M6 - Galway City Ring Road [planning decision pending]

galwaycyclist

Sponge Bob wrote: »

This is all completely irrelevant, the speed limit on the Bypass will be 100kph.

Loath though I am to get involved in something as fraught as the bypass discussion, I would say the issue of speed management, or the absence of thereof, is central to discussions of traffic "congestion" in Galway.

It is intellectually offensive to propose that traffic "management" exists in a city where there is no speed management or, in particular, speed enforcement.

Notwithstanding that 44% of city workers live within 5k of work, it is also intellectually offensive to propose growing walking and cycling in a city where there is no speed management or, in particular, speed enforcement.

antoobrien

yer man! wrote: »

I see An Taisce are claiming this is dead in the water

Typical of that shower of muppets to not properly read the opinion. There are two ways that this can go ahead, summarised in section 32 of the opinion:

if the only way the development could proceed is by way of Article 6(4) of the Directive, it seems to me that Ireland would be obliged either to withdraw the site from the list of sites referred to in point 16 above (quite how it would do so is not clear) or wait until the site was designated and then approach the Commission under Article 6(4).

As the advocate says, the mechanism for removing the designation is not clear, however the process for an application under 6.4 is well understood. Indeed later on she states:

66. Whilst the requirements laid down under Article 6(4) are intentionally rigorous, it is important to point out that they are not insuperable obstacles to authorisation. The Commission indicated at the hearing that, of the 15 to 20 requests so far made to it for delivery of an opinion under that provision, only one has received a negative response.

This would entail replacing any lost habitat (limestone not being something we're short of) and arguing overriding public interest.

yer man! wrote: »

alternatives such as increased buses and the GLUAS should be implemented, right......

Gluas - they might want to pick their case studies better, both - Freiburg (E35) & Valenciennes (A23) have major roads that allows traffic to miss the centre of town - unlike Galway which brings it within 800m of Eyre Square.

It also doesn't help their case that it is being pushed by a tram company that are hoping to win the contract.

Glaus & more buses will not make a dent in the real nub of the problem (which a blind person reading a Braille map could figure out, but apparently not AT): the fact that cross town traffic and anything coming from the east trying to access the centre of town has to enter the Galway Traffic Triangle - the area covered by the junctions at the moneen, cemtetary cross, terryland & ballinfolyle.

antoobrien wrote: »

The failure of the of the N6/N17 junction downgrade change to lights from a roundabout to help traffic flow on that road is a case in point of what happens when too much traffic is dumped into an area without an adequate road network. There are simply too many crossing streams of traffic in Galway to not require a bypass.

antoobrien

galwaycyclist wrote: »

It is intellectually offensive to propose that traffic "management" exists in a city where there is no speed management or, in particular, speed enforcement.

The problem with Galway traffic is the crossing streams of traffic, which has to be stopped in order to let the other one proceed. This happens at almost every major junction in Galway and is the nub of the issue at the Ballinfoyle RAB.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Notwithstanding that 44% of city workers live within 5k of work,it is also intellectually offensive to propose growing walking and cycling in a city where there is no speed management or, in particular, speed enforcement.

Are you still working off the 2006 figures or have they release new ones for 2011?

It probably should be noted that the survey just states the distances travelled to work & school, it doesn't note whether or not the destination is within the city (e.g. the train commuters currently can't possibly work in Galway city if they are also city dwellers - likewise children attending Briarhill school from Ballybrit).

All that notwithstanding, it's intellectually offensive to suggest that living within a 5km radius of a place of work equates to a 5km journey in Galway. Anybody living near the river but working on the other side could be facing up to twice the journey that a crow might travel.

As for the use of walking/cycling as modes of transport, it's fairly clear that the shorter distances are the where the majority of walking and cycling takes place.

From the 2006 figures:
Mode | Number | % | | Km | Number | %
Foot | 13,363 | 26.7% | | 0 - 1 | 8763 | 17.5
Bike | 2,309 | 4.6% | | 2 - 4 | 17048 | 34.1
Bus | 4,308 | 8.6% | | 5-9 | 9566 | 19.1
Train | 122 | 0.2% | | 10-14 | 2355 | 4.7
Motorbike | 239 | 0.5% | | 15-24 | 1342 | 2.7
Car Driver | 18,258 | 36.5% | | 25-49 | 1158 | 2.3
Car Passenger | 7,877 | 15.7% | | 50+ | 1017 | 2.0
Other | 2,469 | 4.9% | | Not Stated | 8779 | 17.5
Not Stated | 1,083 | 2.2% | | | |



It also doesn't help the promotion of "healthy" options that the new junctions appear (to me) to be so much more dangerous than the roundabouts ever were that if & when I return to Galway to work, I will not be resuming commuting as a cyclist.

I find the practicality of advising walking any more than 2km to work on health grounds is questionable - it makes mine worse. I consider myself to be reasonably healthy, so I don't mind walking the approx 4km to work the odd day. The problem is that I pay for it for about a week due to the resulting stiffness & soreness in my ankles (regardless of the footwear), something I don't suffer from when walking twice that on a golf course.

yer man!

If only we had the money so we could put a big feckin tunnel right under the city, please everyone.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Thanks, next time try that instead of being glib.

I wasn't being glib. I may have misread/misunderstood the meaning/intent of your earlier post: "there have been less than 10 fatalities in total on the N6 between SQR and the city limit".

I am of the view that no level of fatalities (or even near-fatalities) is acceptable. It is also unacceptable, IMO, that cyclists, pedestrians and bus users should feel fear when going about their daily business. Many of them do, and one of the primary reasons is the speed of traffic on routes like the QB.

Such anxiety serves as a deterrent to travelling by means other than the private car.

Also, IMO, the real problem of speeding on the QB and on adjacent streets has relevance to claims being made regarding traffic congestion on the route.

Iwannahurl

yer man! wrote: »

If only we had the money so we could put a big feckin tunnel right under the city, please everyone.

I believe Peter Sweetman, following the publication of the ECJ Advocate General's opinion, suggested flyovers as an alternative to the Bypass.

I'm no roads engineer, but that sounds fanciful to me.

The Port Tunnel has been a major success in taking HGVs off the streets of Dublin, afaik.

Assuming a wall of money was available, as Michael Noonan might put it, would a tunnel be feasible? An interesting fantasy, if nothing else perhaps...

yer man! wrote: »

I see An Taisce are claiming this is dead in the water and alternatives such as increased buses and the GLUAS should be implemented, right......

http://galwayindependent.com/stories/item/4996/2012-49/An-Taisce-claims-Bypass-'blown-out-of-the-water'

Leaving aside the inevitable arguments over alternatives, I think they're being a bit previous in claiming that the show is over.

To continue mixing metaphors, the fat lady hasn't sung yet, and the relevant hymn sheet might well be titled "IROPI".

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Loath though I am to get involved in something as fraught as the bypass discussion, I would say the issue of speed management, or the absence of thereof, is central to discussions of traffic "congestion" in Galway.

It is intellectually offensive to propose that traffic "management" exists in a city where there is no speed management or, in particular, speed enforcement.

Notwithstanding that 44% of city workers live within 5k of work, it is also intellectually offensive to propose growing walking and cycling in a city where there is no speed management or, in particular, speed enforcement.

I agree with you about the absence of speed management and speed enforcement, and the ensuing deterrent effect on non car based modes of travel.

However, I think there's more to it than that.

Can a route (or indeed a network) really be regarded as chronically congested if such high speeds are possible?

Can we ignore the issue of traffic speed when considering congestion?

AFAIK there is a direct causal relationship between speed, traffic flow, road/junction capacity and congestion. If traffic is racing along the N6 at uncontrolled speeds and trying to squeeze through various uncontrolled junctions, should we be surprised if congestion occurs in such conditions?


.

yer man!

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I believe Peter Sweetman, following the publication of the ECJ Advocate General's opinion, suggested flyovers as an alternative to the Bypass.

I'm no roads engineer, but that sounds fanciful to me.

The Port Tunnel has been a major success in taking HGVs off the streets of Dublin, afaik.

Assuming a wall of money was available, as Michael Noonan might put it, would a tunnel be feasible? An interesting fantasy, if nothing else perhaps...

I can imagine that it would be possible but very very expensive as you'd need a tunnel boring machine for more or less the entire route. However, if money wasn't a problem, I would envisage a tunnel starting at the end of the N6 at doughiska where there is ample room and extend out to knocknacarra direction, however you'd need underground junctions to connect to a few surface roads like in Boston for example. The vibrations alone from construction would send environmentalists going mad....

Sponge Bob

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Loath though I am to get involved in something as fraught as the bypass discussion, I would say the issue of speed management, or the absence of thereof, is central to discussions of traffic "congestion" in Galway.

You are correct but it is hardly for this thread. There is (as you know) another thread in this forum for some of the more existential questions.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=74060626

And the two of us have discussed traffic 'management' ( inside the city and unconnected with this project) ad nauseum have we not....and nor do we significantly disagree as I recall.

KevR

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Well now, for a start I wasn't suggesting for an instant that the new member might be breaking the speed limit.

Nor did I try to claim that large numbers of motorists are speeding in acutely congested conditions:




The reality is that speeding, in this case breaking the 50 km/h speed limit, is commonplace on the Quincentenary Bridge and on other sections of the N6 within the city boundary, as well as on adjacent roads.

There have also been several serious collisions in the area over recent years (Sean Mulvoy Road included).

Report on the Herald website, 17th January 2012:

Car ploughed into woman at road crossing

GARDAI are hunting a hit-and-run driver who ploughed into a woman at a pedestrian crossing.

A major investigation was underway today after the woman suffered serious injuries.

Officers say the 26-year-old woman was on the Headford Road in Galway city at about 8.45pm on Sunday evening when she was struck.

The driver sped straight through a pedestrian crossing, hitting a young woman and leaving her battling serious injuries in hospital.

[...]

The car failed to remain at the scene and the young woman was left in considerable distress until a passing motorist stopped and went to her aid.

She was rushed by ambulance to Galway University Hospital where she was treated for serious injuries. The woman sustained severe lower body injuries and was later transferred to Merlin Park Hospital in Galway.

Gardai at Mill Street Station in Galway ... stressed that help from the public was essential to their investigation.

"It is a busy road and used by people walking in and out of the city centre at all hours."

Report in the Galway Independent, 13th February 2012:

Cyclist injured in Terryland collision

A male cyclist has been admitted to University Hospital Galway with a suspected broken leg, after being hit by a car on the Terryland Road.

The man, who is believed to be in his late 50s or early 60s, was injured and transferred to hospital when the incident occurred at the pedestrian crossing beside Dunnes in Terryland this morning. The motorist stayed at the scene and gardai told the Galway Independent that they also have witnesses to the collision.

It is the third such accident at the site in the last number of months.

We discussed the Terryland Crossing before did we not?

Firstly, it's very unwise to have people crossing 4 lanes at road level on what is the busiest road in the West of Ireland. I believe traffic counts are in the region of 50k.

Secondly, I pointed out before that the traffic lights at this pedestrian crossing are extremely dim; they must be 20 years old. It's a disgrace that they have not been replaced with new brighter lights, especially given the number of incidents. I personally think the faded lights are a huge safety hazard as they would be easy to miss if you weren't familiar with the area.

Is there any evidence that the collisions you cite were caused by speed? No.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

...what happens when too much traffic is dumped into an area without an adequate road network. There are simply too many crossing streams of traffic in Galway to not require a bypass.

Yet we have people arguing that motorists should be allowed to enter that area at speeds up to 80 km/h, and currently there is a sizeable number driving at speeds even faster than that when they can achieve it and get away with it, which is far too often.

There seems to be an astonishing lack of awareness regarding the relationship between speed and congestion.

That triangle reminds me of the video below. The topic is ramp metering on US freeways, but the analogy is still pertinent.

In order to reduce congestion and keep traffic flowing the number of vehicles entering an area such as the one you describe has to be less than or equal to the number of vehicles leaving over the same time period. One way to ensure that there are more vehicles entering than leaving is to have them approach too fast. This is why there are variable speed limits on motorways, such as on the M25 in the UK.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8G7ViTTuwno

mydiscworld

So what's the new plan for GCOB now that the ECJ have denied the current plan on environmental grounds.

I assume a new route will be drawn up in the coming weeks?

yer man!

mydiscworld wrote: »

So what's the new plan for GCOB now that the ECJ have denied the current plan on environmental grounds.

I assume a new route will be drawn up in the coming weeks?

It's still in the ECJ and has not been formally denied afaik, an taisce and sweetman are jumping the gun a little. If it is denied then an IROPI is a possible next route, (override of public interest).

mydiscworld

yer man! wrote: »

It's still in the ECJ and has not been formally denied afaik, an taisce and sweetman are jumping the gun a little. If it is denied then an IROPI is a possible next route, (override of public interest).

Yes, not officially denied yet but big change it will be. Getting the ground work on an alternative - IROPI or new route - should still be done. No point sitting there waiting...

spacetweek

mydiscworld wrote: »

Yes, not officially denied yet but big change it will be. Getting the ground work on an alternative - IROPI or new route - should still be done. No point sitting there waiting...

Selecting a new route is easier said than done. Usually at route selection process they eliminate all routes that can't be built (terrain too difficult, too many building demolitions, too many bridges needed) leaving just one.

The correct way forward is to continue to push for this route.

Sponge Bob

No need for a new route from the N59 to the Airport.

yer man!

Under an IROPI would it be possible to approve the entire route? even the one section that was previously rejected because of the bog cotton.

antoobrien

yer man! wrote: »

Under an IROPI would it be possible to approve the entire route? even the one section that was previously rejected because of the bog cotton.

It could if (and only if) they ABP had decided that there was no alternative route. However in their rejection of this they state that they were not satisfied that there was no alternative to the route.

From the ABP decision (reformatted for clarity):

The Board is not satisfied, having regard to the report of the person who conducted the oral hearing into the application for approval of the proposed road development, to the Environmental Impact Statement and the submissions received in relation to the application, that the part of the road development being refused approval (between Junction A and Junction W)

1. would not be prejudicial to the preservation of the Tonabrocky habitat
2. or that the significant adverse effects on the environment would not be avoidable
3. or could not be better addressed by an alternative route;

it is considered, therefore, that the proposed road development between Junction A and Junction W would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

It should be noted that the opinion states that application of article 6.4 is not a bar to projects being given approval (see paragraphs 64-66), so rejecting a the plan on the sole basis of points 1&2 above would have been wrong (it would have had to go to the commission). However, as is the case here there are alternative routes, so it is correct to reject the route through the bogs. So using the current EIS to try and argue IROPI for the rejected section is likely to end in failure

However if they do another EIS which produces the same proposed route and dismisses the alternatives as viable options (unlikely i.m.o.), then they could use IROPI to ask the commission for an opinion. If granted it would entail designating new bog to replace the bog from the SAC.

Extending the various SACs to prevent development from coming too close to the new road might even be a way of getting around the development nightmare that some posters are having.

Iwannahurl

mydiscworld wrote: »

No point sitting there waiting...

I couldn't agree more...

antoobrien wrote: »

Extending the various SACs to prevent development from coming too close to the new road might even be a way of getting around the development nightmare that some posters are having.

Whatever about the SAC itself, development in the immediate vicinity of the Bypass is not what I would be primarily concerned about.

New roads don't reduce traffic in the long run. Quite the contrary in fact.

Apart from the well-recognised phenomenon of generated traffic and induced travel, which could have significant implications for the city, the development scenario that I would foresee is facilitation of more car-dependent "measles development" in Galway's "commuter catchment", which is already the largest in the country outside of Dublin.

Chris_5339762

Thats no reason not to build it though. It IS a reason to strongly oppose any planning near it and to have a competant planning authority.

Iwannahurl

It's a good reason for scepticism and caution, however, especially if future outcomes depend on the existence of competent Irish authorities in the areas of spatial planning, land use, traffic management and transportation policies.

Chris_5339762

Agreed. I don't think that Galway should be left without a bypass on the offchance that it'll spawn development everywhere. Environmentalists are going nuts over the road and the bog cotton but not a peep out of them during the boom time when developers were dumping estates everywhere.

yer man!

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Agreed. I don't think that Galway should be left without a bypass on the offchance that it'll spawn development everywhere. Environmentalists are going nuts over the road and the bog cotton but not a peep out of them during the boom time when developers were dumping estates everywhere.

That would be because most of these "environmentalists" happen to live near the feckin route.... (sweetman is the exception, he just hates tarmac...)

Iwannahurl

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Environmentalists are going nuts ... but not a peep out of them during the boom time when developers were dumping estates everywhere.

That is totally incorrect.

Here's a selection of links to several boom-period webpages where environmentally-minded bodies or individuals of various hues critiqued unsustainable development of one sort or another.

They're in no particular order, and I found them with just a quick Google search. I'm sure with a little more systematic digging I could find better examples.


http://www.architecturefoundation.ie/vb06/spread/fm_spread.pdf

http://www.woodlandleague.org/documents/tellingitlikeitis.pdf

http://www.antaisce.org/builtenvironment/Policies/PoliciesonRuralBuiltEnvironment.aspx

http://www.antaisce.ie/builtenvironment/Policies/FloodPlainDevelopment/2003SubmissiontoDoEHLG.aspx

http://www.constructireland.ie/articles/0206planing.php

http://www.ciarancuffe.ie/Policy/Housing.htm

http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/paperstoday/index.php?action=view&id=7728

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Chaos-at-Crossroads-Frank-Mcdonald/dp/0948037148




For a more objective non "environmentalist" perspective, see also:

http://www.epa.ie/downloads/pubs/research/climate/CCRP%20Report%20Series%20No.%207%20-%20Barriers%20to%20Sustainable%20Transport%20in%20Ireland.pdf

http://www.davy.ie/other/pubarticles/Sprawl2004.pdf


.

Iwannahurl

Advocate General Eleanor Sharpston's opinion on Bypass-related matters has been prominently cited in two recent submissions concerning a proposed deep sea salmon farm in Galway Bay.

http://www.salmon.ie/GBFF_Files/121209SalmonWatchSubmission.pdf

http://www.fisheriesireland.ie/Press-releases/national-inland-fisheires-forum-submission-to-the-department-of-agriculture-food-and-the-marine.html

The authors seem to think that Sharpston's opinion has major and far-reaching significance.

No mention of IROPI, though I'm not sure whether it would be relevant in any case.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The authors seem to think that Sharpston's opinion has major and far-reaching significance.

In a nutshell you can't dig a ditch west of Tuam without consulting a map and gioven the amount of areas designated SACs possibly without asking permission of brussels either.

So yeah it's kinda far reaching and extremely intrusive.

Iwannahurl

...no news.

NO DATE FOR DECISION ON OUTER CITY BYPASS PLANS

There is still no indication as to when a final judgement will be delivered by the European Court of Justice on the outer city bypass.

In a statement to Galway Bay fm, the prinicpal administrator of the ECJ registry says the case is still in deliberation.

Sponge Bob

No money either. Furthermore and on the dangerous assumption that Tuam gets off this year the financing of the Eastern Half of the Galway Bypass would clash with that of the 'next' project which is the Enniscorthy/New Ross projects in Wexford and for which latter project much of the land has been purchased already...if not indeed all. The local minister in Wexford even sits on the mini cabinet that runs the country nowadays.

The last public sequence was announced last summer....and this has slipped, and was

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/varadkar-motorway-budget-restored-in-govt-stimulus-plan-559518.html

The N17-N18 Gort-Tuam link, 57km of motorway, bypassing Clarinbridge, Claregalway and Tuam, with work starting in 2013;
The M11 Gorey-Enniscorthy, 26km of motorway, bypassing Enniscorthy, with work starting by the end of 2014;
The N25 New Ross bypass, 15km of road to the Kilkenny border, with a new bridge over the River Barrow, with work starting by the end of 2014.

With the GCOB behind those.

I can see no way to start the Galway Bypass before 2015 even if the ECJ nods the lot through tomorrow.

Chris_5339762

When is the election, thats another question.... this is top of the list cost/benefit wise so I can potentially see this being done in the background.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

...no news.

NO DATE FOR DECISION ON OUTER CITY BYPASS PLANS

There is still no indication as to when a final judgement will be delivered by the European Court of Justice on the outer city bypass.

In a statement to Galway Bay fm, the prinicpal administrator of the ECJ registry says the case is still in deliberation.

It should worry you a bit, the fact that the case is in deliberation when the decisions are almost always held up indicates that the court isn't entirely happy with the ruling.

Whether they'll do anything about it is another question.

Aquarius34

Why not upgrade some sections of the original bypass? Galways does have a lot of DC roads here and there but it would be worthwhile to clean it up and make the current roads efficient enough to move traffic around the city.

The Galway outer bypass to me is an overkill.