Climate change global warming natural disaster freak weather etc. (2 Viewers)

[magicbastarder]

NTA to publish research Ryan referred to on free public transport in “the next few days” -- IrishCycle.com

— Ryan said: “Passenger demand is much more sensitive to levels of service provision than it is to pricing” The National Transport Authority has confirmed that it is to publish re…

irishcycle.com

 

[ann post]

So they want an increase in use of public transport but don't at the same time in case any of those journeys are deemed unnecessary. Is it Ryan that gets to decide who's journeys are necessary?

Did you see one of the Green Party TDs finally came out and said GP policy in government is different to regular GP policy. Probably same idea as above. Pure nonsense...

I dont think you are really quoting Ryan in context, or even reading the other half of the sentence the phrase is from there?

 

[ann post]

NTA to publish research Ryan referred to on free public transport in “the next few days” -- IrishCycle.com

— Ryan said: “Passenger demand is much more sensitive to levels of service provision than it is to pricing” The National Transport Authority has confirmed that it is to publish re…

irishcycle.com

I'd be pretty interested to see it - especially if it is based in Ireland.

 

[ann post]

In classic Ryan gaffes most likely the unnessecary travels narrative will dominate the week, if not his future.

Meanwhile this also happened today

Government approves Annex of Actions to Climate Action Plan 2023

Government approves Annex of Actions to Climate Action Plan 2023

www.gov.ie

TLDR - seeing its a thread about climate.

the climate annex doc is one of the new things that came in with the climate action plan legislation. these things will be regular.

(i'm sure ye's have all read it at this stage)

TLDR transport - three prong approach -
first side is planning - moving away from planning practices that build in car dependence kinda stuff.
second side is modal shifting - It kinda places active travel as the #1 thing, next to that increasing the catchment of public transport in urban and rural in different ways - 360km cycle routes into planning this year, 1000 next year*
Looking at increasing the public transport catchment in rural from 50% to 70% with more services kinda stuff.
(might need to re-read this one - there is an onus on local councils to work with this bit)
third side is more about developing stuff that already exists.

I probably have to read the rest of it later.

 

[Space]

I dont think you are really quoting Ryan in context, or even reading the other half of the sentence the phrase is from there?

The other half is a reference to a reduction in active travel but that doesn't cover who decides what journeys are necessary which is the question I'm asking. What's the criteria for a necessary or unnecessary journey?

Sure we'll se what the report says when it gets published.

 

[ann post]

The other half is a reference to a reduction in active travel but that doesn't cover who decides what journeys are necessary which is the question I'm asking. What's the criteria for a necessary or unnecessary journey?

Sure we'll se what the report says when it gets published.

Given that it's a ministers written question It's highly likely that he* would have consulted incoming legislation and policies to answer the question - which would be informed by the climate action plan annex. the question pre-dated it's publication.

It essentially says that active travel is the main thing they want to encourage, followed by bus / rail options. In that the priority is not to move active travellers to carbon based travel but to shift things in the opposite direction, obviously actives being the greenest where possible. the work and school commutes are the next big target (i think all this starts around page 183 of the annex, nerds) which you can probably call the necessary.

*a secretary or aide

 

[Space]

Given that it's a ministers written question It's highly likely that he* would have consulted incoming legislation and policies to answer the question - which would be informed by the climate action plan annex. the question pre-dated it's publication.

It essentially says that active travel is the main thing they want to encourage, followed by bus / rail options. In that the priority is not to move active travellers to carbon based travel but to shift things in the opposite direction, obviously actives being the greenest where possible. the work and school commutes are the next big target (i think all this starts around page 183 of the annex, nerds) which you can probably call the necessary.

*a secretary or aide

That's a lot of words with very little relevance to the question I asked. So school and work commutes are necessary so what's the criteria for unnecessary? Feel free to quote the annex you keep referring to.

 

[magicbastarder]

my working assumption is that it's a rather dry 'journey that would not have been taken otherwise'.
i.e. if it's necessary, you'd take it regardless.

that's just a guess though.

 

[pete]

my working assumption is that it's a rather dry 'journey that would not have been taken otherwise'.
i.e. if it's necessary, you'd take it regardless.

An opportunistic rather than planned journey. Discretionary rather than essential. It’s getting the bus to Yoker not getting the bus to school.

 

[Space]

If I get the bus to do the big shop or visit a sick relative in Yoker is that necessary or unnecessary?

 

[pete]

If I get the bus to do the big shop or visit a sick relative in Yoker is that necessary or unnecessary?

I would say necessary. “Unnecessary” to me suggests the idea of people going “I’ve nothing to do, sure fuck it the bus is free, so I’ll go to….ehhhh Bray.”

 

[Space]

I would say necessary. “Unnecessary” to me suggests the idea of people going “I’ve nothing to do, sure fuck it the bus is free, so I’ll go to….ehhhh Bray.”

Now that you mention Bray I have a heap of relatives in Bray. Thankfully none sick atm.

 

[ann post]

That's a lot of words with very little relevance to the question I asked. So school and work commutes are necessary so what's the criteria for unnecessary? Feel free to quote the annex you keep referring to.

I am essentially quoting it. I'm not making it up like just to win internet points or something. The thrust is (obviously enough) less car usage and more public transport and active modes. - I know you know all these things already but 25 cars bringing 25 kids to a school is madness, but you cant stop it happening until once you've put an alternative in place. The value for money societywise of spending 540 million to suck up the active travel and yoker trips, rather than spending the 540 million to put in routes that actually allow people to not be tied to a car is important part of what he's saying.

Like you spend the money, everyone goes to yoker and people are still stuck in school and work driving loops.

Here's a quote from the annex anywhoooo.



My own evaluation of this is that people love to get a 'gotcha' on Eamonn Ryan, which isn't illegal, and Bríd Smith asked a reasonable question and got a reasonable answer.

Which besides the two words that the whole of twitter is skimming over the details to senstationalise is a fair enough statement, spend the money on making it possible not to drive rather than cyclists* and yoker.

*there is extensive spending on cycling routes laid out in the document, and active travel is higher up in the lists than public transport, so it the bloody cyclists aren't being shut out.

as regards who decides what is necessary - the CAP is mutli departmental - NTA among others would be doing the line drawing there rather than eamon ryan chasing you about in his aging BMW.

 

[magicbastarder]

one of the major issues is that ryan freed up a shedload of money for active travel, but these things a) take time to spin up, and b) require a major mindset shift in many local authorities, some of whom have managed to do pretty much nothing with the money.

 

[Space]

I am essentially quoting it. I'm not making it up like just to win internet points or something. The thrust is (obviously enough) less car usage and more public transport and active modes. - I know you know all these things already but 25 cars bringing 25 kids to a school is madness, but you cant stop it happening until once you've put an alternative in place. The value for money societywise of spending 540 million to suck up the active travel and yoker trips, rather than spending the 540 million to put in routes that actually allow people to not be tied to a car is important part of what he's saying.

Like you spend the money, everyone goes to yoker and people are still stuck in school and work driving loops.

Here's a quote from the annex anywhoooo.

View attachment 16769

My own evaluation of this is that people love to get a 'gotcha' on Eamonn Ryan, which isn't illegal, and Bríd Smith asked a reasonable question and got a reasonable answer.

Which besides the two words that the whole of twitter is skimming over the details to senstationalise is a fair enough statement, spend the money on making it possible not to drive rather than cyclists* and yoker.

*there is extensive spending on cycling routes laid out in the document, and active travel is higher up in the lists than public transport, so it the bloody cyclists aren't being shut out.

as regards who decides what is necessary - the CAP is mutli departmental - NTA among others would be doing the line drawing there rather than eamon ryan chasing you about in his aging BMW.

I have not once suggested that public transport be free but still you seem to be focusing on the idea that I think it should be. Why's that? I've just asked what deems a journey necessary or unnecessary. Your quote from the annex doesn't even mention either word so not much help there. It's like you're answering my question based on something someone (who is not me) said on twitter.

To repeat myself from earlier "It's kinda pointless making non existent public transport free."

 

[magicbastarder]

If I get the bus to do the big shop or visit a sick relative in Yoker is that necessary or unnecessary?

you'd have made those trips anyway, so 'necessary'.

 

[ann post]

I have not once suggested that public transport be free but still you seem to be focusing on the idea that I think it should be. Why's that? I've just asked what deems a journey necessary or unnecessary. Your quote from the annex doesn't even mention either word so not much help there. It's like you're answering my question based on something someone (who is not me) said on twitter.

To repeat myself from earlier "It's kinda pointless making non existent public transport free."

Do you need the actual word combo to be in the answer for it to be the answer? I'm starting to get that impression.

I've been approaching this from the angle that you are aware that you and Eamon Ryan are saying the exact same thing using different wording:

Research has shown that, to fund a fully free public transport system, without accounting for the likely increased level of passenger demand, an additional €540m in Exchequer funding would be required at a minimum.

Further, that same research tells us that any increase in public transport demand due to free fares would largely be achieved by reductions in active travel and an increased level of unnecessary trips. Ultimately then, free fares would not substantially boost the sustainability of the transport system, primarily because passenger demand is much more sensitive to levels of service provision than it is to pricing.

It's kinda pointless making non existent public transport free."

Which may have been a mistake to not point out immediately.

What I've been trying to give you an evidenced based answer for using publicly available documents (that you could just read yourself) is:

So they want an increase in use of public transport but don't at the same time in case any of those journeys are deemed unnecessary. Is it Ryan that gets to decide who's journeys are necessary?

They are targeting taxpayer money on transport changes that can get big carbon reductions. That is the answer.

Very likely from reading the document that any one of the various body representatives working on the CAP have made this subdivision in journey data and it will be evidence based.

I'm sure if you hang around a few days either an aide or one of the subdocuments will churn up the phrase but it will not supply you any information that isn't already online.

 

[Cornu Ammonis]

Maybe I’m being thick but what’s yoker?

 

[ann post]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

It's an in joke for fans of limmy

 

[Space]

Do you need the actual word combo to be in the answer for it to be the answer? I'm starting to get that impression.

I've been approaching this from the angle that you are aware that you and Eamon Ryan are saying the exact same thing using different wording:





Which may have been a mistake to not point out immediately.

What I've been trying to give you an evidenced based answer for using publicly available documents (that you could just read yourself) is:



They are targeting taxpayer money on transport changes that can get big carbon reductions. That is the answer.

Very likely from reading the document that any one of the various body representatives working on the CAP have made this subdivision in journey data and it will be evidence based.

I'm sure if you hang around a few days either an aide or one of the subdocuments will churn up the phrase but it will not supply you any information that isn't already online.

I don't disagree with anything there at all and don't think anything I've said suggests otherwise. I asked a simple question re the difference between necessary and unnecessary journeys. Two other people in the thread have been able to give me answers on what that difference may be while you've just continued to answer more questions that I haven't asked. It's not even an important question, I was just curious on what the difference was and if someone had decided it. The line below is about as close to an answer you've gotten.

"Very likely from reading the document that any one of the various body representatives working on the CAP have made this subdivision in journey data and it will be evidence based."