While we may have lower car ownership than somewhere like the Netherlands it's the car USAGE that's the problem. There's more active travel in the Netherlands and therefore less congestion / less pollution / healthier citizens etc. and thus lower social cost to car usage.I don't know if you've made a mistake but the Dresden University report, when you look at the total external costs of car ownership table 4 on page 34, Ireland, at 2,890 Mio€, has the lowest of the developed EU countries, and as the 18th of the 27, has costs that are more in keeping with those of the more recent EU members. So there is no reason from this table to indicate that car ownership in Ireland imposes excessive external costs on society, and that the costs imposed are more typical of the lesser developed ex-communist countries, i.e. Slovenia, Lithuania, etc.
For Ireland, cars aren’t really an issue. Ireland has one of the lowest car ownership rates in the EU. We're the 21st., right down there with Croatia and Slovakia. Stock of vehicles at regional level - Statistics Explained (europa.eu). Globally, we’re no. 53 List of countries by vehicles per capita - Wikipedia . And as the aforementioned Dresden report shows the external costs of car ownership are more typical of a less developed European country.
Apples and oranges.While we may have lower car ownership than somewhere like the Netherlands it's the car USAGE that's the problem. There's more active travel in the Netherlands and therefore less congestion / less pollution / healthier citizens etc. and thus lower social cost to car usage.
So more urbanised means less need for cars ... but yet they have more cars. So it comes back to the usage.Apples and oranges.
The Netherlands has one of the most urbanised populations on the planet, at 92.2%
Ireland's is 63.7%.
Of course the more a country is urbanised, the less need there is for cars. But, does greater urbanisation actually mean less congestion / less pollution / healthier citizens, or the opposite? I'm struggling to think of anywhere in Ireland that is congested but not urbanised.
And I would guess the social benefit of car usage in Ireland is higher too.So more urbanised means less need for cars ... but yet they have more cars. So it comes back to the usage.
So compare the urban areas in Ireland to the Netherlands. I would guess the social cost of car usage in Ireland is higher for the reasons mentioned earlier.
Lots Of Love to you tooLOL. Your source is literally a Green political lobby group.
Note I didn't make any comment, good bad or indifferent, about you.Lots Of Love to you too
It's not a mistake.To correct your mistake - my source is a paper by the Faculty of Transport and Traffic Science in the University of Dresden.
I have made no such claim.but you still haven't backed up your claim that private motoring is a net earner for society.
Ok - I get it now about your entire-country point (I suppose I was getting at the issue of needing different approaches based on different population densities)I'm also in Dublin, but my post was written with the entire country in mind.
I'm struggling to agree with you, regarding your justification for using your car to go into the city. With the TFI 90 minute cap, it's very good value, and can't cost more than a return journey by car, when you consider fuel, parking, then other costs associated with motoring, can it?
For anyone not familiar with the 90min cap:
TFI 90 Minute Fare - Leap Card
You can use the TFI network around Dublin for 90 Minutes with your TFI Leap Card, for just €2 for adults, €1 for young adults (19-25) or students, and 65 cent for children. TFI 90 applies to most journeys in the Dublin area whether you are using multiple services during 90 minutes or simply...about.leapcard.ie
Nor I you - I responded to your own Lots Of Love message here:Note I didn't make any comment, good bad or indifferent, about you.
LOL. Your source is literally a Green political lobby group.
If it's not a mistake, have you deliberately misrepresented facts? You said: "Your source is literally a Green political lobby group". To repeat, the source is a study by University of Dresden. Can you show me where it says the study/paper was created by the Green group? I think you're confusing the fact that they commissioned it.It's not a mistake.
Sounds very much like Michael Gove's "I think the people of this country have had enough of experts" and Brexit's gone very well for them since then.I don't care how much the authors know
Yes you have, here's a reminder from what you said previously, as you seem confused again:I have made no such claim.
as private motoring is heavily taxed, it constitutes a huge net earner for the taxpayer
I'm not in the least confused.Yes you have, here's a reminder from what you said previously, as you seem confused again:
You misinterpreted this to claim I said:as private motoring is heavily taxed, it constitutes a huge net earner for the taxpayer, notwithstanding its obvious negative externalities.
but you still haven't backed up your claim that private motoring is a net earner for society.
Yes it does: https://www.abbreviationfinder.org/acronyms/lol_lots-of-love.htmlExcept LOL doesn't stand for Lots of Love.
No you didn't. You started that task, and I tried to help you complete the figures that but it didn't suit you to debate them, so you laughed at my attempt instead of debating it/coming up with alternatives.I said (and backed up with figures)
OK. I literally said something (confirmed by actual and verifiable quotes in my last comment above) and you're persisting in claiming that I said something else. It's not even a subtle point. Lots of things in life are good earners for the taxpayer but poor for society, smoking being an example.Yes it does: https://www.abbreviationfinder.org/acronyms/lol_lots-of-love.html
(but I guess you didn't know that meaning when you took offense at my use of that meaning to bring a bit of levity when you derided the source I came up with)
So you claim that "private motoring constitutes a huge net earner for the taxpayer" but you do not claim "private motoring is a net earner for society".
I'll admit to being confused at that one alright.
As you say, you've ignored the point about the source I gave - it's easy to label points frivolous if you don't like them.
No you didn't. You started that task, and I tried to help you complete the figures that but it didn't suit you to debate them, so you laughed at my attempt instead of debating it/coming up with alternatives.
I don't see you being interested in looking at the full expenses side of the balance sheet for private motoring (do you think it's zero?), so I'm happy to leave it at that.
... but most people drive in their cars and block up the roads, causing frustration all round. That has to change.
Agreed that there is more active travel in the Netherlands, but (a) they own more cars than in Ireland (520 per 1,000 inhabitants (NL) vs 446 per 1,000 inhabitants (IE)) Motorisation rates in the EU, by country and vehicle type - ACEA - European Automobile Manufacturers' Association and (b) impose higher external costs (13,396 Mio€ (NL) vs 2,890 Mio€ (IE)), as per the report referenced by poster Concrete in post #30 above. So they don’t have a lower social cost of car usage. I doubt their citizens are healthier, as e.g. they have a higher smoking rate than Ireland.While we may have lower car ownership than somewhere like the Netherlands it's the car USAGE that's the problem. There's more active travel in the Netherlands and therefore less congestion / less pollution / healthier citizens etc. and thus lower social cost to car usage.
Firstly, the social costs need not be measured in currency.Agreed that there is more active travel in the Netherlands, but (a) they own more cars than in Ireland (520 per 1,000 inhabitants (NL) vs 446 per 1,000 inhabitants (IE)) Motorisation rates in the EU, by country and vehicle type - ACEA - European Automobile Manufacturers' Association and (b) impose higher external costs (13,396 Mio€ (NL) vs 2,890 Mio€ (IE)), as per the report referenced by poster Concrete in post #30 above. So they don’t have a lower social cost of car usage. I doubt their citizens are healthier, as e.g. they have a higher smoking rate than Ireland.
One reason there is less congestion is because NL and equivalent EU countries such as BE have better transport infrastructure than IE. Our infrastructure is positively primitive. For example, Ireland has 663 km of motorway, which puts us as the 47th country in the world in terms of motorway infrastructure. To put this in perspective, we have just 30 km more motorway than the workers’ paradise of Cuba! https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Transport/Road/Motorway-length (All countries compared for Transport > Road > Motorway length (nationmaster.com)). Equivalent EU countries such as BE has 1,763 km of motorway, and NL has 2,274 km. So NL a country that is 59% the size of Ireland has 343% more motorway kilometres than IE. BE a country that is 44% the size of Ireland has 166% more more motorway kilometres. Cars are not a problem in Ireland; and a spendaholic vanity project like free state transport is just market-rigging on favour of the state sector.
I disagree strongly with this particular statement.Cars are not a problem in Ireland
I think it has to be two-pronged: increase and improve public (and sustainable) transport infrastructure; and reduce the number of cars in use (to allow that public transport to move freely and keep to timetables etc.) At the moment, the volume of cars makes it nigh-on impossible for buses to be on time.I don't think that there will ever be a case for fewer cars in the city until there are good , no , very good public transport links . How long has that been the case though .....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?