Christmas traffic!!!

Mrs OBumble

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Hi.

Sorry, I can't see any rectangles or hookers.

What is the evidence that (a) major employers currently don't want to locate west of the Corrib purely because there is no bypass, and (b) that building a bypass would lead to such companies locating on that side of the city?

What analysis has been done on the possible effects of generated traffic and induced travel? How have such analyses been accounted for in the 'business case' for a Bypass?

Ahh, thank you, it's handy to remember that some readers don't see the .sig.

I never said that "major employers currently don't want to locate west of the Corrib purely because there is no bypass", just that "major employers currently don't want to locate west of the Corrib".

As to analysis, I'd say little or none. In fact the NRA's submission to the recent draft plan (one of the entries listed here - sorry I can't remember which one) suggests that the council hasn't even got the tools to do the analysis.

Iwannahurl

Head The Wall wrote: »

Public transport doesn't suit a lot of people, if you live in the city and work on the outskirts then yes, but the majority of buses have to go through eyre square.

And likewise not building these roads achieves nothing to reduce the congestion so I don't buy it as a reason not to proceed with it. Obviously a new road will get developed around it, thats not a surprise

IMO we can't just take these reasons as the ultimate word. It's necessary to drill down further in order to explore the core of the issue.

Why doesn't public transport "suit a lot of people"?

What is the problem with a majority of buses having to go through Eyre Square?

There is more than one way to relieve traffic congestion. Why expend scare public funds on a new road, since you acknowledge that this will lead to further development and ultimately more traffic? How would that represent value for money and achieve transport sustainability in the long term?

A large proportion of car trips (possibly a majority -- I don't have the stats to hand) are driver only. Why should scarce public resources be spent on building infrastructure to support such wasteful and unsustainable practices?

Should we not be managing public expenditure in a way that maximises long-term sustainability and value for money? There is only so much land available for roads and only so much road space available for vehicles. Single-occupant cars take up a greatly disproportionate amount of this finite space. How is facilitating that a rational approach to transport planning and urban development?

Amhran Nua

Iwannahurl wrote: »

2. Given that this country is now effectively bankrupt, is it not the case that we can't afford a Bypass even if it wasn't tied up with legal wrangling?

And yet we can apparently afford the work being done in Rahoon.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

3. If the Bypass itself is not developer-led, what about the potential development that a Bypass might make possible?

...

If new areas are zoned for development as described above, what effect will this have on "flow of traffic" generally? Will the effect of an Outer Bypass and a new bridge over the river (costed at €300 million or so a couple of years ago) really be to permanently and sustainably relieve Galway's human-made traffic congestion?

...

"induced traffic".

Okay, your entire argument here boils down to that you don't want further development of the city. How you intend to achieve that without cutting population levels is anyone's guess.

The city is going to grow, the population is going to expand, new estates are going to be built and thats something that must be dealt with. An outer bypass doesn't provide a permanent solution, but neither does an expansion of the bus services. The fact is, there is no permanent solution because the situation is dynamic and constantly changing.

I use the bus services myself quite a bit, despite being a car owner, especially for heading into town for shopping on the weekends, but Galway is a medieval city - any system that takes traffic out of the centre is a benefit. Its not built to handle that amount of people or vehicles.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

A large proportion of car trips (possibly a majority -- I don't have the stats to hand) are driver only. Why should scarce public resources be spent on building infrastructure to support such wasteful and unsustainable practices?

People have the right to own cars. If they have the right to own cars they have the right to drive them, and they certainly pay enough tax for the privelege. Given the widespread move from all-fossil fuel to short run electric (and ultimately full electric once they get the supercaps up to speed), I'd say that sustainability isn't even an issue.

Iwannahurl

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Okay, your entire argument here boils down to that you don't want further development of the city.

I'd prefer if you (a) did not put words in my mouth, and (b) would address the range of issues I raised in the same spirit in which I raised them.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mods, this thread started as a query re Christmas traffic.

I suggested a number of reasons for traffic being so heavy, and did not mention the Bypass.

Inevitably, it was mentioned as the supposed solution for Galway's traffic congestion. I haven't searched Boards, but I presume the Bypass has come up for discussion more than once.

It's a very important issue for Galway, so what's the best thing to do. Continue with discussing it in this thread, start a new one, 'bump' an older one, or what?

Aerohead

This thread started by Christmas Traffic is what the bypass is all about, I was stuck at the end of the motorway I was trying to head west but was stuck in traffic a lot of who were heading west and have no choice but get stuck in traffic heading into town as there is no other way.

There is no need for another thread as the traffic is a result of no bypass, there is no way to pass the City other than being stuck in traffic heading into it.

Head The Wall

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Why doesn't public transport "suit a lot of people"?

What is the problem with a majority of buses having to go through Eyre Square?

A lot of people that work in and around Galway city don't live in the city centre so they can't avail of public transport. It's not an option for a lot of people, in my own work place very few people live somewhere they can avail of it. My own scenario would involve a trainride, a bus and a ten minute walk or else a 15 minute drive,so even though I have that alternative it will take three times as long and cost me 2.5 times as much each day

If you have a look at Justmary's website and look at the route map you will see that not one single bus uses the quincentennial bridge. If you are going from Knocknacarra or Roscam into Eyre square then it;s a good service but if you want a fast service to get from one side of the city to the other well then tough luck because you have to go through eyre square and get a second bus (if it's even there).

I'm not against public transport and have spent years using "good" public transport in foreign cities but it's a joke in Galway. Seems to be geared around Bus Eireann needs and not the users

Malice

JustMary wrote: »

I'm curious - does my boards.ie signature show at the bottom of this post when you're logged in? I see a big maroon rectangle with a little bus & hooker-sail logo and some words, but maybe some people have images blocked?

For those that don't know:
It's possible to disable sigs by editing your user options, scrolling down to the
Thread Display Options section and unticking the Show Signatures checkbox in the Visible Post Elements frame.

If you have sigs disabled and you want to see a poster's signature, click on their username and select View Public Profile. Once their profile comes up, click the About Me tab and you should be all set.

Iwannahurl

Aerohead wrote: »

This thread started by Christmas Traffic is what the bypass is all about, I was stuck at the end of the motorway I was trying to head west but was stuck in traffic a lot of who were heading west and have no choice but get stuck in traffic heading into town as there is no other way.

There is no need for another thread as the traffic is a result of no bypass, there is no way to pass the City other than being stuck in traffic heading into it.

Fair enough. I didn't want to labour the point if the thread was really intended as a comment with a short shelf-life just on Christmas traffic.

Yes, the truth is that Christmas traffic is the same as traffic at other times, only more so.

Saying that "the traffic is a result of no Bypass" is just begging the question. You are assuming by mere implication the truth of the very issue that is being debated!

Bypass supporter: "Galway City needs a bypass."
Bypass sceptic: "Why?"
Bypass supporter: "Because there is a lot of traffic congestion."
Bypass sceptic: "Why is there a lot of traffic congestion?"
Bypass supporter: "Because there is no bypass."

I'm afraid that particular business case wouldn't justify the expenditure of c. €300 million of scarce public funds.

Iwannahurl

Amhran Nua wrote: »

And yet we can apparently afford the work being done in Rahoon.

Do you mean the Seamus Quirke Road project? If so, estimated total cost of the SQR is €10 million. In 2007, a major proponent of the Bypass, Frank Fahey TD (FF), said that the Bypass would cost an estimated €330 million.

Hardly comparable.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

The city is going to grow, the population is going to expand, new estates are going to be built and thats something that must be dealt with. An outer bypass doesn't provide a permanent solution, but neither does an expansion of the bus services. The fact is, there is no permanent solution because the situation is dynamic and constantly changing.

Is the growth of the city to be developer-led, politically suspect, haphazard, piecemeal, incoherent, car-dependent and unsustainable? Or do we need a new approach in which "Planning" is what it says on the tin? Growth will happen, but it can no longer be managed like it was during the ridiculous bubble, and indeed prior to that nonsense. Just look at the large cul-de-sac estates all around Galway -- IMO they were explicitly designed with car-dependence in mind. I can think of no other explanation for the big walls surrounding them, and in some case the complete absence of footpaths.

I can think of no good reason why we can't plan transport services and urban development in an integrated way.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

I use the bus services myself quite a bit, despite being a car owner, especially for heading into town for shopping on the weekends, but Galway is a medieval city - any system that takes traffic out of the centre is a benefit. Its not built to handle that amount of people or vehicles.

So do I. These days I am a pedestrian, a motorist, a bus user and a cyclist, in that order. It was different before having children.

By definition, Galway was a mediaeval city centuries before the "planners" came along. How could they have failed to notice that fact when they made a long string of major decisions that inexorably led to the car-clogged mess we have today? Claiming that "any" approach to taking cars out of the city is as good as any other ignores the inter-related complexities of transportation policy and spatial planning.

Galway not able to take that amount of people?! See graphic earlier in this thread. I think that has been our problem to date: the emphasis was on vehicles, not people. According to Transport for London, compared to travelling by car walking is a vastly more efficient use of the finite space available. On the same road space walking can move nearly 19 times as many people as driving: 75 pedestrians per metre width, versus 4 car or taxi occupants.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

People have the right to own cars. If they have the right to own cars they have the right to drive them, and they certainly pay enough tax for the privelege. Given the widespread move from all-fossil fuel to short run electric (and ultimately full electric once they get the supercaps up to speed), I'd say that sustainability isn't even an issue.

AFAIK there is no such right. Public roads existed for many centuries before cars appeared in the late 19th century. Motorists are on the road by licence, not by right, and there are multiple legal and economic measures regulating their presence on the public highway. In contrast, no pedestrian, cyclist or bus user needs such a permit. And incidentally, pedestrians, cyclists and bus users are also taxpayers in one way or another.

There is reason to be hopeful about a more sustainable future for the motoring sector, but an inescapable fact remains: there is only so much room available for so many single-occupant vehicles. Notwithstanding advances in both the technology and economics of electric cars (eg lithium batteries) it will always be the case that walking, cycling and public transport will be inherently more energy efficient and sustainable modes of travel.

Eman Resu

JustMary wrote: »

As to analysis, I'd say little or none. In fact the NRA's submission to the recent draft plan (one of the entries listed here - sorry I can't remember which one) suggests that the council hasn't even got the tools to do the analysis.

To be honest I doubt a shortage of tools has ever been the council's problem.

Iwannahurl

Eman Resu wrote: »

To be honest I doubt a shortage of tools has ever been the council's problem.

+1, with knobs on.

Amhran Nua

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Bypass supporter: "Galway City needs a bypass."
Bypass sceptic: "Why?"
Bypass supporter: "Because there is a lot of traffic congestion."
Bypass sceptic: "Why is there a lot of traffic congestion?"
Bypass supporter: "Because there is no bypass."

Er thats actually perfectly logical.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Do you mean the Seamus Quirke Road project? If so, estimated total cost of the SQR is €10 million. In 2007, a major proponent of the Bypass, Frank Fahey TD (FF), said that the Bypass would cost an estimated €330 million.

Hardly comparable.

To be honest I wouldn't believe forty roofs if he told me it was twelve o'clock at noon. Regardless lets do a quick back of the envelope calculation here, lets say that 20,000 people have their lives delayed by an hour a day, at the average industrial wage, thats €17.50 per hour. This comes to €350,000 in wasted man hours daily, over the course of a year thats €127 million gone, and that's long before you even begin to calculate the wasted fuel and pollution that causes.

Personally I'd imagine the FF price would be considerably less in today's money.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Growth will happen, but it can no longer be managed like it was during the ridiculous bubble, and indeed prior to that nonsense. Just look at the large cul-de-sac estates all around Galway -- IMO they were explicitly designed with car-dependence in mind. I can think of no other explanation for the big walls surrounding them, and in some case the complete absence of footpaths.

I can think of no good reason why we can't plan transport services and urban development in an integrated way.

None of which supports your argument against an outer bypass at all.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

How could they have failed to notice that fact when they made a long string of major decisions that inexorably led to the car-clogged mess we have today?

Maybe they were influenced by the same individuals who are dragging the bypass through the courts right now.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Claiming that "any" approach to taking cars out of the city is as good as any other ignores the inter-related complexities of transportation policy and spatial planning.

In the mid to long term the city centre is going to have to be mostly pedestrianised anyway, leading to growth and development of the eastern and western city centres, and probably northern as well, which brings us right back to... an outer bypass.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Galway not able to take that amount of people?! See graphic earlier in this thread. I think that has been our problem to date: the emphasis was on vehicles, not people. According to Transport for London, compared to travelling by car walking is a vastly more efficient use of the finite space available. On the same road space walking can move nearly 19 times as many people as driving: 75 pedestrians per metre width, versus 4 car or taxi occupants.

You don't need to sell me on the buses, I think that they are a good idea. Objections to the outer bypass on the basis that cars are bad is silly however.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

AFAIK there is no such right.

Of course there is that right, why do you think the government issues driving licences.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

In contrast, no pedestrian, cyclist or bus user needs such a permit. And incidentally, pedestrians, cyclists and bus users are also taxpayers in one way or another.

Not nearly as much as car drivers, by a long shot.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

there is only so much room available for so many single-occupant vehicles.

Yes, so we build an outer bypass. And when that starts to creak, we build more road infrastructure, just like every city in the world ever.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Notwithstanding advances in both the technology and economics of electric cars (eg lithium batteries) it will always be the case that walking, cycling and public transport will be inherently more energy efficient and sustainable modes of travel.

Energy efficient is not the same thing as optimal. If people can get around more quickly while carrying more baggage, the entire economy benefits as a result, I would guess far more so than the putative savings that might be created by everyone dropping their cars and just walking.

Mrs OBumble

Eman Resu wrote: »

To be honest I doubt a shortage of tools has ever been the council's problem.

Oh ha, ha, ha. You know full well what I mean.

If they don't have the simulation software, they don't have the option to produce robust analysis and results.

If the politicians who we elected choose to ignore the results of such analysis, that's a totally different problem, and can only be fixed if the Irish people decide to not tolerate corruption in their political system..

Mrs OBumble

Amhran Nua wrote: »

The city is going to grow, the population is going to expand, new estates are going to be built and thats something that must be dealt with. An outer bypass doesn't provide a permanent solution, but neither does an expansion of the bus services. The fact is, there is no permanent solution because the situation is dynamic and constantly changing.

I use the bus services myself quite a bit, despite being a car owner, especially for heading into town for shopping on the weekends, but Galway is a medieval city - any system that takes traffic out of the centre is a benefit. Its not built to handle that amount of people or vehicles.

Personally, I don't see a need for new estates for a very long time. I do see a need to increase the density of a lot of the existing ones, though.

This medieval city line is interesting. The medieval bit is actually very small, say Eyre Square down to Spanish Arch, and Merchants Rd up to Woodquay at most. Personally I doubt that a bypass and new bridge in the places suggested would take much traffic out of that area: anyone who can avoid it already does so via the Quin bridge, despite how heavy the traffic on it is.

I also think that traffic engineering needs to take a broader demand-reduction approach too: Big employers should be encouraged to hire workers from places that require less commuting, or at least sustainable commuting (ie within cycling or bussing radius). Instead we just let them have big car parks, and accept crazy traffic jams at shift-change times.

Amhran Nua

JustMary wrote: »

Personally, I don't see a need for new estates for a very long time. I do see a need to increase the density of a lot of the existing ones, though.

Possibly, its hard to tell really past around ten years into the future. A lot of the development from 2000 to 2008 was in poor locations, and may have to be bulldozed. Better locations which may be created by projects like the bypass might then attract new development.

JustMary wrote: »

This medieval city line is interesting. The medieval bit is actually very small, say Eyre Square down to Spanish Arch, and Merchants Rd up to Woodquay at most.

I don't mean the literal medieval city boundaries, I mean the little narrow roads from Cooke's corner all the way past Bohermore. Salthill is lethal at the best of times. Crucially a lot of traffic gets funnelled through either the roads past the courthouse or down towards Salthill.

JustMary wrote: »

Personally I doubt that a bypass and new bridge in the places suggested would take much traffic out of that area: anyone who can avoid it already does so via the Quin bridge, despite how heavy the traffic on it is.

If you've been stuck for an hour just getting from the top of Bohermore to Tesco, that left hand turn into town starts to look pretty inviting. Of course an alternate route would be of use, when it takes almost as long to drive across Galway during peak times as it does to drive from Galway to Dublin, there isn't much of an argument.

JustMary wrote: »

Big employers should be encouraged to hire workers from places that require less commuting, or at least sustainable commuting (ie within cycling or bussing radius).

Don't think that would be technically legal though.

Mrs OBumble

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Big employers should be encouraged to hire workers from places that require less commuting, or at least sustainable commuting (ie within cycling or bussing radius).

Don't think that would be technically legal though.

Indeed, I believe that it would require a change to employment legislation. However I think it's a change that's necessary, and would do a lot go get Irish people over their love-affair with living in unsustainable locations.

kippy

JustMary wrote: »

Indeed, I believe that it would require a change to employment legislation. However I think it's a change that's necessary, and would do a lot go get Irish people over their love-affair with living in unsustainable locations.

"Unsustainable Locations"?
"Changing employment legislation"?

There is NO country in the world that has employment legislation that would mirror that.

There are many reasons people chose to live where they do, not least the cost of housing and the quality of housing as well as their own heritage.


Some people in this country are almost adamant that everyone should live in a big town or city as its cheaper to sustain services in these areas. I personally would hate to have to follow that policy.

Iwannahurl

AFAIK current modelling methods in transportation research cannot reliably predict whether any individual road construction project will fail, over the medium to long term, to reduce traffic congestion in a target area or indeed whether additional traffic might be generated.

However, it is clear from much of the research on induced travel that increasing road capacity tends to encourage sprawl development while also being ineffective at solving congestion problems.

If more sprawl follows after road construction or upgrade projects are completed, the generated traffic/induced travel can bring about renewed traffic congestion within as little as 5 to 10 years.

That is precisely what happened once the Quincentenary Bridge and associated road upgrades were completed. The "planners" gave the green light to a host of development projects in the immediate area, and it was less than ten years later before the complaints about traffic started appearing in the local papers.

So what can we expect in years to come if the Bypass campaigners get their way and the "planners" do what they usually do in this country? More calls from the same campaigners for yet more roads based on the "logic" that traffic congestion is caused by lack of roads?

Have we learned nothing?

Perhaps we have, but only time will tell.

The 2007 Strategic Bus Study recognises the potential of a Bypass to relieve city centre traffic, but also warns that that any released road capacity will "inevitably" be taken up by generated traffic/induced travel unless non-car transport modes are prioritised:

The proposed Galway City Outer Bypass (GCOB) could be a significant opportunity to improve the bus system. Not only will it reduce traffic within the City area, but the national roads within that area will be declassified, allowing the City Council to determine exactly how they should be used. The City Council should plan now to reallocate spare capacity on the declassified roads to buses, cyclists and pedestrians before it inevitably gets taken up by future demand or existing latent demand. Traffic flows in the Galway area are continuously growing. Buses will become slower, less reliable and less punctual unless priority measures are put in place. This will become particularly acute in the years leading up to the introduction of the GCOB. [Emphasis added]

Now that we are in the Republic of IMF, and given the huge hole that will be in our public finances for years to come, do we just sit and wait for the GCOB panacea?

There may be a need for increased road capacity in specific cases, but if past performance in Galway is anything to go by then it is less than clear that the GCOB will be, or is intended to be, a genuine attempt at creating the conditions for sustainable urban development and transportation planning.

We could be doing a lot more in the meantime to improve the way we use our existing road system and public transport:

All of the potential congestion-reducing strategies are needed. Getting more productivity out of the existing road and public transportation systems is vital to reducing congestion and improving travel time reliability. Businesses and employees can use a variety of strategies to modify their times and modes of travel to avoid the peak periods or to use less vehicle travel and more electronic "travel".

There is already too much space allocated to private motorised transport (especially all those single-occupant vehicles) and if this inefficient use of space was addressed with demand-side measures as part of an integrated traffic & transportation strategy, then we might expect to get some improvements in congestion in the absence of a Bypass.



Unfortunately, when traffic congestion starts to become intolerable, car-focused individuals and lobby groups typically argue for supply-side measures (e.g. new roads, more road capacity), and resist demand-side solutions (e.g. congestion charges, promotion of sustainable travel modes) as if the latter were ideologically-driven attacks on their basic human rights.

Iwannahurl

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Er thats actually perfectly logical.

Er, no, it's a facile circular argument that does not come within an ass's roar of addressing the complexities of Transportation Demand Management.

If such circular arguments are regarded as "logical" in the pro camp, then the business case for a Bypass is even more shaky than I thought.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

To be honest I wouldn't believe forty roofs if he told me it was twelve o'clock at noon. Regardless lets do a quick back of the envelope calculation here, lets say that 20,000 people have their lives delayed by an hour a day, at the average industrial wage, thats €17.50 per hour. This comes to €350,000 in wasted man hours daily, over the course of a year thats €127 million gone, and that's long before you even begin to calculate the wasted fuel and pollution that causes.

It is widely agreed that traffic congestion gives rise to multiple economic, environmental and social costs. It is facile to suggest that all of these will be addressed by a new road. There are some things that just cannot be bypassed.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Maybe they were influenced by the same individuals who are dragging the bypass through the courts right now.

A facile jibe. I would imagine they were influenced by people with very different concerns, interests, values and priorities.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

In the mid to long term the city centre is going to have to be mostly pedestrianised anyway, leading to growth and development of the eastern and western city centres, and probably northern as well, which brings us right back to... an outer bypass.

Brings you back to an outer bypass. How will city centre pedestrianisation lead to "growth and development" in those areas, and why does that bring you back to an outer bypass?

Amhran Nua wrote: »

You don't need to sell me on the buses, I think that they are a good idea. Objections to the outer bypass on the basis that cars are bad is silly however.

Reducing the internationally recognised principles of transportation sustainability and its many facets to the catchphrase "cars are bad" is silly.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Of course there is that right, why do you think the government issues driving licences.

Motorists have no right to use the public highway enshrined in law. They are there by license. AFAIK, that is just a fact, in this country at least.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Not nearly as much as car drivers, by a long shot.

Does the tax car drivers pay cover all of the infrastructural, environmental, social and economic costs of private car use? Does paying more tax entitle the payer to more? In which case are motorists with bigger cars and/or higher mileage entitled to more because they pay more tax? I have a car, fully taxed up to date, which sits on the driveway most of the time. For getting around town I most often walk, use public transport or cycle. I am not of the view that paying tax on my car or its use gives me an untrammelled right to use the car how I please, or that I have an inalienable right to more and more infrastructure for my convenience.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Yes, so we build an outer bypass. And when that starts to creak, we build more road infrastructure, just like every city in the world ever.

Oh dear. So that's the best strategy we can come up with? Keep on aping car-dependent cities into the future? As for "every city in the world ever", do you travel around Europe much, or are you aware of what some municipal authorities are trying to do? Ever been to Copenhagen, for example? And what of transportation policies in cities like Graz, Munich, Ghent, Freiburg...?

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Energy efficient is not the same thing as optimal. If people can get around more quickly while carrying more baggage, the entire economy benefits as a result, I would guess far more so than the putative savings that might be created by everyone dropping their cars and just walking.

Are you just guessing, or can you point to any evidence?

shampoosuicide

the 'unreliability' of public transport is massively overplayed, in my opinion. it's just a thing people tell themselves because they've got a stigma about taking the bus.

CrowdedHouse

YAWN!!! thank goodness Christmas is nearly over...:(

Iwannahurl

Amhran Nua wrote: »

A lot of the development from 2000 to 2008 was in poor locations, and may have to be bulldozed. Better locations which may be created by projects like the bypass might then attract new development.

.../...

If you've been stuck for an hour just getting from the top of Bohermore to Tesco, that left hand turn into town starts to look pretty inviting. Of course an alternate route would be of use, when it takes almost as long to drive across Galway during peak times as it does to drive from Galway to Dublin, there isn't much of an argument.

Well, if "planning", spatial strategy and transportation policy is to be implemented by bulldozer in the post-NAMA/IMF era, then perhaps we can just demolish all the residential developments deliberately sited by our political and unelected decision makers in areas remote enough from places of work so as to make their residents car dependent.

That would be a draconian policy of course, and would probably upset the do-gooders in the EU or UN or somewhere. It would also take a long time, as we Irish managed to construct a staggering amount of such poorly sited developments in the peak lunatic bubble years 2000-2008.

On a more practical note, some time ago I had to commute regularly all the way from west to east for work. Though I was often on the road at peak times in all weathers, it never took me more than 45 minutes door to door (and I was slagged for being slow!). Anyone who regularly sits in their car for an hour to travel from the top of Bohermore to Tesco, or two hours just to cross town, is a glutton for punishment.

Mrs OBumble

kippy wrote: »

"Unsustainable Locations"?
"Changing employment legislation"?

There is NO country in the world that has employment legislation that would mirror that.

There are many reasons people chose to live where they do, not least the cost of housing and the quality of housing as well as their own heritage.

Sure there are many reasons, including economics, and access to education, shopping, cultural facilities, that influence decisions about where to live. I would like to see "increased employability" added to them, for the sake environment - and I don't see a problem with Ireland having world-leading legislation.

And heritage doesn't mean that things have to stay that way forever. My Irish family moved from a particularly remote area in the 1950s, even though they'd been there for many generations, because of the economic benefits of where they were able to move to.

kippy wrote: »

Some people in this country are almost adamant that everyone should live in a big town or city as its cheaper to sustain services in these areas. I personally would hate to have to follow that policy.

Some people (lets call them farmers) need to live in rural areas, because that's where their economic base is. Some people need to live in rural towns, to provide services to those farmers.

But someone who works as a software engineer or a product builder does not need to live in Outer-bally-whereverville, just because that's where they can maximise the distance between their house and the neighbours. They may want to, but doing so has a price, and I think the environmental price is too high.

Mrs OBumble

shampoosuicide wrote: »

the 'unreliability' of public transport is massively overplayed, in my opinion. it's just a thing people tell themselves because they've got a stigma about taking the bus.

+1

Although it does depend on your route: I'd have no concerns about relying on route 9 or 8, but have experienced some big delays due to missed buses on 2, 3 and 7.

But as with anything in life, contingency planning deals with a lot of issues.

yer man!

Can someone tell me why the retards in Irishrail haven't yet built a station in oranmore, it's been in planning for years and IMO it really would solve a lot of problems for ppl coming from the east side of the city. They built stations in ardrahan and gort which wouldn't be used as much as if there was one in oranmore. Is it just me who thinks that a station in oranmore with big car park and bundled cheap tickets to get into town is the cheapest easiest option to solve some of the traffic chaos now.

snubbleste

yer man! wrote: »

Can someone tell me why the retards in Irishrail haven't yet built a station in oranmore, it's been in planning for years and IMO it really would solve a lot of problems for ppl coming from the east side of the city. They built stations in ardrahan and gort which wouldn't be used as much as if there was one in oranmore. Is it just me who thinks that a station in oranmore with big car park and bundled cheap tickets to get into town is the cheapest easiest option to solve some of the traffic chaos now.

Ask Frank Fahey, he is big into transport issues.

galah

snubbleste, where exactly is that sign in your post? (just curious) ;-)

I still think it would be a good idea to have a park and ride service for the western 'suburbs' as well - a big parking lot say, in Barna or Knocknacarra, and various bus connections to the industrial estates around town (say a non-stop bus to Parkmore, Ballybrit, Monivea, Lisbaun, etc), using the new bus lanes in Westside (when completed) and going across the Quincenetfjdfsdf (I cannot spell it for the life of me) bridge rather than through town. This should reduce traffic and travel times a lot, and might make public transport more appealing!

Currently, even if I wanted to, there's no way I could make it to work efficiently on public transport without wasting hours, and having to change busses, wait, stand in the cold and rain, etc etc and guessing when, where, and if a certain bus shows up. Now I don't expect a bus that collects me outside my house down the boreen in the sticks, but something a little more 'tailored' would probably help.

Mrs OBumble

http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/24220

Oranmore station on track for next year Galway Advertiser, April 01, 2010.
....
By Martina Nee
The Minister of Transport Noel Dempsey has confirmed that Oranmore’s railway station could be up and running by next year

I'm sure there's been more press cover since. Not sure what the status of the P&R is though.

Madame Razz

A train station in Oranmore is an excellent idea, and should have happened a long long time ago. But they need to provide a regular service, and price the tickets and parking attractively or people will stick to their cars.

Traffic was dreadful around the city this afternoon.

Iwannahurl

snubbleste wrote: »

Ask Frank Fahey, he is big into transport issues.

And property issues.

Does that sign have "planning" permission?