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

FortySeven

J o e wrote: »

??

My point was that cyclists aren't unaffected by congested traffic like you were suggesting.

Less affected than motorists. Much less.

McTigs

FortySeven wrote: »

The one thing I do know. This thread is not representative of Galway commuters. When 95% of people want to use their cars, the council might want to start listening to them and not minority interest groups. We may just get ourselves a new council. One that represents the large majority.

There you go with the "want" again

How and ever, I wish you the very best of luck electing a new galway city council with your galway county council vote

ben.schlomo

FortySeven wrote: »

I live just outside headford. I work in galway. For 10 years I lived on the Westside, Merlin park and doughiska. I cycled, used the appalling public transport and I now drive. Driving is the dogs danglies. I would like a bypass. My opinion is as valid as anyone else's.

You say we should protect those terraced monstrosities mostly used as student and hotel worker houseshares because heritage. I say we flatten the eyesores to allow free movement of traffic.

New York would be a collection of wooden shacks had everyone acted the way you are.

Not sure which part of that sentence is the most bizarre.

Mrs OBumble

FortySeven wrote: »

You say we should protect those terraced monstrosities mostly used as student and hotel worker houseshares because heritage. I say we flatten the eyesores to allow free movement of traffic.

And where should the people who live in those houses move to? You do realise that the university and hospitality are major industries in the city, don't you.

Wompa1

J o e wrote: »

Off-topic but more people need to know about car hire excess insurance. €3/day or €50/year.

Yes, thanks. I got a quote through them before I got put off when communicating with them. It didn't seem legit. Was pointed to them by somebody else on Boards...anybody on here ever have a claim with them?

FortySeven

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

And where should the people who live in those houses move to? You do realise that the university and hospitality are major industries in the city, don't you.

Where do any people go when construction projects compulsory purchase homes? Somewhere else.

I'm aware of the universties and hospitality. I'm also aware of the transient nature and short term leases of those individuals.

FortySeven

ben.schlomo wrote: »

Not sure which part of that sentence is the most bizarre.

Try reading it again.

Wompa1

FortySeven wrote: »

I live just outside headford. I work in galway. For 10 years I lived on the Westside, Merlin park and doughiska. I cycled, used the appalling public transport and I now drive. Driving is the dogs danglies. I would like a bypass. My opinion is as valid as anyone else's.

You say we should protect those terraced monstrosities mostly used as student and hotel worker houseshares because heritage. I say we flatten the eyesores to allow free movement of traffic.

New York would be a collection of wooden shacks had everyone acted the way you are.

America may not be the best example to follow. They don't preserve anything...speaking as somebody over there.

I wouldn't knock them or necessarily protect them but those crapholes in Bohermore and Woodquay should be forced to be brought to a livable standard if being rented out. Have been in quite a few of the places in Woodquay, living there would take 10 years off your life with the awful dampness. They are all privately owned, I'd be surprised if the council could afford that real estate.

Headford is not very well connected. When I lived out there I think the only bus other than Burkes was the Bus E to and from Ballina or Cong and they ran in the morning and evening. Hardly any options. Driving at least part of the way would be the only realistic option, alright..BUT I'd still agree with others that the focus should be on reducing the number of cars in the city center.

ben.schlomo

FortySeven wrote: »

Try reading it again.

Trust me when i say ive read it three times and im still laughing.

FortySeven

ben.schlomo wrote: »

Trust me when i say ive read it three times and im still laughing.

Glad to have enabled your mirth on such an awfully damp Sunday evening.

John_Rambo

Anne Handsome Sawhorse wrote: »

Google and Facebook are two companies

Not to be sniffed at. Imagine they located in Galway instead of Dublin? What a score that would have been.

Anyway, the car lobbying is useless when it comes to cities. They're all going to become people friendly and car unfriendly. Companies and businesses will be getting more tax breaks for public transport and cycle initiatives. This will encourage more to set up in cities.

J.pilkington

John_Rambo wrote: »

Anyway, the car lobbying is useless when it comes to cities. They're all going to become people friendly and car unfriendly. Companies and businesses will be getting more tax breaks for public transport and cycle initiatives. This will encourage more to set up in cities.

That sounds very matter of fact and specific when it's really you sticking your finger in the air and coming up with 26.5

John_Rambo

J.pilkington wrote: »

That sounds very matter of fact and specific when it's really you sticking your finger in the air and coming up with 26.5

It's already started J.pilkington. You can stick you're finger in the air or you can read it and weep.

Why we developed the GTS?
Galway has a transport problem, due to its reliance on the private car, which has been influenced by the existing public transport network, limited cycling facilities, a large rural hinterland and being the key gateway in and out of Connemara..
Combined with this, it has a road and street network which is ill-suited to the high traffic flows currently prevalent are contributing to increased congestion and delay, affecting quality of life and impacting on the functionality of the City.
To address this, a fundamental shift is needed towards sustainable travel, reducing the dependency on the private car and taking action to make Galway more accessible and connected, enhancing quality of life within the City for all. We have an opportunity to work together to make Galway an exemplar of Smarter Travel in Ireland.
To address these problems, Galway City Council's strategic objectives for transport are:
· to promote and encourage sustainable transport
· to manage the traffic in a way which maximises mobility and safe movement
· to maintain and develop/upgrade Infrastructure
Attached is the full GTS, which provides an overall view of the measures to be introduced and the technical documents supporting them.


Over the next few months Galway City Council will be commencing the introduction of the measures contained in the GTS.

FortySeven

John_Rambo wrote: »

It's already started J.pilkington. You can stick you're finger in the air or you can read it and weep.

Why we developed the GTS?
Galway has a transport problem, due to its reliance on the private car, which has been influenced by the existing public transport network, limited cycling facilities, a large rural hinterland and being the key gateway in and out of Connemara..
Combined with this, it has a road and street network which is ill-suited to the high traffic flows currently prevalent are contributing to increased congestion and delay, affecting quality of life and impacting on the functionality of the City.
To address this, a fundamental shift is needed towards sustainable travel, reducing the dependency on the private car and taking action to make Galway more accessible and connected, enhancing quality of life within the City for all. We have an opportunity to work together to make Galway an exemplar of Smarter Travel in Ireland.
To address these problems, Galway City Council's strategic objectives for transport are:
· to promote and encourage sustainable transport
· to manage the traffic in a way which maximises mobility and safe movement
· to maintain and develop/upgrade Infrastructure
Attached is the full GTS, which provides an overall view of the measures to be introduced and the technical documents supporting them.


Over the next few months Galway City Council will be commencing the introduction of the measures contained in the GTS.

No. They won't. Votes count for more than ideology. Everyone on the council knows this is a career resignation.

John_Rambo

FortySeven wrote: »

No. They won't. Votes count for more than ideology. Everyone on the council knows this is a career resignation.

How are you going to vote against it?

FortySeven

John_Rambo wrote: »

How are you going to vote against it?

I'm not. I'm heading back to Dundee where they built a bypass in 1950. The rest of Galway will vote.
Galway doesn't want cycling or buses. I'll bet my life on it.

joeKel73

FortySeven wrote: »

Cyclists can cycle through traffic. Buses have bus lanes. Traffic affects drivers so drivers should have the most say. As they will.

This is like saying obese people should have more say on health policy because they have more health issues.

FortySeven

J o e wrote: »

This is like saying obese people should have more say on health policy because they have more health issues.

Yes , it is. If you're a retard.

John_Rambo

John_Rambo wrote: »

Not to be sniffed at. Imagine they located in Galway instead of Dublin? What a score that would have been.

Anyway, the car lobbying is useless when it comes to cities. They're all going to become people friendly and car unfriendly. Companies and businesses will be getting more tax breaks for public transport and cycle initiatives. This will encourage more to set up in cities.

There is no space in cities for big companies. They need large facilities with space for 1000's of people and massive amounts of equipment, particularly as its medical device and pharma companies that are the big employers in cities like Cork and Galway. Places like Boston scientific are too close to the Galway city centre. In cork for example most of the big plants are well outside the city and new facilities are being opened in these locations also well outside the city in locations ideal for driving to which next to no public transport.

pleasant Co.

Infraction given to FortySeven, don't abuse your fellow posters, such language will not be tolerated

Mrs OBumble

Anne Handsome Sawhorse wrote: »

Places like Boston scientific are too close to the Galway city centre. In cork for example most of the big plants are well outside the city and new facilities are being opened in these locations also well outside the city in locations ideal for driving to which next to no public transport.

When the HP factory just across the road from Boston was opened, it was well outside the city - there are photos which show the green fields for miles around. And one of the features which was started, I think quite close to the opening, was a daily bus from the city - which still runs today.

If you build an employment hub outside the city, housing will tend to develop between there and the city as people want to cut their commute time and to be able to walk to work.

This is even more of a factor today when planning rules mean that companies are not allowed to have one car park per employee: to function, the company needs to have a certain proportion of it's workforce using less damaging forms of transport to get to work.

J.pilkington

John_Rambo wrote: »

Galway has a transport problem, due to its reliance on the private car, which has been influenced by the existing public transport network, limited cycling facilities, a large rural hinterland and being the key gateway in and out of Connemara..
Combined with this, it has a road and street network which is ill-suited to the high traffic flows currently prevalent are contributing to increased congestion and delay, affecting quality of life and impacting on the functionality of the City.
To address this, a fundamental shift is needed towards sustainable travel, reducing the dependency on the private car and taking action to make Galway more accessible and connected, enhancing quality of life within the City for all. We have an opportunity to work together to make Galway an exemplar of Smarter Travel in Ireland.
To address these problems, Galway City Council's strategic objectives for transport are:
· to promote and encourage sustainable transport
· to manage the traffic in a way which maximises mobility and safe movement
· to maintain and develop/upgrade Infrastructure
Attached is the full GTS, which provides an overall view of the measures to be introduced and the technical documents supporting them.

Sorry pal, you stated:
"Companies and businesses will be getting more tax breaks for public transport and cycle initiatives"

A. Where does it mention anything about tax breaks in the GTS

B. Tax breaks are set by the government not councils

As I said you read an article and somehow went into solution mode and managed to come up with 26.5 and presented this as a fact

McTigs

FortySeven wrote: »

Yes , it is. If you're a retard.

Oh dear

talking_walnut

For the people that are against this plan, what alternatives do you think they should bring in? Are you happy with the traffic situation in Galway as it is?


If you think more roads are the answer, can you comment on cgcsb's comment from back on page 2?

cgcsb wrote: »

Not sure what studies you refer to. I'm an engineer with a transport background. There are plenty of studies showing new build road capacity causing congestion.

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/11/californias-dot-admits-that-more-roads-mean-more-traffic/415245/

John_Rambo

J.pilkington wrote: »

Sorry pal, you stated:
"Companies and businesses will be getting more tax breaks for public transport and cycle initiatives"

The TaxSaver Commuter Ticket Scheme was established in Ireland in 2000 as an incentive for workers in some parts of the country to use public transport.

The Cycle to Work Scheme is a tax incentive scheme which aims to encourage employees to cycle to and from work. Under the scheme employers can pay for bicycles and bicycle equipment for their employees and the employee pays back through a salary sacrifice arrangement of up to 12 months. The employee is not liable for tax, PRSI or the Universal Social Charge on their repayments.

Both hugely successful. My reckoning that they won't be scrapped, only improved.


Pal

FortySeven

John_Rambo wrote: »

The TaxSaver Commuter Ticket Scheme was established in Ireland in 2000 as an incentive for workers in some parts of the country to use public transport.

The Cycle to Work Scheme is a tax incentive scheme which aims to encourage employees to cycle to and from work. Under the scheme employers can pay for bicycles and bicycle equipment for their employees and the employee pays back through a salary sacrifice arrangement of up to 12 months. The employee is not liable for tax, PRSI or the Universal Social Charge on their repayments.

Both hugely successful. My reckoning that they won't be scrapped, only improved.


Pal

I know 7 people who availed of this scheme. 3 used it to buy lawnmowers, the other 4 don't cycle to work.

FortySeven

FortySeven wrote: »

I know 7 people who availed of this scheme. 3 used it to buy lawnmowers, the other 4 don't cycle to work.

Have to agree on the cycle to work, the majority of people I know who bought bikes on it bought road bikes for weekend cycling etc particularly people who are living miles from where they work and could never cycle there even if they wanted.

John_Rambo

Yeah, but you guys live rural don’t you? I live urban, different scene and attitude altogether, thousands availing of the cycle to work scheme honestly and using the bikes to commute. Cleaner lifestyle and good for the environment.

McTigs

Anne Handsome Sawhorse wrote: »

Have to agree on the cycle to work, the majority of people I know who bought bikes on it bought road bikes for weekend cycling etc particularly people who are living miles from where they work and could never cycle there even if they wanted.

And myself, my wife, my sister and my brother in law all bought bikes on the bike to work scheme and we all use them to cycle to work.

You know people and I know people, who gives a ****.

FortySeven

John_Rambo wrote: »

Yeah, but you guys live rural don’t you? I live urban, different scene and attitude altogether, thousands availing of the cycle to work scheme honestly and using the bikes to commute. Cleaner lifestyle and good for the environment.

Surprised I haven't seen these thousands of cyclists around Galway?

Cycle to work is a great scheme. Absolutely rubbish at getting people to cycle to work though .Cheap recreational bikes and cheap lawnmowers for all.

talking_walnut

FortySeven wrote: »

I know 7 people who availed of this scheme. 3 used it to buy lawnmowers, the other 4 don't cycle to work.

Anne Handsome Sawhorse wrote: »

Have to agree on the cycle to work, the majority of people I know who bought bikes on it bought road bikes for weekend cycling etc particularly people who are living miles from where they work and could never cycle there even if they wanted.

I've always thought the same but when I stopped to think about it, most people I know that availed of it actually use their bike to commute to work at least some of the time. I don't assume that's the norm though. Just sharing my own fascinating observations

I don't blame anyone for not cycling to work though. The roads are lethal for bikes. Bike lanes seem to be causing more issues than they solve.

John_Rambo

John_Rambo wrote: »

Yeah, but you guys live rural don’t you? I live urban, different scene and attitude altogether, thousands availing of the cycle to work scheme honestly and using the bikes to commute. Cleaner lifestyle and good for the environment.

Some are people I know through work who live in urban areas who walk to work and bought the bike for road/mountain biking/pleasure cycling though yes a lot are people living in rural areas.

I do agree its a great scheme though, I bought a bike on it myself less than half price and meant revenue robbing less tax from me.

?Cee?view

And yet again a potentially interesting thread descends to bike users versus the rest...

FortySeven

Here's a challenge.

Everyone go and photograph the bike park at their work and post it up here with number of employees and we can decide for ourselves how much credence we give to cyclists.

My work. 55 employees, no bike park because nobody cycles.

FortySeven

?Cee?view wrote: »

And yet again a potentially interesting thread descends to bike users versus the rest...

The rest are not trying to restrict cyclists movements.

talking_walnut

?Cee?view wrote: »

And yet again a potentially interesting thread descends to bike users versus the rest...

I tried to steer it back on track by asking those who are against this proposal to say what they'd rather see, but so far nobody has.

FortySeven wrote: »

Here's a challenge.

Everyone go and photograph the bike park at their work and post it up here with number of employees and we can decide for ourselves how much credence we give to cyclists.

My work. 55 employees, no bike park because nobody cycles.

But the whole point of the proposal is to increase bike and public transport usage because we're over-reliant on personal car usage. Not sure what your suggestion would do other than confirm that not enough people cycle.

?Cee?view

?Cee?view wrote: »

And yet again a potentially interesting thread descends to bike users versus the rest...

The thing is in this forum there is actually a high percentage of people anti-car. In the real world they they would make up such a small percentage of the Galway city and county population that it could be described as negligible. I don't think anyone minds people cycling, I even do it myself but I totally disagree with prioritising cycling, walking and public transport at the expense of driving.

talking_walnut

Anne Handsome Sawhorse wrote: »

The thing is in this forum there is actually a high percentage of people anti-car. In the real world they they would make up such a small percentage of the Galway city and county population that it could be described as negligible. I don't think anyone minds people cycling, I even do it myself but I totally disagree with prioritising cycling, walking and public transport at the expense of driving.

But the councils job shouldn't be to do what "most people want". It should be making the city a better place to live. They're actually trying to do this for once by looking at moving people instead of just moving cars. It's mainly a public transport overhaul, that happens to include some cycling overhauls.

What's the alternative to this plan? More of the same? Is there anybody out there that thinks the traffic in Galway is fine?

FortySeven

talking_walnut wrote: »

I tried to steer it back on track by asking those who are against this proposal to say what they'd rather see, but so far nobody has.






But the whole point of the proposal is to increase bike and public transport usage because we're over-reliant on personal car usage. Not sure what your suggestion would do other than confirm that not enough people cycle.

A new bridge over the river. A large bypass to divert traffic from going into town. This would free up road space for existing public transport and cyclists to move more freely.

Over reliance on car usage is not going to change. It's a minority pushing against a majority. We put up with it right up until we don't.

Mrs OBumble

FortySeven wrote: »

Here's a challenge.

Everyone go and photograph the bike park at their work and post it up here with number of employees and we can decide for ourselves how much credence we give to cyclists.

About 500 people on-site at my current gig.

Three separate cycle racks, I can't get them all in one photo. Usually each is about 80% full. I'm not posting a photo, because that would identify where I work - not sure that the company would be happy about that.

A significant number also catch the bus. A few live close enough to walk and usually do.

If they all brought cars to work, the car-park would not be large enough/

talking_walnut

FortySeven wrote: »

A new bridge over the river. A large bypass to divert traffic from going into town. This would free up road space for existing public transport and cyclists to move more freely.

Over reliance on car usage is not going to change. It's a minority pushing against a majority. We put up with it right up until we don't.

But as cgcsb pointed out, more roads just results in more congestions (you actually replied to his posts about this). Do you just not believe this is true?

Has it been stated that the bridge/bypass isn't going ahead?

Mrs OBumble

FortySeven wrote: »

Where do any people go when construction projects compulsory purchase homes? Somewhere else.

I'm aware of the universties and hospitality. I'm also aware of the transient nature and short term leases of those individuals.

Yeah - but where specifically to you think that students would live? We already have some of them in backpacker hostels for a good part of the year, because there isn't enough student housing. And if they moved to McMansions out in the countryside, that would be even more traffic which we don't have space for already!

And so what if they're transient: a city always has a certain proportion of people who are coming and going again in a few months/years. That doesn't make them any less important people.

Also, fyi there are a small number of long term (as in all their lives) people living in Woodquay - yes I can name a few. And a lot more in Bohermore - all the flags up there at the weekend didn't come from students!

FortySeven

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

About 500 people on-site at my current gig.

Three separate cycle racks, I can't get them all in one photo. Usually each is about 80% full. I'm not posting a photo, because that would identify where I work - not sure that the company would be happy about that.

A significant number also catch the bus. A few live close enough to walk and usually do.

If they all brought cars to work, the car-park would not be large enough/

3 racks of bikes 80% full. About 40 bikes? On a nice day. There is a bus. How many actually use it? They carry about 70 people. So let's say even 1 full bus (which is doubtful) and a few that walk.

That's about 140 people out of 500. Let's say half of them are doing it through choice and not poverty.

70 people out of 500.

The other 430 people can't have a say on how Galway develops because?

FortySeven

talking_walnut wrote: »

But as cgcsb pointed out, more roads just results in more congestions (you actually replied to his posts about this). Do you just not believe this is true?

Has it been stated that the bridge/bypass isn't going ahead?

No. I dont believe more roads cause more congestion. Population increase and lack of development causes congestion. I'm not going to multiply my car if a new road appears.

There used to be all kinds of congestion on the road to Dublin. New motorway, not so much.

I reckon about a quarter of workers in my office walk or cycle to work. (10/40)

talking_walnut

FortySeven wrote: »

No. I dont believe more roads cause more congestion. Population increase and lack of development causes congestion. I'm not going to multiply my car if a new road appears.

There used to be all kinds of congestion on the road to Dublin. New motorway, not so much.

But all the research I can find suggests otherwise. You might not "multiply your car" but you'll use it more (and by "you" I mean people in general). Meanwhile if the bus is going to get you to work at the same time (or faster) then people will leave their car at home and take that instead. There's a good explanation of it here and there's links to the original source journal articles within. Your anecdotal observations don't make things true.

Your motorway example doesn't make any sense here as that's a motorway crossing the country. We're talking about city transport. I don't think the people of Dublin would think that the motorway has helped their city traffic.

FortySeven

talking_walnut wrote: »

But all the research I can find suggests otherwise. You might not "multiply your car" but you'll use it more (and by "you" I mean people in general). Meanwhile if the bus is going to get you to work at the same time (or faster) then people will leave their car at home and take that instead. There's a good explanation of it here and there's links to the original source journal articles within. Your anecdotal observations don't make things true.

Your motorway example doesn't make any sense here as that's a motorway crossing the country. We're talking about city transport. I don't think the people of Dublin would think that the motorway has helped their city traffic.

Cannot agree that I would use my car more. For what exactly? Also cannot agree that I would choose to use public transport. No matter how great it was. I've served my time with that and never again.

The study you posted was very clear that the key to any transpot solution is bottleneck management. Galways troubles largely come from bridges across the river. This proposal will close two of them.

Great plan.

talking_walnut

FortySeven wrote: »

Cannot agree that I would use my car more. For what exactly? Also cannot agree that I would choose to use public transport. No matter how great it was. I've served my time with that and never again.

The study you posted was very clear that the key to any transpot solution is bottleneck management. Galways troubles largely come from bridges across the river. This proposal will close two of them.

Great plan.

Once again your focussing on your own anecdotal opinion being the way things are. I specifically stated that "you" referred to people in general, but all your responses were "I wouldn't do this and I wouldn't do that". You can drive all you want, nobody is stopping you. But I'd prefer if my cities transport network was based on something more substantial and research based than what some guy in the internet wants to do. Even if most people would rather drive, it doesn't mean it's a better system and it doesn't mean it's one we should try and implement. What this research is telling us is that human nature will cause people to gravitate towards driving if we build more roads and towards alternatives if they're available and useful.

The bottleneck is caused by thousands of cars crossing the river. Cars take up a lot of space. Taking an extreme example, if we all had to walk to work tomorrow, nobody would be complaining about the congestion coming across the river. A bus might be big, but the density of people it can transport blows a car out of the water.

Finally, does anyone actually have any information to suggest that the bypass/bridge isn't going ahead? I'm fairly sure it's still on the plans.

Unrealistic

FortySeven wrote: »

3 racks of bikes 80% full. About 40 bikes? On a nice day. There is a bus. How many actually use it? They carry about 70 people. So let's say even 1 full bus (which is doubtful) and a few that walk.

That's about 140 people out of 500. Let's say half of them are doing it through choice and not poverty.

70 people out of 500.

The other 430 people can't have a say on how Galway develops because?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the bolded part above. That people who opt to not own a car for financial reasons, rather than some philosophical preference, are not entitled to be considered in determining how our transport infrastructure is developed?

Think of the benefits for yourself #47.

More people using public transport means less driving. Less congestion for you. Easier parking. More reliable journey times.

Practically how often do people use those bridges?

I live outside town now and drive in - I rarely cross the Salmon weir bridge and I don't know if I have ever driven over O'Briens bridge.