Temp ban on general traffic threads

Discodog

Iwannahurl wrote: »

"... one coach can replace up to 30 cars while taking up the road capacity of only three cars."

It's a neat way of pointing out the value of reallocating road space to public transport.

Will the coach driver mind taking my trailer & tools :rolleyes: ?

Iwannahurl

Doc Ruby wrote: »

...which would work great if cars only ran along bus routes, or if buses traversed every single road and side street in the area. Urban planning: its trickier than catchy soundbites make it seem.

I doubt there's a city in the world, however well-served with public transport, where buses go on "every single road and side street".

Buses are much more efficient movers of people, in terms of energy use, road space, CO2 emissions etc. That's not a soundbite, just a simple fact.

Furthermore, this higher relative efficiency kicks in at a fairly low level of passenger occupancy.



.

Iwannahurl

Discodog wrote: »

Will the coach driver mind taking my trailer & tools :rolleyes: ?

Plus all those vast numbers of people having heart attacks and babies simultaneously?

Doc Ruby

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I doubt there's a city in the world, however well-served with public transport, where buses go on "every single road and side street".

Buses are much more efficient movers of people, in terms of energy use, road space, CO2 emissions etc. That's not a soundbite, just a simple fact.

Furthermore, this higher relative efficiency kicks in at a fairly low level of passenger occupancy.

You're missing the point; buses are only of use to those who haven't got cars. And even they will regularly encounter situations where they will need or want to use cars. Ergo, they will mostly eventually get cars.

People do have heart attacks and babies (and need to carry a week's load of shopping for a family of five), whether or not Galway local authority acknowledges the fact, sticking your fingers in your ears and trying to ignore or discourage driving is making things worse for everyone, end of story.

This Buses are much more efficient movers of people is exactly what I'm talking about. Buses are only efficient movers of people between a very limited set of points, and only a limited set of people. You can stick to your guns as long as you like but it won't change the reality.

Iwannahurl

Doc Ruby wrote: »

You're missing the point; buses are only of use to those who haven't got cars. And even they will regularly encounter situations where they will need or want to use cars. Ergo, they will mostly eventually get cars.

People do have heart attacks and babies (and need to carry a week's load of shopping for a family of five), whether or not Galway local authority acknowledges the fact, sticking your fingers in your ears and trying to ignore or discourage driving is making things worse for everyone, end of story.

This Buses are much more efficient movers of people is exactly what I'm talking about. Buses are only efficient movers of people between a very limited set of points, and only a limited set of people. You can stick to your guns as long as you like but it won't change the reality.

Demonstrably incorrect.

I have two "babies", a car and a shed full of well-equipped bikes. Both IWH and IWH-OH use the bus, and yes we use all transport modes at various times to carry varying amounts of shopping.

People may desire to use private cars (the scale of single-occupant car use even on short walkable trips shows this) but the relative energy/road-space efficiency of buses remains a fact.

Doc Ruby

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Demonstrably incorrect.

I have two "babies", a car and a shed full of well-equipped bikes. Both IWH and IWH-OH use the bus, and yes we use all transport modes at various times to carry varying amounts of shopping.

Sure wheel out a few more anecdotes, they still won't be data. Sill, when the outer bypass gets built as a result of the shambles made of the city road networks, you'll have that much more space to enjoy your shopping.

Oh and incidentally, have the lesser lights in the local authority copped that a respectable part of the Irish economy revolves around cars? Thats why all the scrappage schemes. So even in the unlikely event that their hell for leather scuttle towards a carless future, with a place for everything and everything in its place works, they'll be down quite a lot of money.

Forward planning from the people who gave half the city crypto despite the money for a treatment plant being available years eariler? Its less likely than you think.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

the relative energy/road-space efficiency of buses remains a fact.

Only if you're bent on ignoring lots of other facts. Which makes it not a fact.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It's just a wee quiz.

Really - it looked a bit more serious earlier -or will you deny having posted this:

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Speaking of much maligned buses and coaches, here's a quiz on the International Road Transport Union website:

http://www.iru.org/en_dyk_2009?quiz_id=2#quiz

Post your score here. (I got two wrong, by underestimating)

I love their answer to question 5. Must remember to quote it again.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

For the record, this is the bit I like (and which led me to that little bit of IRTU PR): "... one coach can replace up to 30 cars while taking up the road capacity of only three cars."

Actually all 3 answers are potentially correct - so no answer is "correct" per say.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It's a neat way of pointing out the value of reallocating road space to public transport.

So a "quiz" that's rigged by an organisation that promotes the use or roads, comparing in 3 forms of public transport, is somehow pointing out the value of reallocating road space? It reads more like an attack on rail and airport investment.


Oh yeah, you still haven't answered this:

what_traffic wrote: »

Iwannahurl - you have not explained what you believe the learner truck driver should do in this situation? plus I cannot see anything wrong with antoobrien statement.
"
No, from IWH's POV common sense is not allowed and everybody has to wait for the bus regardless of the fact that the bus will be parked for a bit.
"

Discodog

The harder you make it for people to drive into town the more people that will shop online or go to their nearest out of town centre. Hopefully if the new Tesco goes ahead then us in the West won't need to venture into town very often. The same will apply for those living in the east & eventually you kill all the retail businesses in the city.

You can use buses sometimes but you have to have a proper, efficient, cheap park & ride system because most of the users will have to drive some of the journey. I believe that Galway councillors visited Oxford. If so then they need to put a park & ride carpark to the west of the city.

The other factor, which seems to be ignored, is that it is much quicker to drive through town than around the ring.

Iwannahurl

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Sure wheel out a few more anecdotes, they still won't be data. Sill, when the outer bypass gets built as a result of the shambles made of the city road networks, you'll have that much more space to enjoy your shopping.

Oh and incidentally, have the lesser lights in the local authority copped that a respectable part of the Irish economy revolves around cars? Thats why all the scrappage schemes. So even in the unlikely event that their hell for leather scuttle towards a carless future, with a place for everything and everything in its place works, they'll be down quite a lot of money.

Forward planning from the people who gave half the city crypto despite the money for a treatment plant being available years eariler? Its less likely than you think.

Only if you're bent on ignoring lots of other facts. Which makes it not a fact.

Can you point to some data to support your claims that buses are "only of use to those who haven't got cars" but "would work great if cars only ran along bus routes" or "traversed every single road and side street"?

Scepticism of the Cryptocracy in City Hall is indeed well justified, though that does not undermine the well-established case for more and better public transport.

You're also correct in your observation that our societies are now car-dependent, and our economies oil-dependent, on a huge scale, though in a city the size of Galway much car use is over distances suited to other modes of travel.

We're just back from a 3-month stint in Melbourne. The planners there, in their wisdom, have contrived to create massive low-density urban sprawl over many decades, adding another 86,000 hectares only recently IIRC. I read somewhere that the sprawl is currently as much as 100 km across. The result, not surprisingly, is massive car use. 90% of trips are made by car, despite the presence of tram, train and bus networks (the first two of which we used frequently, in addition to driving).

They have thus cemented themselves into long-term car dependence, and they're still adding to it. They love their cars and they love their sprawl; there's barely a major road in the city that doesn't feature a huge car sales emporium, with flags flying and bunting streaming (though I didn't notice many Irish-style Carthedrals).

In developed and developing economies the Pandora's Box of private transportation is well and truly open, that's for sure. Based as it is at present on hugely inefficient heat engines, the private transport culture is of course unsustainable. However, I imagine that in the short to medium term the main change, if any, will be the nature of the power plant in the private transportation vehicles.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Can you point to some data to support your claims that buses are "only of use to those who haven't got cars" but "would work great if cars only ran along bus routes" or "traversed every single road and side street"?

Dublin bus and the arguments against the route changes that started last year.

The outcry wasn't from car owners.....

Mrs OBumble

Doc Ruby wrote: »

People do have heart attacks and babies (and need to carry a week's load of shopping for a family of five), whether or not Galway local authority acknowledges the fact, sticking your fingers in your ears and trying to ignore or discourage driving is making things worse for everyone, end of story.

A person who's having a heart attack or a baby needs an ambulance, not a car. And that ambulance needs a clear-ish road, not one full of private cars.

A person with impaired mobility because they've had a heart attack would usually be better off in a taxi that drops them off at the door and then goes away without having to be parked. The reduced stress associated with not driving will probably be good for them too.

A person with lots of children (or elderly relatives) or who lives in Bally-bogville miles from the nearest town) may need a private vehicle to get around - and this is indeed why some private cars need to be on the raod.

Tesco's and Dunnes delivery trucks do a very efficient job of delivering a week's shopping for a family of five. And for those things that they don't sell, it's a lot easier to get a taxi to pick you up at the shop than it is to carry heavy packages half-way down the street to a car-park.

There are recreational facilities that are only accessible by car - and the occasional rental car is a well deserved treat, but not needed every week.



I owned a car for almost 20 years, and do miss the convenience of having one at my door. But not enough to fork out the extra expense of having one while living in the inner city. And if I moved to the suburbs, there's no way I'd be driving to work every day.

antoobrien

JustMary wrote: »

A person who's having a heart attack or a baby needs an ambulance, not a car.

Bearing in mind there are only 3/4 on at any time in Galway (and if you're unlucky enough to have a problem during shift change one 1) sometimes there's no alternative. Plus, if you say had a broken arm (or another urgent but not critical case that normally doesn't require an ambulance) would you want to be on a bus?

Still wanna wait for the cab or bus?

Doc Ruby

Iwannahurl wrote: »

In developed and developing economies the Pandora's Box of private transportation is well and truly open, that's for sure. Based as it is at present on hugely inefficient heat engines, the private transport culture is of course unsustainable. However, I imagine that in the short to medium term the main change, if any, will be the nature of the power plant in the private transportation vehicles.

This is interesting. You appear to be opposed to private transportation as a concept rather than cars as such. Why would that be? I mean you do realise that within a couple of decades the only things on the road will be zero emission electric vehicles, right? At which point the ongoing shenanigans of 2012 are going to look pretty silly.

Not that looking silly would be a new situation for the local authority. Or indeed looking like workshy jobsworths on a mission to save us from ourselves by apparently polluting the water supply.

JustMary wrote: »

A person with lots of children (or elderly relatives) or who lives in Bally-bogville miles from the nearest town) may need a private vehicle to get around - and this is indeed why some private cars need to be on the raod.

What does need have to do with it? A car can be bought and operated freely by anyone with a licence, trying to passive aggressive people into using buses is just going to lead to a lot more waste and angry people than otherwise.

Particularly when such large question marks hang over the outer bypass, which I have no doubt will be built one way or the other.

Mrs OBumble

Doc Ruby wrote: »

What does need have to do with it? A car can be bought and operated freely by anyone with a licence, trying to passive aggressive people into using buses is just going to lead to a lot more waste and angry people than otherwise.

Particularly when such large question marks hang over the outer bypass, which I have no doubt will be built one way or the other.

Ahh, not quite.

A car may be operated by anyone who has
1) Passed various tests and paid fees to get a license
2) Paid for insurance
3) Paid the road-tax
4) Not experienced a range of medical problems within certain timeframes.
5) Not imbibed more than certain mind-altering substances within certain timeframes / biological limits (drink, drugs etc)

Even then, there are a LOT of laws governing how they may use it. It's a LONG way from "operated freely", and it's certainly not a right.

You might be surprised at just how many people in society cannot drive, or are not allowed to do so. That is part of the reason why we need effective public transport.

Social design that limits private car use to those who really need it, and provides viable options for the rest, is better for the community and the environment in lots of ways, including requiring less of the countryside to be allocated to roading (no links, but I've been told that we have one of the highest ratios of roads to landmass in Europe).

If/when the outer bypass is built, then I firmly expect that car numbers will grow rapidly to fill the space available. That said, I am in favour of another decent-sized bridge over the Corrib - only having one is very risky for the city in terms of infrastructure.

Mrs OBumble

antoobrien wrote: »

Bearing in mind there are only 3/4 on at any time in Galway (and if you're unlucky enough to have a problem during shift change one 1) sometimes there's no alternative. Plus, if you say had a broken arm (or another urgent but not critical case that normally doesn't require an ambulance) would you want to be on a bus?

Still wanna wait for the cab or bus?

Ahh, in my house, there is only one licensed driver. If I had a broken arm, then there's no way in hell that I'd be driving anywhere

So yes, I would be waiting for a cab either way. Don't see it as a problem, TBH, keeps people employed, reduced parking problems and overall environmental impact of cars.

Iwannahurl

Doc Ruby wrote: »

This is interesting. You appear to be opposed to private transportation as a concept rather than cars as such. Why would that be? I mean you do realise that within a couple of decades the only things on the road will be zero emission electric vehicles, right? At which point the ongoing shenanigans of 2012 are going to look pretty silly.

Not that looking silly would be a new situation for the local authority. Or indeed looking like workshy jobsworths on a mission to save us from ourselves by apparently polluting the water supply.

What does need have to do with it? A car can be bought and operated freely by anyone with a licence, trying to passive aggressive people into using buses is just going to lead to a lot more waste and angry people than otherwise.

Particularly when such large question marks hang over the outer bypass, which I have no doubt will be built one way or the other.

To repeat:

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I imagine that in the short to medium term the main change, if any, will be the nature of the power plant in the private transportation vehicles.

Our land use and transportation policies have been on an unsustainable trajectory for quite a while now. Changing the power plant in personal transportation vehicles may not make a big enough difference in the long term, particularly if the number of such vehicles continues to grow.

In any case, road space is finite, and bear in mind that in current circumstances a large proportion of car trips are single occupant only. Building more and more roads primarily to accommodate such unsustainability is pure folly.

What does need have to do with it? Here's one take on that.

Chief economist of the International Energy Agency, Fatih Birol, said last year that although "we’re not running out of oil today or tomorrow" we have to prepare ourselves for the day that we do and so we "need to leave oil before it leaves us".

His statement was made in the context of the 2011 World Energy Outlook report, which warned that unless drastic action is taken to curb CO2 emissions the world is on a "dangerous track" within our lifetimes to a potentially catastrophic temperature rise well in excess of the globally agreed 2°C.

Try and "passive aggressive" your way out of that.

Iwannahurl

JustMary wrote: »

A car may be operated by anyone who has

3) Paid the road-tax

Careful now!

It's Motor Tax.

Doc Ruby

JustMary wrote: »

Ahh, not quite.

A car may be operated by anyone who has
1) Passed various tests and paid fees to get a license
2) Paid for insurance
3) Paid the road-tax
4) Not experienced a range of medical problems within certain timeframes.
5) Not imbibed more than certain mind-altering substances within certain timeframes / biological limits (drink, drugs etc)

Even then, there are a LOT of laws governing how they may use it. It's a LONG way from "operated freely", and it's certainly not a right.

You might be surprised at just how many people in society cannot drive, or are not allowed to do so. That is part of the reason why we need effective public transport.

No amount of pedantry will make you right, you know. Sure you may as well quote the whole rules of the road for all the difference it makes to the point.

JustMary wrote: »

Social design that limits private car use to those who really need it

And we come to the heart of the matter.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Changing the power plant in personal transportation vehicles may not make a big enough difference in the long term, particularly if the number of such vehicles continues to grow.

Whoops. So tell me, how are any number of cars produced in an environmentally conscious manner and powered by say wind turbines environmentally destructive? They aren't, is the correct answer. Therefore either you aren't really bothered about the environment or you don't understand what you're talking about. In the former case I'd be fascinated to hear your actual reasoning, and in the latter I can only advise further study.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

unsustainability

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Try and "passive aggressive" your way out of that.

No need, its irrelevant to my point. Actually it supports my point.

I love digging under the petty bickering and point scoring and getting right down to the real motivation behind antisocial behaviour masquerading as moral crusades.

Iwannahurl

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Whoops. So tell me, how are any number of cars produced in an environmentally conscious manner and powered by say wind turbines environmentally destructive? They aren't, is the correct answer. Therefore either you aren't really bothered about the environment or you don't understand what you're talking about. In the former case I'd be fascinated to hear your actual reasoning, and in the latter I can only advise further study.

You keep using that word [un/sustainable]. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I love digging under the petty bickering and point scoring and getting right down to the real motivation behind antisocial behaviour masquerading as moral crusades.

1. For example:

Iwannahurl wrote: »

In any case, road space is finite, and bear in mind that in current circumstances a large proportion of car trips are single occupant only. Building more and more roads primarily to accommodate such unsustainability is pure folly.

2. What do you think (un)sustainable means?

3. So what exactly is (a) the "real motivation", (b) the "antisocial behaviour" you refer to, and (c) that which is "masquerading as moral crusades"? And by the way, is Fatih Birol, as quoted above, engaging in antisocial behaviour and moral crusading when he advocates mass transport as a method of curbing carbon emissions?

Doc Ruby

Iwannahurl wrote: »

3. So what exactly is (a) the "real motivation", (b) the "antisocial behaviour" you refer to, and (c) that which is "masquerading as moral crusades"?

Not just antisocial but actively illegal, in fact. If authorised drivers are being deliberately hindered in going about their lawful business, costing them time and money, that's all sorts of criminal.

Oh, bet that put the smile on the other side of your face.

So what exactly is (a) the "real motivation" -> "In the former case I'd be fascinated to hear your actual reasoning"

Iwannahurl wrote: »

And by the way, is Fatih Birol, as quoted above, engaging in antisocial behaviour and moral crusading when he advocates mass transport as a method of curbing carbon emissions?

There. Are. No. Carbon. Emissions. To. Curb. With. Electric. Renewable. Vehicles. Its clearly gone beyond reason into fetishism with some people. It wouldn't matter if cars were made of the laughter of dolphins and powered by gaia, they would still be evil apparently.

What's worrying is some of these nuts are obviously behind the wheel at the local authority.

Iwannahurl

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Not just antisocial but actively illegal, in fact. If authorised drivers are being deliberately hindered in going about their lawful business, costing them time and money, that's all sorts of criminal.

Oh, bet that put the smile on the other side of your face.

Oh it made me smile all right. And it's put me to bed. I think I get the picture now.

Mrs OBumble

Doc Ruby wrote: »

I love digging under the petty bickering and point scoring and getting right down to the real motivation behind antisocial behaviour masquerading as moral crusades.

It's hard to think of anything more anti-social that having individual drivers sitting along in their small metal / plastic boxes, all headed to the same large car-park. Except perhaps the impact of an individual-car focussed system on the surprising large number of people who cannot drive themselves around.

But seriously ... thanks for the laugh ... the idea that implementing demand-management strategies that reduce the amount of land needed for roading is "anti-social" has had me chucking for most of the day.

Discodog

JustMary wrote: »

It's hard to think of anything more anti-social that having individual drivers sitting along in their small metal / plastic boxes, all headed to the same large car-park. Except perhaps the impact of an individual-car focussed system on the surprising large number of people who cannot drive themselves around.

Where I live, to the West of Galway, there are thousands of households & an irregular, infrequent bus service. It is very antisocial to say to these people that they can't use their cars especially after they have had to pay a fortune to own them.

If, when we are sitting in the traffic jams, we see bus loads of people going by together with lots of cyclists & walkers then maybe the roadworks will of been justified. A more likely scenario is that we will see a half empty infrequent bus & the occasional cyclist or pedestrian who will be spoilt for choice with the vast area allocated to them. Meanwhile huge areas will of been wasted. At the same time we will be diverting through town & causing even more pollution.

Then we have all the people who are not visiting Galway but have to pass through it & get stuck in the mess. The time to do these road "improvements" is after a bypass is built & not before.

Iwannahurl

JustMary wrote: »

It's hard to think of anything more anti-social that having individual drivers sitting along in their small metal / plastic boxes, all headed to the same large car-park. Except perhaps the impact of an individual-car focussed system on the surprising large number of people who cannot drive themselves around.

But seriously ... thanks for the laugh ... the idea that implementing demand-management strategies that reduce the amount of land needed for roading is "anti-social" has had me chucking for most of the day.

Not just antisocial but actively illegal.

In fact.

Iwannahurl

Discodog wrote: »

Where I live, to the West of Galway, there are thousands of households & an irregular, infrequent bus service. It is very antisocial to say to these people that they can't use their cars especially after they have had to pay a fortune to own them.

If, when we are sitting in the traffic jams, we see bus loads of people going by together with lots of cyclists & walkers then maybe the roadworks will of been justified. A more likely scenario is that we will see a half empty infrequent bus & the occasional cyclist or pedestrian who will be spoilt for choice with the vast area allocated to them. Meanwhile huge areas will of been wasted. At the same time we will be diverting through town & causing even more pollution.

Then we have all the people who are not visiting Galway but have to pass through it & get stuck in the mess. The time to do these road "improvements" is after a bypass is built & not before.

1. Without divulging personal information, can you be a little more specific regarding where "to the West of Galway, there are thousands of households & an irregular, infrequent bus service"?

2. What is the relevance of the cost of ones motor? If I pay a fortune for a high-end car like this beauty, say, does that confer on me a right to a higher Level of Service in terms of infrastructure than a pedestrian or bus user?

3. There are far more than "occasional" pedestrians, cyclists or bus users in Galway, especially when it comes to commuting into the city centre and locations such as NUIG. In the Irish context, Galway already holds its own with regard to modal share for cycling and walking. The (former) #9 bus route, which may well feature "half empty" buses running late, is one of the most successful in the entire country in terms of passenger numbers. Should these commuters, who contribute nothing to traffic congestion and in fact alleviate it, be forced to accept a lower Level of Service just because they haven't "paid a fortune" to own a car, or indeed own a car but choose to travel by other means?

4. Should commuters currently travelling by means other than the private car, and who therefore contribute nothing to traffic congestion, be forced to accept a lower Level of Service for years until a Bypass is constructed? Why should they have to wait, when they are already part of the solution and not part of the problem?

Mrs OBumble

Discodog wrote: »

Where I live, to the West of Galway, there are thousands of households & an irregular, infrequent bus service. It is very antisocial to say to these people that they can't use their cars especially after they have had to pay a fortune to own them.

No one's saying that they can't use their cars, or preventing anyone from going about their lawful business.

But if public funds are to be used, then there are sound reasons why they should be used on demand-management strategies, rather than on more roads.

It's pretty clear that building more roads has one simple consequence - more traffic.

So the solution to the situation you've described is pretty simple: more public transport - and more jobs within walking / biking distance of those thousands of households.

Discodog

Iwannahurl wrote: »

1. Without divulging personal information, can you be a little more specific regarding where "to the West of Galway, there are thousands of households & an irregular, infrequent bus service"?

The area between Barna & Lettermullen has a surprising number of households that are totally car dependant. You can use buses provided that you work a normal day & work in the centre of town. But you will need the car for your daily groceries, taking your kids to school as well as running your business.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

2. What is the relevance of the cost of ones motor? If I pay a fortune for a high-end car like this beauty, say, does that confer on me a right to a higher Level of Service in terms of infrastructure than a pedestrian or bus user?

The cost of the vehicle is irrelevant. It is the running costs which include paying huge sums to the government & local authority. If you added it all up including fuel duty, vat etc it costs a fortune.

Yes I think that if people are charged they should receive something in return.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

3. There are far more than "occasional" pedestrians, cyclists or bus users in Galway, especially when it comes to commuting into the city centre and locations such as NUIG. ?

I have already said that if I see loads of full buses & lots of pedestrains/cyclists then I may feel that all the expense & huge disruption might of been worth it. But to-date every time that I have used that route I see very few. Also as a part time cyclist & pedestrian I would prefer to cycle & walk through the back streets rather than along a busy main road - it's also a lot shorter.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

4. Should commuters currently travelling by means other than the private car, and who therefore contribute nothing to traffic congestion, be forced to accept a lower Level of Service for years until a Bypass is constructed? Why should they have to wait, when they are already part of the solution and not part of the problem?

No not in an ideal world but we are in the middle of a huge recession. Outside of the rush hour I wonder how full those buses will be.

JustMary wrote: »

No one's saying that they can't use their cars, or preventing anyone from going about their lawful business.

But if public funds are to be used, then there are sound reasons why they should be used on demand-management strategies, rather than on more roads.

It's pretty clear that building more roads has one simple consequence - more traffic.

So the solution to the situation you've described is pretty simple: more public transport - and more jobs within walking / biking distance of those thousands of households.

No but what they are doing is making the use of business vehicles prohibitively expensive especially in the time taken to complete a journey. I turn down work every week because it isn't economically viable to cross the city.

Are you suggesting that once a bypass is built that more Galway county residents will go out & buy cars ? You can't have local jobs because no business will open where it can take ages to cover a few miles. The normal pattern is that cities build proper fast ring roads & then employers open up on the periphery. You can't cover rural Connemara in factories.

But you are both ignoring the fact that Galway is a through point so a lot of traffic that has to pass through Galway doesn't want to be there. By slowly grinding the city to a halt you affect thousands who live in Clifden, Mayo etc. You also end up dividing the city so that supermarkets, diy's etc have to open multiple branches to allow their customer to reach them.

I have lost count of the number of shops & businesses that I used to support where I now use the internet. A proper park & ride would work & I would use it when I didn't need the vehicle with me. I thought that Galway were copying Oxford but now they seem to be doing it in a half arsed way. The road that leads into Oxford, from the West, is far narrower than ours but the buses run super fast - they even have a system that changes the lights as the bus approaches.

Make the cost low & the service efficient & people will use it. There is plenty of commercial land around Knocknacara for a park & ride carpark.

Sponge Bob

Discodog wrote: »

But you are both ignoring the fact that Galway is a through point so a lot of traffic that has to pass through Galway doesn't want to be there. By slowly grinding the city to a halt you affect thousands who live in Clifden, Mayo etc. You also end up dividing the city so that supermarkets, diy's etc have to open multiple branches to allow their customer to reach them.

I made that point many times but seemingly the answer is that there aren't enough bicycles in Connemara.

Discodog

When I drive through the roadworks it reminds me of Eyre Square. Loads of concrete that no one wanted or needed.

Iwannahurl

Sponge Bob wrote: »

I made that point many times but seemingly the answer is that there aren't enough bicycles in Connemara.

Quote the key post(s) making that exact claim.

The reality is that there is no bypass and there will be no bypass for several years.

The questions remain:

As we spend years waiting for Godot GCOB, should Galway City commuters currently travelling by means other than the private car, and who therefore contribute nothing to traffic congestion, be forced to accept a lower Level of Service?

Why should they have to wait, when they are already part of the solution and not part of the problem?