Galway's traffic issues

what_traffic

what_traffic wrote: »

It will be a moving target into the future but 10% of Workers and Students in the City by 2020.

Core City Centre: Roughly about 340 (that is including the 160 announced), some of this 160 is NEW (Sea Road), but some is replacing existing stands like North East corner of Eyre SQ which had sub standard parking in place prior.
NUIG provision would be a some what useful model to follow for the City.

Further detailed reading here - submission from Galway Cycling Campaign to the
Ireland 2040 Our Plan – National Planning Framework
GAEN

http://npf.ie/wp-content/uploads/0749-Galway-Cycling-Campaign.compressed.pdf

Mrs OBumble

xckjoo wrote: »

And some people's "reality" is unique only to themselves and the hoards of cyclists out to get them every time they leave the house.....

Ahh, yeah, right.

So I went back and took a pic today. What I see is

• Kerbstones marking where the footpath is
• Bollards to keep cars off that footpath (removable so that the street CAN be used as a shared space - but usually not removed)
• Part of the roadway painted to show the area where vehicles may be parked.

(Yes, I edited it slightly, to remove the number plate and a couple of faces on people up the street.)

If you can see something different there, please do share.

Johnny_BravoIII

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Ahh, yeah, right.

So I went back and took a pic today. What I see is

• Kerbstones marking where the footpath is
• Bollards to keep cars off that footpath (removable so that the street CAN be used as a shared space - but usually not removed)
• Part of the roadway painted to show the area where vehicles may be parked.

(Yes, I edited it slightly, to remove the number plate and a couple of faces on people up the street.)

If you can see something different there, please do share.

It would make sense to pedestrianise this street completely.

Add pedestrianise lower henry street and the 'west end' up to kai restuarant would massively increase footfall to pubs and restuarants in the area in very little time. My bet is it would boom as a counterbalance to quay street.

Also cross street should be pedestrianised as is done regularly during festivals, also middle street, market street and abbeygate street lower should be looked at when then above is sorted.

Mrs OBumble

Johnny_BravoIII wrote: »

It would make sense to pedestrianise this street completely.

Add pedestrianise lower henry street and the 'west end' up to kai restuarant would massively increase footfall to pubs and restuarants in the area in very little time. My bet is it would boom as a counterbalance to quay street.

Also cross street should be pedestrianised as is done regularly during festivals, also middle street, market street and abbeygate street lower should be looked at when then above is sorted.

**** off.

I live in one of those streets. Pedestrianising them would make them like Eyre Square or Shop St,. ie totally unsuitable for living in.

Johnny_BravoIII

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

**** off.

I live in one of those streets. Pedestrianising them would make them like Eyre Square or Shop St,. ie totally unsuitable for living in.

I don't see how. Reduced car useage is generally accepted as a factor in increasing a cities suitability for 'living in".

Can you outline why you think the above suggestion might reduce the quality of life for residents?

https://www.rapidtransition.org/stories/reclaiming-the-streets-the-increasing-trend-of-pedestrianisation-around-the-world/

I found this article online. Its a decent summary of the types of trends happening in urban environments.

If your interested the following book outlines similar themes

Charles Montgomery
Happy City: Transforming Our Lives Through Urban Design

Pedestrianisation of the city centre will happen. It's just a question of whether we want to wait a generation. The solution to galways traffic issues is through implementing well tested spatial planning, urban design and public realm projects. The answers to the cities problems are straight forward. We don't have to 'think outside the box' here. The solutions exist with countless examples of how cities have reduced traffic issues in a matter of a short few years.

There will be local resistence initially. There always is to change. Its not enough of a reason not to move forward regardless.

Gaspode

No need for bad language thanks

ratracer

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

**** off.

I live in one of those streets. Pedestrianising them would make them like Eyre Square or Shop St,. ie totally unsuitable for living in.

Ah yes, the NIMBY mask finally slips....

The ideas floated were actually quite useful. There is no reason for Raven Tce not to be pedestrianised. As is, it’s currently only yet another traffic dodging rat run.

Bobeagleburger

Agree that the street outside Salthouse area should be pedestrianised.

Johnny_BravoIII

Just a note to follow up the above. It's not hard to spot the streets which should be considered for pedestrianisation projects.
Its the streets whereby there are more pedestrians than cars!! There's no way traffic should be allowed through cross street. It makes no sense!! Same with market street and abbeygate street. You only have to walk down it to see people jumping out of the way of cars to do their shopping.
Someday we will look back at the madness of allowing traffic drive through crowds of drunk people outside the pubs and chippers of the west end.

There's plenty of car parking at the cathedral, gardai station which could be expanded. There's space to build high rise car parks within 500m to 1 k of all the areas mentioned above. Why is it still considered normal to give priority to cars in areas of the town packed with people? Its bonkers, the world has changed. Better approaches are being implemented worldwide.

Mrs OBumble

ratracer wrote: »

Ah yes, the NIMBY mask finally slips....

The ideas floated were actually quite useful. There is no reason for Raven Tce not to be pedestrianised. As is, it’s currently only yet another traffic dodging rat run.

NIMBY mask? Not sure where you're getting that from. I've always been open about living in the inner city area, and believing that this area needs access which balances the needs of businesses (deliveries), community organisations (churches, charity shops, supported housing) shoppers, recreational users (drinkers / diners) and residents (some vehicle access to their homes - like the rest of ye in the suburbs have). What's more, I don't own a car, only rent one very occasionally and do most of my commuting on foot or bot.

Obviously you're not aware of what happened in Raven's Tce last summer. In short, patrons of the Salthouse unoffically expanded its smoking area to include most of the other side of the street. There were no barriers, so they were joined by various street drinkers et al. It became quite intimidating for customers of businesses on either side and for the residents above (yes, it's a mixed use street). The Salthouse tried putting up signs saying "lovely customers, please only stand in front of our place" - but they only worked for a week or so. And the non-customer hang-out crew took no notice. Eventually, the Salthouse had to enforce their actual licence condition, ie on-premises sales only, no drinks outside.

Now - if Raven's Tce was time-limit closed to through traffic, yes the space could be used for a beer-garden with barriers. But having to shoo away the non-customers would be tiresome and not really their vibe. It could only be time-limit closed, not fully, because they need deliveries and rubbish removal - so the kerbing would need to remain to give a pedestrian at that time. And the residents would still have a continuous noise issue.

My main concern with extended pedestrianisation isn't actually loss of car access. It's what happens in the streets where people live, when there are wide spaces and lack of passive surveillance. Drum circles are great craic - except if you have to listen to them all day. Wobbly-fiddling buskers are very sweet - except if you're at home sick and tormented by them all day. People hanging out is ok .. except the people who hang out in the street rather than in a pub are usually begging, bushing or planning a crime, and most of us don't really want these outside our homes. And toilet training appears to have been unsuccessful for a surprising high proportion of people who think it's ok to piss (and worse - yes I've seen it) in people's front doorways.

As to how successful pedestrianisation is - look at Eyre Square and Williams / Williamsgate / Shop / High / Quay streets. I'm only aware of three buildings which have people living upstairs now. There used to be more - but they were driven out by the noise. Even the just-off streets are pretty bad for noise. People I know who lived in the apartments on Spanish Pde say much the same thing about the plaza in front, too.


New approaches to Galway's traffice fundamentally require people to learn to share, and to consider other people. Yes, we need reduced car use - but just banning cars from city-centre streets won't achieve that.

McGiver

Mrs OBumble wrote:

New approaches to Galway's traffice fundamentally require people to learn to share, and to consider other people. Yes, we need reduced car use - but just banning cars from city-centre streets won't achieve that.

Mrs OBumble wrote:

As to how successful pedestrianisation is - look at Eyre Square and Williams / Williamsgate / Shop / High / Quay streets. I'm only aware of three buildings which have people living upstairs now. There used to be more - but they were driven out by the noise. Even the just-off streets are pretty bad for noise. People I know who lived in the apartments on Spanish Pde say much the same thing about the plaza in front, too.

Have you actually come out of Ireland or at least County Galway to see and experience a pedestrianised city? I would advise you to do so before posting here.

jjpep

This is an interesting read: https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/best-place-in-the-world-to-be-a-driver-netherlands#.XayIjL40zOQ.link

Johnny_BravoIII

Obviously you're not aware of what happened in Raven's Tce last summer. In short, patrons of the Salthouse unoffically expanded its smoking area to include most of the other side of the street. There were no barriers, so they were joined by various street drinkers et al. It became quite intimidating for customers of businesses on either side and for the residents above (yes, it's a mixed use street).

There will always be problems in the 'drinking areas' of Galway and any other place on planet earth. They are and should be policed in the normal ways. A big part of Galways attraction, especially during the summer, is the citizens siting outside mingling, sharing a beer in the sunshine. Would you clear spanish arch during the summer to prevent issues with alco's and noise? The unfortunate reality is that if you live within earshot of the drinking part of any town anywhere you will always have noise pollution. It's just part of the fabric of any city.

Groups of people hanging out on 'Ravens Terrace' is a good thing and would not be possible if through traffic had not been curtailed. Reducing traffic invites citizens out onto the streets, which increases footfall and has many benificial knock-on impacts.

My main concern with extended pedestrianisation isn't actually loss of car access. It's what happens in the streets where people live, when there are wide spaces and lack of passive surveillance. Drum circles are great craic - except if you have to listen to them all day. Wobbly-fiddling buskers are very sweet - except if you're at home sick and tormented by them all day. People hanging out is ok .. except the people who hang out in the street rather than in a pub are usually begging, bushing or planning a crime, and most of us don't really want these outside our homes. And toilet training appears to have been unsuccessful for a surprising high proportion of people who think it's ok to piss (and worse - yes I've seen it) in people's front doorways.

You seem to have a deep concern for potential anti-social behaviour and believe that traffic is the solution i.e. people cannot gather if traffic exists?
The above concerns are anti-social issues relating to the 'pubs n clubs' part of town. It has little to do with pedestrianisation IMO

As to how successful pedestrianisation is - look at Eyre Square and Williams / Williamsgate / Shop / High / Quay streets. I'm only aware of three buildings which have people living upstairs now. There used to be more - but they were driven out by the noise. Even the just-off streets are pretty bad for noise. People I know who lived in the apartments on Spanish Pde say much the same thing about the plaza in front, too.

Again, a side effect of the success of Galway in recent years, is noise pollution. The pubs and restuarants are full at the weekends, the tourist trade is booming, the city is growing. There will always be noisey parts of town. We don't want to kill this IMO. Some areas of town are suited to young people, some are not.

Johnny_BravoIII

I would go futher than previously outlined. There is a strong argument for closing the inner city to cars. The area from WoodQuay, Eglington Street, Williamsgate Street, Eyre Square, Middle Street, St Augustine St, Cross Street, Market Street, AbbeyGate Street, Mill Street, St Domnick Street, the "West End". Bus Access only for the necessary areas i.e. the outer loop from Eglington Street, around Nun's Island, Domnick Street etc

It will happen eventually.

xckjoo

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Ahh, yeah, right.

So I went back and took a pic today. What I see is

• Kerbstones marking where the footpath is
• Bollards to keep cars off that footpath (removable so that the street CAN be used as a shared space - but usually not removed)
• Part of the roadway painted to show the area where vehicles may be parked.

(Yes, I edited it slightly, to remove the number plate and a couple of faces on people up the street.)

If you can see something different there, please do share.

Really lost on what your point is with all this? I live nearby so am well aware what the place looks like. My point was that the space is supposed to be a shared space and not a normal road. Think that's fairly obvious and confirmed by the Councils own words. I'd personally go further and remove that parking in the photo you included, but think it's supposed to be for short term running into the shops so doubt it's going anywhere.
But the road is supposed to be a move towards areas more pedestrian friendly areas so feel free to walk down the middle.

Mrs OBumble

Johnny_BravoIII wrote: »

I would go futher than previously outlined. There is a strong argument for closing the inner city to cars. The area from WoodQuay, Eglington Street, Williamsgate Street, Eyre Square, Middle Street, St Augustine St, Cross Street, Market Street, AbbeyGate Street, Mill Street, St Domnick Street, the "West End". Bus Access only for the necessary areas i.e. the outer loop from Eglington Street, around Nun's Island, Domnick Street etc

It will happen eventually.

Do you have any idea how many old people live in council / voluntary-housing flats in those areas. For some, removing car access would leave them housebound, walking to a bus stop isn't an option.

But yeah f*** old people.

And deliveries can by done by leprechauns. Including of coffins to the churches and funeral home inside that area.

Johnny_BravoIII

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Do you have any idea how many old people live in council / voluntary-housing flats in those areas. For some, removing car access would leave them housebound, walking to a bus stop isn't an option.

But yeah f*** old people.

And deliveries can by done by leprechauns. Including of coffins to the churches and funeral home inside that area.

Ah com'on.... the "my granny needs to get to the shops" argument.
What number of older people living in those areas are so physically diabled that the can only make it to the car parked directly on the street outside and not the bus stop 200 metres away? How are they even able to drive if they can only walk 5 metres? Should they not be provided with mobility mopeds etc.

The benefit of removing cars from city centre is about as age friendly as it gets. It's less intimidating for old, young and disabled to move about without needing to look out for cars.

Whether you like it or not solving traffic issues means reducing car's and moving people onto public transport.

Ps
Can we just assume that there will still be access for emergency services, street cleaners, goods delivery, funeral cars etc.

what_traffic

Johnny_BravoIII wrote: »

Ps
Can we just assume that there will still be access for emergency services, street cleaners, goods delivery, funeral cars etc.

Ya easy enough to cover the "what about... what if..." the other advantage they will have better access to the City Centre from the approach roads if its not the current car magnet that it is.

There were some specific and legitimate concerns from the fire service about certain roads being closed as their station is so central.

The overall principle of less cars on the road would be better for the emergencies is still valid though.

what_traffic

Deleted User wrote: »

There were some specific and legitimate concerns from the fire service about certain roads being closed as their station is so central.

The overall principle of less cars on the road would be better for the emergencies is still valid though.

Car culture is so strong here now - people have difficulty understanding this.

Re Fire Service - look at Dublin Fire Twitter. Do Galway have a twitter handler?
One of issues for them in Dublin that they highlight regularly are cars blocking access on residential roads/streets. Other Country's in Europe use collapsible bollards that emergency services have automatic access.

what_traffic

xckjoo wrote: »

I'd personally go further and remove that parking in the photo you included, but think it's supposed to be for short term running into the shops so doubt it's going anywhere.

Agree - any surveys done on the business on that street prior to that iteration of Raven Terrace? Amount of business that that parking gives those business would be very low. In City Council - any time they hear mention of removing on street car parking; all they think of is the money/revenue that will be lost.

Johnny_BravoIII

what_traffic wrote: »

Agree - any surveys done on the business on that street prior to that iteration of Raven Terrace? Amount of business that that parking gives those business would be very low. In City Council - any time they hear mention of removing on street car parking; all they think of is the money/revenue that will be lost.

Less cars, more people, higher footfall.
Proven over and over again.
Would the traders on shop street prefer traffic so people car park near Easons!

It's nuts that traders usually shout the loudest against the thing which would benefit them most.

Johnny_BravoIII

Johnny_BravoIII wrote: »

Less cars, more people, higher footfall.
Proven over and over again.
Would the traders on shop street prefer traffic so people car park near Easons!

It's nuts that traders usually shout the loudest against the thing which would benefit them most.

Because traders like me and anyone with half a brain can understand that less cars will definitely mean less people without a shadow of a doubt. A large majority of people use their car to get into the city, remove the cars and you discourage, reduce or remove these people from coming in.

The more parking you remove and harder it is for people to get close to the city Centre the more of the county you stop coming into the city and the county has a lot lot more people than the city.

xckjoo

Gwen Shallow Raccoon wrote: »

Because traders like me and anyone with half a brain can understand that less cars will definitely mean less people without a shadow of a doubt. A large majority of people use their car to get into the city, remove the cars and you discourage, reduce or remove these people from coming in.

The more parking you remove and harder it is for people to get close to the city Centre the more of the county you stop coming into the city and the county has a lot lot more people than the city.

Nah. Sometimes what seems obvious is actually the completely wrong conclusion. That's the whole point of researching things instead of just jumping in with the first notion that pops into your head. Maybe you need two halfs of a brain to realise that though

Car traffic causes less spending in shops. It's footfall that's important. People are already avoiding town because of all the traffic jams. Sure you can do all your shopping online now if you want. Remove the traffic jams and more people will come in and spend an enjoyable afternoon wandering around spending money. The only way to reduce the traffic is to reduce the car usage. There is no alternative. Cars just take up too much space.

DuckSlice

xckjoo wrote: »

Nah. Sometimes what seems obvious is actually the completely wrong conclusion. That's the whole point of researching things instead of just jumping in with the first notion that pops into your head. Maybe you need two halfs of a brain to realise that though

Car traffic causes less spending in shops. It's footfall that's important. People are already avoiding town because of all the traffic jams. Sure you can do all your shopping online now if you want. Remove the traffic jams and more people will come in and spend an enjoyable afternoon wandering around spending money. The only way to reduce the traffic is to reduce the car usage. There is no alternative. Cars just take up too much space.

So what you're saying is, remove the cars so more people can drive in to the city? :P

xckjoo

Came across this CityMetric site that has some interesting articles.

One deals with if public transport can fix congestion. Conclusion is not on it's own. Would need to be coupled with a push to offset the increased space on the roads with congestion charges. Interestingly they also highlight the benefits of public transport for disabled and elderly people. Goes against the narrative we see here about how reducing car traffic would leave them housebound.
Second one deals with pedestrianisation and if it's always a good thing (with the majority of the evidence pointing towards it being good). Conclusions seem to be that there's negative sides to it such as increases in house prices and rental costs (as it's more attractive to retailers) which can cause homogenisation of store types, but there's massive improvements in quality of life, cafe and social scenes. Looks like we're going to need to see a shift in the focus of city centres no matter what.

xckjoo

etxp wrote: »

So what you're saying is, remove the cars so more people can drive in to the city? :P

Um. No....
Remove cars so people can get near the city on a different form of transport. There's many of them

DuckSlice

xckjoo wrote: »

Um. No....
Remove cars so people can get near the city on a different form of transport. There's many of them

The trouble is, if there is no traffic jams the car will always be quicker and more convenient than public transport. If there is no traffic I will be in town and parked in the same time I would have walked to the bus stop and waited for the bus to come.

PS.
I'm just stirring as I am bored at work

topcat77

etxp wrote: »

The trouble is, if there is no traffic jams the car will always be quicker and more convenient than public transport. If there is no traffic I will be in town and parked in the same time I would have walked to the bus stop and waited for the bus to come.

PS.
I'm just stirring as I am bored at work

You reduce the amount of cars and then you change the road usage.

reduce the space dedicated to the almighty car and increase the space for public transport (taxi included), pedestrians, cyclists, public spaces, etc...

xckjoo

etxp wrote: »

The trouble is, if there is no traffic jams the car will always be quicker and more convenient than public transport. If there is no traffic I will be in town and parked in the same time I would have walked to the bus stop and waited for the bus to come.

PS.
I'm just stirring as I am bored at work

That's actually discussed in the first article I linked to in my other post. I think they say that congestion charges are the only thing proven to keep the reduction in traffic jams down, but I think that's based on expanding the road capacity instead of just re-purposing existing road space for public transport, etc. I can't see how time cost wouldn't be a big factor too though. If it's faster to take the bus than drive, which would you pick? If the ring road is built, would people be open to congestion charges or tolls?


PS
Is that not why we're all here