Galway roundabouts set for upgrades

antoobrien

Deleted User wrote: »

At the presentation by the city it highlighted that there is a problem coming out from town at Moneenageisha but that traffic flows better on all the other legs. Traffic doesn't back up onto the Bohermore roundabout anymore blocking that junction. It is far safer for pedestrians.

Any time i've used Moneen it has taken 5 minutes (with no traffic around) to get through the lights going from Wellpark to College road. The one time it was busy it took 20 minutes for get from Thermo King to the lights (I didn't turn just to see how long it'd take). And traffic was backed up in all directions.

Even at peak times you could get onto the RAB from this side as most motorist actually left a gap at the exit when they couldn't exit the RAB (not ideal but better than nothing).

And this is a route i used for years when cycling to college, I never had a problem when I used it.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

"...the fallacy that public transport can actually solve Galway's problems on its own." Perhaps you can address that to someone who actually made such a claim.

You have when you consistently stated in this and the other thread that we don't need a bypass, therefore PT is enough. I know you never said it directly but the inference is plain as your ignorance on the causes of the traffic problems in Galway.

By the way this is a reasonable estimation of the ability of PT in co galway to get people to and from the city:



PT in the county is so bad in frequency and timing that it simply not an option.

McTigs

Dream Modern Bowler wrote: »

Car drivers contribute much more than non-car users and this should be reflected in setting up a traffic system to make progress with a car easier.

And how in gods name do you know how much non car users pay in tax?

kayos

Lived in London used public transport to get every where. Never had an issue with it.

Living in Galway I have to drive as the public transport is a shambles. Hell even when living in knocknacarra it was a very poor service. Where I live now? Bus? You are joking me. There is a massive employer just a walk away from me and there is not a single public bus running the route. The bus comes the closest is about 4 miles short.

Look if we're gonna go down the route of bus lanes every where then we need to put buses in those lanes. But with the country where it is wont be putting on many if any new bus services. So we're just building to improve a service that doesn't exist.

As for the lynch RAB mixed feelings. It was poorly designed from the start. Parkmore should have emptied out to the RAB not to the junction 20m away form the thing. And if the cops would actually just start pulling people using the wrong lanes (rather than doing check points at rush hour on the dual carriage way) it might free up the flow a bit.

McTigs

McTigs wrote: »

And how in gods name do you know how much non car users pay in tax?

I was referring to taxes directly related to driving. Car tax, Vrt, VAT and excise on petrol, VAT and levy on car insurance all which are not paid by non car users.

McTigs

Dream Modern Bowler wrote: »

I was referring to taxes directly related to driving. Car tax, Vrt, VAT and excise on petrol, VAT and levy on car insurance all which are not paid by non car users.

Do you understand how the tax system works?

All taxes, the ones you stated above along with PAYE, VAT, CGT, DIRT nad all the other ways trhe government has of screwing us out of our hard earned cash, are put into a big bucket and on budget day are divvied out to provide the public services we all use at some stage or other. It's not just motor related taxes that pay for roads.

Anyone making a contribution based on their income and purchases has a right to use use those services. It's called democracy.

Maybe we should take the vote of dole recipients, they don't contribute so they shouldn't get a say in the running of the state? Maybe their children shouldn't take up a place in school?

Wanna post up your annual tax return there kid?

johnnyk66

Dream Modern Bowler wrote: »

I was referring to taxes directly related to driving. Car tax, Vrt, VAT and excise on petrol, VAT and levy on car insurance all which are not paid by non car users.

I know many car owners who opt to walk / cycle / bus / train / car share to work on a regular basis and leave the car at home if they can. These people are acting responsibly and also pay car tax, vrt, VAT and excise on petrol, VAT and levy on car insurance.

kayos

McTigs wrote: »

Do you understand how the tax system works?

All taxes, the ones you stated above along with PAYE, VAT, CGT, DIRT nad all the other ways trhe government has of screwing us out of our hard earned cash, are put into a big bucket and on budget day are divvied out to provide the public services we all use at some stage or other. It's not just motor related taxes that pay for roads.

Nope you dont know how it works either. All motor tax along with a few other taxes (think the second house charge is an example) go directly to the local authority.

antoobrien

Dream Modern Bowler wrote: »

There is never an argument for congestion charges, infringing on peoples rights to use the roads they already pay for in tax, vrt on their cars, vat on petrol. Congestion charges and the anti car brigade can feck right off.

Car drivers contribute much more than non-car users and this should be reflected in setting up a traffic system to make progress with a car easier.

McTigs wrote: »

And how in gods name do you know how much non car users pay in tax?

It's not that hard to this get from the publicly available figures. Go onto the dept of finance website and dig through the figures if you want but here's two posts I put up in another thread about this:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71812787&postcount=65
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71891988&postcount=93

In a nutshell motorists through various taxes levies and duties in 2010 paid an extra €4 billion in taxes into the exchequer. that figure as a contributer is second only to income tax receipts (€11.5 . The take from motor tax alone is €950m but the road maintenance (not to be confused with capital improvements, such as building roads or this insanity project), which is paid directly to the councils - not central government or the NRA - is about half that.

Can I have my bypass now please? we can take the money but cutting the pay for civil servants that won't scratch their rears but will strike if you make them actually live up to their contracts (i.e. do their jobs) - that's all of them.

dell1211

Its shocking that they are making a sh!te of the briarhill roundabout, its one of the best functioning roundabouts in Galway.

Traffic light junctions do not work where each lane can turn right, it leads to too many sequences, it will back traffic up hugely on every approach, nobody will gain from this.

Galways traffic problem is not this junction so why are they spending so much money(which they dont have) fu(king it up.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Good news. A victory for those who have the foresight to see the big picture beyond the narrow view expressed by the private car lobby in its various guises.

The key to this is not the traffic signals per se, but the bus priority measures which can now be facilitated. That, and the ability to actively manage traffic flows, which roundabouts cannot provide.

I would urge everyone to keep an eye on the implementation and ongoing operation of the traffic monitoring centre. That will have to be operational from the start to make the new signalised system work optimally.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/businessandpartners/svd-brochure-2006.pdf

http://www.scoot-utc.com/SCOOTMC3.php

http://www.konsult.leeds.ac.uk/private/level2/instruments/instrument014/l2_014a.htm

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/regional/buses/bpf/busprioritythewayahead12/busprioritythewayaheadhtmlve1073?page=4

How often do you see any Parkmore buses full? Very few people actually cross that roundabout(and for those that do there is a tunnel), what do you want next, put a set of pedestrian lights every 300metres on the M6?

dell1211

kayos wrote: »

Lived in London used public transport to get every where. Never had an issue with it.

Living in Galway I have to drive as the public transport is a shambles. Hell even when living in knocknacarra it was a very poor service. Where I live now? Bus? You are joking me. There is a massive employer just a walk away from me and there is not a single public bus running the route. The bus comes the closest is about 4 miles short.

Look if we're gonna go down the route of bus lanes every where then we need to put buses in those lanes. But with the country where it is wont be putting on many if any new bus services. So we're just building to improve a service that doesn't exist.

You are 100% right about public transport in galway, but how is spending millions on replacing a roundabout that connects two dual carriageways with traffic lights going to do a damn bit for public transport which is what the retards in Galway city council are proposing. This money should be spent elsewhere.

galwayroads

Iwannahurl wrote: »

That bit in bold is probably the most honest pro-car (and pro-roundabout) argument of the lot.

The alleged popular resistance to the removal of roundabouts is not about buses, not about pedestrians, not about cyclists, not about road safety for vulnerable road users, not about mobility and access for non-car users, and not about rational transport policy.

It's not even about effective and sustainable solutions to ongoing traffic congestion problems.

It's special pleading based on (some? many?) motorists' sense of entitlement. We've spent a bunch of money on our car and our in-car entertainment, we may even have taken out a big loan so that we're up there with the Joneses in the best model of car with the latest reg that we can afford, so we're damn well going to use it. And if enough of us want to travel that way then we damn well should be given the lion's share of the road space to do so, because we don't want to held up by all those other private car users who feel just as entitled as we do. And if the current amount of road space isn't enough, give us more. And when that fills up, just build more roads.

Blah blah blah...no matter how much in annoys you, that is the reality of the situation. Giving out about it isn't going to change. Nothing can be done to change it because a high % of people who spend several grand on a car are going to use it over the bus. The only thing that could change it is if there was a VAST improvement in public transport and I am talking about a subway or light rail system such as Luas. Something that will knock 10-15+ mins off a car/bus journey. But there's no room and no money for those kinds of systems so they are out.

I would love it if everyone took the bus and ditched the cars and we all got to work in less. But that is overlooking the reality which is people choose their cars over buses.

And let's not forget that the only ones who even have the option to use a bus are the ones who happen to live on a bus route to their workplace. Most people in the city actually dont live on a bus route to their workplace so they have to use their cars to get to work. Then their are all the people who commute in from outside the city, they are using cars too.

So on the one hand you have

• people who happen to live on a bus route to their workplace and chose to take a bus

On the other hand you have

• people who happen to live on a bus route to their workplace but take the car to work
• people who dont live on a bus route to their workplace (ie. most people)
• people who communte in from outside the city

The % of overall commuters that even have the option to take a bus to work is small. Why do you keep going on about how great buses are when it is clear that buses aren't even an option for most people.

And I'll ask you again to please explain what you mean by 'the bus priority measures which can now be facilitated' and what that has to do with replacing roundabouts with junctions.

Mrs OBumble

dell1211 wrote: »

How often do you see any Parkmore buses full? Very few people actually cross that roundabout(and for those that do there is a tunnel),

Every peak time - that's why they introduced the double-deckers.

Have you got any stats re how many people cross the RAB - I think you might be surprised.

Also, to correct an earlier issue, two bus routes (3 and 9) use the Briarhill RAB.

And an observation on Moneenageshia: : I spent 12 months in 2007/08 travelling down Wellpark in a bus a little after 5:30pm. And I've just spent the last 6 months doing the same thing. There is absolutely no comparison in terms of how much quicker and easier the journey is now.

galwaycyclist

Dream Modern Bowler wrote: »

There is never an argument for congestion charges, infringing on peoples rights to use the roads they already pay for in tax, vrt on their cars, vat on petrol. Congestion charges and the anti car brigade can feck right off.

Hmm at the risk of fanning inflamed passions there is a bit of a misunderstanding here. Motorists have no "right" to use any public roads. To my knowledge the only people who have a general right to use public roads are people on foot, people on bicycles and people riding horses.

The use of motorised vehicles is constrained by the provisions of the Motor Car Act of 1903 and its successors. This sets out the principle that using a car, like owning a gun, is something that is done under a licence from the state. You don't have a "right" to use a car. In fact by default it is illegal unless you get a permit first.

dloob

galwayroads wrote: »

And I'll ask you again to please explain what you mean by 'the bus priority measures which can now be facilitated' and what that has to do with replacing roundabouts with junctions.

I don't think this junction will have any bus priority measures.
But what you could do is whenever a bus is on the approach to the junction make everything red except for the bus route so it goes through without stopping.
It's used in London.

Iwannahurl

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Hmm at the risk of fanning inflamed passions there is a bit of a misunderstanding here. Motorists have no "right" to use any public roads. To my knowledge the only people who have a general right to use public roads are people on foot, people on bicycles and people riding horses.

The use of motorised vehicles is constrained by the provisions of the Motor Car Act of 1903 and its successors. This sets out the principle that using a car, like owning a gun, is something that is done under a licence from the state. You don't have a "right" to use a car. In fact by default it is illegal unless you get a permit first.

Dream Modern Bowler wrote: »

...high horse city dwellers...

Now that's a "modal shift" I never thought of!

The thought also occurs that the average speed of car traffic in Galway City at peak times can't be much better now than in the days of the horse (or donkey) and cart. But shur that's progress for ya.

Chinaman beats rush hour traffic on horseback

08/06/2011 - 17:16:22

A Chinese businessman rides a horse to beat rush hour traffic.

He Yanqing - a property entrepreneur with cars worth several hundred thousand pounds in his garage at home - has shed 20 minutes off his previous commuting time of 40 minutes by riding the animal, as opposed to driving his motor to the office in the northwestern city of Xianyang, China.

He told Shaanxi Satellite Television: "Riding a horse to work has many advantages. It keeps me fit, has low carbon dioxide emissions, avoids traffic jams, parking fines, speeding tickets and my horse, unlike the car, has no need for an annual examination [MoT]."

He revealed the horse has set him back about £2,000 to buy and around £50 a month to feed.

Local government figures show the number of cars in the city of five million people is growing at a rate 200 per day.

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/bizarre/chinaman-beats-rush-hour-traffic-on-horseback-508244.html#ixzz1PO1jllVV

Iwannahurl

dloob wrote: »

I don't think this junction will have any bus priority measures.
But what you could do is whenever a bus is on the approach to the junction make everything red except for the bus route so it goes through without stopping.
It's used in London.

Signalised junctions permit the use of bus priority measures. Roundabouts don't. Also used -- or planned -- in Cork City.

Iwannahurl

Iwannahurl wrote: »

"...the fallacy that public transport can actually solve Galway's problems on its own." Perhaps you can address that to someone who actually made such a claim.

antoobrien wrote: »

You have when you consistently stated in this and the other thread that we don't need a bypass, therefore PT is enough. I know you never said it directly but the inference is plain as your ignorance on the causes of the traffic problems in Galway.

[...]

PT in the county is so bad in frequency and timing that it simply not an option.

Speaking of ignorance, I think you'll find that it's you who's inferring, not me.

BTW, I have been referring to public transport in the city, not the county, although clearly buses and trains have some role in bringing commuters into the city already.

I believe that a large majority of people living in County Galway are in one-off houses, despite Galway Co Co's own admission that this is not sustainable!

A continuation of the current trend in which most of the housing growth in the county is in the form of single houses in the countryside is not sustainable. In the short term the costs may not be noticeable but in the long term some of the costs could be catastrophic. These potential costs include damage to major aquifers and a decline in the status of Connemara as a tourist destination. Also there is a danger that, if an increasing proportion of the county’s new housing stock takes the form of isolated housing, it will result in a growing proportion of the county’s households becoming relatively isolated from essential services such as health provision and educational and financial services.

Most people have to rely on the private car for daily life but, by directing the bulk of new growth into towns and villages and by promoting physical patterns of growth which are suitable for bus and train transport, the settlement strategy can improve the opportunities for public transport in the future.

County Galway Settlement Plan 2003-2009

Makes you wonder how all that "isolated housing" got there.

Regardless of this settlement "plan" and the collapse of the (one-off) Celtic Casino, more than 1,000 new one-off houses were built in the Galway County Council area in 2009 despite a vacancy rate of 20% (Source: paper delivered by James Nix, co-ordinator for transport and planning policy at the Irish Environmental Network, to the Irish Planning Institute, 15 April 2010 ). The costs of servicing dispersed one-off housing are far higher than those in urban areas, and such costs as well as basic logistics means that public transport has been effectively written off into perpetuity for these 'communities'.

A key problem is that much of this extra cost is "externalised", ie dispersed housing raises costs for society as a whole. According to Nix's paper, this includes an additional €120 million on postal services and some €720 million on school transport. Other areas with substantially higher costs include road maintenance, bin collection, electricity and phone connections. (And how much of the €300+ million estimated costs of the proposed Outer Bypass could be attributed to our unsustainable dispersed rural settlement, I wonder?)

We are where we are, to quote Brian Cowen's post Celtic Casino refrain, but it seems that some of the car-dependent rural dwellers facilitated by county "planners" still want bus users, pedestrians and cyclists (and indeed motorists) in Galway City to continue to accommodate the traffic and transport effects of these accumulated decisions.

antoobrien wrote: »

We can start by charging people with access to bus services within Galway city after all this plan is supposed to be bus friendly (bit of a laugh when only 1 route will end up using this junction). The only way it can be bus friendly is to force cars off the road, so instead of hitting the people who have not choice lets hit those that have alternatives.

That may be sarcasm, but it's (inadvertently?) not far off the mark.

dell1211

@Iwannahurl, you are like a broken record, you keep spouting the same anti car rubish(speeding, traffic lights, penalise motorists with points/sitting in traffic). If someone proposed dropping the speed limit of motorways to 15kph you would support it. I even see you are even anti truck, im sure in your anti everything but bus mind we dont need trucks either. You would be taken more seriously if you didnt get on the badwagon of every anti car post.

pleasant Co.

dell1211 wrote: »

@Iwannahurl, you are like a broken record, you keep spouting the same anti car rubish(speeding, traffic lights, penalise motorists with points/sitting in traffic). If someone proposed dropping the speed limit of motorways to 15kph you would support it. I even see you are even anti truck, im sure in your anti everything but bus mind we dont need trucks either. You would be taken more seriously if you didnt get on the badwagon of every anti car post.

If you made valid points instead of slinging mud maybe you would be taken just a little bit seriously, that post was bad form.

Disclaimer: I'm on no brigade's side

Robbo

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Good news. A victory for those who have the foresight to see the big picture beyond the narrow view expressed by the private car lobby in its various guises.

I wasn't aware there was an organised private car lobby, I would have thought that the closest thing we had to one was the AA.

If you read this weeks Sentinel, you'll see that official AA mouthpiece Conor Faughnan is in favour of the signalised junctions and welcomes the benefits that they'll bring to pedestrians and cyclists.

Perhaps you could clarify which particular windmills you're tilting at?

what_traffic

Robbo wrote: »

If you read this weeks Sentinel, you'll see that official AA mouthpiece Conor Faughnan is in favour of the signalised junctions and welcomes the benefits that they'll bring to pedestrians and cyclists.

Interesting to see that AA came out publicly on this. I think one has to follow the money for this scheme. I don’t think Bus user's, Pedestrians or Cyclists where the main reason why this scheme was drawn up. Re AA: I think the real reason that AA would support this is that they would probably get access to the GTU's super traffic control room that will control all the lights - then they can give much better/accurate traffic updates every morning on the radio. Once a super traffic control room that will control all the lights in Galway is up and running - the GTU can then justify their existence. The NRA who are responsible for the N6 road - the dual carriageway (and putting up the money for this scheme) will have greater control over the traffic flows on the N6.

dell1211

what_traffic wrote: »

Interesting to see that AA came out publicly on this. I think one has to follow the money for this scheme. I don’t think Bus user's, Pedestrians or Cyclists where the main reason why this scheme was drawn up. Re AA: I think the real reason that AA would support this is that they would probably get access to the GTU's super traffic control room that will control all the lights - then they can give much better/accurate traffic updates every morning on the radio. Once a super traffic control room that will control all the lights in Galway is up and running - the GTU can then justify their existence. The NRA who are responsible for the N6 road - the dual carriageway (and putting up the money for this scheme) will have greater control over the traffic flows on the N6.

funding has been allocated for this

http://www.galwaynews.ie/19949-traffic-control-centre-city

TRAFFIC CONTROL CENTRE FOR THE CITY

June 15, 2011 - 8:10am
Major funding for a new high-tech system to manually control and monitor up to 20 junctions in the city has been announced.
The Government has allocated 250 thousand euro to create a traffic control centre at City Hall on College road.
It's part of an overall fund of 800 thousand euro granted to the City Council under the jobs initiative scheme.
250 thousand euro has been allocated for a cycle and pedestrian route from NUI Galway to Galway Cathedral.
200 thousand euro has been provided for a signage and parking guidance system, and 105 thousand euro will be put towards upgrading junctions in the city.

what_traffic

dell1211 wrote: »

funding has been allocated for this

True - but only because Cllr's voted to remove Briarhill/Lynch.

The argument made by City Hall executive was that unless Briarhill/Lynch Roundabout was "voted" to be removed last Monday by Cllr's they would not get this money from the NRA for the Urban Traffic Centre .
See link:
http://www.galwaynews.ie/19931-city-council-votes-remove-briarhill-roundabout
CITY COUNCIL VOTES TO REMOVE BRIARHILL ROUNDABOUT

June 14, 2011 - 8:14am
Galway City council has voted to remove the first of several city roundabouts and to replace it with a traffic light junction.
After lengthy debate on the controversial proposal last night, the majority of councillors voted to remove the Lynch, or Briarhill Roundabout once funding has been confirmed for an Urban Traffic Centre to manage the new system.
The National Transport Authority is expected to announce funding of quarter of a million euro for the centre within the next week or so.
FYI: See also
http://www.galwaynews.ie/19974-tender-goes-out-remove-city-roundabout
TENDER GOES OUT TO REMOVE CITY ROUNDABOUT

June 16, 2011 - 8:11am

The City Council is wasting no time in changing the Briarhill roundabout into a traffic-light junction.
City Councillors approved plans to change the roundabout at last Monday night's Council meeting and the Council advertised the tender for the work on Tuesday.[14/6]
The decision to remove the roundabout is part of a bigger plan to eventually change all the roundabouts along the N6 route through the city into signalised junctions.
The deadlines for expressions of interest in completing the work is the 8th of July.

dell1211

what_traffic wrote: »

True - but only because Cllr's voted to remove Briarhill/Lynch.

The argument made by City Hall executive was that unless Briarhill/Lynch Roundabout was "voted" to be removed last Monday by Cllr's they would not get this money from the NRA for the Urban Traffic Centre .
See link:
http://www.galwaynews.ie/19931-city-council-votes-remove-briarhill-roundabout
CITY COUNCIL VOTES TO REMOVE BRIARHILL ROUNDABOUT

June 14, 2011 - 8:14am
Galway City council has voted to remove the first of several city roundabouts and to replace it with a traffic light junction.
After lengthy debate on the controversial proposal last night, the majority of councillors voted to remove the Lynch, or Briarhill Roundabout once funding has been confirmed for an Urban Traffic Centre to manage the new system.
The National Transport Authority is expected to announce funding of quarter of a million euro for the centre within the next week or so.
FYI: See also
http://www.galwaynews.ie/19974-tender-goes-out-remove-city-roundabout
TENDER GOES OUT TO REMOVE CITY ROUNDABOUT

June 16, 2011 - 8:11am

The City Council is wasting no time in changing the Briarhill roundabout into a traffic-light junction.
City Councillors approved plans to change the roundabout at last Monday night's Council meeting and the Council advertised the tender for the work on Tuesday.[14/6]
The decision to remove the roundabout is part of a bigger plan to eventually change all the roundabouts along the N6 route through the city into signalised junctions.
The deadlines for expressions of interest in completing the work is the 8th of July.

Well then that makes changing the briarhill roundabout to traffic lights even more ridiculous. There are so many factories/offices in parkmore/ballybrit and they all start/finish at different times(day and night) that they will never be able to get one sequence that suits all.

Pure Sound

dell1211 wrote: »

Well then that makes changing the briarhill roundabout to traffic lights even more ridiculous. There are so many factories/offices in parkmore/ballybrit and they all start/finish at different times(day and night) that they will never be able to get one sequence that suits all.

Surely the sequences can be changed for different times of the day

Iwannahurl

dell1211 wrote: »

@Iwannahurl, you are like a broken record, you keep spouting the same anti car rubish(speeding, traffic lights, penalise motorists with points/sitting in traffic). If someone proposed dropping the speed limit of motorways to 15kph you would support it. I even see you are even anti truck, im sure in your anti everything but bus mind we dont need trucks either. You would be taken more seriously if you didnt get on the badwagon of every anti car post.

Nice Freudian typo that.

I'm a motorist meself.

Oh, and I'm not anti rational argument. Will that do?



EDIT:

dell1211 wrote: »

@Iwannahurl, ... I even see you are even anti truck.

Eh?





.

antoobrien

We Need Community wrote: »

Surely the sequences can be changed for different times of the day

they try that in dublin - it doesn't work

Iwannahurl

Robbo wrote: »

I wasn't aware there was an organised private car lobby, I would have thought that the closest thing we had to one was the AA.

If you read this weeks Sentinel, you'll see that official AA mouthpiece Conor Faughnan is in favour of the signalised junctions and welcomes the benefits that they'll bring to pedestrians and cyclists.

Perhaps you could clarify which particular windmills you're tilting at?

'Tilting at windmills' is your take on it, not mine.

I didn't make any direct or indirect reference to "an organised private car lobby".

To be sure I'm inclined to see the AA as having a commercial vested interest in advocating public policies that are pro-car and pro-motorist in nature. I wasn't thinking of them actually, and I didn't know that they had commented favourably on the traffic signal/AUTC proposal when I made my earlier comments. Now that I think of it, Conor Faughnan's comments support what I said myself: AUTCs improve traffic flow, including for cars.

When AUTCs include bus priority measures this has the effect of (a) improving the efficiency and reliability of bus services, thereby (b) making more road space available for essential car traffic by encouraging significant modal shift from private car use to bus use.

I'm not au fait with the roads engineering details, but AFAIK the key improvement for car traffic when an AUTC is up and running is that traffic flow (and bottlenecks) can be proactively managed in real-time. Roundabouts fail under certain peak traffic conditions and any snarl-ups cannot easily be dealt with. Centrally monitored traffic signal control seems to be the best solution. IMO a recent suggestion in this thread that traffic wardens be deployed to roundabouts at peak times is just plain daft! Traffic trickles through congested uncontrolled roundabouts whereas in an AUTC-controlled signalised environment groups of cars are managed in "platoons".

The car lobby, as I see it, consists of motorists themselves campaigning individually but also through de facto groups such as workers in individual firms. Some lobbying was done via this route.

Perhaps the foremost cheerleader for the promotion, facilitation and "welcoming" of private car use -- including those who "want", "prefer" and "like" as well as "need" to use the car -- is the Chamber of Commerce.

galwayroads

Iwannahurl wrote: »

'Tilting at windmills' is your take on it, not mine.

I didn't make any direct or indirect reference to "an organised private car lobby".

To be sure I'm inclined to see the AA as having a commercial vested interest in advocating public policies that are pro-car and pro-motorist in nature. I wasn't thinking of them actually, and I didn't know that they had commented favourably on the traffic signal/AUTC proposal when I made my earlier comments. Now that I think of it, Conor Faughnan's comments support what I said myself: AUTCs improve traffic flow, including for cars.

When AUTCs include bus priority measures this has the effect of (a) improving the efficiency and reliability of bus services, thereby (b) making more road space available for essential car traffic by encouraging significant modal shift from private car use to bus use.

I'm not au fait with the roads engineering details, but AFAIK the key improvement for car traffic when an AUTC is up and running is that traffic flow (and bottlenecks) can be proactively managed in real-time. Roundabouts fail under certain peak traffic conditions and any snarl-ups cannot easily be dealt with. Centrally monitored traffic signal control seems to be the best solution. IMO a recent suggestion in this thread that traffic wardens be deployed to roundabouts at peak times is just plain daft! Traffic trickles through congested uncontrolled roundabouts whereas in an AUTC-controlled signalised environment groups of cars are managed in "platoons".

The car lobby, as I see it, consists of motorists themselves campaigning individually but also through de facto groups such as workers in individual firms. Some councillors were lobbied via this route.

Perhaps the foremost cheerleader for the promotion, facilitation and "welcoming" of private car use -- including those who "want", "prefer" and "like" as well as "need" to use the car -- is the Chamber of Commerce.

Why do you keep going on about buses being the answer to galways traffic problems? The only ones who can even avail of buses are the ones who happen to live on the bus route to their workplace (and many of these will still take their car instead). Everyone else in the city has to drive. Everyone coming in from outside the city has to drive.

Replacing roundabouts with junctions is not going to see a huge shift from cars to buses. It will have basically no effect as people have to drive to get to work.