City just crazy

what_traffic

jjpep wrote: »

Maybe instead of a congestion charge someone would get a fine if they accessed a local area? Have seen similar in Italy. You need to have proof of address in the area or get temporary access from a resident. Not sure about trades people, perhaps they would get a yearly license or similar.

One way of doing this - Pass a City Bye Law so that we should have "Residents ONLY" parking streets especially in the City Centre. i.e remove the PAY and DISPLAY on certain streets (Millstreet, Henry St etc) and allow ONLY residents of those streets to park cars on them.

bobbyss

My reply was perfectly reasonable. But your suggestion regarding drivers exiting their vehicles, is not. There is nothing wrong with a cyclist dismounting to circumvent an obstacle.

ben.schlomo

ben.schlomo wrote: »

Yes my opinion is that cyclists, pedestrians and public transport users should be prioritised over private car users, anyone with a forward thinking mindset would agree. To the same degree may I add that your defending of car users breaking red lights (as you've not admonished such behaviour) or your anti cyclist posts tell me everything I need to know!!

You can solve a lot of the issues in the city with a second route from Newcastle side of town to Parkmore that bypasses the town entirely.

thebackbar

bobbyss wrote: »

My reply was perfectly reasonable. But your suggestion regarding drivers exiting their vehicles, is not. There is nothing wrong with a cyclist dismounting to circumvent an obstacle.

surely it will slow them down ? you're failing to grasp the idea that we need to make cycling an attractive mode of transport

what_traffic

bobbyss wrote: »

My reply was perfectly reasonable. But your suggestion regarding drivers exiting their vehicles, is not. There is nothing wrong with a cyclist dismounting to circumvent an obstacle.

Sure - but only if the obstacle itself was reasonable. It has proven that in this case it was not. Either City Council staff were either too lazy to think of of better placement or else too stupid to realise what they were doing. If a member of the public can find a better location for these Signs without impacting on any road user - it really shows what poor City Council staff we have here.

?Cee?view

J.pilkington wrote: »

Serious deja vu with this circular argument. All we are missing is the hurling lad and his photo of the bus passengers in traffic

He’s out taking photographs of junctions and traffic. You can follow him on Twitter.

Mrs OBumble

what_traffic wrote: »

One way of doing this - Pass a City Bye Law so that we should have "Residents ONLY" parking streets especially in the City Centre. i.e remove the PAY and DISPLAY on certain streets (Millstreet, Henry St etc) and allow ONLY residents of those streets to park cars on them.

What would that achieve apart from making it harder for home helpers to visit elderly clients?

I wouldn't call those streets city centre, or public transport impacting.

what_traffic

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

What would that achieve apart from making it harder for home helpers to visit elderly clients?

I wouldn't call those streets city centre, or public transport impacting.

These elderly RESIDENTS would automatically have a permit for the streets they live on.
Would reduce through traffic making it a more pleasant environment for said "elderly clients" or you could just call them residents . This is common solution in many Europe Countrys. Have seen this as a solution in small villages and towns in Germany - not just larger towns/Cities.

Mrs OBumble

what_traffic wrote: »

These elderly RESIDENTS would automatically have a permit for the streets they live on.
Would reduce through traffic making it a more pleasant environment for said "elderly clients" or you could just call them residents . This is common solution in many Europe Countrys. Have seen this as a solution in small villages and towns in Germany - not just larger towns/Cities.

Residents would have a permit for their own vehicles, for sure.

But ones who are past car-ownership are visited by home helps twice a day (some less often). Sometimes different people, on different days. Workers who need to fit in visits to several clients a day and who can't be waiting around to use public transport between them. Visitors ticket schemes are possible are a pain in the butt to organise on that scale, especially if there's a change of staff at very short notice (sickness etc). And discouraging grand-kids etc from visiting on spec isn't a good idea either.


Focussing on making shared transport options better is more productive than crude changes like banning cars. It lets car use shrink without punishing those who need individuated transport.

jjpep

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Residents would have a permit for their own vehicles, for sure.

But ones who are past car-ownership are visited by home helps twice a day (some less often). Sometimes different people, on different days. Workers who need to fit in visits to several clients a day and who can't be waiting around to use public transport between them. Visitors ticket schemes are possible are a pain in the butt to organise on that scale, especially if there's a change of staff at very short notice (sickness etc). And discouraging grand-kids etc from visiting on spec isn't a good idea either.


Focussing on making shared transport options better is more productive than crude changes like banning cars. It lets car use shrink without punishing those who need individuated transport.

For me, you're talking about specific's of implementation which can be figured out and made work. Do you have any objection to the overall concept?

jjpep

jjpep wrote: »

For me, you're talking about specific's of implementation which can be figured out and made work. Do you have any objection to the overall concept?

They are public streets which we all fund with our taxes so I would massively object to any residents only rules. Anyone who pays motor tax should be entitled to drive on and park on a public street unhindered.

Gracelynn Whining Rainbow

Gracelynn Whining Rainbow wrote: »

They are public streets which we all fund with our taxes so I would massively object to any residents only rules. Anyone who pays motor tax should be entitled to drive on and park on a public street unhindered.

There are already a few streets like this, it's nothing new

Motor tax entitles you to drive a vehicle, that's all. Everything else is subject to local laws, planning regs etc

McGiver

benjamin d wrote: »

Next time you're on the road actually observe what drivers are doing. Drivers disregard the law at a much, much higher frequency than cyclists and that's been proven. Go find a yellow box or a red light or an advance stop box or a mandatory cycle lane or a footpath and watch it for 5 minutes and you'll be amazed at the complete ignorance of every one of them.

Cyclists only annoy drivers because they're getting where they want to go with fewer hindrances and there's an unconscious blindness to driver behaviour from other drivers. Drivers are the problem on the road. Drivers are the congestion. More cyclists is one of the easiest solutions.

Yes, I see it every day as I cycle to work every day. Is this some sort of a local folklore not to follow basic rules of the road?

At least one of the following is seen every day on my just 5km route to/from work:

Stopping on pedestrian/zebra crossing - illegal, RotR say not to stop within at least 5m of the crossing

Crossing or even going fully to the advance cycle stop box - illegal, RotR say not to enter the box

Crossing cycle path - illegal, RotR say not to cross it ever

Not indicating when turning left crossing a cycle path - not sure if illegal but deadly!

Going to a bus lane before taking a left turn - illegal

Edging forward at the lights crossing the stop line before the light turns green - illegal

And of course generally not indicating and going on red.

McGiver

ben.schlomo wrote: »

xckjoo wrote: »

Jesus this is tiresome. It's not the mode of transport that makes the person. We have a general crappy attitude to transport in this country. Everyone seems to think they should be allowed move as fast as physically possible towards their destination. Like children in a playground. Nobody seems to understand that a steady flow would get us all around faster. Be it car, bus, bike of by foot.

Tiresome indeed.
A pointless thread, going in circles, similar to the other one ongoing at the moment which is essentially a transport/traffic thread too.

Probably because this thread has no topic, in fact

J.pilkington

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There are already a few streets like this, it's nothing new

Motor tax entitles you to drive a vehicle, that's all. Everything else is subject to local laws, planning regs etc

What_traffic is proposing the silly rule of residents only parking. This concept does not exist (its different to pay and display where residents pay for annual permits and the public can pay by the hour).

It’s a really really silly proposal, residents don’t own anything beyond their boundary (in some cases their front door) so they are proposing that the tax payers gift residents some city owned land.

I’m guessing what_traffics true colours are finally exposed - city resident who owns a car and is p!sssd off with other car drivers so who doesn’t want any other cars parking outside their house / getting in their way (another suggestion if theirs is introduce London style congestion charging for non city residents so the city roads are clear for what_traffic to drive around in their car)

Mrs OBumble

jjpep wrote: »

Do you have any objection to the overall concept?

Yes.

It's fiddling at the margins and making life difficult for some vulnerable people while ignoring the real problems of inadequate public transport and river crossings.

xckjoo

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Residents would have a permit for their own vehicles, for sure.

But ones who are past car-ownership are visited by home helps twice a day (some less often). Sometimes different people, on different days. Workers who need to fit in visits to several clients a day and who can't be waiting around to use public transport between them. Visitors ticket schemes are possible are a pain in the butt to organise on that scale, especially if there's a change of staff at very short notice (sickness etc). And discouraging grand-kids etc from visiting on spec isn't a good idea either.


Focussing on making shared transport options better is more productive than crude changes like banning cars. It lets car use shrink without punishing those who need individuated transport.

They already have ways of handling those issues with visitor passes, etc. Saw it when me granny was getting on in years.



Dunno about the idea myself. Not sure what difference it would make to traffic and it would cause a big uproar. Ironically, the biggest reason I can see for doing it would be to ensure better access for things like home-help. I'd imagine if you were trying to visit an elderly person in a city centre location, it would be difficult to find parking nearby during the day.

what_traffic

J.pilkington wrote: »

What_traffic is proposing the silly rule of residents only parking. This concept does not exist (its different to pay and display where residents pay for annual permits and the public can pay by the hour).

It’s a really really silly proposal, residents don’t own anything beyond their boundary (in some cases their front door) so they are proposing that the tax payers gift residents some city owned land.

I’m guessing what_traffics true colours are finally exposed - city resident who owns a car and is p!sssd off with other car drivers so who doesn’t want any other cars parking outside their house / getting in their way (another suggestion if theirs is introduce London style congestion charging for non city residents so the city roads are clear for what_traffic to drive around in their car)

Such a weak and feeble post from J.pilkington, but will respond all the same.
The concept does exist - but not in Ireland.
Your guess is all wrong again, live in the "Galway City burbs" and have access to a car sure enough, but it is once in a blue moon would I be seen driving into the City Centre with it. This is the order I generally would use

1. Walk/Cycle
2. Bus
3. Taxi
4. Private car

Can you quote the "London style congestion charging"?
I have never proposed that for Galway City, would rather see restrictions to Private Cars using the City Centre as a through traffic route. The Bridges could be used to do this.

gordongekko

what_traffic wrote: »

. The Bridges could be used to do this.

Like the one proposed to be built with the bypass that you're against?

what_traffic

gordongekko wrote: »

Like the one proposed to be built with the bypass that you're against?

Nope. City Centre Bridges like O Briens Bridge, Salmon Weir. The proposed City Expressway/Galway City Ring Road aint no "bypass".

gordongekko

what_traffic wrote: »

would rather see restrictions to Private Cars using the City Centre as a through traffic route. The Bridges could be used to do this.

what_traffic wrote: »

Nope. City Centre Bridges like O Briens Bridge, Salmon Weir. The proposed City Expressway/Galway City Ring Road aint no "bypass".

You cant use those bridges without going through the city

what_traffic

gordongekko wrote: »

You cant use those bridges without going through the city

Exactly. Create restrictions for private Cars to cross these bridges. No congestion charge, just make approach to either bridge a Cul De Sac's for private cars.

gordongekko

what_traffic wrote: »

Exactly. Create restrictions for private Cars to cross these bridges. No congestion charge, just make approach to either bridge a Cul De Sac's for private cars.

Or create a bypass which allows people in cars most of which have no interest in going through the city just bypass the city

what_traffic

what_traffic wrote: »

Exactly. Create restrictions for private Cars to cross these bridges. No congestion charge, just make approach to either bridge a Cul De Sac's for private cars.

gordongekko wrote: »

Or create a bypass which allows people in cars most of which have no interest in going through the city just bypass the city

I'd do both - bypass for those who want their cars and no through traffic in the city centre stopping access at the bridges on the west and say Eyre square and after the docks on the east side for private cars. Busses and emergency services would be let through where necessary.

I am sure the owners of Jury's car park would come up with a new use for their car park.

what_traffic

what_traffic wrote: »

Exactly. Create restrictions for private Cars to cross these bridges. No congestion charge, just make approach to either bridge a Cul De Sac's for private cars.

And create unnecessary hardship for an awful lot of people to satisfy the seedy anti-car fantasies of a tiny tiny number of people.

Build the bypass which well take massive amounts of traffic out of the city centre and leave all bridges open where those who need to cross the city centre by car still can, who with the much lower numbers of people needing to cross through the city will be doing so in much less traffic.

thebackbar

Gracelynn Whining Rainbow wrote: »

what_traffic wrote: »

Exactly. Create restrictions for private Cars to cross these bridges. No congestion charge, just make approach to either bridge a Cul De Sac's for private cars.

And create unnecessary hardship for an awful lot of people to satisfy the seedy  anti-car fantasies of a tiny tiny number of people.

Build the bypass which well take massive amounts of traffic out of the city centre and leave all bridges open where those who need to cross the city centre by car still can, who with the much lower numbers of people needing to cross through the city will be doing so in much less traffic.

You do know that one of the goals of the bypass is give more room for public transport in the city center, to such an extent that it wont make it faster to navigate the city center in a car than it was before the bypass?

what_traffic

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd do both - bypass for those who want their cars and no through traffic in the city centre stopping access at the bridges on the west and say Eyre square and after the docks on the east side for private cars. Busses and emergency services would be let through where necessary.

I am sure the owners of Jury's car park would come up with a new use for their car park.

Exactly, if this was on offer with the proposed City Ring Road I could see alot of merit in it.

what_traffic

Emberly Bitter Bulldog wrote: »

And create unnecessary hardship for an awful lot of people to satisfy the seedy anti-car fantasies of a tiny tiny number of people.

Will leave the seedy car fantasies to yourself.
Still be able to drive in and out of City Centre from any road - it just cuts out the through traffic.

beardybrewer

This thread right now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRHVMi3LxZE&feature=youtu.be&t=52s

Mrs OBumble

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd do both - bypass for those who want their cars and no through traffic in the city centre stopping access at the bridges on the west and say Eyre square and after the docks on the east side for private cars. Busses and emergency services would be let through where necessary.

I am sure the owners of Jury's car park would come up with a new use for their car park.

Yet again ... stopping access, that's just another word for banning.

ie sharting the people who live in the city centre, to make it a nicer play-pen for those who don't.