be in a sustainable way most cities.

Are you just unaware of the above or do you just have something against cycling or what?

Shefwedfan

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/motorists-may-be-taxed-on-distance-driven-rather-than-paying-excise-on-fuel-1.3588114?mode=amp&localLinksEnabled=false

To start getting people out of cars.....tax the arse off them :-)

Once people have to pay per KM they might decide it would be better to walk that 1km to drop off the kids instead of bringing out the juggernaut SUV

animaal

Shefwedfan wrote: »

To start getting people out of cars.....tax the arse off them :-)

Once people have to pay per KM they might decide it would be better to walk that 1km to drop off the kids instead of bringing out the juggernaut SUV

You're about 50 years too late. The state already "taxes the arse" off car drivers. If behaviour changes are what you want, maybe better alternatives should be provided for people. It's easy to shout that other people should be paying more tax.

I'm fine with charging per KM, but it should be revenue neutral overall. This could probably be implemented as a green measure? I.e. shift tax from VRT, Motor tax, levies etc to fuel tax. The trouble is that the "green agenda" has usually been used in this country as a flag of convenience to increase taxation.

Shefwedfan

animaal wrote: »

You're about 50 years too late. The state already "taxes the arse" off car drivers. If behaviour changes are what you want, maybe better alternatives should be provided for people. It's easy to shout that other people should be paying more tax.

I'm fine with charging per KM, but it should be revenue neutral overall. This could probably be implemented as a green measure? I.e. shift tax from VRT, Motor tax, levies etc to fuel tax. The trouble is that the "green agenda" has usually been used in this country as a flag of convenience to increase taxation.

Nothing in this country is revenue neutral.

As I mentioned pages back, the Irish people are lazy, they will never look for an alternative till it hits their pocket.

If they know it is going to cost them x to drive the car 1km to a shop or free to walk/cycle. I expect the rate of change to walk/cycle to increase.

cgcsb

Taxing per km achieves nothing in terms of modal shift. people working in rural areas and driving 40km round trip a day are doing so because there aren't alternative modes to switch to. The target for modal shift is the urban/suburban driver who drives less than 15km per day and has alternatives. The best way to do is this is: complete bus connects and all the infrastructure associated with (including banning cars from many streets), then apply a congestion charge to every car crossing the canals during rush hour.

Lord Glentoran

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

If I go to Bargaintown, can I bring a bed, a wardrobe and three piece suite on the bus with me?

That is some impressive car you have.

[Deleted User]

monument wrote: »

It’s really not clear what you’re getting at here — what are you on about ignoring employment law, or H&S laws?

As I understand it, Mrs O'B was suggesting that it was unreasonable to expect shops and businesses to expect their delivery drivers to comply with traffic laws (like not parking/stopping/loading in clearways and mandatory bike lanes) because this would have a negative impact on profitability. I was just pointing out that lots of businesses could increase profitability by ignoring lots of laws - employment laws, H&S laws, traffic laws - but that wouldn't generally result in good outcomes for society at large. It's not a great reason for breaking the law.

animaal wrote: »

You're about 50 years too late. The state already "taxes the arse" off car drivers.

Does taxing the arse off involve getting drivers to pay anything near the real cost of their vehicles to society?

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/cars-air-pollution-cost-nhs-vans-vehicles-health-bills-lung-disease-a8384806.html

cgcsb wrote: »

Taxing per km achieves nothing in terms of modal shift. people working in rural areas and driving 40km round trip a day are doing so because there aren't alternative modes to switch to. The target for modal shift is the urban/suburban driver who drives less than 15km per day and has alternatives. The best way to do is this is: complete bus connects and all the infrastructure associated with (including banning cars from many streets), then apply a congestion charge to every car crossing the canals during rush hour.

I don't disagree with your conclusions, but I don't think it that simple. People in rural areas with long commutes have often made decisions to balance long commutes against property size/price. A tax per KM would certainly discourage others from getting into situations where long commutes are part of their lifestyle.

I know that's a bit of a simplification too, and few people willingly sign up for these kind of commutes.

cgcsb

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I don't disagree with your conclusions, but I don't think it that simple. People in rural areas with long commutes have often made decisions to balance long commutes against property size/price. A tax per KM would certainly discourage others from getting into situations where long commutes are part of their lifestyle.

I know that's a bit of a simplification too, and few people willingly sign up for these kind of commutes.

People who already have established homes for themselves cant just be told oh by the way you're going to be punatively taxed for making a decision that government policy encouraged at the time.

People shouldn't live in isolated areas unless they are farmers/foresters etc. but that's the fault of the planning system.

Shefwedfan

I see Department of Transport have released a tender for

Request for Tender for provision of real world vehicle exhaust emissions measurements and fuel economy assessments on a range of diesel- and alternatively-fuelled buses.

Maybe they are starting to see diesel is not the answer

animaal

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Does taxing the arse off involve getting drivers to pay anything near the real cost of their vehicles to society?

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/cars-air-pollution-cost-nhs-vans-vehicles-health-bills-lung-disease-a8384806.html

That's a single report issued for "Clean Air Day". It's interesting but I'm not sure how independent it is. It also applies to the UK rather than this country.

But let's assume it's equally valid here.

From the first paragraph, health-related costs "of an average car in inner London over the vehicle’s lifetime was nearly £8,000". That works out about €740 per year if we assume the car's life to be 12 years.

The 2018 Irish budget for road improvement/maintenance is €909m. With 2.5m vehicles on the road, that works out at €363 each.

so let's say that adds up to cost to the state of about €1.1k per car.

On the other side of the equation... let's look at a 1.8L Toyota Avensis.

Purchase cost is about €30k. VAT & VRT work out to be €12600. Again assuming spread over a 12-year life, that's €1050 per year.

An average car drives 16000 km per year (more for a diesel car, but let's stay conservative). At 12km per litre, that works out to be 1333l per year. With 60% of that being tax, this motorist pays €1144 fuel taxes per year.

Motor tax for this car would be €280 per year. (there are cars paying less, but there are also cars paying the 2008 rates which are far higher).

Insurance Levy is €25 per year

With whats above, I work out cost to the state per car to be about €1000 per year, and the state takes about €2500 from the motorist in motoring-related taxes/charges per year.

I'm not sure if I've missed other significant taxes - I haven't included on-street Parking costs, tolls, VAT on servicing or on NCT. These are trickier to estimate, and I'm not too bothered.

If we want to be difficult, we can add nebulous things to either side of the equation. The anti-car person could talk about costs due to traffic congestion, the pro-car person could talk about the benefit to businesses of having people able to drive to shopping centres. But I'm just focusing on measurable things.

I think it's fair to say the state "taxes the arse off" the motorist.

Mrs OBumble

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

As I understand it, Mrs O'B was suggesting that it was unreasonable to expect shops and businesses to expect their delivery drivers to comply with traffic laws (like not parking/stopping/loading in clearways and mandatory bike lanes) because this would have a negative impact on profitability.

I have NO idea where you got that understanding from.

I was saying that it's unreasonable to expect small to medium enterprises to have people in work to receive deliveries at night. Just because it's viable for large supermarkets and the like doesn't make it viable for others. And inner city residents don't want to be woken by delivery wagons at 4am, thanks.

Streets need to be designed to facilitate deliveries at reasonable times, as well as everything else that they need to do, including providing for pedestrians, shared/public transport users, cyclists, wheelchair users, etc. Reasonable is not defined as "when no one is likely to be riding a bicycle".

Shefwedfan

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I have NO idea where you got that understanding from.

I was saying that it's unreasonable to expect small to medium enterprises to have people in work to receive deliveries at night. Just because it's viable for large supermarkets and the like doesn't make it viable for others. And inner city residents don't want to be woken by delivery wagons at 4am, thanks.

Streets need to be designed to facilitate deliveries at reasonable times, as well as everything else that they need to do, including providing for pedestrians, shared/public transport users, cyclists, wheelchair users, etc. Reasonable is not defined as "when no one is likely to be riding a bicycle".

So now inner city resident are getting woke by delivery trucks at 4am? I suppose the current solution is better....with trucks/buses/car/transits etc etc etc allowed to drive around all night and all day!!!!

I think you will find inner city residents would love a traffic free area so they are not poisoned everyday of the week with exhaust fumes.....plus their kids not able to play anywhere because they risk getting knocked down.....

dashcamdanny

Shefwedfan wrote: »

So now inner city resident are getting woke by delivery trucks at 4am? I suppose the current solution is better....with trucks/buses/car/transits etc etc etc allowed to drive around all night and all day!!!!

I think you will find inner city residents would love a traffic free area so they are not poisoned everyday of the week with exhaust fumes.....plus their kids not able to play anywhere because they risk getting knocked down.....

Innercity residents chose to live in the exhaust fumes of the inner city.

I think the same argument was used against people who choose to live in the country side a few posts up.

Shefwedfan

dashcamdanny wrote: »

Innercity residents chose to live in the exhaust fumes of the inner city.

I think the same argument was used against people who choose to live in the country side a few posts up.

They choose to live in the inner city, well some do and some don't

They don't choose to live in exhaust fumes.....they have to live in it because of traffic.....

Not sure what your point is? you saying now people shouldn't live in the city centre because of the traffic?

dashcamdanny

Shefwedfan wrote: »

They choose to live in the inner city, well some do and some don't

They don't choose to live in exhaust fumes.....they have to live in it because of traffic.....

Not sure what your point is? you saying now people shouldn't live in the city centre because of the traffic?

Generally innercity residents do choose to live there.
People flock to the city to rent. I did once myself.

My point is, the city always has been and always will be a dirty place to live.
If one does not like where they live, its always a good option to move to the suburbs or countryside.

Where they usually require a car

Shefwedfan

dashcamdanny wrote: »

Generally innercity residents do choose to live there.
People flock to the city to rent. I did once myself.

My point is, the city always has been and always will be a dirty place to live.
If one does not like where they live, its always a good option to move to the suburbs or countryside.

Where they usually require a car

So you are saying people shouldn't live in the city centre? they should move to suburbs and buy a car?

Not really a long term plan?

You do understand my point is that the city centre does not have to be a dirty place......

dashcamdanny

Shefwedfan wrote: »

So you are saying people shouldn't live in the city centre? they should move to suburbs and buy a car?

Not really a long term plan?

You do understand my point is that the city centre does not have to be a dirty place......

I did not say people shouldn't live in the city, I said they should move if they dont like living in the city. Which includes traffic noise from loading trucks.

It certainly does not have to be a dirty place, and I wish it would change. I work there. And breath all this crap into my lungs daily. It will naturally become a cleaner place with the evolution of electric vehicles though .

Shefwedfan

dashcamdanny wrote: »

I did not say people shouldn't live in the city, I said they should move if they dont like living in the city. Which includes traffic noise from loading trucks.

It certainly does not have to be a dirty place, and I wish it would change. I work there. And breath all this crap into my lungs daily. It will naturally become a cleaner place with the evolution of electric vehicles though .

So you do agree, the banning of traffic from a city centre is good?