M6 - Galway City Ring Road [planning decision pending]

galwaycyclist

antoobrien wrote: »

My point is that your analogy is, as usual when it comes to anything GCOB related, flawed.

Sorry but thats a cop out. We are never going to have perfect analogies with other situations.

If, as you appear to be arguing, there is a lack of rental accommodation in Galway to the point that we must assume large levels of car-commuting by students then I expect you to back up your argument with facts.

Likewise if, as you appear to be arguing, there is a lack of houses for sale in Galway within reasonable distance of the colleges to the point that we must assume large levels of car-commuting by staff then I expect you to back up your argument with facts.

Aidan1

Actually, you're all wrong

The GCOB is needed, as well as traffic and parking restrictions in the city, frequent bus based park and ride, and far better facilities for cyclists. The road space to do all of the traffic management necessary simply doesn't exist while Galway is log jammed by people commuting in from all over the place.

Much better spatial planning (land use and transport planning to be precise) is needed in the larger Galway city region also - the delivery of the GCOB should be made conditional on that.

antoobrien

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Sorry but thats a cop out. We are never going to have perfect analogies with other situations.

Then pick one that is closer to the mark, you know a relatively new university & a modern IT that didn't grow up inside a medieval town with no traditions that make your argument irrelevant and disingenuous.

L1011

Aidan1 wrote: »

Actually, you're all wrong

The GCOB is needed, as well as traffic and parking restrictions in the city, frequent bus based park and ride, and far better facilities for cyclists. The road space to do all of the traffic management necessary simply doesn't exist while Galway is log jammed by people commuting in from all over the place.

Much better spatial planning (land use and transport planning to be precise) is needed in the larger Galway city region also - the delivery of the GCOB should be made conditional on that.

Nobody that is arguing for the bypass is arguing against traffic/parking measures as well. The one-or-the-other argument is coming from, strangely enough, the cycling campaigners... odd that.

galwaycyclist

MYOB wrote: »

Nobody that is arguing for the bypass is arguing against traffic/parking measures as well. The one-or-the-other argument is coming from, strangely enough, the cycling campaigners... odd that.

Uh sorry but with regret that is a false accusation. The cycle campaign is signed up to a national policy document that argues for local bypasses around all major towns.

The cycling campaign has no formal position on bog cotton, limestone pavements etc.

What is exercising the cycle campaigners is the curious inexplicable, sustained hostility within the "bypass lobby" towards standard well established measures to promote walking, cycling and public transport in the city.

It seems that for many vocal contributors from the bypass lobby nothing else is allowed to be tried or pursued save the bypass.

This position is perverse. It invites the conclusion that among the most vocal proponents of the bypass there are some who actually have no interest in solving traffic problems within the city. Their interest in the bypass is not explainable as motivated by a desire to solve traffic problems or improve the quality of life for people who live in the city.

L1011

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Uh sorry but with regret that is a false accusation. The cycle campaign is signed up to a national policy document that argues for local bypasses around all major towns.

The cycling campaign has no formal position on bog cotton, limestone pavements etc.

What is exercising the cycle campaigners is the curious inexplicable, sustained hostility within the "bypass lobby" towards standard well established measures to promote walking, cycling and public transport in the city.

It seems that for many vocal contributors from the bypass lobby nothing else is allowed to be tried or pursued save the bypass.

This position is perverse. It invites the conclusion that among the most vocal proponents of the bypass there are some who actually have no interest in solving traffic problems within the city. Their interest in the bypass is not explainable as motivated by a desire to solve traffic problems or improve the quality of life for people who live in the city.

I never mentioned any "cycle campaign". I'm referring to the three cycling campaigners on here.

As goes the rest of your post - accusing others of vested interests? Oh good god, I've heard it all now.

You can do whatever measures you want; but the simple fact of the matter is that they are not going to remove the need for a bypass. That is all that is being debated here. There is no hostility against your suggested measures, just against the ridiculous, baseless and entirely unprovable proposition that they can solve all the problems.

We've now got at least four threads where a tiny cohort of cycling campaigners circle and witter without ever having a serious point. Either debate the actual topic or go to a different thread.

galwaycyclist

antoobrien wrote: »

Then pick one that is closer to the mark, you know a relatively new university & a modern IT that didn't grow up inside a medieval town with no traditions that make your argument irrelevant and disingenuous.

Sorry anto but that reply is short on facts or am I missing something?

antoobrien

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Sorry anto but that reply is short on facts or am I missing something?

Yeah you're missing something - a valid comparison.

what_traffic

MYOB wrote: »

I never mentioned any "cycle campaign". I'm referring to the three cycling campaigners on here.

As goes the rest of your post - accusing others of vested interests? Oh good god, I've heard it all now.

You can do whatever measures you want; but the simple fact of the matter is that they are not going to remove the need for a bypass. That is all that is being debated here. There is no hostility against your suggested measures, just against the ridiculous, baseless and entirely unprovable proposition that they can solve all the problems.

We've now got at least four threads where a tiny cohort of cycling campaigners circle and witter without ever having a serious point. Either debate the actual topic or go to a different thread.

Weak reply. What about attacking the posts not the posters?

antoobrien

galwaycyclist wrote: »

What is exercising the cycle campaigners is the curious inexplicable, sustained hostility within the "bypass lobby" towards standard well established measures to promote walking, cycling and public transport in the city.

That only exists in your own minds, if you'd let the discussion get past the bridges of your own noses you'd find that out. Many of us have posted the need for several things as well as the bypass, not that they will ever get discussed as long as certain vested interests get their way and bog any attempt at meaningful discussion in irrelevant trivia.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

It seems that for many vocal contributors from the bypass lobby nothing else is allowed to be tried or pursued save the bypass.

This position is perverse. It invites the conclusion that among the most vocal proponents of the bypass there are some who actually have no interest in solving traffic problems within the city. Their interest in the bypass is not explainable as motivated by a desire to solve traffic problems or improve the quality of life for people who live in the city.

The only people I've seen rule anything out are anti bypass protesters, the only people pushing "our side only" are the people that want to punish motorists for having cars and wanting to come to Galway for whatever reason.

There are things that we disagree will or will not work and it does not help that every case study brought up has bypasses that actually bypass something. A bypass that only avoids one industrial park (mervue) and still goes through residential areas is not much of a bypass, which is why I object to the farcical description of the N6 as a bypass of anything.

Nobody who wants the bypass disagrees that various measures like bus lanes and cycle lanes are needed, and not speaking for anybody else but what I disagree on with yourself is how to enable them. The places that they are needed most happen to be the places where they are hardest to provision due to space constraints. How do we solve this: CPO front gardens, take space off footpaths, take space off off road lanes, close left or right filters. These are going to hurt various "interests" and in most places around town it will only possible to do 1/2 of these and we'll manage to p**s a lot of people off. By the time we have CPO'd all the front gardens required and rebuilt the roads to the required standard (i.e. no patch jobs like outside Briarhill school), we'll have gotten to about half the cost of the bypass and still need it.

What you see as "nothing else is allowed to be tried or pursued save the bypass" is a blinkered, and from here an apparently intentional, misinterpretation of an argument and the only perversity of attitude being shown in the attitude of the anti bypass (and in some cases anything in Galway) protesters to overall problem.

The problem as I see it is can be laid out as:

• Our transport system is practically unchanged since the 50s - The N6 is the only major change in that time
• The population of Galway city is growing on average 2% per annum since the 50s.
• The focus of employment in Co Galway has shifted drastically over the past 25-30 years from traditional local farming an manufacturing to urban based manufacturing and services and this trend seems to be speeding up.

All that is going to generate more traffic over the next 20-30 years, 0% car usage growth is a pipe dream regardless of how much modal switch we throw at the city, because unlike many other cities, the Galway City is only about half the problem.

It's time, for the first time in the history of Galway that we got ahead of the problem and stopped reacting.

L1011

what_traffic wrote: »

Weak reply. What about attacking the posts not the posters?

That is dealing with the post. And the hundreds of others, none of which are actually on topic, or on point.

what_traffic

antoobrien wrote: »

That only exists in your own minds, if you'd let the discussion get past the bridges of your own noses you'd find that out. Many of us have posted the need for several things as well as the bypass, not that they will ever get discussed as long as certain vested interests get their way and bog any attempt at meaningful discussion in irrelevant trivia.



The only people I've seen rule anything out are anti bypass protesters, the only people pushing "our side only" are the people that want to punish motorists for having cars and wanting to come to Galway for whatever reason.

There are things that we disagree will or will not work and it does not help that every case study brought up has bypasses that actually bypass something. A bypass that only avoids one industrial park (mervue) and still goes through residential areas is not much of a bypass, which is why I object to the farcical description of the N6 as a bypass of anything.

Nobody who wants the bypass disagrees that various measures like bus lanes and cycle lanes are needed, and not speaking for anybody else but what I disagree on with yourself is how to enable them. The places that they are needed most happen to be the places where they are hardest to provision due to space constraints. How do we solve this: CPO front gardens, take space off footpaths, take space off off road lanes, close left or right filters. These are going to hurt various "interests" and in most places around town it will only possible to do 1/2 of these and we'll manage to p**s a lot of people off. By the time we have CPO'd all the front gardens required and rebuilt the roads to the required standard (i.e. no patch jobs like outside Briarhill school), we'll have gotten to about half the cost of the bypass and still need it.

What you see as "nothing else is allowed to be tried or pursued save the bypass" is a blinkered, and from here an apparently intentional, misinterpretation of an argument and the only perversity of attitude being shown in the attitude of the anti bypass (and in some cases anything in Galway) protesters to overall problem.

The problem as I see it is can be laid out as:

• Our transport system is practically unchanged since the 50s - The N6 is the only major change in that time
• The population of Galway city is growing on average 2% per annum since the 50s.
• The focus of employment in Co Galway has shifted drastically over the past 25-30 years from traditional local farming an manufacturing to urban based manufacturing and services and this trend seems to be speeding up.

All that is going to generate more traffic over the next 20-30 years, 0% car usage growth is a pipe dream regardless of how much modal switch we throw at the city, because unlike many other cities, the Galway City is only about half the problem.

It's time, for the first time in the history of Galway that we got ahead of the problem and stopped reacting.

Nowhere here do you mention the need to kill demand or maximise existing network. Need to remove the thousands of car parking spaces in the city to kill demand and provide space for other modes. Private car traffic is not efficient at moving people in an urban setting as can be seen in Galway City.

antoobrien

what_traffic wrote: »

Nowhere here do you mention the need to kill demand or maximise existing network

I'm not a fan of entertaining ideas that can never work. Everything I've looked at says that demand will go up due to the factors I've outlined and as far as I can see the road network is already beyond its maxima. We can hope to control demand, but not reduce or kill it.

So not only have I not mentioned it, I think it's the kind of brain-dead idea that's part of the problem with this "discussion".

what_traffic wrote: »

Need to remove the thousands of car parking spaces in the city

Do that and you destroy business. The removal of bus gate in Dublin because of the damage it did to business and the success of out of town centres that people are using in preference to going to the centre of towns with no facilities to support them should show you that removing parking is a farcical idea designed to support an unsupportable suggestion.

Victor

Guys, cop on.

Moderator

Iwannahurl

MYOB wrote: »

That is all that is being debated here. There is no hostility against your suggested measures, just against the ridiculous, baseless and entirely unprovable proposition that they can solve all the problems. Either debate the actual topic or go to a different thread.

As is common on here, that is a direct attempt to stifle discussion by invoking the entirely artificial construct that is the Boards thread. What "pro-road" (to quote a Mod) and Bypass-first posters want, as far as I can see, is an exclusive thread where only one perspective can dominate. This strategy would have more nuanced or multi-faceted perspectives shunted aside to a different thread so that they can be quarantined and ignored.

It is also absurd to suggest, apparently, that alternative pre-bypass traffic and transportation policies must be proven in situ before being implemented.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The total population of what the City Council rather grandly calls the Galway Metropolitan Smarter Travel Area (GMSTA) is 85,000.

In terms of distance travelled, 47% of the overall GMSTA travel 4km or less to work or education. On average, 52% of commuting trips within the City area are 4km or under.

To give that 4km figure a little perspective (literally), my child recently started cycling 3 km to Junior Infants on a bog-standard fixed-gear chunky-wheeled steel-frame bike (the equivalent for an adult would be a bike weighing, say, 30-40 kg). Junior is already achieving this without an outer bypass and with minimal facilitation in terms of traffic speed controls, junction crossings etc (roundabouts and speed are the biggest concerns).

There's no particular reason to focus on cycling only, but if a child in the first year of primary school can do 3 km on a heavy bike, what's to stop older children, students and adult workers doing the same distance or longer with lighter frames and better gears? It ought to be obvious that a large chunk of commuting trips 4-5 km or less could be done by bike, and that's even before modal switch to walking and public transport is considered.

The Smarter Travel plan aims to achieve, by 2020, a one-third reduction (or 21 percentage points) on 2006 levels in modal share for cars from 61% to 40%, a nearly four-fold increase in cycling from 4% to 15%, and a doubling in use of public transport from 9% to 19%.

Quote from Galway City Council's Smarter Travel plan (emphasis added by me):

Located close to the City Centre, the National University of Ireland Galway has over 19,000 students and the Galway Mayo Institute of Technology has 9,000 students. Travel behaviour of third level students in the area has become increasingly car dominated in recent years, as demonstrated through overflowing car parks on campus and high demand for parking in all residential areas close to them. In addition to third level students, there are approximately 16,000 primary and secondary level students within the GMSTA. Of the 48 schools located within the GMSTA, 11 secondary and 27 primary schools are located on the western side of the Corrib or in the City Centre. This biased spatial distribution generates significant travel demand from across the GMSTA and contributes to the perceived necessity for car based trips to school.

A point that I have repeatedly made, and which is repeatedly ignored, is that traffic congestion is a non-linear function: as roads approach their maximum capacity, small changes in traffic volumes can cause large changes in congestion. That's change, by the way, not necessarily increase, because the function also works the other way. Therefore, even if modal switch falls short of the hypothetical maximum possible (see above), a significant congestion-relieving effect can be achieved by even small reductions in traffic volume. Reducing traffic volume from 2,000 to 1,800 vehicles per hour (a 10% reduction) shifts a roadway from Level of Service E to LOS D, which increases traffic speeds by about 30%.



Using the same space for more efficient modes of travel also makes a large difference to congestion, for the simple reason that moving X people by bus, bike or Shank's Pony requires a far smaller area of a road than moving X people by car.

That fundamental point is simply ignored by those on here who have not only objected previously to passenger capacity increasing measures (eg bus lanes) and improved LOS for pedestrians (removal of roundabouts) but who also try to claim, using Drumm-bum numbers, that congestion cannot be significantly relieved without a bypass.

Interesting, by the way, to note here how the "30+% of traffic" and "maybe 30% of journeys" morphed into "30% of the population":

MYOB wrote: »

Nobody can provide anything even suggesting that the required 30+% of traffic can be removed by modal shift

MYOB wrote: »

how to entirely remove maybe 30% of journeys from the system

monument wrote: »

Where was this quite possible 30%+ pulled from? Did you go to the David Drumm school of pulling figures out of places?

You're asking for "concrete examples" yet you're plucking figures from nowhere.

MYOB wrote: »

People on holidays from work + very few at work in the 3rd level institutions + no school/college attendees = quite possible more than 30%.

antoobrien wrote: »

The figures are based on the numbers of students attending and staff working in GMIT & NUI Galway that are basically off for the summer. The numbers of students are well known to be approx 10k in GMIT & 15k in NUI Galway.

MYOB wrote: »

Estimations based on known population, known number of students in the 3rd level institutions, etc. Just because its a very big number for you to try and argue around doesn't mean its not valid.

antoobrien wrote: »

Ah lets not get facts get in the way of a good rant MYOB. [Sic]

Speaking of....

Total number of students in NUI Galway & GMIT(Galway campus) is estimated at 23,000. The population is just over 75,000 (depending on which census report one reads).

I do believe that gives the 30% not travelling.

antoobrien wrote: »

23,000 students attend both Galway campuses. That's 30% of the population trying to get to two fixed points every day.

The people = car traffic notion above also ignores the basic point that a given level of population does not inevitably mean a corresponding numbers of cars, and that car ownership does not have to translate into car use or car dependence.

Unjustifiable claims are also being made that arguments for major transportation policy change in the absence of a bypass are really just disguised outright opposition to the bypass on the part of vested interests of one sort or another:

MYOB wrote: »

Nobody that is arguing for the bypass is arguing against traffic/parking measures as well. The one-or-the-other argument is coming from, strangely enough, the cycling campaigners... odd that.

MYOB wrote: »

Claiming "skepticism" when its down right opposition in an attempt to pretend you're not just downright against something is pathetic.

And there most certainly is a need for opponents of the bypass to invent reasons to be against it, because the benefits of the bypass are so massive as to make it effectively unopposable except by cranks and vested interests.

Drumm-bum numbers and unsubstantiated allegations are not valid arguments against the real point being made, which is that with the political will and the right policies, significant and sustainable improvements in Galway City's traffic and transportation environment can be achieved in the absence of a bypass.

It has been said in this thread already that a bypass will not materialise until 2019 at the earliest.

I would argue that this timeframe makes the search for alternative traffic and transportation solutions in the interim not only possible but necessary. I would also argue that opposition to the active search for such alternative solutions is based primarily on a belief that road-building is inherently a good thing and that car use must be catered for as a matter of priority. From this perspective, any pre-bypass proposals that are predicated on reallocating road space or switching policy priorities to non-car-based modes of travel are intrinsically objectionable.

L1011

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Drumm-bum figures

Oh, grow up you child.

Proving in three words why its completely pointless even attempting to interact with you anymore.

Your entire post has little if anything to do with the topic either.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Interesting, by the way, to note here how the Drumm-bum "30+% of traffic" and "maybe 30% of journeys" morphed into "30% of the population":

Except it didn't. To save you actually having to read the thread, god forbid, lets recap:

30+% of traffic = 30%+ of vehicular journeys. That is all that was being discussed there.

The population is that relating to the 3rd level institutions alone. This is only one of many factors listed as to why there's less traffic in summer. It just happens to be coincidental that its a similar %, nothing more.

I just couldn't let that obvious abuse lie, but the rest doesn't even dignify a response.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It has been said in this thread already that a bypass will not materialise until 2019 at the earliest.

Construction will start by 2016, that's fantastic news!

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

As usual, the bypass-as-only-or-first-solution perspective also ignores the basic point that a given level of population does not inevitably mean an equal numbers of cars, and that car ownership does not have to translate into car use or car dependence.

You are the first person I have seen to claim that.

what_traffic

antoobrien wrote: »

Construction will start by 2016, that's fantastic news!

Now that's a brain dead reply!:D

monument

The ongoing dismissal of decent planned P&R on the bases on a flawed local example means nothing when the flaws of that example have already been outlined in detail and not chananged.

Then we have claims that a four plus lane road is a city centre setting just because it's close to the city. Unreal stuff.

We're also told that obesity has nothing to do with car use.

antoobrien wrote: »

Those large % are rubbish predicated on radius not distance travelled.

That's not true.

MYOB wrote: »

There is no hostility against your suggested measures, just against the ridiculous, baseless and entirely unprovable proposition that they can solve all the problems.

The hostility is clear in the attempts to claim that modal change impossable.

Re suggested measures that are suposed to solve all the problems -- you're the only one making that claim.

antoobrien wrote: »

The only people I've seen rule anything out are anti bypass protesters, the only people pushing "our side only" are the people that want to punish motorists for having cars and wanting to come to Galway for whatever reason.

One of the main problems as has already been pointed out is people driving short distances.

antoobrien wrote: »

There are things that we disagree will or will not work and it does not help that every case study brought up has bypasses that actually bypass something. A bypass that only avoids one industrial park (mervue) and still goes through residential areas is not much of a bypass, which is why I object to the farcical description of the N6 as a bypass of anything.

That would be true if there was much more than 20,000 people living in a very large area west of Galway, but unlike those places there's feck all to bypass to.

antoobrien wrote: »

Nobody who wants the bypass disagrees that various measures like bus lanes and cycle lanes are needed, and not speaking for anybody else but what I disagree on with yourself is how to enable them. The places that they are needed most happen to be the places where they are hardest to provision due to space constraints. How do we solve this: CPO front gardens, take space off footpaths, take space off off road lanes, close left or right filters. These are going to hurt various "interests" and in most places around town it will only possible to do 1/2 of these and we'll manage to p**s a lot of people off. By the time we have CPO'd all the front gardens required and rebuilt the roads to the required standard (i.e. no patch jobs like outside Briarhill school), we'll have gotten to about half the cost of the bypass and still need it.

You start with claiming nobody disagrees and then you draw a picture of those mesures being next to impossable and cost prohibited. Wow!

antoobrien wrote: »

All that is going to generate more traffic over the next 20-30 years, 0% car usage growth is a pipe dream regardless of how much modal switch we throw at the city, because unlike many other cities, the Galway City is only about half the problem.

Nobody is suggesting 0% car usage growth.

galwaycyclist

IWH wrote

Iwannahurl wrote: »

As usual, the bypass-as-only-or-first-solution perspective also ignores the basic point that a given level of population does not inevitably mean an equal numbers of cars, and that car ownership does not have to translate into car use or car dependence.

And Antobrien responds

antoobrien wrote: »

You are the first person I have seen to claim that.

Sorry but with regret that comment displays a profound ignorance of European traffic planning thought since the oil shocks of the 1970s. For the last 30-40 years it has been an accepted principle of planning and traffic management in Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland etc that car ownership does not have to translate into car use or car dependence.

?Cee?view

galwaycyclist wrote: »

...car ownership does not have to translate into car use...[/I]

Why would one want to own a car other than to use it?

antoobrien

monument wrote: »

That's not true.

Yes it is, the report published by GCC has 4km radius balloons trying to make the point. In many of those ballons it is not possible to travel 4km to get anywhere. I've shown before that it's very hard to make a 4km trip across the QB when going from accommodation to workplace/school.

monument wrote: »

The hostility is clear in the attempts to claim that modal change impossable.

Re suggested measures that are suposed to solve all the problems -- you're the only one making that claim.

Have you read this? That is a direct claim that the measures will solve all the problems.

monument wrote: »

One of the main problems as has already been pointed out is people driving short distances.

This has already been rebutted as being baseless.

monument wrote: »

That would be true if there was much more than 20,000 people living in a very large area west of Galway, but unlike those places there's feck all to bypass to.

I believe there are more than 40,000 people living west of the corrib (outside the city boundary), I'll see if I can get exact figures but it'll take a few hours messing with CSO downloads.

But that's not the point of the bypass, which is to allow access to and from those places and allow those places, to help stop the totally lopsided development that happened.

monument wrote: »

You start with claiming nobody disagrees and then you draw a picture of those mesures being next to impossable and cost prohibited. Wow!

The two concepts are not mutually exclusive but try debating the points raised. There are serious practical costs to doing what is proposed despite what some people like to think.

There are many locations where there will be significant problems in trying to create bus/cycle facilities without taking parts of gardens or taking pieces of pathway, and in one case without demolishing at least two houses.

monument wrote: »

Nobody is suggesting 0% car usage growth.

Sorry but they are, whether they realise it or not:

what_traffic wrote: »

Nowhere here do you mention the need to kill demand

Killing demand with a growing population necessitates 0% car usage growth.

antoobrien

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Sorry but with regret that comment displays a profound ignorance of European traffic planning thought since the oil shocks of the 1970s. For the last 30-40 years it has been an accepted principle of planning and traffic management in Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland etc that car ownership does not have to translate into car use or car dependence.

I have a car, I chose when to use it or not as the case may be. Car ownership != car dependence not matter how you try to paint that picture it reamains untrue.

galwaycyclist

churchview wrote: »

Why would one want to own a car other than to use it?

What individual car owners "want" is immaterial. It is a basic and accepted fact of traffic management on the Northern European mainland that if we let all car owners do whatever they want with their cars then our roads infrastructure rapidly grinds to a halt for them and for everyone who is trying to use alternative forms of transport.

Therefore the first principle of sustainable transport planning is that car-owners cannot be allowed to do whatever they want.

antoobrien

galwaycyclist wrote: »

What individual car owners "want" is immaterial. It is a basic and accepted fact of traffic management on the Northern European mainland that if we let all car owners do whatever they want with their cars then our roads infrastructure rapidly grinds to a halt for them and for everyone who is trying to use alternative forms of transport.

Therefore the first principle of sustainable transport planning is that car-owners cannot be allowed to do whatever they want.

Therefore the first principle is to ensure gridlock through ensuring that we do not allow alternatives that avoid the centre of the major urban areas? Every European town that has been brought up as an example of sustainability has had a bypass, but yet we can't be European if we have one. That's a leap of logic I'm glad I'm incapable of making.

?Cee?view

galwaycyclist wrote: »

What individual car owners "want" is immaterial. It is a basic and accepted fact of traffic management on the Northern European mainland that if we let all car owners do whatever they want with their cars then our roads infrastructure rapidly grinds to a halt for them and for everyone who is trying to use alternative forms of transport.

Therefore the first principle of sustainable transport planning is that car-owners cannot be allowed to do whatever they want.

OK then. Leave out "want".

It's been said:

"...car ownership does not have to translate into car use..."

In the real practical world, what else can it possibly "translate" into? Why would one own a car other than to use it? If we accept that there are a certain amount of cars out there currently, why wouldn't their owners use them if they already own them?

I just can't see the logic of suggesting that non-use of cars is a runner. Any proposals regarding road usage need legitimacy and need to be formulated for the general populace.

antoobrien

monument wrote: »

And I can call "BS" with an image from Street View, the N6 is not a "centre of town" type of setting:

https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/5842/260894.JPG

Edit: Also not town or city centre like:

https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/5842/260895.JPG

Just to prove how wrong you are about your notion of the "centre of town" the forest park at these two locations are considered city centre in the "smarter travel" money grab plan.

galwaycyclist

churchview wrote: »

OK then. Leave out "want".

It's been said:

"...car ownership does not have to translate into car use..."

In the real practical world, what else can it possibly "translate" into? Why would one own a car other than to use it? If we accept that there are a certain amount of cars out there currently, why wouldn't their owners use them if they already own them?

I just can't see the logic of suggesting that non-use of cars is a runner. Any proposals regarding road usage need legitimacy and need to be formulated for the general populace.

Well in the Netherlands a high level of car ownership also translates into the highest levels of cycling in Europe. Likewise with Denmark and Germany.

The weird thing is that even in Sweden, Germany and France, countries that make cars, they accept that commuter car use must be restricted in favour of alternatives. While in Ireland, where we no longer make any cars, there are some that push the idea that car ownership = driving for all trips. This is ridiculous at several levels.

Edit:
Car ownership (per 1000 pop)

Germany 572
Netherlands 527
Ireland 513
Denmark 480

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita

Pappa Charlie

monument wrote: »

The ongoing dismissal of decent planned P&R on the bases on a flawed local example means nothing when the flaws of that example have already been outlined in detail and not chananged.

Then we have claims that a four plus lane road is a city centre setting just because it's close to the city. Unreal stuff.

We're also told that obesity has nothing to do with car use.




That's not true.




The hostility is clear in the attempts to claim that modal change impossable.

Re suggested measures that are suposed to solve all the problems -- you're the only one making that claim.



One of the main problems as has already been pointed out is people driving short distances.




That would be true if there was much more than 20,000 people living in a very large area west of Galway, but unlike those places there's feck all to bypass to.




You start with claiming nobody disagrees and then you draw a picture of those mesures being next to impossable and cost prohibited. Wow!




Nobody is suggesting 0% car usage growth.

Do you own a car?