Road layout, use of space, and motoring vs cycling (off-topic from shared use thread)

Spook_ie · 16-01-2014 8:45pm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Neither cost nor effectiveness have been forgotten by me.

Allocating the lion's share of road space to cars is not cost effective, because it's promoting the most inefficient use of that space. .

I'm sorry I never realised that there were sections of the roadway that were reserved or allocated exclusively for cars, perhaps you'd like to point me to them!

Motorways and certain other roads may well be signed as no pedestrians, no animals or no cycles but I assume you are refering to "normal" roads rather than motorways, tunnels etc.

patrickbrophy18 · 17-01-2014 12:17am

Iwannahurl wrote: »

There are neighbours driving their children 800 metres to primary school and 400 metres to creche. When they get to their destination they drive up and park on the cycle lanes, footpaths, pedestrian crossings, dished kerbs, wherever is handy. And some of them no doubt complain about the traffic, and how cyclists have an alleged sense of "automatic entitlement to jump to the head of the queue"...

I have to say I completely agree with you here. Driving anywhere under a kilometer to drop people off to school or creche is the pure height of laziness. To add insult to injury (metaphorically and perhaps, literally), pretty much all of these cars are parked in cycle lanes. To then have the gall to complain about cyclists is the Everest of hypocrisy. It comes as no surprise to me that some of them are SUVs which are major pollutants in their class of vehicle and that are, in many (if not, most) cases unnecessary for the numbers they carry. As the OP pointed out in previous posts, thousands of trips that are made by cars each day are a kilometer or less. Most of them could easily be traveled using bikes, rickshaws (in harsh weather conditions) and other sustainable modes of transport. Then, there is the more obvious method of walking as a kilometer or even a mile can take less than 10 minutes at a moderate to brisk pace.

Seaswimmer · 17-01-2014 10:41am

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I have to say I completely agree with you here. Driving anywhere under a kilometer to drop people off to school or creche is the pure height of laziness. To add insult to injury (metaphorically and perhaps, literally), pretty much all of these cars are parked in cycle lanes. To then have the gall to complain about cyclists is the Everest of hypocrisy. It comes as no surprise to me that some of them are SUVs which are major pollutants in their class of vehicle and that are, in many (if not, most) cases unnecessary for the numbers they carry. As the OP pointed out in previous posts, thousands of trips that are made by cars each day are a kilometer or less. Most of them could easily be traveled using bikes, rickshaws (in harsh weather conditions) and other sustainable modes of transport. Then, there is the more obvious method of walking as a kilometer or even a mile can take less than 10 minutes at a moderate to brisk pace.

While I largely agree with this, the problem is that the vast majority of school runs are undertaken by working parents so usually the parents are on route to work. Nobody is going to walk a kilometer to school, walk home and then get the car and go to work passing the same school.
It gets back to Iwannhurl's point about the number of short journeys overall. People need to be encouraged to use sustainable transport to their place of work and incorporate the school run into this somehow.

Easier said than done.

Iwannahurl · 17-01-2014 11:54am

Seaswimmer wrote: »

the vast majority of school runs are undertaken by working parents

Source?

Seaswimmer · 17-01-2014 12:00pm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Source?

Good point.

let me say then " a considerable number of school runs" instead of the vast majority.

I am only going on personal experience when my own kids were small and I dropped them on route to work meeting many other similar parents..

and again I can only speak for the area in which I lived (Dublin)

Iwannahurl · 17-01-2014 6:01pm

From the Irish Heart Foundation's 2010 report, Building Young Hearts:

Findings from the 2006 Census echo the reduction in active travel modes to school. Between 1991 and 2006 walking and cycling decreased while travel by car increased. 25% travel less than 1km, 36% travel between 2-4km and 60% of parents who drop off by car don’t go to work.

Emphasis added by me.

I presume that is still the case (perhaps even more so in these days of higher unemployment).

Furthermore, since a sizeable proportion of people live 4 km or less from their place of work, there is no reason in terms of commuting distance why they cannot travel to either school or work by means other than the private car. I'm not sure offhand what the national figure is, but in Galway City it's 47%.

Combining the two, there is a substantial cohort of people who drop their kids at school and then either go to work or elsewhere (home perhaps) by car, over distances of 4 km or less.

monument · 18-01-2014 1:00am

Spook_ie wrote: »

News Flash...... Cyclists are not the most important people in the world, time they learnt limited resources be they physical or fiscal have to be shared

Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on bicycles; Cameron on bicycle; Obama on a bicycle; Enda on a bicycle; mayor of London on a bicycle; Francois Hollande on a bicycle (maybe he should have stuck to Vélib'); Nicolas Maduro on a bicycle; etc.......... it seems quite a few of the "most important people in the world" are cyclists! :pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

Spook_ie wrote: »

The answer lies in how you would like cyclists to be treated, as road traffic ( as they are now ) and subject to Road Traffic Laws or as some special case ( in which case stop asking for the same rights as road traffic )

Like buses, taxis etc there's many ways how cyclists are treated as "some special case".

At least last time I checked general traffic was not able to use bus lanes, mandatory cycle lanes, cycleways etc; gennral traffic isn't allowed to undertake, and cars are not allowed to be parked on footpaths but bicycle are.

But there are lines which should not be crossed and systematically putting cyclists on footpaths is one of those lines which our councils have crossed.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

It's ridiculous that I could go buy a bike right now and set off through the city centre without any requirement to know the rules of the road, any practical experience of travelling in busy traffic, or any insurance (both to protect myself and others).

It's ridiculous that I could go put on my shoes right now and set off through the city centre without any requirement to know the rules of the road, any practical experience of travelling in busy traffic, or any insurance (both to protect myself and others).

BTW, on a serious note: Everybody is required to know the law; ignorance is not an excuse.

UCDVet wrote: »

I think it's funny that so many cyclists I know are completely cool with forcing motorists to share the road with them, but absolutely are against pedestrians being able to share their bicycle lane.

I decided to jog home from work - it's a solid 5k in Dublin and the footpaths are loaded with people strolling about slowly. I wanted to keep a good pace up, so I ran in the cycle lane. The same cyclists that would merge into traffic with cars they couldn't keep up with, were upset with me for merging into their lane, simly because I couldn't keep up.....

I found it interesting to say the least.
Pot, kettle and all that.

Running in cycle lane = illegal.
Cycling in roadway = legal.

That's a big difference. On the other hand, cycling on a footpath is comparable to running in a cycle lane -- I think both are wrong.

That last part was on-topic. To the core of the topic at hand. Sadly so much of this thread has not being.

SeanW · 18-01-2014 2:52pm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Two things jump out at me from that picture that you appear to have missed - or were hoping the rest of us had missed.

There is obviously a need for parking facilities in that immediate area.
Look closely at the picture. Beyond the bollards. What you see is fallow, unused grassland. Thus, given 1. above, it would likely be practical to widen this road to provide both a pair of cycle lanes, and legal on-street parking. Defo on the far side, maybe on your nearside as well with some earthworks.

Problem is that if someone actually suggested including legal parking on that road ALONGSIDE the cycle lanes, I expect there would be serious opposition to it from the cyclists, including the quoted poster, even though such a solution would be
- practical
- straightforward
- mutually beneficial
- solving the problems for all involved.
In fact I'm nearly certain that the poster of this picture would be absolutely dead set against a mutually beneficial solution.

AltAccount · 18-01-2014 6:00pm

SeanW wrote: »

Two things jump out at me from that picture that you appear to have missed - or were hoping the rest of us had missed.
There is obviously a need for parking facilities in that immediate area.

Look closely at the picture. Beyond the bollards. What you see is fallow, unused grassland. Thus, given 1. above, it would likely be practical to widen this road to provide both a pair of cycle lanes, and legal on-street parking. Defo on the far side, maybe on your nearside as well with some earthworks.

Problem is that if someone actually suggested including legal parking on that road ALONGSIDE the cycle lanes, I expect there would be serious opposition to it from the cyclists, including the quoted poster, even though such a solution would be
practical

straightforward

mutually beneficial

solving the problems for all involved.

In fact I'm nearly certain that the poster of this picture would be absolutely dead set against a mutually beneficial solution.

And a lack of parking makes it ok to abandon your car in any old inconvenient place how?

SeanW · 18-01-2014 6:14pm

AltAccount wrote: »

And a lack of parking makes it ok to abandon your car in any old inconvenient place how?

I never said that it did. Would you care to respond to what I actually said?

AltAccount · 18-01-2014 7:11pm

SeanW wrote: »

I never said that it did. Would you care to respond to what I actually said?

I dunno, what you actually said seemed to be "I think there's a solution but I bet you'll have a problem with it" in a very attack the poster manner.

patrickbrophy18 · 18-01-2014 7:42pm

AltAccount wrote: »

And a lack of parking makes it ok to abandon your car in any old inconvenient place how?

To be fair to SeanW, he wasn't necessarily saying that it is okay to park "in any old" way. He was merely pointing out that there is ample space on both sides of the road in the picture above. This could be used to change the alignment of the road slightly for the provision of inset parking whereby the cycle lane could pass on the outside of the system. A grass verge could then be used to separate the parking spaces and footpath from the cycle lane. The result would be a road that better resembles those seen in the Netherlands. While I still maintain that it is the height of absolute ignorance to park in cycle lanes and is also illegal, the type of road design seen in the above picture makes it all to easy for ignorant motorists to flout the rules of the road. This is down to the fact that there is no boundary or other physical deterrent to stop motorists from intruding and obstructing designated cycle space. Instead, a road level white line and a dark red strip is the only thing separating the two.

On a broader note, I am all for roads which offer mutual benefit to all who use them. However, the Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets (DMURS) appears to want a mixture of all transportation modes into tighter spaces which, in my opinion, is a recipe for disaster. In some parts of the manual, it recommends pinch points on some roads in the form of on street parking or kerb built outs which is nothing short of daft. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for taking cars off the road especially those doing journeys that are well within a mile in length. Unfortunately, backwards road engineering like those recommended in the DMURS will likely have negative implications on journeys exceeding 10 miles. This includes hundreds/thousands of bus and truck journeys and tens of thousands of long-haul car journeys.

monument · 18-01-2014 8:04pm

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

To be fair to SeanW, he wasn't necessarily saying that it is okay to park "in any old" way. He was merely pointing out that there is ample space on both sides of the road in the picture above. This could be used to change the alignment of the road slightly for the provision of inset parking whereby the cycle lane could pass on the outside of the system. A grass verge could then be used to separate the parking spaces and footpath from the cycle lane. The result would be a road that better resembles those seen in the Netherlands. While I still maintain that it is the height of absolute ignorance to park in cycle lanes and is also illegal, the type of road design seen in the above picture makes it all to easy for ignorant motorists to flout the rules of the road. This is down to the fact that there is no boundary or other physical deterrent to stop motorists from intruding and obstructing designated cycle space. Instead, a road level white line and a dark red strip is the only thing separating the two.

On a broader note, I am all for roads which offer mutual benefit to all who use them. However, the Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets (DMURS) appears to want a mixture of all transportation modes into tighter spaces which, in my opinion, is a recipe for disaster. In some parts of the manual, it recommends pinch points on some roads in the form of on street parking or kerb built outs which is nothing short of daft. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for taking cars off the road especially those doing journeys that are well within a mile in length. Unfortunately, backwards road engineering like those recommended in the DMURS will likely have negative implications on journeys exceeding 10 miles. This includes hundreds/thousands of bus and truck journeys and tens of thousands of long-haul car journeys.

From what I'm told and have read from those in Dutch transport and street design, you'll find it very hard to find parking as described in the Netherlands near many schools.

Their solution is to provide, not for car parking, but for student and parents to cycle and walk.

paddyland · 18-01-2014 8:48pm

monument wrote: »

It's ridiculous that I could go put on my shoes right now and set off through the city centre without any requirement to know the rules of the road, any practical experience of travelling in busy traffic, or any insurance (both to protect myself and others).

BTW, on a serious note: Everybody is required to know the law; ignorance is not an excuse.

I was going to post a retort, and be even more of a smart aleck, but that would only keep this kind of nonsense going.

It's a terrible shame, it would be so important to have an intelligent pro cycling voice to partake in these arguments, but unfortunately, all the pro cycling posters continually fall back on the smart aleckry all the time, and the argument is scuttled. You simply cannot take them seriously at all.

Iwannahurl · 18-01-2014 11:05pm

monument wrote: »

Running in cycle lane = illegal.
Cycling in roadway = legal.

That's a big difference. On the other hand, cycling on a footpath is comparable to running in a cycle lane -- I think both are wrong.

That last part was on-topic. To the core of the topic at hand. Sadly so much of this thread has not being.

I have tried to keep coming back to the original topic, which was the inappropriate imposition of shared use paths, and the manner in which a flawed design, as you describe it, is almost becoming standard by default and without due consideration.

I hope I haven't dragged the thread OT too much. However, I find it difficult to discuss such flawed designs without also pointing to the flawed mindset that makes such designs appealing (for some). It all boils down to one thing, imo, which is that cycling, walking and public transport are the poor relations in public policy and therefore people travelling by those modes are expected to make do with the leftovers after cars have been catered for.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

http://i1089.photobucket.com/albums/i355/Iwannahurl/2011NationalCycletoSchoolandWorkDay1.jpg

He was merely pointing out that there is ample space on both sides of the road in the picture above. This could be used to change the alignment of the road slightly for the provision of inset parking whereby the cycle lane could pass on the outside of the system. A grass verge could then be used to separate the parking spaces and footpath from the cycle lane. The result would be a road that better resembles those seen in the Netherlands.

I don't believe Irish roads authorities are technically, politically or culturally capable of delivering anything remotely like that which Dutch cyclists have enjoyed for decades. That said, I understand the public desire for such infrastructure.

You couldn't know this, presumably, but in the situation pictured above the school was "planned" with a drop-off and pick-up area inside the grounds. For reasons best known to themselves the school management decided to close the gates and abandon the originally approved design. The Council, in its infinite wisdom, decided that safe and continuous routes to school were not applicable in this case (or any other case, but we'll leave that aside) and so they bunged in a tick-box cycle lane that appears out of thin air 150 metres from the school. Children and their parents wishing to access the fragment of cycle lane have first to traverse a roundabout on a busy arterial road where speeding is endemic and no pedestrian crossings are provided. On the way out, of course, the cycle lane disappears and child cyclists/pedestrians are provided with no means to cross the road safely and conveniently on their route home.

The land beside the access road to the school is earmarked for other purposes. That's a whole other story for a different thread and a different forum.

There is another, pedestrian-only, access route to the school. It is pretty much guaranteed that a majority of pupils come from estates in the general vicinity (there are about 15,000 people living in the district). However, similar to other urban areas in this country, even parents resident 1 km or less from the school still choose to drive, which is why the vehicular access road is clogged with cars every school day. On 'special' days, when there is some significant event occurring, cars are parked on the footpaths and dished kerbs right up to the roundabout.

monument wrote: »

From what I'm told and have read from those in Dutch transport and street design, you'll find it very hard to find parking as described in the Netherlands near many schools.

Their solution is to provide, not for car parking, but for student and parents to cycle and walk.

The problem is not the absence of parking but the over-use of cars. It is the sheer number of motorists going right up to the school at drop-off and pick-up times that causes both the congestion and the safety concerns. Typically, the collective response is to ignore the effects on cyclists and pedestrians and just to let cars take over the lion's share of the space. The solution, in my view, is to eliminate excessive car use by whatever means necessary, and to facilitate access to the greatest extent possible for pedestrians, cyclists and bus users. The drop-off and pick-up area within the school grounds would be fine if there was a manageable number of cars.

I don't blame the school, by the way. The fault lies with the "planners", engineers, Dept. of Education and those parents who want to drive as close to the school as possible even if they are resident no more than 3 km away. The main access road has been pedestrian and cycle hostile since it was constructed about 15 years ago. The "planners" knew what the road was like, and still gave the go-ahead for a primary school without making provision for pedestrian and cycle access and without any intention to control car use.

paddyland · 19-01-2014 12:39am

There is another angle to all of this, which I believe impacts on everything to do with cycling, roads, public transport, motoring, and anything to do with environmental planning. It impacts on why I am inclined to think all of these arguments are completely futile, and why the wrong question is being asked.

Motoring is an extremely lucrative revenue earner for the government of the day. You buy a car. You pay VRT. You fill it full of fuel. You pay fuel tax. You pay motor tax annually. Running a car encompasses a whole load of regular and occasional bills, small and large, most of which include VAT. The revenue income from private motoring is simply staggering.

Public transport, on the other hand, simply costs money. Practically every form of land transport, be it train or bus, requires some form of subvention in order to be viable at all. At best, availability of a decent bus reduces car usage, and thus motoring revenues. At worst, it actually takes money out of the exchequer.

Cycling, I suppose, could be considered cost neutral, other than the fact that every person cycling is a person not driving a car and contributing motoring revenues. This too, is why I believe there will never be a real emphasis on serious road traffic law enforcement, other than lucrative speed cameras. You don't want to bring the hammer of the law down on people who are pumping money into government coffers. Get them all out there driving, good, bad, or indifferent, whether they are licenced, or a hazard, or not.

My own area of interest would be in bus travel, driving the bloody things. But I can see where there is an enormous chasm in the effectiveness of buses given decades of atrocious, and dare I say it, deliberately obstructive environmental planning. I can also see where there are countless lost opportunities for a harmonious co-existence of more sustainable forms of transport.

Don't you see? It is NOT WANTED.

There is no point arguing about cycle lanes on roads, cycle lanes on footpaths, little bits of cycle lane here, little bits of bus lane there. I could redesign Dublin's bus lanes and get a bloody marvellous bus network for the city, almost doubling it's efficiency. And the first thing I would not do is let Dublin Bus within a mile of it.

I drive buses. I spend every day avoiding cyclists, and I think I do a bloody good job of it. I know where all the points of conflict and hazard are, and I'm sure I would have plenty of very good suggestions with regard to safe and effective cycle lanes.

We had a Green Party in power for a period of time. If ever we should have had this issue sorted, it was then. What happened? We got hundreds and hundreds of miles of expensive and wholly useless red and white lines, designed to give the Green Party their press coverage, and nothing else. Cycle lanes? My backside.

Don't you see? It is a waste of time saying cycle lanes should be this, bus lanes should be that. The fundamental question is one of government priorities regarding revenue streams. It is about money, and where can we bleed it from. Private motoring is one of the most lucrative cash cows in the state. And you want to reduce it??? It is not going to happen. Not in a million Dáil Éireann years. Traffic congestion? Bloody marvellous. They'll just have to pump more fuel into their cars. More revenue. Bring on the traffic jams.

So the question to ask, then, is how do we contrive to nullify the problem of lucrative revenue earning for the government from dictating public policy? And if you can answer that, then you are a genius.

Aard · 19-01-2014 4:31am

@paddyland

Just a few short observations on your detailed post:

1 - The government has policies in place to reduce car use. Additionally it has policies in place to increase the cycling mode share. Our land-use and transportation planning could be much better integrated, but there are policies in place already such as increased residential densities close to public transport, as well as lowered parking maximums close to public transport. Just in contrast - in most parts of the US there are parking minimums where we have parking maximums. The availability of parking at a destination greatly determines travel mode.

2 - The Green Party weren't in power for a long time, and I think a lot of criticism levelled at them is after having unreasonable expectations, especially considering the state's economy was just heading into recession.

3 - Public transport requires subvention, but private transport gets subvention too. Specifically, because of lax residential density regulations up until the past decade or so, many suburbs are highly car-oriented. This has been accommodated in ongoing road infrastructure investment, which has often been to the exclusion or impediment of peds and cyclists. Public transport users may not contribute to the exchequer in the form of car-related VAT, excise duty, and VRT, but it's not like they keep all that "saved" money under the mattress never to be seen again. They'll just spend it on something else, likely in the form of more expensive accommodation.

I think your post may have been true at a point in the past, but given current legislation and local authority development plans, things have definitely changed.

SeanW · 19-01-2014 11:43am

AltAccount wrote: »

I dunno, what you actually said seemed to be "I think there's a solution but I bet you'll have a problem with it" in a very attack the poster manner.

Was I wrong? I knew very well from the OPs posting history (all of it motorist-hostile) that he would not be in favour of a mutually inclusive solution of any kind, and I think I've been proven correct. What's worse, his view appears to be unanimous among the cyclists or at least very strongly representative.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

You couldn't know this, presumably, but in the situation pictured above the school was "planned" with a drop-off and pick-up area inside the grounds. For reasons best known to themselves the school management decided to close the gates and abandon the originally approved design.

Sounds like the school was originally planned properly to me.

The problem is not the absence of parking but the "over-use" of cars. Rabble rabble rabble, rabble rabble rabble.

The solution, in my view, is to eliminate excessive car use by whatever means necessary.

Who the hell are you to determine what is "excessive?" And how far are you prepared to go with "eliminate whatever means necessary?" No wonder you despise libertarians - "I'm entitled to your money" and "you live as I design" are obviously more compatible with totalitarianism.

The "planners" knew what the road was like, and still gave the go-ahead for a primary school ... without any intention to control car use.

huh? I'm sorry, I thought schools were places children went to learn ... not places to push radical agendas (religions aside).

Aard wrote: »

but private transport gets subvention too.

That is flat out wrong. Motorists pay for all the costs of private motoring and much, much more, through unparalelled rates of VRT and road tax (car tax is anywhere from 2-5 times what it is in the UK for example, and VRT exists nowhere else in Europe except Denmark), motorway tolls, fuel duty, carbon tax, VAT on NCT costs and miscellaneous items needed, the Quinn levy on compulsory insurance, licensing costs, speed fines etc.

If Iwannahurl had his way, motorists would spend all this money on a car that spends most of its time sitting in parking space 2 houses over from where the motorist lived, and only ever be used rarely because there's f-all parking anywhere and then subject to minefield of over the top, punitive regulations in every other aspect.

So please, lets dispense with this falsehood that motorists don't pay their way.

Public transport users may not contribute to the exchequer in the form of car-related VAT, excise duty, and VRT.

Which is fine, so long as that fact is recognised. Ditto for cycling. Motorists pay. Cyclists and PT users take. That's perfectly fine, but a bit of gratitude from the latter would go a long way.

Aard · 19-01-2014 1:35pm

@SeanW

You plucked out one convenient quote from my post, and I think you missed the essence of my third point. I am not getting into a car-related taxes discussion; it's been done to death, and at any rate I don't hold particularly strong views on it either way. My point was that private transport has been historically accommodated to a far greater extent than public transport and "soft" modes (walking, cycling).

Owning and running a car is generally affordable, as evidenced by the fact that half of the working and student population gets to their destination by car. In many cases it is necessary, or at least most convenient to travel by car due to the extreme decentralisation of housing since the 1950s. Granted, there was no such thing as "planning" until 1963, but credible planning legislation never came in until 2000. That leaves an entire generation whose values in relation to urban development centre entirely around the car. But values change over time, and they are changing in relation to car-ownership and vehicle-miles-travelled. In the meantime we have legacy road infrastructure from the 60s/70s/80s/90s that once was largely mono-use and fit for purpose, but that is now seeing greater demand from users other than car-drivers. Retrofitting these roads is necessary if we are to afford other road users the same courtesy that was extended to car-drivers in the latter half of the twentieth century. And just to bring it back on topic, that extends to segregating pedestrians, cyclists, and cars where appropriate, and not bundling the former two together just because it is convenient.

You mentioned that public transport users should be grateful to motorists. How laughable. If anyone should be grateful, it is motorists who have had the red carpet laid down for them all over the country for the best part of fifty years. The tide is changing and young people are moving away from private transport. The heyday of the car has reached its peak, and I expect there will be many more clashes of values in relation to car-oriented urban development for the next decade or two.

SeanW · 19-01-2014 2:32pm

Aard wrote: »

@SeanW

You plucked out one convenient quote from my post, and I think you missed the essence of my third point. I am not getting into a car-related taxes discussion; it's been done to death, and at any rate I don't hold particularly strong views on it either way. My point was that private transport has been historically accommodated to a far greater extent than public transport and "soft" modes (walking, cycling).

Fair enough. I just wanted to make sure that the fact that motorists pay their way, including the lions share of transport related taxes was clearly understood.

... but that is now seeing greater demand from users other than car-drivers. Retrofitting these roads is necessary if we are to afford other road users the same courtesy that was extended to car-drivers in the latter half of the twentieth century. And just to bring it back on topic, that extends to segregating pedestrians, cyclists, and cars where appropriate, and not bundling the former two together just because it is convenient.

Also fair enough, I'm all for providing for other classes of road user, but what is being promoted is an intentional removal of facilites or intentional failure to provide facilities for motorist for no absolutely no other reason than to cause difficulties for motorists and to "discourage" (i.e. make it hell) the so-called "excessive" use of a car.

That has absolutely nothing to do with afforing other users the same courtesy. If you would be happy to have good quality cycle lanes and footpaths ALONGSIDE plentiful car parking, motorways etc, I'd be much more sympathetic.

It's the "all for me and nothing but disrespect for you" mutually exclusive attitude that I find reprehensible and one of the reasons (other than walking in Dublin City most days) I have a really foul impression of cyclists.

You mentioned that public transport users should be grateful to motorists. How laughable.

Oops

I meant to say "the former" i.e. cyclists. Boarding a train doesn't seem to be the same political statement of "we hate motorists and think they should PAY and suffer" the same way getting on a bike does.

Chinasea · 19-01-2014 3:20pm

In a country that boasts the highest population growth in Europe , we most surely win the price of most short sighted also. cyclists are hated, roads are chock a block with one manned cars, public transport is seriously lacking, and if we were simply to provide a safe and half decent infrastructure for cyclist s we could all get around in a much healthier and sustainable manner. Excluding the inner city and town foot paths, most foot paths are under utilized, (every one in their cars) and with proper markings and change of selfish mindset, the foot paths could easily be shared.

No Pants · 19-01-2014 7:12pm

SeanW wrote: »

That is flat out wrong. Motorists pay for all the costs of private motoring and much, much more, through unparalelled rates of VRT and road tax (car tax is anywhere from 2-5 times what it is in the UK for example, and VRT exists nowhere else in Europe except Denmark), motorway tolls, fuel duty, carbon tax, VAT on NCT costs and miscellaneous items needed, the Quinn levy on compulsory insurance, licensing costs, speed fines etc.

I'm not sure about that. Can you please point me towards a source?

patrickbrophy18 · 19-01-2014 8:08pm

Aard wrote: »

Owning and running a car is generally affordable, as evidenced by the fact that half of the working and student population gets to their destination by car. In many cases it is necessary, or at least most convenient to travel by car due to the extreme decentralisation of housing since the 1950s. Granted, there was no such thing as "planning" until 1963, but credible planning legislation never came in until 2000. That leaves an entire generation whose values in relation to urban development centre entirely around the car. But values change over time, and they are changing in relation to car-ownership and vehicle-miles-travelled. In the meantime we have legacy road infrastructure from the 60s/70s/80s/90s that once was largely mono-use and fit for purpose, but that is now seeing greater demand from users other than car-drivers. Retrofitting these roads is necessary if we are to afford other road users the same courtesy that was extended to car-drivers in the latter half of the twentieth century. And just to bring it back on topic, that extends to segregating pedestrians, cyclists, and cars where appropriate, and not bundling the former two together just because it is convenient.

In the latter half of the 20th century, the main transport bodies made a dogs breakfast of (what was at the time) a very extensive public transport network. Let's start off with CIE. Up to the 1960s, our country had a vast heavy rail network. Towns as small as Schull in County Cork and Letterkenny in Donegal had train stations. Back then, they were privately run with better names like The Great Southern Railway etc. These rail routes had been open for decades which would indicate that they were viable. If not, they would have ceased operations after a few years. Even further back, there were plans to connect Harcourt Street Station with Broadstone Station. In the early 1900s, Dublin's tram network, as far as I know, was one of the most extensive in Europe. Enter CIE and the subsequent nationalization of the public transport network. Since then, a very sophisticated rail and tram network was dismantled, leaving with it, disconnected towns. At a time when popularity of the private car began to soar, CIE effectively caused a disincentive for public transport use and thus, resulting in many would-be commuters resorting to the car.

NIMBYism and over-prioritization of architecture in many suburbs, towns and cities in Ireland resulted in uncontrolled and poorly guided residential and commercial development culminating in the urban sprawl we see today. We should have built upwards instead of outwards and placed more of an emphasis on consolidating population growth within a short range of existing train stations. Instead, we have elasticized the Greater Dublin Area (GDA) through decentralization creating unnecessary dependency on the car. For example, new developments such as City West and Cherrywood where initially built well away from any decent transport system. Since then, the LUAS has been extended to serve them. Had they been mooted for areas like Castleknock, Dun Laoghaire, Blackrock or Dalkey which are equipped with rail connections, the architecture police (NIMBYs) would have slated them. Consequently, they end up being built in areas that are only reachable by car. Again, this adds more weight to car dependency in Dublin and other similar situations nationwide.

Mucco · 19-01-2014 11:03pm

No Pants wrote: »

SeanW wrote: »

Motorists pay for all the costs of private motoring.

I'm not sure about that. Can you please point me towards a source?

Both of you might be interested in the TU Dresden report out last year and accompanying newspaper article:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/25/car-pollution-noise-accidents-eu?view=mobile
The headline reads: "Car pollution, noise and accidents 'cost every EU citizen £600 a year.'
Researchers challenge view that drivers are overtaxed, saying they are subsidised by other taxpayers"

Iwannahurl · 19-01-2014 11:29pm

It's a nonsense for anyone to suggest that motorists pay for all the externalities of car use and car dependence.

Everyone pays one way or another for the congestion, air pollution, CO2 emissions, road deaths, noise and sprawl caused by private motorised transport.

Motorists and some others (such as out-of-town retailers perhaps) gain more from the increased mobility a car offers than they lose in terms of downsides like increased congestion and less cash in their pocket, but all of us bear the externalised costs.

The photo below (taken on "National Cycle to School & Work Day" in 2011) is a simple illustration of the way car users gain more from driving than not driving. Each individual driver is gaining more than they are losing from using the car, even in congested conditions, which is why they keep doing the same thing day after day, year after year. Not only that, but more and more people keep doing it over the years, which is why successive Census records show the number of children being driven to school has increased substantially over decades, while the number of children walking and cycling has plummeted. The manner in which vehicles are parked compounds the problem in an immediate and palpable way: motorists are effectively taxing pedestrians.

SeanW · 22-01-2014 1:27pm

Mucco wrote: »

Both of you might be interested in the TU Dresden report out last year and accompanying newspaper article:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/25/car-pollution-noise-accidents-eu?view=mobile
The headline reads: "Car pollution, noise and accidents 'cost every EU citizen £600 a year.'
Researchers challenge view that drivers are overtaxed, saying they are subsidised by other taxpayers"

There are plenty of reasons to dispute this, starting with who commissioned it:

which was commissioned by the Green group in the European parliament:

The methodology is suspect too - it frames the question as one of "Motorists vs. society" yet there are multiple key omissions:

Accidents are covered by compulsory motor insurance, including accidents involving uninsured motorists (at least in Ireland) in many cases regardless of whether the motorist involved caused the accident.
From the article: "The figures deliberately do not offset motoring-connected taxes unless they are specifically ringfenced for car use, for example a motorway toll where the money is set aside for highway maintenance. The authors argue that other motoring levies form part of the general tax pot and are no more reserved for the impact of cars than alcohol duties are reserved for healthcare or policing drink-fuelled disorder."

But they've framed the study as "motorists vs. society" so the fact that the money is not ring-fenced should be irrelevant. It's money taken from motorists by society (if you look at it that way) and so should be balanced against the supposed costs imposed by motorists on society.
It most likely does not include other costs imposed on motorists by society, such as theft and vandalism. Theft adds significantly to TPFT insurance, and vandalism - ranging from a broken side mirror to total destruction by arson - are a matter of routine in the United Kingdom.
Are the costs of environmental regulation deducted from that? Cars now have to have super sensitive engines, diesel cars now have to have diesel particulate filters, all of this makes cars less reliable and dramatically more expensive to repair. When the cost of the car includes a €3000 DPF (and it will have to be replaced within 10 years) are those costs, plus the repair costs deducted against the figures?
It most likely does not include the societal benefits. For example, if half the working population uses a car to get to work (as Aard posted) that's a societal benefit - 50% of workers can reach their jobs because of cars. Doubly so when a couple share a car from their common home to two jobs in the same general area, or when a child is carried to school (saving them time) en-route.
Irelands motoring taxes are much more severe than those in the UK, taking the figure of £600 per year, most motorists here would only start paying at that.
Vehicle registration tax does not exist in the UK and I think it adds about a third to the cost of a car. So that could be €10,000 right there, which assuming £600=€800, is the lifetime cost for a car that will run for about 12 years or so. My car, an old, poverty spec saloon from 1999, costs €800 a year to tax, that's the "external" cost doubled. Throw in compulsory insurance (not a tax but a mandated cost all the same) NCT costs, fuel taxes, it can add up to several thousand, per motorist, per year.

SeanW · 22-01-2014 2:45pm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Motorists and some others (such as out-of-town retailers perhaps) gain more from the increased mobility a car offers than they lose in terms of downsides like increased congestion and less cash in their pocket, but all of us bear the externalised costs.

Only true in full if you assume that motorists are not part of society. Otherwise, the benefits accruing to motorists must also be considered, pro-rata, to be societal benefits.

motorists are effectively taxing pedestrians.

tax: a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tax?s=t

Methinks you would do well to invest in a dictionary. At minimum.

monument · 22-01-2014 3:38pm

SeanW wrote: »

Methinks you would do well to invest in a dictionary. At minimum.

Please cut out the sniping or you will be carded again.

No Pants · 23-01-2014 12:07pm

Mucco wrote: »

Both of you might be interested in the TU Dresden report out last year and accompanying newspaper article:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/25/car-pollution-noise-accidents-eu?view=mobile
The headline reads: "Car pollution, noise and accidents 'cost every EU citizen £600 a year.'
Researchers challenge view that drivers are overtaxed, saying they are subsidised by other taxpayers"

I was reading a piece on copenhagenize.com that said that "In Denmark almost 4000 people die each year from pollution from cars. That number is ten times higher than those who are killed IN the traffic."

That's a frightening idea.

Cookie_Monster · 24-01-2014 2:44am

SeanW wrote: »

[*]Are the costs of environmental regulation deducted from that? Cars now have to have super sensitive engines, diesel cars now have to have diesel particulate filters, all of this makes cars less reliable and dramatically more expensive to repair. When the cost of the car includes a €3000 DPF (and it will have to be replaced within 10 years) are those costs, plus the repair costs deducted against the figures?

those item lower the pollution impact of cars slightly but do not eliminate it by any means and certainly should not be deducted, no more than the cost of fuel or tyre or brakes pads should be.

[*]It most likely does not include the societal benefits. For example, if half the working population uses a car to get to work (as Aard posted) that's a societal benefit - 50% of workers can reach their jobs because of cars. Doubly so when a couple share a car from their common home to two jobs in the same general area, or when a child is carried to school (saving them time) en-route.

That's arguably not a benefit as many (most) car journeys are over a short distance and easily achievable by other methods in way more efficient and healthy manners (walking / cycling / PT). All those cars also add to traffic reducing the benefit to society; causing traffic, increasing pollution, loosing productivity etc.

Road layout, use of space, and motoring vs cycling (off-topic from shared use thread)

Comments