galwaycyclist wrote: As I made clear am talking about having less traffic in a situation where there is a general absence of speed controls and there is official opposition to having a speed management strategy - the result will inevitably be higher free speeds of traffic. Therefore the result is more danger.
Victor wrote: » But it was the edge of the city when it was built.
To_be_confirmed wrote: » I would argue it's much safer to have quiet roads where the speeds of other vehicles are successfully curtailed (as an example) than it is to have roads where they're only safe because most of the road space consists of idle cars and trucks.
galwaycyclist wrote: » Where did I say anywhere?
galwaycyclist wrote: » Mind those strawmen
galwaycyclist wrote: » There is already established precedent for closing certain roads in the city at certain times of the day. Shop street, Mainguard St, Abbeygate St, High St and Quay St are all closed to HGVs at certain times of the day. The sky hasnt fallen and the world hasnt stopped spinning. Excluding HGVs from identified school routes for much shorter periods is merely a variation on the same thing.
galwaycyclist wrote: » I agree but the problem is in Galway is that those behind the bypass are not offering anybody any quiet roads where the speeds of other vehicles are curtailed.
antoobrien wrote: » Lets get realistic about the situation in Co Galway, it has always had a widely dispersed settlement pattern. Any kind of cursory glance of the historical records will show "sprawl" is nowhere near a recent phenomenon in Co Galway. In 1956 there were 27 towns/villages in Co Galway that had populations of 200 or more - population 44791 including the (then) town of Galway. That leaves a "dispersed" or rural population of 110,762. That figure now stands at 135,578.
antoobrien wrote: » So you're talking no access anywhere across the city to the any goods or passenger vehicle of 3,500kg laden weight between those times. Very good, carry on.
antoobrien wrote: » Unless you're willing to be somewhat specific about what it is you are suggesting and one would have to assume that it is in fact a total ban you are talking about.
antoobrien wrote: » Why are you under the impression that the bypass is a city council project when it's not? They support the county councils project and the county council can not offer any quiet roads in the city, since they don't control them.
galwaycyclist wrote: » Anto if you go back and check I raised the issue with reference to Threadneedle road, that and Taylors hill would be two obvious places to start. Keep those strawmen coming.
antoobrien wrote: » Ah so you're only interested in the safety of school children using two schools, not all of the school children in Galway. So we should ignore your previous complaints about cars and trucks using the roads outside Renmore, Menlo & Castlegar schools then?
galwaycyclist wrote: » Of course the solution to a place like Menlo is to limit access by car to residents only or people with bona fide business in the area.
churchview wrote: » There is a lot of harebrained stuff being spouted by anti-car zealots here, but this one really takes the biscuit!
To_be_confirmed wrote: » I emphasised the word "currently" for a reason. I wouldn't look at posts from 2011 to see what your current position is. The latter post from TINA1984 suggests that you are opposed to this bypass pending an emphasis switch, if you will, to other more sustainable infrastructure development and planning within Galway and for the results of those measures to be borne out first. Yet the contention here is that the GCOB is necessary regardless of every single other alternative measure. The sheer extent of Galway's traffic problems make me question whether a sufficiently large reduction in traffic volumes could be obtained, or if congestion can be eased to the same extent using alternative measures. By the way, the Waterford Bypass opened in 2009.
Malice wrote: » That is something I've often wondered about. It's the same in the evenings, when the schools are off the Headford Road roundabout is often a lot less clogged with cars way after the schools have finished.
Howitzer wrote: » Now that schools are off 90% of my morning traffic is not there. Why can't it be like this all the time? Surely there can't be that many people away on holiday at the moment? What has to change and who do you lobby to make that change? [this type of thread probably rears it's head every half-term...]
Losty Dublin wrote: » Everybody knows that commuter traffic drops big time when schools etc are off; buses, Luas and car traffic are no different.
manufanu wrote: » This work should be done between the hours of 8pm to 6am like most road projects. Drove by this morning at 7am and not a worker in sight, do the council have monkeys in the offices making decisions for them? They should also have done it during the summer when the schools are off and the traffic is lighter.
Hi all, Okay, so we all know that the morning rush-hour traffic is better when schools are off. Makes sense. However, I'm on the roads just after 7am each morning! So why is this still the case? Why are school kids being driven around this early? School starts at 9am in most cases! It just strikes me as odd that at 7am there's still less traffic when the schools are off! Anyone know? Or have we got any culprits here?
Its mainly because the schools are off and kids are not being dropped the 200 yards to school by car. Its the same during the summer.
AA: "the commuter routes go quiet as the schools are off"
Minister for Transport Noel Dempsey, 2003: "There is a noticeable decrease in the traffic when schools are off."
A spokesperson for the Council told Galway Bay Fm News that the works were scheduled for today because schools are off.
1 hour 15 minutes to travel 1 mile nearly every morning when the schools are back.
TripAdvisor comment re Galway, 31 August 2007: "schools are back this week - which means there are twice as many vehicles on the road."
patrickc wrote: » you'd well know the schools are all back properly, and a bit of rain we all slow down again, traffic backed up from newlands cross to almost rathcoole this morning.. roll on the school holidays.
galwaycyclist wrote: » No its standard practice in Germany and France including on residential streets in city centres.
Iwannahurl wrote: Thanks for the info re the Waterford bypass. I haven't changed my views on the alleged need for (and potential effects of) a bypass. The ECJ ruling made no difference to me in that regard. If Galway City's traffic problems are as bad and as intractable as claimed, and if a wait of several years for a bypass is inevitable, then there is no choice but to implement a serious multi-agency Transportation Demand Management strategy in the interim. With regard to the potential effect size in terms of traffic reduction, I would have higher expectations than yours perhaps. A question: would you agree that in general traffic eases considerably when schools are off, as per the following comments (gleaned from various sources including Boards)?
churchview wrote: » Menlo?
antoobrien wrote: » Given the very strong winds that were in Galway Tuesday morning (severely buffeting my 4 door), are you sure that it was as an unthinking ans stupid mistake to take the car? I saw several cyclists struggling to keep the bike straight on the roads & cyclepaths, so it would seem that putting your child in the back seat was in fact the smart safe move. Wait, you constantly complain about people who "chose to be car dependent" and yet you have chosen to live in an area with inadequate public transport coverage for you to bring the young 'uns to school if the alternative (presumably a lift from a neighbour in a car) - making you dependent on a car on short notice. Smells of hypocrisy. While I was out at the end of the morning rush there was no road east of the river where it was possible to reach 100km/h due to the levels of traffic (including the BNT). What alternative reality were you cycling in? Your "conservative" estimates of speeds are skewed by the observation bias caused by the fact that you are travelling a much slower speed. While it looks extremely fast, the difference is almost never as severe as received.
antoobrien wrote: » Smells of hypocrisy.
antoobrien wrote: » IWH posted that the car in question had to be going at least twice the speed limit. Given the fact that the general speed limit is 50km/h (are there any 30km limits in the city?) that means a minimum of 100km/h, a speed I never hit even when driving on the N6 outside the racecourse (which is usually possible) yesterday at the tail end of rush hour. ... factual flaws in IWH's "observation".
Iwannahurl wrote: » Your style is typically to attack the poster. For example, I recall you when you used to try to claim that I was neither from Galway nor living here, in an attempt to undermine what I was saying rather than construct a mature rebuttal. Aaanyway, you put this in double quotes: "chose to be car dependent". Are you saying they're my words? If so, original verbatim quote please. As for my recent "stupid decision" to drive rather than cycle, sitting in stalled traffic that day felt like the height of stupidity. I've been cycling since I was a child. I know what the wind can be like, and that day was by no means stormy. Wow, more personal attack in place of rational argument. You ignore (and often misquote and misinterpret) what I actually say, yet you make the claim without a shred of evidence that I "have chosen to live in an area with inadequate public transport coverage" making me "dependent on a car on short notice". Ah, no actually. I chose to live in an area that was an easy cycle commute to work, city centre and various other locations and amenities. Our child did not get into the local primary school, which would have been a 10-15 minute walk, so we do the morning school run by bike 99.9% of the time. Ironically, and farcically, neighbours whose children did get into the nearest school drop the kids off by car every morning! There are even some who drive less than 500 metres to a local creche!! As I said, choosing the car on that windy morning was a mistake that I very quickly regretted, but which served to illustrate the folly of doing the school run by car. With regard to the speeding car, what I said was that, by my conservative estimate (based on experience and observation) the driver was travelling at more than twice the posted speed limit. I know what I know and I saw what I saw. I was there, you weren't, so you know JS about it, as they say in the States. The point, in any case, is that even with the conditions I had to face as a cyclist (speeding driver in one location, jammed-up roundabouts in another etc) my school run by bike was far faster, more efficient and more satisfying than by car. One of my greatest satisfactions when taking that trip by bike is whizzing past the long lines of stationary or slow-moving cars. Quite frankly I have no idea what motivates people to engage in such behaviour on a daily basis. It would drive me nuts very quickly. The irony is that many of them will undoubtedly claim that they have "no time" to travel by other means...
galwaycyclist wrote: » Your post confirms one of the key arguments against the bypass. In the absence of an effective national police service it is the traffic congestion that is keeping a lid on traffic speeds in the city. Take away that congestion and you make the roads more dangerous. If you want to see support for the bypass then show us a city-wide enforced speed management plan first (something that the city officials worked strenuously to keep out of the Walking and Cycling Strategy)
Aidan1 wrote: » generally referred to as urban generated rural housing. Or at least urban supported rural housing.
MYOB wrote: » I see the debate still hasn't got past "lets punish Galway for its planners!", then.
TINA1984 wrote: » As opposed to what? "let's continue giving Galway whatever it wants despite its local administration still being stuck in a 1970s mindset"?
MYOB wrote: » You can fix the planning issues. That won't do a damn for the existing traffic though, hence the bypass is still required.
TINA1984 wrote: » is it unreasonable to expect for one to be implemented in exchange for the state pumping hundreds of millions into the GCOB & M17/18?
MYOB wrote: » No, but nothing they do is going to work without a bypass, or negate the need for a bypass. Punishing Galway for its planning history is petty and vindictive.
TINA1984 wrote: » Going off what's been posted here, methinks there's a perception that the only planning "issues" in Galway appear to be centred around people not being allowed to build whatever they want, wherever they want, and to hell with the consequences. I'm alright Jack. it would be nice if some of the regional cities at least attempted to implement appropriate LUTS. Galway more then most appears like it needs one. is it unreasonable to expect for one to be implemented in exchange for the state pumping hundreds of millions into the GCOB & M17/18?
TINA1984 wrote: » The terminology you're using here is bang out of order
