Council to ban cars from O'Briens & Salmon Weir bridge, and 7 streets

Anne Handsome Sawhorse

Anne Handsome Sawhorse wrote: »

A large number of people who shop and work in Galway city are from the county it is simply unacceptable to stop these people using their cars to get around the city to do their business and/or get to work.

Park and ride etc are nothing but a waste of time and major inconviene so don't even suggest this as an option. People who live in the county are entitled to use the city the same as people who live there and to do so with out major inconvience.

Which is it, work everyday (for which a regular park and ride is no good for you because that's the why!) or the occasional shop for which you just can't be arsed using anything but your wheels? It's fine, you don't like the idea, grand, but, don't for a second, presume to speak for others.

Entitlement doesn't come into the equation. It's simple maths. You can only fit so many people on a route. Cars, the lowest amount, all other forms of transport, far higher.

Personally, and I say this as someone who lives outside the city but works in it, I was over the moon when I saw this proposal. Finally some bold thinking. Will it fix everything, no. Will it improve the commuting experience of a large volume of people, yes.

Park and rides, when done properly and permanently, a la Luas at the Red Cow, work fantastically well. Speaking of which, the last 4 times I was in Dublin I parked at the Red Cow, got the Luas in and used Dublin Bikes to get around. The biggest complaint I had was about the fumes of vehicles.

Bobeagleburger

The park and ride facilities would need to be very high standard. I (and I suspect many others) just don't trust the authorities to implement it properly.

flatty

Any news on the western bypass road?
Do people think it will ever actually go ahead?

Bobeagleburger

flatty wrote: »

Any news on the western bypass road?
Do people think it will ever actually go ahead?

I would say it'll be in place by 2030

Mrs OBumble

John_Rambo wrote: »

Drama aside, I think Galway could be the first car-less city in Ireland. Perfect for it. Everything is walkable or cycleable, streets are small and snarled up by cars anyway. The roads could be cleared to enable elderly and less healthy people to get around via e-vehicle or public transport.

What is the difference between a car and an e-vehicle?

Bobeagleburger

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

What is the difference between a car and an e-vehicle?

One emits fumes and the other doesn't

Or is this some sort of in-joke I'm missing

Discodog

RoboKlopp wrote: »

The park and ride facilities would need to be very high standard. I (and I suspect many others) just don't trust the authorities to implement it properly.

I believe they visited Oxford where it works very well but I agree about trust. I always drive through the city because it's quicker. Part of making a park & ride work is very expensive parking & slow speeds for cars. It's fine if there is an alternative - Oxford has a dual carriageway ring road.

Plus people living in the city will have to pay more for tradesmen, services etc as we are forced to pay to drive in. You can't take tools & supplies on a bus.

John_Rambo

Anne Handsome Sawhorse wrote: »

A large number of people who shop and work in Galway city are from the county it is simply unacceptable to stop these people using their cars to get around the city to do their business and/or get to work.

Park and ride etc are nothing but a waste of time and major inconviene so don't even suggest this as an option. People who live in the county are entitled to use the city the same as people who live there and to do so with out major inconvience.

Large numbers of people who shop and work in every city are not from the city and it's perfectly acceptable to expect them to use park and ride facilities and bicycles to free up the city of cars. It's not viable to let certain people drive in to the cities because of where they choose to live! That's Michael Healy Ray stuff.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

What is the difference between a car and an e-vehicle?

Seriously? Not sure if you're being obtuse or you're really that ignorant of various different transport modes. I'll enlighten you anyway.

A traditional car is powered by a combustion engine which is fueled by diesel or petrol. They emit unhealthy fumes. Lots of them in a city is unhealthy, particularly when there's usually just one person in each car. That's why cities are moving to get rid of cars in a lot of countries. And it will happen here to.

An E-vehicle, be it a tram, train, car or bike is powered by electricity and they don't emit unhealthy or dangerous fumes.

There's lots of info online if you're still confused.

Bobeagleburger

Discodog wrote: »

I believe they visited Oxford where it works very well but I agree about trust. I always drive through the city because it's quicker. Part of making a park & ride work is very expensive parking & slow speeds for cars. It's fine if there is an alternative - Oxford has a dual carriageway ring road.

Plus people living in the city will have to pay more for tradesmen, services etc as we are forced to pay to drive in. You can't take tools & supplies on a bus.

The vast majority would love to avoid the city if they could imo.

Closing the streets would be the easy part. Providing viable alternatives is where it will inevitably fall down.

John_Rambo

RoboKlopp wrote: »

The vast majority would love to avoid the city if they could imo.

The vast majority levitate to the cities, not in anyone's opinion, but in reality. Galway is a cracking, vibrant, cultural hub and people love it. You may not, but most do.

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Closing the streets would be the easy part. Providing viable alternatives is where it will inevitably fall down.

Opening the streets is what happens when cars are taken out of the equation. Look at Shop Street, even the die hard car-reliant ruralites admit to loving it, frequenting it to shop and socialise on it. But you're right. Providing viable alternatives needs to be done correctly.

Mrs OBumble

John_Rambo wrote: »

Seriously? Not sure if you're being obtuse or you're really that ignorant of various different transport modes. I'll enlighten you anyway.

A traditional car is powered by a combustion engine which is fueled by diesel or petrol. They emit unhealthy fumes. Lots of them in a city is unhealthy, particularly when there's usually just one person in each car. That's why cities are moving to get rid of cars in a lot of countries. And it will happen here to.

An E-vehicle, be it a tram, train, car or bike is powered by electricity and they don't emit unhealthy or dangerous fumes.

So is a Nissan Leaf (to pick one example) an e-vehicle, or a car? Should it be banned or not? After all, it's an individual metal box, which takes up a fair bit of road space, caused congestion and need to be parked. That would suggest banning it.

But it's not as polluting, so your logic suggests not banning it. However if it's not banned, then don't cyclists and pedestrians still face the same problems as they do now? (Possibly worse once, since's there's less aural feedback from electric-powered vehicles, so it's easier to miss that one is coming up behind you.)

John_Rambo

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

So is a Nissan Leaf (to pick one example) an e-vehicle, or a car? Should it be banned or not? After all, it's an individual metal box, which takes up a fair bit of road space, caused congestion and need to be parked. That would suggest banning it

OK.. I see you’re not ignorant, you’re being obtuse and pretending not to read my posts to try and fine holes that aren’t there.

This is what I said.

John_Rambo wrote: »

I think Galway could be the first car-less city in Ireland. Perfect for it. Everything is walkable or cycleable, streets are small and snarled up by cars anyway. The roads could be cleared to enable elderly and less healthy people to get around via e-vehicle or public transport.

Elderly and less healthy people (special needs, or wheelchair users and the like) could get around via e-vehicle or public transport. That means, a tram, a train, a buggy, or an electric car.

So, cars will be still banned, but people with special needs should be provided for.

what_traffic

John_Rambo wrote: »

So, cars will be still banned, but people with special needs should be provided for.

Only on the Bridge itself. It is not so much banning cars - but banning through car traffic on the Salmon Weir Bridge. It is a first step, but would change the usage of roads in the vicinity of the Bridge itself.

John_Rambo

what_traffic wrote: »

Only on the Bridge itself. It is not so much banning cars - but banning through car traffic on the Salmon Weir Bridge. It is a first step, but would change the usage of roads in the vicinity of the Bridge itself.

Sorry... You're right, It should read If cars are to be banned people with special needs should be provided for.

what_traffic

John_Rambo wrote: »

Sorry... You're right, It should read If cars are to be banned people with special needs should be provided for.

Just by cutting out all that through CAR traffic - people who need cars for mobility will find access to the City Centre easier but need more on street car parking spaces in the City Centre to be converted into BLUE car parking spaces and then also for law to be actually enforced in terms of correct usage.

Mrs OBumble

what_traffic wrote: »

Just by cutting out all that through CAR traffic - people who need cars for mobility will find access to the City Centre easier but need more on street car parking spaces in the City Centre to be converted into BLUE car parking spaces and then also for law to be actually enforced in terms of correct usage.

Did you know that BLUE spaces are only available for people with long term mobility problems - expected to be for six months or longer? So people with a broken leg or whatever are out of luck.

I'm not convinced that there's a lack of such spaces: I live near a street where there are already three of them, and they've generally empty.

John_Rambo

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Did you know that BLUE spaces are only available for people with long term mobility problems - expected to be for six months or longer? So people with a broken leg or whatever are out of luck.

People with a broken leg or whatever are out of luck generally and they certainly wouldn’t be driving with broken legs, arms or necks. I really don’t know what you’re trying to say.

When I was on crutches I had to rely on public transport instead of driving.

You objections and points about injuries, e-cars, regular cars etc… are unbelievably childish. I’m not sure if you’re trolling.

?Cee?view

John_Rambo wrote: »

People with a broken leg or whatever are out of luck generally and they certainly wouldn’t be driving with broken legs, arms or necks. I really don’t know what you’re trying to say.

When I was on crutches I had to rely on public transport instead of driving.

You objections and points about injuries, e-cars, regular cars etc… are unbelievably childish. I’m not sure if you’re trolling.

Would you consider taking on board the opinions rather than attacking the poster? The group think is strong here. Cars bad; all else is good; the town will be better with limited vehicular access - and anyone that disagrees is stupid, obtuse or a troll...

John_Rambo

?Cee?view wrote: »

Would you consider taking on board the opinions rather than attacking the poster? The group think is strong here. Cars bad; all else is good; the town will be better with limited vehicular access - and anyone that disagrees is stupid, obtuse or a troll...

Eh, I've suggested limited vehicular access for special needs and just one person is accused of the above, not "anyone"!

?Cee?view

John_Rambo wrote: »

Eh, I've suggested limited vehicular access for special needs and just one person is accused of the above, not "anyone"!

I think you'll find that many can't be bothered engaging when they see the reaction someone with a contrary view gets. And no, I've no stats, links or data to back that up. It's a personal opinion.

McTigs

John_Rambo wrote: »

People with a broken leg or whatever are out of luck generally

Ha Ha!

Rambo does have a point though....progressive ideas like this traffic plan will always have people going "but what about *insert specific group here*...." as a reason to not implement and if we have narrowed it down to people with broken legs then that is no reason to hold it up. People with temporary injuries can just make other plans. We've all broken a bone at some stage and we have all figured it out.

John_Rambo

John_Rambo wrote: »

People with a broken leg or whatever are out of luck generally and they certainly wouldn’t be driving with broken legs, arms or necks. I really don’t know what you’re trying to say.

You must be joking, a broken arm doesn't stop anyone driving and most people drive with broken legs too once they are over the initial impact of the injury and get used to to the cast/boot etc.

John_Rambo wrote: »

Eh, I've suggested limited vehicular access for special needs and just one person is accused of the above, not "anyone"!

This is simply not good enough, people should be entitled to drive in the city its as simple as that. Even people living in the city need to get around to the shops, work if they work on the outskirts etc etc in their car never mind those of us living in the county who commute into the city and need to get around the city be it for work or pleasure or both.

what_traffic

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Did you know that BLUE spaces are only available for people with long term mobility problems - expected to be for six months or longer?

Yes I am well aware of this.

John_Rambo

Anne Handsome Sawhorse wrote: »

You must be joking, a broken arm doesn't stop anyone driving and most people drive with broken legs too once they are over the initial impact of the injury and get used to to the cast/boot etc.

You’re dead right. Modern boots, casts etc… Very easy to use public transport. Certainly easier than driving. Makes Mrs Bumbles point a very moot one. Thanks.

McTigs

Anne Handsome Sawhorse wrote: »

This is simply not good enough, people should be entitled to drive in the city its as simple as that. Even people living in the city need to get around to the shops, work if they work on the outskirts etc etc in their car never mind those of us living in the county who commute into the city and need to get around the city be it for work or pleasure or both.

You know we have a problem with traffic congestion right?

Mrs OBumble

John_Rambo wrote: »

People with a broken leg or whatever are out of luck generally and they certainly wouldn’t be driving with broken legs, arms or necks. I really don’t know what you’re trying to say.

When I was on crutches I had to rely on public transport instead of driving.

You objections and points about injuries, e-cars, regular cars etc… are unbelievably childish. I’m not sure if you’re trolling.

I'm saying that compulsion-based ideas are generally bad: they don't take account of the genuine needs of some groups of people.

I've had a leg injury which put me on crutches for a month too. The ONLY way I could leave my house was for someone with a car to come right to my door and collect me, and take me right to my destination. "Making other plans" and using public transport simply wasn't an option due to the nature of the injury - and because it was temporary, I had no right to access disability parking etc.

I also live right in the city centre, and know that sometimes - not often, but sometimes - I need to bring a vehicle as close as possible to my front door because of the amount of "stuff" that needs to be moved. I absolutely believe that that as an inner city resident, who is providing an important layer of passive security for the party-zone, my needs should be met.

The distinction between e-cars and other cars is bogus: it doesn't take account of hybrids, or of pollution from non-petrol sources common to both (eg tyres). Both cause equal amounts of traffic congestion, which is what motivates most people to favour a change. And changing the vehicle fleet overall from petrol to electric will not happen because a city decides to ban non-e-cars: it needs government policy changes for the whole country.

Changes need to be made intelligently, without "two wheels good, four wheels bad" blinkers, and with consideration for the full range of issues. Belligerent name-calling doesn't cut it.

jjpep

Anne Handsome Sawhorse wrote: »

You must be joking, a broken arm doesn't stop anyone driving and most people drive with broken legs too once they are over the initial impact of the injury and get used to to the cast/boot etc.



This is simply not good enough, people should be entitled to drive in the city its as simple as that. Even people living in the city need to get around to the shops, work if they work on the outskirts etc etc in their car never mind those of us living in the county who commute into the city and need to get around the city be it for work or pleasure or both.

You'd drive a car with a broken arm?

If you really think this is correct, please hand in your license, you shouldn't be on the road.

?Cee?view

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Changes need to be made intelligently, without "two wheels good, four wheels bad" blinkers, and with consideration for the full range of issues. Belligerent name-calling doesn't cut it.

Exactly

Unrealistic

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I'm saying that compulsion-based ideas are generally bad: they don't take account of the genuine needs of some groups of people.

I've had a leg injury which put me on crutches for a month too. The ONLY way I could leave my house was for someone with a car to come right to my door and collect me, and take me right to my destination. "Making other plans" and using public transport simply wasn't an option due to the nature of the injury - and because it was temporary, I had no right to access disability parking etc.

I also live right in the city centre, and know that sometimes - not often, but sometimes - I need to bring a vehicle as close as possible to my front door because of the amount of "stuff" that needs to be moved. I absolutely believe that that as an inner city resident, who is providing an important layer of passive security for the party-zone, my needs should be met.

The distinction between e-cars and other cars is bogus: it doesn't take account of hybrids, or of pollution from non-petrol sources common to both (eg tyres). Both cause equal amounts of traffic congestion, which is what motivates most people to favour a change. And changing the vehicle fleet overall from petrol to electric will not happen because a city decides to ban non-e-cars: it needs government policy changes for the whole country.

Changes need to be made intelligently, without "two wheels good, four wheels bad" blinkers, and with consideration for the full range of issues. Belligerent name-calling doesn't cut it.

We don't need to reinvent the wheel for this. It's already a common design feature in the Netherlands to have built up areas where cars are permitted but the one way system is designed such that there is only one way in and out of that area. So the only cars that come in to it are those that need to pick someone/something up or drop someone/something off. Parking spaces are severely restricted either by number, by cost, or both. So there is no compulsion but significant disincentives to driving through these areas or driving into the areas to park unless you have a compelling reason.

I think I know the three disabled spaces you are referring to and I'm guessing you're in the Middle Street/Augustine Street area. That's one area that is ripe for this kind of adjustment. I frequently need to travel a route that goes past the Fire Station and gets me to the Headford Road. I often unthinkingly drive up Cross Street, onward to Market Street and through Woodquay to the Headford Road. That means I cross a pedestrianised zone at High Street, which is completely unnecessary. I could go via Merchants Road and Prospect Hill, or Lough Atalia and Sandy Road to get to the Headford Road without passing through the main pedestrian zones of the city centre.

I think that Cross Street should be pedestrianised from the turn off to Market Street, so that only cars who need to access that block would travel on it, and people walking on High Street wouldn't have to worry about cars. Then they could do away with the gate on Flood Street that blocks access to the whole area at the weekend.

John_Rambo

There’s vehicular access to car free areas. Usually in the morning times when delivery and trades people can carry out their work. it’s not a complete 48 hour ban. It would be reasonable to expect people living within the car free areas would actually have vehicular access during certain hours.

But I expect you know this already.

Being discommoded by temporary injuries are a fact of life. They matter as much to the single parent, the lone farmer and the city dweller. We have to deal with them, car or no car. In my case I had no choice but to use public transport. I didn’t have the luxury of someone carting me around.

The distinction between e-cars and regular cars isn’t bogus. It’s very real, it’s been explained to you in detail.