LeinsterDub wrote: » Another strawman. I never claimed anything about the road standards
I didn't make a blanket request for links I asked you for links to the facts and figures you so often of. Since you seem to misunderstand what I want you to provide is a link which will show either the current daily usage of one of these roads
I don't deny averaging out the usage over 24 hours. What's the problem with it? I did the same for the bus.
LeinsterDub wrote: » Because we don't have a infinite amount of money. And as you so cleared illustrated project with higher priority are being skipped because you can buy more votes with 190 million here and 200 their. I don't have a link for that it's my opinion which unlike facts and figures don't require referencing. I can't seem to find any details of this terrible safety record on Google
Last Stop wrote: » Yhttps://www.nratrafficdata.ie/c2/gmapbasic.asp?sgid=ZvyVmXU8jBt9PJE$c7UXt6
Last Stop wrote: » Where did I illustrate that? I would appreciate if you didn’t put words in my mouth. Ahhh so your opinion is that we should build one project over another? I believe I got slated for that approach and asked to provide facts and figures. Funny that. The design reports for all the roads are available online. These have details of the roads accident history (not just deaths but serious injuries)
LeinsterDub wrote: » Finally! Thanks you. So now we can move on to let's say 45000 (this is a guess happy to take your figure on this) ourneys per day for just under a billion versus half a million for just over double it.
Last Stop wrote: » You’ve suggested that the inter-urban roads are serving only rural areas because they pass through them. There are plenty of people saying we shouldn’t be investing in motorways and bemoaning the costs.
LeinsterDub wrote: » Look. I'll attempt to build a bridge here. Your an extremely knowledgeable poster who seems to have lots of facts and figures on hand. This is great, however not all of us have such knowledge or the time to be that knowledgeable. When others and I ask you for a link or a reference it's not to dispute your facts or figures but to establish a base of known truth and accepted facts which we can all agree with. For example I disagree 1 billion on a road for circa 45,000 journeys represents value when compared to half a million journeys for a little over double.
bk wrote: » I'm not saying that! What I'm saying is that we massively overfocused on the intercity motorway network, building way over-engineered roads, at the expense of a greater need to invest in public transport infrastructure. And we continue to do so. Imagine if rather then spending 12 billion on motorways over the past 15 years. We had instead spent 6 billion on Motorways and 6 billion building Metro North and Dart Underground instead, all complete by now and instead talking about spending the next 6b to complete the motorway network. I think we would be in far better shape now.
Last Stop wrote: » . I cannot agree with the rationale behind your request for links and references. All of the links I posted are easily found by a simple google search. If you have enough time to post on boards, you have enough time to do that.
Last Stop wrote: » You’re now completely contradicting the point you made earlier to justify the higher cost per km by using a single metric (journeys) to compare projects.
LeinsterDub wrote: » They aren't simply found on Google and the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. If you've enough time to post numerous facts and figures you've enough time to add a quick reference. You don't have to do it all the time but why do you make a song and dance out of it when asked.
LeinsterDub wrote: » I've never said anything about cost per km
Why are you talking about cost per km of course it's cheaper to build on green fields. My point was the cost versus the number of people who will benefit. The cost versus the environmental impact, the cost versus increased car dependency
Last Stop wrote: » Ehhhhh
Last Stop wrote: » Literally all of the links I provided today were found in the top 5 google searches. I am the only one being asked to provide links. Other users have even asked me to provide more than one link because they didn’t like what the first one said. If you do not believe the figures are right check it out for yourself instead of making a big song and dance about it
LeinsterDub wrote: » Ehhh I suggest you re-read that. It doesn't say what you think it does
Last Stop wrote: » You’re gong to have to explain this one to me? I pointed out that Busconnects is more expensive per km that the roads (as I understood you requested me to do) You then asked why I was talking about cost per km and not other metrics. You then tried to say Busconnects was better than road projects based on a single metric (journey numbers). I then explained you were contradicting yourself in reference to your claim about cost per km. You then somehow claimed that you never said anything about cost per km. What am I missing here?
LeinsterDub wrote: » Because I never said bus connects was cheaper per km I always agreed it was.
LeinsterDub wrote: » Because you knew the keywords to search for, I've tried in the past to find your figures and was unable to.
Last Stop wrote: » Not what I’m saying. Cost per km is a single metic, so is journeys. You can’t argue that we shouldn’t be assessing various projects on cost (a single metric) and then turn around and assess then on journeys (a single metric). That’s complete hypocrisy.
Last Stop wrote: » Which one of the links I provided today would you not have been able to find? I have no problem with someone saying; where did you get the figure, I couldn’t seem to find it. I do have issue with someone suggesting that I plucked the most basic figure (single carriageway capacity) out of thin air when they were too lazy to search for it.
LeinsterDub wrote: » No it's not. That a nonsense comment. Projects have numberous metrics some more important than other. I happen to think that the cost per km is irrelevant for BusConnects. We should be spending limiting money to attempt benefit the most people. Of course cost per km can be a useful mertic is some cases. When for example one road costs 100 million per km and serves 1 million people and a other is 1 million per km and serves roughly the same amount of people. Now of course even in this case an other metic might come into play such as national interest.
LeinsterDub wrote: » No one asked you for single carriageway capacity. Your statement about 2+1's being unsafe again I Googled that and can't find your source. I also searched for traffic in Ireland and N5 usage and didn't find that NTA site you eventually provided
Last Stop wrote: » You’re actually agreeing with what I’m saying. Projects have numerous metrics. Cost per km being one and journeys being another. You comparing Busconnects and the 3 roads on journey numbers. I compared them on cost per km. You disagreed with me comparing them on cost per km as a single metric but them tried to compare them on your own single metric of number of journeys. Do you not see the contradiction in that? If you don’t think we should be assessing them on simply cost per km, then don’t assess the, on simply journey numbers. All 4 projects have their merits (the 3 roads ones arguably more merit given they’ve been through all the hoops). To get back to your original post, until Busconnects has a completed cost benefit analysis people have every right to question the cost regardless of how many other projects which have completed that CBA process have been approved funding.
LeinsterDub wrote: » Great welcome to 20 posts ago where we could have had this discussion after you simply posted that link showing the road usage but instead you've posted a other half dozen 'facts' that you expect me to magically find on Google. I'm out.
Last Stop wrote: » Your argument about journey numbers was after this. Christ on a bike.
Last Stop wrote: » Literally all of the links I provided today were found in the top 5 google searches. I am the only one being asked to provide links. Other users have even asked me to provide more than one link because they didn’t like what the first one said.If you do not believe the figures are right check it out for yourself instead of making a big song and dance about it
However, a spokesman for the local authority’s environment and transport department said it did not believe privately owned EVs should be allowed to use bus lanes, adding that it would be “opposed to any changes in regulations to allow this to happen”. “The bus lanes are currently at capacity and the current legal presence of small public service vehicles is causing delays and disruptions to bus services, adding any more vehicles in the bus lanes would not facilitate public transport and bus operations,” the spokesman added. Fianna Fáil has also branded the Taoiseach’s comments - made in a radio interview with TodayFM - as unhelpful. John Lahart, Fianna Fáil’s Dublin spokesman, said the Taoiseach’s proposal to examine this is “surprising” because the Government has shown “commitment to BusConnects; to reducing congestion in Dublin and to proposing greater use of public transport”. “The idea of filling up our bus lanes into the city with cars just defies logic. There is no mention of cycling or e-cycling in the Government’s climate action plan and they have put all their eggs in the basket of e-cars,” he said. “I have no idea why the Taoiseach would propose the use of bus lanes by e-cars.”
sharper wrote: » Dark times indeed when we have to rely on Dublin City Council and FF for some sense on public transporthttps://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/council-rejects-taoiseach-s-proposal-for-electric-cars-in-bus-lanes-1.4070771
Peregrine wrote: » Fianna Fáil are the ones who have been calling for the government to introduce this. Their environment spokesperson Timmy Dooley has been going around calling for EVs in bus lanes since 2016. Now they oppose it because of the 90% negative reaction FG got.
