Galway traffic

what_traffic

LostDuck wrote: »

Senior Engineer at the council is trying to defend the changes. Difficult to defend the work when it was made look like cycling infrastructure even though that's never what it was or intended to be;

https://galwaybayfm.ie/galway-bay-fm-news-desk/city-official-moves-to-defend-controversial-installation-of-bike-racks-at-dyke-road-junction/

Such nonsense from our City Engineers. Lob a few bike racks into the middle of a road to create cycling infrastructure. What dopes. They have moved racks now into the Dyke Road Car Park - another waste really unless they placed them outside the Black Box(whens that going to open though).
This has nothing to do with cycling or pedestrians facilities. Laviski hit the nail on the head. All about car traffic flow. Remove sequence for the traffic lights. It had a round robin - 5 sequence. Could reduce to 3 if they made a T-junction here.

Mrs OBumble

what_traffic wrote: »

...They have moved racks now into the Dyke Road Car Park - another waste really unless they placed them outside the Black Box(whens that going to open though).

Black Box and THT re-opened on 18 September.

Max 50 people at events, though.

gordongekko

Deleted User wrote: »

Should start to see bus travel times shorten, reliability increase and hopefully in the not too distant future, an increase in the frequency as this is the only thing holding BE back

There are no busses...... This is just a further hindrance to the elderly people west of the corrib. You don't see them closing off college road to traffic.

gordongekko

LostDuck wrote: »

Senior Engineer at the council is trying to defend the changes. Difficult to defend the work when it was made look like cycling infrastructure even though that's never what it was or intended to be;

https://galwaybayfm.ie/galway-bay-fm-news-desk/city-official-moves-to-defend-controversial-installation-of-bike-racks-at-dyke-road-junction/

A bike lane from nowhere to nowhere is pointless and a waste of public money. He should resign.

LostDuck

gordongekko wrote: »

A bike lane from nowhere to nowhere is pointless and a waste of public money. He should resign.

What bike lane?

CowboyTed

Deleted User wrote: »

The right turn at the Courthouse coming from the Cathedral has also been restricted to Bus only from this week.

This is the start of the "bus priority corridor" from Seamus Quirke Rd, through the city and out to the Wellpark junction.

Should start to see bus travel times shorten, reliability increase and hopefully in the not too distant future, an increase in the frequency as this is the only thing holding BE back

Imagine a time when most bus routes in the city are at a sub 10 min frequency. At that point you no longer need time tables. Hopefully soon!

IMHO This is the wrong way to implement this....

If they screw it up then everyone will want a reverse of it...

They have started small and they almost get a child killed... Great Start!!!!

zell12

Uinsionn Finn confirmed the right turn to St Francis Street is for buses/taxis/cycles only - "to discourage" cars with no destination in town.
How will it be enforced?

LostDuck

Well it was funny while it lasted...

https://twitter.com/OwenHanleyLives/status/1308386697244299265?s=19

Following that work and rework... can we really expect the current City Council to roll out the transport strategy effectively?

timmyntc

Can city council staff really do these things like installing new infrastructure and changing road layout etc without any votes or approval from elected councillors?

Seems bizarre

Bobeagleburger

That's pretty embarrassing. Any idea of the exact people that gave the go ahead? . Save the names in the memory bank for next local election.

zell12

6 wrote: »

That's pretty embarrassing. Any idea of the exact people that gave the go ahead? . Save the names in the memory bank for next local election.

Cllrs have very little power.
It's the unaccountable executive who pushed it through.

Bobeagleburger

zell12 wrote: »

Cllrs have very little power.
It's the unaccountable executive who pushed it through.

Did they vote on it?

what_traffic

6 wrote: »

Did they vote on it?

They did - 14 votes yesterday from a Frank Fahy(FG) motion, but the Council Executive could have ignored it if they wanted.
Have to wonder did Council Executive want it to fail in the first place.

what_traffic

6 wrote: »

That's pretty embarrassing. Any idea of the exact people that gave the go ahead? . Save the names in the memory bank for next local election.

Your looking in the wrong place - its the Engineers in the Road Dept who are responsible for this. So then really its Director of Services and CEO who would have signed off on it.

LostDuck

6 wrote: »

Did they vote on it?

They didn't vote for it to be done. They raised a motion to remove it and they voted on that... the council decided to grant that request and rolled back the changes.

zell12

What other Roads Dept surprises are in store for us?

Bobeagleburger

Thanks. Heads should roll anyway whoever did it. Ridiculous waste of time and money.

CowboyTed

CowboyTed wrote: »

IMHO This is the wrong way to implement this....

If they screw it up then everyone will want a reverse of it...

They have started small and they almost get a child killed... Great Start!!!!

Any chance of you providing evidence for the 20% cycling target that you love to trot out?

CowboyTed

LostDuck wrote: »

Well it was funny while it lasted...

https://twitter.com/OwenHanleyLives/status/1308386697244299265?s=19

Following that work and rework... can we really expect the current City Council to roll out the transport strategy effectively?

In a word NO!!....

I remember a few years back Mayo going to an all-Ireland final with a new manager. I asked the cousin what he thought of there chances, he said none. I ask why, he said that Mayo's Manager had been to a few all irelands and lost them. 'The guy is a proven looser' he is not even a unknown quantity... Mayo lost badly.

Galway City Council have a list of screw ups going back decades now... They are proven loosers... This Dyke road is just funny now and proof they can screw up small as well as big. They are just confirming there 'proven looser' status...

CowboyTed

Deleted User wrote: »

Any chance of you providing evidence for the 20% cycling target that you love to trot out?

Show me the 2008/9 Galway Transport plan? It was 20%, you can call me a liar all day but you have no proof... 20% was put down as a cycling target...

But you tell me the present target and timeframe for cycling?

So we are carrying on with these 'proven loosers' with no target and thus measurable way of proving success or failure.

'Proven loosers' don't like to show proven failures and Da Cor well done!!... You are busy giving them a blank cheque book

LostDuck

https://twitter.com/GalwayCityCo/status/1308416114716823552?s=19

https://twitter.com/GalwayCityCo/status/1308416118416080899?s=19

LostDuck

CowboyTed wrote: »

Show me the 2008/9 Galway Transport plan?

Link?

CowboyTed

CowboyTed wrote: »

Show me the 2008/9 Galway Transport plan? It was 20%, you can call me a liar all day but you have no proof... 20% was put down as a cycling target...

At no point did I call you a liar.

What I actually said was this

Deleted User wrote: »

You keep coming up with these numbers, so I'm going to ask you to please provide evidence of where they are coming from. Not saying these figures are made up, but I've a copy of the Galway Transportation Unit Plan 2008-2012 and nowhere does it state those numbers.

I've attached it for reference.

Maybe you are referring to another document, if so, please share a link or attach it to a post so the figures you continuously state can be examined

All I'm asking for is evidence of the number you like to use to dismiss future plans for Galway city. You claim its in a 2008 transport plan, so show it then, I'd honestly like to review it for myself.

I have no issue with said document stating that number, I just want to review the context and content for myself to see

1. If it actually states that number
2. How it was proposed to achieve that number
3. What actual progress has been made
4. How much of what was proposed has been carried over into current plans
5. How much has been completely dropped

As you repeatedly use this 20% number to bash every proposal I think its only fair that this number be open to review and critique

This is not an unfair or unreasonable request

what_traffic

CowboyTed wrote: »

So we are carrying on with these 'proven loosers' with no target and thus measurable way of proving success or failure.

'Proven loosers' don't like to show proven failures and Da Cor well done!!... You are busy giving them a blank cheque book[/B]

Earlier on in the thread - you were giving the impression that City Council were doing active tasks to hit this 20% target that you mention and were actively providing infrastructure?

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114559541&postcount=2735

CowboyTed

First there is a cycle lane continuously from Salthill & Knocknacarra to Ballybrit.... This is one of the main through-fares during peak hours yet few cyclists. That is infrastructure.

CowboyTed

Deleted User wrote: »

At no point did I call you a liar.

What I actually said was this



All I'm asking for is evidence of the number you like to use to dismiss future plans for Galway city. You claim its in a 2008 transport plan, so show it then, I'd honestly like to review it for myself.

I have no issue with said document stating that number, I just want to review the context and content for myself to see

1. If it actually states that number
2. How it was proposed to achieve that number
3. What actual progress has been made
4. How much of what was proposed has been carried over into current plans
5. How much has been completely dropped

As you repeatedly use this 20% number to bash every proposal I think its only fair that this number be open to review and critique

This is not an unfair or unreasonable request

We can't find it... But we can't find one any other either...

1. If it actually states that number - Yes it did
2. How it was proposed to achieve that number - very little, that what was comical
3. What actual progress has been made - 1% cycling (4.5 to 5.5%); 2.5% (5% to 7.5%) (doing this from memory)
4. How much of what was proposed has been carried over into current plans - It didn't state clearly or don't rememeber
5. How much has been completely dropped -

I was just pointing out that there was totally unrealistic targets set in the past.

I will point out nobody has shown proof of any other targets...

Now we have shown that infrastructure was built and increases were minimal.

Before allocating more resources I would expect to see benefit and cost on new developments...

I am being met with, WHY DO YOU WANT THAT?

Sorry but I do not believe we should be spending money (no matter how well meaning) is such an uncontrolled fashion. This undermines cycling as well.

CowboyTed

what_traffic wrote: »

Earlier on in the thread - you were giving the impression that City Council were doing active tasks to hit this 20% target that you mention and were actively providing infrastructure?

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114559541&postcount=2735

CowboyTed

Agreed... The City Council used this to say they could hit there targets.

Problem is, people didn't use it in anticipated numbers. Now they want to do more, this sounds like doubling down on a failure...

LostDuck

CowboyTed wrote: »

We can't find it...

Ah, stopped reading after this.

LostDuck

LostDuck wrote: »

https://twitter.com/GalwayCityCo/status/1308416114716823552?s=19

https://twitter.com/GalwayCityCo/status/1308416118416080899?s=19

Great to see that a stupid decision can actually be quickly reversed.

Hopefully other mad ideas like no cars over the salmon weir bridge last a similar amount of time if they are not changed before even being rolled out.

CowboyTed

CowboyTed wrote: »

We can't find it... But we can't find one any other either...

There was only 1 transport related document produced by Galway City Council in 2008, which I attached to an earlier post, and it does not contain any reference to your number. As such, from this point forward, you don't mind if the rest of us take it that the 20% number you use, as being a figment of your imagination with no basis in reality. Happy for you to prove me wrong by actually producing said document.

CowboyTed wrote: »

I was just pointing out that there was totally unrealistic targets set in the past.

Those targets do not exist, they are figments of your imagination

CowboyTed wrote: »

I will point out nobody has shown proof of any other targets...

You want evidence of something that doesn't exist?

CowboyTed wrote: »

Now we have shown that infrastructure was built and increases were minimal.

The bike lanes on SQR were the only infrastructure built since then. Paint doesn't count as infrastructure

CowboyTed wrote: »

Before allocating more resources I would expect to see benefit and cost on new developments...

I am being met with, WHY DO YOU WANT THAT?

Go ask the council for that if you are so interested

CowboyTed wrote: »

Sorry but I do not believe we should be spending money (no matter how well meaning) is such an uncontrolled fashion. This undermines cycling as well.[/B]

Anything which provides protected cycling infrastructure only enhances the case for cycling

LostDuck

Jazmin Harsh Gold wrote: »

Great to see that a stupid decision can actually be quickly reversed.

Hopefully other mad ideas like no cars over the salmon weir bridge last a similar amount of time if they are not changed before even being rolled out.

The difference with the Salmon Weir Bridge is that's part of a coherent masterplan and has been publicly available and reviewed with external consultation.

The changes on Dyke Road were just a random ill-thought-out splurge of mobility funding to try discourage the use of Dyke Road.