Galway traffic

Panda5000

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If you can't measure it, you can't improve it

Sure you can, you just don't know by how much!

serfboard

Deleted User wrote: »

It's a serious failing of the council that they don't have a methodology for regular measurement of commuter types be they walkers, cyclists, motorists or bus users. Something similar to the canal cordon count done by DCC would be a good way.

If you can't measure it, you can't improve it

"What gets measured, gets managed" is an old management cliché, with the corollary being that what doesn't get measured, doesn't get managed.

Applies here, I think. The basic questions that the City Council should be asking itself are:

• What is the modal mix in Galway?
• How accurate are the figures?
• Are we working towards a modal shift?
• If so, what percentage modal shift are we working towards?
• How will we go about it?
• How will we know if we've succeeded?

what_traffic

serfboard wrote: »

"What gets measured, gets managed" is an old management cliché, with the corollary being that what doesn't get measured, doesn't get managed.

Applies here, I think. The basic questions that the City Council should be asking itself are:

• What is the modal mix in Galway?
• How accurate are the figures?
• Are we working towards a modal shift?
• If so, what percentage modal shift are we working towards?
• How will we go about it?
• How will we know if we've succeeded?

They have all this info, it is publicly available as part of the Ring Road Plans - by 2040 they want a Ring Road and NO Modal Shift* worth talking about from 2015 baseline. (* = Single digit changes)

what_traffic

what_traffic wrote: »

They have all this info, it is publicly available as part of the Ring Road Plans - by 2040 they want a Ring Road and NO Modal Shift* worth talking about from 2015 baseline. (* = Single digit changes)

They have this info....kinda

There is info in the ring road application and the GTS documents however if you were to look for the last 10 years modal share broken out by year and type that would not be available as far as I am aware.

With the exception of some points on some routes being constantly measured by TII counters, there is no consistent measurement taking place.

It makes it next to impossible to show the impact of any changes

serfboard

what_traffic wrote: »

They have all this info, it is publicly available as part of the Ring Road Plans

Deleted User wrote: »

if you were to look for the last 10 years modal share broken out by year and type that would not be available as far as I am aware.

So, which is it - are annual modal share values available or not?

what_traffic

Deleted User wrote: »

With the exception of some points on some routes being constantly measured by TII counters, there is no consistent measurement taking place.

True, that is correct. Apart from the vehicle counters strips that they place on the Roads (usually November) they are not measuring other modes.

what_traffic

serfboard wrote: »

So, which is it - are annual modal share values available or not?

CSO Census data would be used for Walking and Cycling(not annual), TII have pretty accurate public transport usage now.

serfboard

serfboard wrote: »

So, which is it - are annual modal share values available or not?

Not

gordongekko

what_traffic wrote: »

I could be fitter, but am only doing about 40km a week active travel (cycling and walking) now, was doing average 160km pre-covid.

But unlike you - I am not "greed is good for me"!

I am thinking of children, people with disability's, the elderly. etc
Keep trying.

What did the council say to you when you told them about the vast numbers of unfit young disabled and elderly that you see using the roundabouts and what did they offer as a solution?

what_traffic

gordongekko wrote: »

What did the council say to you when you told them about the vast numbers of unfit young disabled and elderly that you see using the roundabouts and what did they offer as a solution?

They said what the RSA say - they should all be driving or else be passengers in cars.

Slowly but surely..... the next step in realigning priorities for commuters away from cars and towards pedestrians, cyclists and bus users

City Council issues CPO notice for Salmon Weir pedestrian bridge

https://www.galwaydaily.com/news/transport/city-council-issues-cpo-notice-for-salmon-weir-pedestrian-bridge/

Galway City Council is moving ahead with plans for the construction of a pedestrian and cycling bridge across the Corrib next to the Salmon Weir Bridge.

The council has issued a notice that it is making a compulsory purchase order for the land needed to install the bridge between Newtownsmith and Gaol Road.

If this is approved by An Bord PleanÃ႒¡la, the council then intends to submit a planning application to the higher planning authority for the pedestrian bridge.

The bridge will cover a total of approximately 85m across Persse’s Distillery River, Lower River Corrib and Friar’s River in three spans of 13m, 54m and 18m respectively.

The project will also involve alterations to the existing stone masonry walls to allow the new footpaths and approach areas, and upgrading the existing footpaths at either end of the bridge.

A copy of the plans, and the Natura Impact Statement which has been prepared as part of the application, will be available for public viewing at City Hall from today until January 21.

The projected has already secured €3.5 million in funding from the government, which has been allocated under the Designated Urban Centres grant scheme.

An Bord PleanÃ႒¡la already ruled in October that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required for the development, as there will be no permanent structure actually sitting in the river.

If no objections are made to the compulsory purchase order by the city council, it may be confirmed by An Bord PleanÃ႒¡la without holding an oral hearing.

This pedestrian bridge project is part of the Galway Transport Strategy, which ultimately aims to take private car traffic out of the city centre, and have the Salmon Weir Bridge solely used for public transport.

Laviski

i think its a missed opportunity, road bridge would have been better for the buses as they still have to watch for pedestrians on the current bridge which is an ongoing hazard.....

ya ya the cost would be huge but galway would reap the benefits for decades. Pedestrian bridge is just a short sighted solution and a cheap cop out.

xckjoo

Laviski wrote: »

i think its a missed opportunity, road bridge would have been better for the buses as they still have to watch for pedestrians on the current bridge which is an ongoing hazard.....

ya ya the cost would be huge but galway would reap the benefits for decades. Pedestrian bridge is just a short sighted solution and a cheap cop out.

Will the footpaths not be removed from the current bridge when the new one goes in?

timmyntc

xckjoo wrote: »

Will the footpaths not be removed from the current bridge when the new one goes in?

The north footpath (one facing the salmon weir) is to be retained, because that's a protected view.

Even if both footpaths were removed, buses would still have to do that awkward turn behind the courthouse.

A new road bridge would have made things a lot neater

what_traffic

More detail here on the proposals here
https://www.galwaycity.ie/salmon-weir-pedestrian-cycle-bridge#2

Detailed design of the bridge, am not that keen on the design itself.

timmyntc

timmyntc wrote: »

The north footpath (one facing the salmon weir) is to be retained, because that's a protected view.

Even if both footpaths were removed, buses would still have to do that awkward turn behind the courthouse.

A new road bridge would have made things a lot neater

The North faces the sluice gates, the south faces the salmon weir - the low structure with walkways, boxes etc in the river. Which one is protected?

timmyntc

Deleted User wrote: »

The North faces the sluice gates, the south faces the salmon weir - the low structure with walkways, boxes etc in the river. Which one is protected?

The Salmon weir is what you call sluice gates - the weir with multiple gates that control the flow of the river. The only "sluice gates" left are the two leftmost ones - part of the original weir.

The walkways with boxes are salmon cages.

gordongekko

It's only about 2 months ago they were telling us they were closing the salmon Weir to traffic. Make up your bloody mind . Build a bridge to take the turn out of that junction and pedestrianise the salmon Weir.

topcat77

gordongekko wrote: »

It's only about 2 months ago they were telling us they were closing the salmon Weir to traffic. Make up your bloody mind . Build a bridge to take the turn out of that junction and pedestrianise the salmon Weir.

They are still closing off the bridge to general traffic.

westgolf

[quote/]
The walkways with boxes are salmon cages.[/quote]

Always thought that they were for eels.

Panda5000

I believe they are for eels.

gordongekko

topcat77 wrote: »

They are still closing off the bridge to general traffic.

Pointless having 2 bridges within a hundred yards with no traffic on them.

Panda5000

gordongekko wrote: »

Pointless having 2 bridges within a hundred yards with no traffic on them.

Depends whether your goal is the movement of cars or people across the river.

gordongekko

Panda5000 wrote: »

Depends whether your goal is the movement of cars or people across the river.

Having 2 empty bridges won't force any elderly person to walk when then are unable to do so.

Panda5000

Why would the bridges be empty?

A lot of pensioners use the bus network to collect the weekly pension, will be nice when they have a reliable network. I'm sure you'll agree since you're so concerned about the elderly, rather than your own agenda.

gordongekko

gordongekko wrote: »

Having 2 empty bridges won't force any elderly person to walk when then are unable to do so.

Sigh, this old chestnut being pulled out as a weak justification to stymie progress and change.

As stated numerous times before, nobody is being excluded, in fact the changes, when fully implemented, will lead to a far higher degree of accessibility.

For further details I suggest you read the GTS in full to avoid poor attempts at trolling that make you look silly

The speed limit changes were voted down. Not unexpected when the choice was pass or reject everything with no ammendments being allowed. I don't think there were any supporters of the proposed limit increases

Proposals to change speed limits in Galway City are voted down

https://connachttribune.ie/proposals-to-change-speed-limits-in-galway-city-are-voted-down/

Planned speed limit changes for Galway City are stuck in the slow lane after councillors rejected a proposal for new bylaws.

The bylaws would have introduced a 30km/h zone in the city centre and 19 other changes, including increased speed limits in areas such as Bóthar na dTreabh to 80km/h.

Management at City Hall have now been sent back to the drawing board to draft new speed limit bylaws after a majority of elected members voted against them – it could at least two years before new proposals are ready.

At a meeting this week, several councillors spoke out against plans to increase speed limits to 80km/h on approach roads into the city.

Many of them criticised the system of selecting roads for speed limit changes, lashed the public consultation process and decried the lack of input from councillors, despite speed limits being a reserved function of elected members.

Councillors were particularly peeved that the proposal had to be accepted in its entirety, without amendments, or rejected outright – they could not pick and choose individual changes.

Deputy Mayor Collette Connolly (Ind) led the charge against the bylaws, which she described as “idiotic”.

She lambasted the “incomprehensible decision” not to lower speed limits to 30km/h outside schools and she said it was “utter raiméis” (nonsense) that speeds can’t be lowered to 30km/h, if 85% of the traffic on that road travels at 50km/h.

Cllr Connolly said the bylaws were “flawed”, and cited the decision to leave Rahoon Road/Shantalla Road at 50km/h, despite a crèche and two schools on other roads like Lough Atalia remaining at 30km/h.

gordongekko

Close Wolfe tone bridge instead, it'll discommode far less people and is linked to a pedestrian bridge so no need to build this extra unneeded bridge. There aren't hordes of people needing 2 pedestrian bridges to nuns island.

Panda5000

And how does that link with the rest of the transport strategy?

xckjoo

gordongekko wrote: »

Close Wolfe tone bridge instead, it'll discommode far less people and is linked to a pedestrian bridge so no need to build this extra unneeded bridge. There aren't hordes of people needing 2 pedestrian bridges to nuns island.

Did you forget about the thousands of students in NUIG and all the houses in that direction?