Galway traffic

Will there be an easy way to register opposition to these stupid and needless speed limit reductions (while still supporting the increase on bother na’dt) or do you actually have to attend to express an opinion/vote or whatever?

Mrs OBumble

Whereisgalway wrote: »

Why would a buisness say no to a reduction on speed limit

Because they realise that what's appropriate at 4pm would be crazy at 4am

what_traffic

Jazmin Harsh Gold wrote: »

Will there be an easy way to register opposition to these stupid and needless speed limit reductions (while still supporting the increase on bother na’dt) or do you actually have to attend to express an opinion/vote or whatever?

Nope. Its a NON-Statutory public consultation. Cllrs are the ones to lobby here for increasing the 30kmph zone to include more residential roads etc

what_traffic

TwoWheeledTim wrote: »

The late night taxis might have some issues with it.

Probably - the other factor this illegal speeding behaviour contributes to the local environment is the noise. The noise levels this speeding creates for residents living on these roads is a big problem during the night when this speeding occurs. Examples Bohermore, Shantalla Road. So not just a "Road Safety" issue for vulnerable road users.

TwoWheeledTim

This guy is going to be screwed if it's enforced...
https://connachttribune.ie/judge-slams-cops-over-unfair-speed-traaps-050/

"A taxi driver could have racked up 25 penalty points after he was detected driving over the speed limit on five separate occasions in the same spot in the space of 70 minutes."

Mrs OBumble

what_traffic wrote: »

Probably - the other factor this illegal speeding behaviour contributes to the local environment is the noise. The noise levels this speeding creates for residents living on these roads is a big problem during the night when this speeding occurs. Examples Bohermore, Shantalla Road. So not just a "Road Safety" issue for vulnerable road users.

Eh? You've somehow morphed from reducing the speed limit from 50km/h to 30km/h, to "illegal speeding".

Travelling at 50km/h is not currently illegal. There are places and times when it would count as dangerous driving, which certainly is illegal Equally there are times/places when restricting travel to 30km/h would be bonkers (eg Merchant's Rd at 4am on a Tuesday).

People doing illegal, noise pollution producing driving in the suburbs are not going to change their behaviour just because the speed limit has been decreased. It's a totally different problem.

Whereisgalway

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Because they realise that what's appropriate at 4pm would be crazy at 4am

What business's apart from taxis are open at 4am

gordongekko

Whereisgalway wrote: »

What business's apart from taxis are open at 4am

Most essential services are 247

xckjoo

4am seems like an appropriate time to be driving at 30kmph on those streets as there'll be drunk people doing stupid things like wandering randomly only the road

Whereisgalway

gordongekko wrote: »

Most essential services are 247

And these would be advocating for the speed limit to be increased?

CowboyTed

Muahahaha wrote: »

jesus that is just awful, you could over over the handlebars if you hit that on a road bike. No wonder cyclists dont use them.

Yet they spend all there time wanting new cycle lanes and not fixing the ones they got...

You are right it is a disgrace but it must be so unused it doesn't warrant repair... It the road beside it was that way there would be an avalanche of calls to Corpo and Galway Bay FM...

xckjoo

CowboyTed wrote: »

Yet they spend all there time wanting new cycle lanes and not fixing the ones they got...

You are right it is a disgrace but it must be so unused it doesn't warrant repair... It the road beside it was that way there would be an avalanche of calls to Corpo and Galway Bay FM...

That's some crazy logic leaps you've got going on there. Cyclists don't use the cycle lanes because they're in such bad condition so they must not want them fixed. Sure Shop Street must be the same. It must have been constantly falling apart because it was never used and nobody wanted it fixed.



I'll also reiterate (again since you don't seem to be picking it up the last half-dozen times I pointed it out) that most cycle campaigns are looking for proper, joined-up, safe cycling infrastructure. Not slapping a band aid on what we've got and pretending it's fit-for-purpose. More cycle lanes alone is not something I've ever seen campaigned for. Anybody I know that cycles will complain about the half-arsed efforts these lanes represent.



I think I'm going to stop replying to you at this stage. It seems like you're either deliberately twisting things or so convinced you're correct in your observations that you're misinterpreting things to continue to fit the narrative you've made up. No offense intended but I think I'm wasting my time here. If I saw some inclination that you were trying to understand why things are the way then I'd be happy to discuss.

CowboyTed

CowboyTed wrote: »

Yet they spend all there time wanting new cycle lanes and not fixing the ones they got...

You are right it is a disgrace but it must be so unused it doesn't warrant repair... It the road beside it was that way there would be an avalanche of calls to Corpo and Galway Bay FM...

How is the education progressing?

CowboyTed

TwoWheeledTim wrote: »

The problem with these % share targets is they're like the climate change emissions targets. Let's all spend a lot of time agreeing on a number then get a sense of achievement when we have a number set for a future date then do absolutely nothing until the date arrives. Repeat and set a future date and % target.

Our "target" should be let's make X% of journeys in Galway City achievable by segregated cycle lane by 20xx, without having to interact with motorists. That target is measurable by actual infrastructural changes.

We've seen in other countries that if you have a linked up segregated network, the % share will come.

A football manager doesn't decide before a match that we're going to aim for 4-1 result at the end of 90 minutes. They aim on strategies to best overcome the team presented to them, get that right and the win will come.

You wonder why you don't get traction in the community, well you just shown it...

Galway has built infrastructure and there has been no real increase. Now you are coming back and wanting more. A target was set in 2008 (20%) and money was spent to make that target and it was a abysmal failure. Now you are demanding more money and resources and when ask what is your target you state you don't need one. Sorry, but good luck convincing a business that you want money and resources but unable to set specific benefits.

A football manager has a target before a match to win. He then sets up a plan to achieve that win. How long do think a manager would last in the job if he said he had no plan?

Also I will point out, saying you don't need plans or targets comes across as condescending... Those Salthill businesses pay rates, residents don't, they pay for a lot of things that are going on, they have a right to be consulted. Saying don't, especially in this climate, immediately gets them defensive.
The Prom is jam packed on fine summer day and the cars are coming from many rural areas too far for bike and not supported by Public Transport. Salthill businesses make hay during these days... They make it on other days when people drive to Prom for a walk.

There is an alternative... The Cyclist could get Dr. Mannix Rd. and non seaside route... Given on a temporary basis and kept if usage remains on target. That is a use it or loose it policy.

Sorry but cycling has not shown the usage numbers with what they were given for a permanent cycle lane one the Prom just yet. I would give them one for a month in October, review and extend to three months as a trial. Businesses could then judge the impact to their business and usage could be monitored.

ben.schlomo

CowboyTed wrote: »

You wonder why you don't get traction in the community, well you just shown it...

Galway has built infrastructure and there has been no real increase. Now you are coming back and wanting more. A target was set in 2008 (20%) and money was spent to make that target and it was a abysmal failure. Now you are demanding more money and resources and when ask what is your target you state you don't need one. Sorry, but good luck convincing a business that you want money and resources but unable to set specific benefits.

A football manager has a target before a match to win. He then sets up a plan to achieve that win. How long do think a manager would last in the job if he said he had no plan?

Also I will point out, saying you don't need plans or targets comes across as condescending... Those Salthill businesses pay rates, residents don't, they pay for a lot of things that are going on, they have a right to be consulted. Saying don't, especially in this climate, immediately gets them defensive.
The Prom is jam packed on fine summer day and the cars are coming from many rural areas too far for bike and not supported by Public Transport. Salthill businesses make hay during these days... They make it on other days when people drive to Prom for a walk.

There is an alternative... The Cyclist could get Dr. Mannix Rd. and non seaside route... Given on a temporary basis and kept if usage remains on target. That is a use it or loose it policy.

Sorry but cycling has not shown the usage numbers with what they were given for a permanent cycle lane one the Prom just yet. I would give them one for a month in October, review and extend to three months as a trial. Businesses could then judge the impact to their business and usage could be monitored.

What infrastructure was built?

CowboyTed

xckjoo wrote: »

That's some crazy logic leaps you've got going on there. Cyclists don't use the cycle lanes because they're in such bad condition so they must not want them fixed. Sure Shop Street must be the same. It must have been constantly falling apart because it was never used and nobody wanted it fixed.



I'll also reiterate (again since you don't seem to be picking it up the last half-dozen times I pointed it out) that most cycle campaigns are looking for proper, joined-up, safe cycling infrastructure. Not slapping a band aid on what we've got and pretending it's fit-for-purpose. More cycle lanes alone is not something I've ever seen campaigned for. Anybody I know that cycles will complain about the half-arsed efforts these lanes represent.



I think I'm going to stop replying to you at this stage. It seems like you're either deliberately twisting things or so convinced you're correct in your observations that you're misinterpreting things to continue to fit the narrative you've made up. No offense intended but I think I'm wasting my time here. If I saw some inclination that you were trying to understand why things are the way then I'd be happy to discuss.

Right but I asked what to you wwant and what usage do we expect if that is given...

I showed that the last time time was asked the number was 20% and the result was 5.5% only one percent increase.

I am amused by in the advertiser that Seam Leonard that says more cycle lanes has a lot positives(which I showed, did not materialise) and 'no downside'... I think this statement is highly questionable and that is what Salthill Business's and others are asking..

I find the responses here sometimes to very quite arrogant. The attitude of being cyclist so there we must be right with no consideration. Asking any performance metrics is met with derision and left unanswered..

CowboyTed

ben.schlomo wrote: »

What infrastructure was built?

There is a cycle lane from Knocknacarra to Ballybrit and back... The major log jam everyday... Since it has been completed cycling usage has hardly increased by 1% in the city.

I am not saying private car is the answer but the car lane has far higher usage in peak hours...

I am not anti-cycling, I am just saying that this approach to increasing the use of cycling doesn't seem to reap results...I get derision when questioning anything but this myopic view...

The transport plan in 2008(cycling was 4.6%) was to have cycling at 20% by 2020... It is presently at 5.5%, yet some here don't want to consider that a failure.

I am just asking for realistic targets so we can have realistic plans..

xckjoo

CowboyTed wrote: »

Right but I asked what to you wwant and what usage do we expect if that is given...

I showed that the last time time was asked the number was 20% and the result was 5.5% only one percent increase.

I am amused by in the advertiser that Seam Leonard that says more cycle lanes has a lot positives(which I showed, did not materialise) and 'no downside'... I think this statement is highly questionable and that is what Salthill Business's and others are asking..

I find the responses here sometimes to very quite arrogant. The attitude of being cyclist so there we must be right with no consideration. Asking any performance metrics is met with derision and left unanswered..

Alright one last try. I've pointed out several times now that that 20% target was a national ideal set in 2008 that had no serious attempt to achieve it. I'm open to being corrected on this point but nobody has yet.

I've no idea what the target number should be because I'm not a road engineer. I could pull a number out of my ass if you want but what's the point in that? Far more important in my eyes is a reduction in the modal share or private car usage for daily commutes as it's the only thing that'll improve traffic flow in the city. If you read the reports on the proposed ring/distributor (not sure what it's called these days) you'll see that the proposals that GCC currently have in place are predicted to increase this percentage, not decrease it.

I'd counter that the only arrogance here is your own in that you keep making declarative statements about how things are and how things must be, ignoring people that respond to point out the flaw in your logic and then demand hard numbers from people who are in no position to provide them (I'm not aware of any council engineers posting here but maybe I'm wrong). The obvious counter is to ask what reduction in private car usage you think should be targeted, where you got these numbers, how can they be achieved and what metrics do we use to judge if this is beneficial?


There's already tons of research out there that shows the benefit of moving people away from private car usage, but I'm gonna have to leave you to do some of that research as I don't have the time to dig it back up. I'm also open to reading research that counters these findings if you happen upon any


Edit:

CowboyTed wrote: »

There is a cycle lane from Knocknacarra to Ballybrit and back... The major log jam everyday... Since it has been completed cycling usage has hardly increased by 1% in the city.

I am not saying private car is the answer but the car lane has far higher usage in peak hours...

I am not anti-cycling, I am just saying that this approach to increasing the use of cycling doesn't seem to reap results...I get derision when questioning anything but this myopic view...

The transport plan in 2008(cycling was 4.6%) was to have cycling at 20% by 2020... It is presently at 5.5%, yet some here don't want to consider that a failure.

I am just asking for realistic targets so we can have realistic plans..

Ah here. I give up. I've already pointed out several issues with almost everything you posted here. You're either not bothered reading them or ignoring them for your own reasons. Either way you're on your own.

xckjoo

xckjoo wrote: »

Ah here. I give up. I've already pointed out several issues with almost everything you posted here. You're either not bothered reading them or ignoring them for your own reasons. Either way you're on your own.

Yup, he's using his own ignorance as a basis for his arguments. I explained how to educate himself, his recent posts show he hasn't taken that up so continues to post nonsense.

I've concluded that it's best to set him to "ignore".

TwoWheeledTim

CowboyTed wrote: »

The transport plan in 2008(cycling was 4.6%) was to have cycling at 20% by 2020... It is presently at 5.5%, yet some here don't want to consider that a failure.

Any luck pulling out this plan you keep refering to so we can review and see what was proposed?

Unfortunately most of us weren't in the same pub that day in 2008 when you printed it out and passed it around.

xckjoo

TwoWheeledTim wrote: »

Any luck pulling out this plan you keep refering to so we can review and see what was proposed?

Unfortunately most of us weren't in the same pub that day in 2008 when you printed it out and passed it around.

It's almost certainly a rehash of this discussion from a few months ago:

cooperguy wrote: »

The overall Galway Transport strategy website - Main technical report, page 25. Commuting drops to 45% car journeys, sustainable transport: 55%

xckjoo wrote: »

The section you're referring to is discussing the National Policy and Guidelines and specifically the "Smarter Travel - A Sustainable Transport Future" policy document from 2009. It's got nothing to do with any local plans beyond national policy dictates (dictated?) that we should be seeking to achieve the 5 key goals and 6 targets it summarises on those pages.

ben.schlomo

CowboyTed wrote: »

There is a cycle lane from Knocknacarra to Ballybrit and back... The major log jam everyday... Since it has been completed cycling usage has hardly increased by 1% in the city.

I am not saying private car is the answer but the car lane has far higher usage in peak hours...

I am not anti-cycling, I am just saying that this approach to increasing the use of cycling doesn't seem to reap results...I get derision when questioning anything but this myopic view...

The transport plan in 2008(cycling was 4.6%) was to have cycling at 20% by 2020... It is presently at 5.5%, yet some here don't want to consider that a failure.

I am just asking for realistic targets so we can have realistic plans..

Are you just deliberately ignoring what you've already been told or? There is no full cycle lane to Ballybrit, and you've also been shown the state of the Bothar na dTreabh section, it's unsafe, simple. No point having targets if you do nothing to try to reach them, which is what has happened here.

what_traffic

what_traffic wrote: »

Probably - the other factor this illegal speeding behaviour contributes to the local environment is the noise. The noise levels this speeding creates for residents living on these roads is a big problem during the night when this speeding occurs. Examples Bohermore, Shantalla Road. So not just a "Road Safety" issue for vulnerable road users.

For NOISE maps

https://gis.epa.ie/EPAMaps/

Zoom into the City.
Goto: Environment and Wellbeing --> Noise --> "Noise Round 3 Road - Lden" and Noise Round 3 Road - Lnight

only certain roads are covered but gives an indication of the issue that motor vehicle traffic speeds and type of road surfaces used can contribute to this.

what_traffic

CowboyTed wrote: »

The transport plan in 2008(cycling was 4.6%) was to have cycling at 20% by 2020... It is presently at 5.5%, yet some here don't want to consider that a failure.

Ya Dept of Transport and Galway City Council failed once again, interesting that in spite of there failure to do anything on sustainable transport infrastructure in the City - the nos have gone up by 20%. (Not up to an overall modal share of 20%)
Only last week this was in the media
State’s sustainable transport ‘failure’ reported to OECD
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/state-s-sustainable-transport-failure-reported-to-oecd-1.4304507

gordongekko

Whereisgalway wrote: »

And these would be advocating for the speed limit to be increased?

How the hell would i know?? What did they say when you asked them?

gordongekko

CowboyTed wrote: »

There is a cycle lane from Knocknacarra to Ballybrit and back... The major log jam everyday... Since it has been completed cycling usage has hardly increased by 1% in the city.

I am not saying private car is the answer but the car lane has far higher usage in peak hours...

I am not anti-cycling, I am just saying that this approach to increasing the use of cycling doesn't seem to reap results...I get derision when questioning anything but this myopic view...

The transport plan in 2008(cycling was 4.6%) was to have cycling at 20% by 2020... It is presently at 5.5%, yet some here don't want to consider that a failure.

I am just asking for realistic targets so we can have realistic plans..

Ive never seen the basketball court in doughiska used...... Close down all basketball courts and dont build anymore.
I havent seen any schools being used in months close them down for good and dont invest in anymore.

Isnt this how your logic works?

CowboyTed

xckjoo wrote: »

Alright one last try. I've pointed out several times now that that 20% target was a national ideal set in 2008 that had no serious attempt to achieve it. I'm open to being corrected on this point but nobody has yet.

I've no idea what the target number should be because I'm not a road engineer. I could pull a number out of my ass if you want but what's the point in that? Far more important in my eyes is a reduction in the modal share or private car usage for daily commutes as it's the only thing that'll improve traffic flow in the city. If you read the reports on the proposed ring/distributor (not sure what it's called these days) you'll see that the proposals that GCC currently have in place are predicted to increase this percentage, not decrease it.

I'd counter that the only arrogance here is your own in that you keep making declarative statements about how things are and how things must be, ignoring people that respond to point out the flaw in your logic and then demand hard numbers from people who are in no position to provide them (I'm not aware of any council engineers posting here but maybe I'm wrong). The obvious counter is to ask what reduction in private car usage you think should be targeted, where you got these numbers, how can they be achieved and what metrics do we use to judge if this is beneficial?


There's already tons of research out there that shows the benefit of moving people away from private car usage, but I'm gonna have to leave you to do some of that research as I don't have the time to dig it back up. I'm also open to reading research that counters these findings if you happen upon any


Edit:


Ah here. I give up. I've already pointed out several issues with almost everything you posted here. You're either not bothered reading them or ignoring them for your own reasons. Either way you're on your own.

So the target in 2008 was a some fallacy but they got a budget for the Westside development from it...

I am asking how we can spend money with not quantifiable objectives... That is highly irresponsible and is huge barrier to creating infrastructure.

Sorry to break the news but people don't back unrealistic plans. Councillors nightmare is for the parking or cycle lane to go in an not be used.

Westside was given with 20% overall travel written down beside it. They took a chance and expected to see loads of people every morning cycling to work. That did not happen. Councillors were left having to explain the cost and lack of use. Westside took 18m - 2yrs of constant road works to reveal a bus lane and cycle lanes which aren't carrying one fifth of what the car lane does.

The object of this is not to reduce private cars but increase the efficiency of transport around the city. While cycling and Public Transport look great on paper and have definitely worked in other cities, at present it is not efficient use of road space at the moment.

Unlike some here I haven't said take out those lanes... But we have to ask why are they not used more... Figure that out and show on temporary basis cycling fulfilling these target figures and the support would be overwhelming..

NeftDaslari

CowboyTed wrote: »

Unlike some here I haven't said take out those lanes... But we have to ask why are they not used more... Figure that out and show on temporary basis cycling fulfilling these target figures and the support would be overwhelming..

It’s almost suggesting that having an unpunctual bus service (because it’s always stuck in traffic) and a bike lane, that begins and ends at dangerous roundabouts, are both disincentives to using those facilities.

ben.schlomo

NeftDaslari wrote: »

It’s almost suggesting that having an unpunctual bus service (because it’s always stuck in traffic) and a bike lane, that begins and ends at dangerous roundabouts, are both disincentives to using those facilities.

No point explaining to him, he blatantly ignores everything that's pointed out and regurgitates the same stuff in every post.

what_traffic

CowboyTed wrote: »

So the target in 2008 was a some fallacy but they got a budget for the Westside development from it...

False. SQR / BOD had nothing to do with Dept of Transport "Smarter Travel" program.
What year did ABP direct Galway City Council on the SQR / BOD road?