City just crazy

AndrewJRenko

Discodog wrote: »

Meanwhile, the Association of German Cities chief, Helmut Dedy, warned that “we expect a clear statement about how [free transport] will be financed” from the federal government.

Let us know how your meeting goes with Leo.

Isn't it funny though how that was no mad rush for scrutiny of the costs of free parking - same cost per person per day. Why's that, do you think?

Discodog wrote: »

Your mantra is to force cars off the road by making them too expensive to own/run. Good luck with getting that approved.

My mantra is to start getting motorists pay the actual costs of their motoring - no more public subsidies through free storage of private property - no more free passes on their share of the healthcare costs of the 1500+ premature deaths due to air quality.

Discodog wrote: »

Many years ago, when I was working as an environmental scientist, my famous boss said that the Greens would destroy us all.

I think I found a picture of you with your famous boss:

Discodog

John_Rambo wrote: »

That's one person Discodog. I'm sure there's a good few more that actually use the metro successfully.

I am on a skype call with her now & she said that 50% of users are unhappy & it's made traffic worse as the longer journey times have made people go back to their cars.

John_Rambo

Discodog wrote: »

I am on a skype call with her now & she said that 50% of users are unhappy & it's made traffic worse as the longer journey times have made people go back to their cars.

Well, you can't beat your friends "On the Ground Live from Helsinki" intel on skype and the detailed research she's done on every metro commuter!

50% exactly!! Not hearsay at all.

Tell her I said hi.

Back on thread. Light rail works. Galway could do with it, it's far cheaper to build rail line bridges than motorway bridges over water. A point to be taken seriously with Galways unique geography.

kippy

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's not so much whether you 'want to use them' - it is the question of whether public benefits should be focused on those who earn most, or those who earn least.



Motorists pay nothing near the cost of the environmental damage done by motor vehicle engines. Maybe when they start paying for something near the full cost of the damage done, maybe then they could start looking for 'incentives'. Why should public money be going to subsidise motorists?

The people who "earn most" as you suggest (Car owners) directly contributed 5.1 odd billion to the states coffers in 2015 (the most recent year I can find figures for) - in a combination of Motor Tax, excise and carbon duties and VRT/VAT etc.
Why shouldn't these people be incentivised to leave their car at a park and ride outside the city? Shouldnt those who contribute most also get something for their euro?
Surely the environmental damage is greatly reduced if these vehicles aren't clogging up the city with traffic in the first instance?

If you want to get cars off the road in and around cities you have to start somewhere. And this, in my opinion is the quickest way to do it.

John_Rambo

kippy wrote: »

The people who "earn most" as you suggest (Car owners) directly contributed 5.1 odd billion to the states coffers in 2015 (the most recent year I can find figures for) - in a combination of Motor Tax, excise and carbon duties and VRT/VAT etc.
Why shouldn't these people be incentivised to leave their car at a park and ride outside the city? Shouldnt those who contribute most also get something for their euro?
Surely the environmental damage is greatly reduced if these vehicles aren't clogging up the city with traffic in the first instance?

If you want to get cars off the road in and around cities you have to start somewhere. And this, in my opinion is the quickest way to do it.

You're right. @andrewrenko, we're dealing with bad planning and car dependent one off housing dwellers throughout the whole county and surrounding counties. We simply can't afford to service these houses with public transport, policing, internet etc... The only way to get them out of their cars and in to the city is park & ride. Which means a partial drive before getting public transport.



A park & cycle could be optioned too.

AndrewJRenko

John_Rambo wrote: »

You're right. @andrewrenko, we're dealing with bad planning and car dependent one off housing dwellers throughout the whole county and surrounding counties. We simply can't afford to service these houses with public transport, policing, internet etc... The only way to get them out of their cars and in to the city is park & ride. Which means a partial drive before getting public transport.



A park & cycle could be optioned too.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just pointing out that motorists should be paying the true cost of their parking.

kippy wrote: »

The people who "earn most" as you suggest (Car owners) directly contributed 5.1 odd billion to the states coffers in 2015 (the most recent year I can find figures for) - in a combination of Motor Tax, excise and carbon duties and VRT/VAT etc.
Why shouldn't these people be incentivised to leave their car at a park and ride outside the city? Shouldnt those who contribute most also get something for their euro?
Surely the environmental damage is greatly reduced if these vehicles aren't clogging up the city with traffic in the first instance?

You seem to be missing a few bits from your calculation of who contributed what - like EVERYTHING on the expenditure side - the cost of road building, the cost of road maintenance, the costs of repairs to pavements and bike lines caused by illegal parking, the cost of the RSA, the cost of the Garda Traffic Unit, the cost of healthcare arising from air quality, the costs of carbon emissions etc etc.


Come back when you've calculated some of those costs and we'll see who contributed what

kippy wrote: »

If you want to get cars off the road in and around cities you have to start somewhere. And this, in my opinion is the quickest way to do it.

Maybe it is the quickest way - getting motorists to pay the true cost of storage for their private property won't slow it down.

John_Rambo

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just pointing out that motorists should be paying the true cost of their parking

Of course. Illegal parking is the rudest and uncivil thing a motorist in any city can do. Some of the photos of cars blocking buses on this thread are disgraceful. 1 person blocking 90 peoples commute. You're right, high parking rates and reduced parking along with zero tolerance towing is the way to go. I wouldn't dare to park illegally in Dublin, you'd be clamped or towed. And rightly so.

kippy

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You seem to be missing a few bits from your calculation of who contributed what - like EVERYTHING on the expenditure side - the cost of road building, the cost of road maintenance, the costs of repairs to pavements and bike lines caused by illegal parking, the cost of the RSA, the cost of the Garda Traffic Unit, the cost of healthcare arising from air quality, the costs of carbon emissions etc etc.

Come back when you've calculated some of those costs and we'll see who contributed what


Maybe it is the quickest way - getting motorists to pay the true cost of storage for their private property won't slow it down.

Public transport also needs roads, does it not? Cyclists also need roads, as do many other absolute necessities (freight etc) that make a country tick. Carbon emissions would be greatly reduced IF those cars weren't stuck in traffic and parked up in a park and ride instead - do you refute this?

You're "solution" if one would call it that is completely unrealistic. Building up a public transport system that would take every and all cars off the road, then making it free to use, would not be sustainable in the current or indeed any future environment especially in Galway City.

AndrewJRenko

John_Rambo wrote: »

I wouldn't dare to park illegally in Dublin, you'd be clamped or towed. And rightly so.

If only that were true. I called out the clampers some months back to deal with an illegally parked car as I went to work around 8.30am. On my way home about 6pm, the same car was in the same spot, so I called the clampers again. They told me that when they got out to the location about 1pm, the car wasn't there. If their response time to calls is around 4 hours, I don't think the drivers of Dublin need to be quaking in their boots unfortunately.

kippy wrote: »

Public transport also needs roads, does it not? Cyclists also need roads, as do many other absolute necessities (freight etc) that make a country tick. Carbon emissions would be greatly reduced IF those cars weren't stuck in traffic and parked up in a park and ride instead - do you refute this?

You didn't seem to be worried about excluding public transport and freight in your initial calculation, so why are you excluding them now? And yes, those cars would be emitting less carbons if parked up (and also paying less taxes on fuel). But why would that entitle them to free storage space for their private property?

kippy wrote: »

You're "solution" if one would call it that is completely unrealistic. Building up a public transport system that would take every and all cars off the road, then making it free to use, would not be sustainable in the current or indeed any future environment especially in Galway City.

Yeah, I'm not sure where you got all that from. You certainly didn't get it from me. I didn't say anything about 'building up a public transport system'.


I just said that, in the scenario where drivers are doing P&R, there is no reason for the 'P' part to be free. Why not make the similarly priced R part free?

kippy

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If only that were true. I called out the clampers some months back to deal with an illegally parked car as I went to work around 8.30am. On my way home about 6pm, the same car was in the same spot, so I called the clampers again. They told me that when they got out to the location about 1pm, the car wasn't there. If their response time to calls is around 4 hours, I don't think the drivers of Dublin need to be quaking in their boots unfortunately.





You didn't seem to be worried about excluding public transport and freight in your initial calculation, so why are you excluding them now? And yes, those cars would be emitting less carbons if parked up (and also paying less taxes on fuel). But why would that entitle them to free storage space for their private property?



Yeah, I'm not sure where you got all that from. You certainly didn't get it from me. I didn't say anything about 'building up a public transport system'.

I just said that, in the scenario where drivers are doing P&R, there is no reason for the 'P' part to be free. Why not make the similarly priced R part free?

It's not "free" storage space - not sure how you don't get that.

You reckon the costs of running a fleet of buses from (lets just say Galway Airport) into Eyre Square via parkmore (and other Estates) daily works out cheaper to the state than providing state owned land for parking hundreds of cars on a daily basis? Good luck with the figures on that one.

Your earlier comments would suggest that EVERYONE should use public transport to get to work and that it should be made as costly as possible for people who are rich enough to own cars to use them to get to work. Please correct me if that is not your stance.

AndrewJRenko

kippy wrote: »

It's not "free" storage space - not sure how you don't get that.

The original proposal was free parking at park-and-ride facilities. Parking is storage. Cars are private property.



So free parking at park-and-ride is free storage space for private property.

kippy wrote: »

You reckon the costs of running a fleet of buses from (lets just say Galway Airport) into Eyre Square via parkmore (and other Estates) daily works out cheaper to the state than providing state owned land for parking hundreds of cars on a daily basis? Good luck with the figures on that one.

The proposal is for park-and-ride. So it's not a case of either parking or buses - both are needed for parking to work. My only suggestion is that the parking should not be free. And if you do want to incentivise usage, why not incentivise the ride instead of incentivising the parking?

kippy wrote: »

Your earlier comments would suggest that EVERYONE should use public transport to get to work and that it should be made as costly as possible for people who are rich enough to own cars to use them to get to work. Please correct me if that is not your stance.

I'll be happy to correct you, but first I really need to know what I'm correcting. Could you please clarify with a direct quotation where exactly I suggested that everyone should use public transport to get to work?
And please clarify with a direct quotation where I suggested that it should be made as costly as possible for people who are rich enough to own cars to use them to get to work?

kippy

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The original proposal was free parking at park-and-ride facilities. Parking is storage. Cars are private property.



So free parking at park-and-ride is free storage space for private property.



The proposal is for park-and-ride. So it's not a case of either parking or buses - both are needed for parking to work. My only suggestion is that the parking should not be free. And if you do want to incentivise usage, why not incentivise the ride instead of incentivising the parking?



I'll be happy to correct you, but first I really need to know what I'm correcting. Could you please clarify with a direct quotation where exactly I suggested that everyone should use public transport to get to work?
And please clarify with a direct quotation where I suggested that it should be made as costly as possible for people who are rich enough to own cars to use them to get to work?

It's not "free" storage space. The property owner is indirectly paying for it. The same as you or I, indirectly pay for numerous things via indirect/direct taxation.

Incentivising the ride portion is going to cost significantly more than the parking portion. That should be obvious.
Lets hit a happy medium here, parking free for cars with 2 or more occupants.....


Sorry, I may have completely misread you with respect to you comments - apologies.

AndrewJRenko

kippy wrote: »

It's not "free" storage space. The property owner is indirectly paying for it. The same as you or I, indirectly pay for numerous things via indirect/direct taxation.

It's free to the end user - so EVERYONE is paying for it, including those who don't have cars, or those who have cars and leave them at home. Why should the rest of the population pay for your free parking?

kippy wrote: »

Incentivising the ride portion is going to cost significantly more than the parking portion. That should be obvious.
Lets hit a happy medium here, parking free for cars with 2 or more occupants.....

It will cost or save as much as we want to put into it. Let's say the parking costs €5m for the sake or arguement. Why don't we put €5m into reducing public transport costs and continue to collect parking fees from those who choose to use it?

kippy wrote: »

Sorry, I may have completely misread you with respect to you comments - apologies.

No bother.

kippy

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's free to the end user - so EVERYONE is paying for it, including those who don't have cars, or those who have cars and leave them at home. Why should the rest of the population pay for your free parking?



It will cost or save as much as we want to put into it. Let's say the parking costs €5m for the sake or arguement. Why don't we put €5m into reducing public transport costs and continue to collect parking fees from those who choose to use it?



No bother.

I'm not sick, I may never need the services of a hospital - why should my taxes go towards something I may never use....
I may not have kids - why should my taxes pay for the education of other peoples kids.....
etc etc etc
ALL of the population, including the motorists, who directly contribute 5 billion per annum to the state, pay for the parking.

Ultimately, what is the aim? To reduce the amount of cars in or around the city so that other means of transport can operate more efficiently and safely.
So it's a combination of a few things.
The first step is to get as many cars as possible out of the equation. The most effictive way of doing this is to provide "free" parking. If you want to try incentivise or mix things up a bit, limit the "free" parking to cars with 2 or more occupants.

AndrewJRenko

kippy wrote: »

I'm not sick, I may never need the services of a hospital - why should my taxes go towards something I may never use....
I may not have kids - why should my taxes pay for the education of other peoples kids.....
etc etc etc
ALL of the population, including the motorists, who directly contribute 5 billion per annum to the state, pay for the parking.

But you can choose to have kids without having to buy and maintain an expensive product. ANd you will at some stage in your life need public health services as a matter of absolute certainty.


That's a big difference between services only available to motorists.

kippy wrote: »

Ultimately, what is the aim? To reduce the amount of cars in or around the city so that other means of transport can operate more efficiently and safely.
So it's a combination of a few things.
The first step is to get as many cars as possible out of the equation. The most effictive way of doing this is to provide "free" parking. If you want to try incentivise or mix things up a bit, limit the "free" parking to cars with 2 or more occupants.

How did you work out that free parking is the most effective way, and not (for example) putting the same amount of resources into free or reduced public transport?

Not to interrupt the riveting debate about the cost of free stuff, but just to throw in this...

Galway is a city with a medieval core, narrow streets, centuries old bridges (except one) and a honking big river running through the middle.

In 20-30 years the population is going to be 125k, up approx 50k against the current level. Folks will be looking for ways to go from one side to the other, to the center, out of the center and from suburb to suburb.

If we were to focus on the problem, the question that needs to be answered is:

When we get to a population of 125k, what is the best solution(s) for moving the most amount of people to as many places in the shortest amount of time, without breaking the bank?

The "best solution(s)" should be a reasonable balance between quality, service and cost. It can be multi-pronged and should take account of the current situation, stakeholders and vested interests.

kippy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not to interrupt the riveting debate about the cost of free stuff, but just to throw in this...

Galway is a city with a medieval core, narrow streets, centuries old bridges (except one) and a honking big river running through the middle.

In 20-30 years the population is going to be 125k, up approx 50k against the current level. Folks will be looking for ways to go from one side to the other, to the center, out of the center and from suburb to suburb.

If we were to focus on the problem, the question that needs to be answered is:

When we get to a population of 125k, what is the best solution(s) for moving the most amount of people to as many places in the shortest amount of time, without breaking the bank?

The "best solution(s)" should be a reasonable balance between quality, service and cost. It can be multi-pronged and should take account of the current situation, stakeholders and vested interests.

That looks like an answer a politician would give.....stating the obvious without and sign of a solution.
At least myself and the other poster were trying to tease out some potential options.

zulutango

The population won't just increase to 125k. The infrastructure that is built has a direct bearing on this. They are two sides of the same coin. Build the right infrastructure and the population will increase because you'll get more private investment, more employment, a more pleasant city to live in, etc. Build the wrong infrastructure and the city will stagnate. Indeed, that is what has been happening for the last few decades. Galway (and the other irish regional cities) could and should be much more populous but because the infrastructure was so poorly thought out the growth has been poor also.

whineflu

kippy wrote: »

I may not have kids - why should my taxes pay for the education of other peoples kids.....
etc etc etc

This one always gets me. Who do you think will pay for shared public resources (medical cards, old age pension etc.) after you retire? We all pay it forward.

kippy

whineflu wrote: »

This one always gets me. Who do you think will pay for shared public resources (medical cards, old age pension etc.) after you retire? We all pay it forward.

I understand this, some don't......

kippy

kippy wrote: »

That looks like an answer a politician would give.....stating the obvious without and sign of a solution.
At least myself and the other poster were trying to tease out some potential options.

lol, you must be new here, I've posted a number of times on the topic and proposed detailed solutions see here as one example

Deleted User wrote: »

Don't know about others but here is what I advocate (taken from another thread and expanded slightly from when I first posted it)

Build the bypass, the day it opens, complete the following

1. convert 1 lane each way over the Quincential (sp) for bus lanes, same along the headford Rd shopping area, the Sean Mulvoy Rd and BnT

2. Pedestrianise several more city centre streets

3. Huge expansion of bike share scheme to all suburbs

4. Cycle lanes, cycle lanes, cycle lanes, properly segregated

5. Establish 2, permanent, park and rides, 1 on each side of the city, to run from 7am to 11pm

6. Implementation of high frequency bus timetables

7. I'm not sure on the way to implement it, but an additional charge/levy applied to each use of paid parking spaces. Can be 50 cents. Doesn't need to be any more than that. This is then used to fund further expansion of all of the above into the future. This is to be applied by the council against all parking providers. Where the council provides City parking, it should increase in price by 50%

Basically, once the bypass is built, the thoughts of driving a personal car into the city centre should put anyone into a cold sweat.

I'm not saying ban cars from the city centre, but it should become a rare occurrence to *want/need* to drive in rather than just the norm.

There should be enough alternatives to make them the normal, first choice, for everyone.

AndrewJRenko

kippy wrote: »

I understand this, some don't......

Some don't understand the difference between;
a) getting old
b) buying a car

Mrs OBumble

Deleted User wrote: »

When we get to a population of 125k, what is the best solution(s) for moving the most amount of people to as many places in the shortest amount of time, without breaking the bank?

Except that we need to be designing to minimise the distance that people have to be moved around. No more housing on the west of the city unless it's accompanied by jobs. Hiring incentives as mentioned before.

There will always be some people who need to travel. But with design we can minimise the number, and so get the best bang-for-the-buck in public transport spending.

(This is one of my concerns re light rail: it introduces a perverse incentive to get trip numbers up. to justify the cost.)

Thargor wrote: »

Didn't you previously say that Eyre Square to the IMC was too far to walk and you needed to be driven there?

Right now, I am able for walking it.

But in the last two years, I've had two spells of a 2-4 weeks each where I couldn't. I was dependent on cars coming more or less to my doorway to go places. One was due to sickness, one injury. Neither would have been accommodated as disabilities, because they didn't last 6 months plus.

This is what happens with human populations. Most can walk and used shared transport most of the time. But there are times, for everyone, when individualised transport is needed. If you remove the ability to provide this, the city becomes unliveable.

McGiver wrote: »

If there is an issue with busking then it needs to be regulated. If there is a crime or antisocial behaviour, police need to enforce order. This is a completely different issue.

I don't know. I have no evidence, neither you have any.

Yes, less traffic but also make the city livable. City full of cars isn't livable. Making streets pedestrianised or removing private transport from the streets is part of the solution.

You seem to think that methods which proved effective in many cities in Europe somehow won't work in Galway.

I've lived without owning a car in inner city Galway for the last 10 years. I know how to get groceries home, buy big stuff, go on holiday, bring old people to visit me, have major surgery. And I know that having parking close buy makes these things enormously easier.

I've visited the hell-hole that was an apartment on Shop St in a summer afternoon. (It's the inner city tourist zone: busking and drumming all day is quite reasonable - but very hard to live with).

I've observed the effects of the local approach to toilet training, and the lack of shame exhibited by Paddy PissAndPuke about his/her behaviour. I've opened my front-door to the after effects.

I've visited other cities: and I wouldn't dream of assessing what it's like to live there with just a flying visit.

McGiver

what_traffic wrote:

Ya 100% agree - Galway is suited. Have you lived in Oxford? - place I have not visited yet but have heard positive story's about it. Same goes for York.

I lived near Oxford and visited it many times. Great flowing car traffic, bus lanes, cycle paths, park & rides, all well integrated, big part of the centre is pedestrianised and/or public transport only. Its size is 70% more than Galway but I think it's a model worth exploring, copying and use as a benchmark.

The only problem in Galway is that:
1. It has a river running in the middle of it with just one major bridge over it. OX has many bridges over Thames and Cherwell, neither of the rivers cut the city in the middle as in Galway.
2. It has got seaside on the southern side restricting infrastructure options. OX obviously doesn't have this issue.
3. It doesn't have a ring road. OX does, the A50.

what_traffic

McGiver wrote: »

The only problem in Galway is that:

These so called "problems" are not insurmountable though.
Galway has a ring road, the N6. Could do with another bridge though.
Unlike Oxford, yes Galway is "hemmed" in by the water from two sides, however Galway City is the destination.

nuac

Great thread, thanks to contributors.

Galway is stated to be a regional centre for the West.

It has grown a lot over the last 60 years. Considering the traffic and housing difficulties is there any point in encouraging further growth?.

Would it not be better to encourage growth of other towns in the region e.g. Ballinasloe, Tuam, the Mayo towns from Claremorris across to Castlebar and Westport?

zell12

nuac wrote: »

Great thread, thanks to contributors.
Galway is stated to be a regional centre for the West.
It has grown a lot over the last 60 years. Considering the traffic and housing difficulties is there any point in encouraging further growth?.
Would it not be better to encourage growth of other towns in the region e.g. Ballinasloe, Tuam, the Mayo towns from Claremorris across to Castlebar and Westport?

It already is the regional centre, cemented by education and healthcare. Hence its growing pains. And it is going to double its population, at least.

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Except that we need to be designing to minimise the distance that people have to be moved around. No more housing on the west of the city unless it's accompanied by jobs. Hiring incentives as mentioned before.

Thankfully we don't live in a communist state in which I would expect something like the above to be enforced. Really I can't comprehend how anyone would want to live in a society where people are being forced to live in a certain location its a completely ludicrous suggestion.

People should be entitled to live where they choose, proximity to work is only one of many reasons people choose a location things like being close to family, wanting to live in a particular area, affordability, value for money etc are all more important reasons for most. Also people change jobs, do you suggest they have to move every-time they change jobs? If so its an even crazier suggestion.

zulutango

Gracelynn Whining Rainbow wrote: »

Thankfully we don't live in a communist state in which I would expect something like the above to be enforced. Really I can't comprehend how anyone would want to live in a society where people are being forced to live in a certain location its a completely ludicrous suggestion.

People should be entitled to live where they choose, proximity to work is only one of many reasons people choose a location things like being close to family, wanting to live in a particular area, affordability, value for money etc are all more important reasons for most. Also people change jobs, do you suggest they have to move every-time they change jobs? If so its an even crazier suggestion.

Good planning and communism are not the same thing. Good planning occurs in a lot of European countries which are not run by communists.

Discodog

McGiver wrote: »

I lived near Oxford and visited it many times. Great flowing car traffic, bus lanes, cycle paths, park & rides, all well integrated, big part of the centre is pedestrianised and/or public transport only. Its size is 70% more than Galway but I think it's a model worth exploring, copying and use as a benchmark.

The only problem in Galway is that:
1. It has a river running in the middle of it with just one major bridge over it. OX has many bridges over Thames and Cherwell, neither of the rivers cut the city in the middle as in Galway.
2. It has got seaside on the southern side restricting infrastructure options. OX obviously doesn't have this issue.
3. It doesn't have a ring road. OX does, the A50.

Oxford has the river Thames running through the city centre.

The ring road is made up by joining the A34 & the A40. It wasn't properly completed until 1966.

It has 5 park & ride carparks. Initially there was free parking. It only became paid when, after a lot of thefts, security was introduced.

There are strong similarities with Galway. Old streets & buildings, a tourist hotspot, a University right in the city & lots of high tech companies.

If & these are big ifs, Galway had a ring road with three lanes - maybe two from the Moycullen road to the Barna road & 4 PR carparks it could transform the city.

Oxford PR is excellent. You don't have to queue to park, there is plenty of room & a the bus is always there - it doesn't leave until the next one arrives. I am sure the tech has advanced a lot but when I was there the buses had a radio transponder that turned the lights green as the bus approached so the journey is quick.

The buses drive slowly down pedestrianised streets & stop right outside the major shops. They run every 10 mins so you never have long to wait.

Each bus crosses the city from one P&R to one on the opposite side of the city. When it was introduced city centre parking rocketed in cost.