M6 - Galway City Ring Road [planning decision pending]

2rkehij30qtza5

serfboard wrote: »

Listening to the discussion, the cynic in me thinks that the whole "route options" exercise is a charade. There are five options given, but four of them are ridiculously bad, politically unacceptable or expensive, that we will only be left with one "option" in the end - which is the one they want to build anyway.

I would have to agree entirely.

The blue route will be chosen for sure in my opinion. There are variations to this (I suspect the pink line will kick in before the race course for example).

They will absolutely not choose the red route, nor will they tunnel under the race course or Corrib. The cost of tunneling is entirely cost prohibitive. Cheaper to just knock some houses.

For those on the current route options, it is a very scary prospect and my heart goes out to those who will eventually lose their houses or be negatively impacted in any way by the road.

I do believe this new road is badly needed however but it's a sad fact that some bog cotton/limestone pavement takes precedent over human beings and their 'habitats' or homes.

2rkehij30qtza5

antoobrien wrote: »

If they do they're not saying.

Yes, I have it on very good authority that they do have a preferred route. This is always the case. They will say that they don't have preferred routes though...it has to be all on an even keel at public consultation stage..even though it's not really.

what_traffic

cgcsb wrote: »

It's a sad indication of how poorly the expansion of Galway City was planned(not planned) and how poor public transport provision is when a City of 75,000 wants/needs a €300,000,000 motorway to get from one end of the City to the other. We pay for the ignorance of those that went before us I suppose.

True and €300,000,000 could be on the conservative side based on what is been printed in the local media.

LillySV

Kieran Yummy Market wrote: »

I would have to agree entirely.

The blue route will be chosen for sure in my opinion. There are variations to this (I suspect the pink line will kick in before the race course for example).

They will absolutely not choose the red route, nor will they tunnel under the race course or Corrib. The cost of tunneling is entirely cost prohibitive. Cheaper to just knock some houses.

For those on the current route options, it is a very scary prospect and my heart goes out to those who will eventually lose their houses or be negatively impacted in any way by the road.

I do believe this new road is badly needed however but it's a sad fact that some bog cotton/limestone pavement takes precedent over human beings and their 'habitats' or homes.

Is the blue route not the one that tunnels under the corrib?

Aard

As with any road bypass where new interchanges/junctions are made outside the town -- it is important to be cognisant that there will be huge pressure for lands around these interchanges to be rezoned. This has happened all around Dublin, and elsewhere around the country. You end up with "retail park"-style developments whose negative impacts (they do of course have positives) are rarely mitigated against, and which often undermine the purpose of a bypass in the first place. Furthermore, poorly-designed bypasses can encourage further decentralisation of residences and businesses -- this negatively affects established retailing areas and also contributes to increased distances/time spent travelling.

As such, any bypass should aim to be as "tight" as possible. It might mean that the project costs more per kilometre, but will deliver the best outcome for future spatial development opportunities. Of the routes suggested -- the "green" route (interesting colour choice) will be the least "green" in the long-term, in terms of sustainable transport. Prepare for more out-of-town supermarkets, office districts, and retail parks -- all of whose patrons will be car-based. This will add pressure to the bypass (that won't have been factored-in beforehand) leading to calls for adding an extra lane. Sound familiar?

The blue, yellow, and pink routes will yield much the same problems. The orange route would be a compromise, as it would likewise encourage more suburbanisation (aka decentralisation) in the west of the city.

The best route imo is the red route (perhaps slightly modified to also bypass Bearna). The red route will anchor current land uses without adding the huge unknown of land speculation that the other colour routes add. Long-term traffic flows will be more predictable. Currently-developed parts of the city will be able to be redeveloped, as opposed to much cheaper land on the outskirts becoming more attractive. This will increase the population density of Galway over time (currently standing at a low 1,437 people per sqkm according to http://census.cso.ie/sapmap/ -- compared with 3,498 people per sqkm in Dublin for example). It also means that the greenfield outskirts are less likely to be redeveloped into "edge city"-type retail/employment parks -- employment will remain in the city. This is important for Galway's competitiveness over other provincial cities.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

No, it's sad that a proper bypass wasn't built twenty years ago when it could have done some good, instead of the mess that they did build.

Actually no, it was lucky in one important sense, because the Celtic Bubble Blowers never got to use and abuse it for their usual purposes.

Aard wrote: »

As with any road bypass where new interchanges/junctions are made outside the town -- it is important to be cognisant that there will be huge pressure for lands around these interchanges to be rezoned. This has happened all around Dublin, and elsewhere around the country. You end up with "retail park"-style developments whose negative impacts (they do of course have positives) are rarely mitigated against, and which often undermine the purpose of a bypass in the first place. Furthermore, poorly-designed bypasses can encourage further decentralisation of residences and businesses -- this negatively affects established retailing areas and also contributes to increased distances/time spent travelling.

It has occurred in numerous places (Kildare Village immediately springs to mind -- "park for free just a step away from your favourite boutiques!") and An Bord Pleanala are still letting it happen.

"Galway City and County is governed by development plans which have plan boundaries. If we were to compare what is happening in other towns and cities that have been bypassed, land tends to become zoned inside the ring road, bypass, etc and these roads tend to become the new plan boundary. Areas in Knocknacarra, Bushypark, Menlo, Castlegar, Barna and Briarhill will be opened up. Already there is a local area plan being prepared for a section of land between the Monivea Road, the Tuam Road and the Parkmore Road and inside the GCOB."

Source: puff piece by Keane Mahony Smith auctioneers, What's Down The Road For Galway, Galway Advertiser, 18th January 2007.

cgcsb wrote: »

It's a sad indication of how poorly the expansion of Galway City was planned(not planned) and how poor public transport provision is when a City of 75,000 wants/needs a €300,000,000 motorway to get from one end of the City to the other. We pay for the ignorance of those that went before us I suppose.

€500-750 million according to the latest estimates being bandied about.

And how could you say such a thing -- it's not intended to get people from one end of the city to another. It's to "take out traffic that doesn't need to be there" so that "traffic that needs or wants to be there" can move freely.

Amazingly enough, making car commuting easier by greatly increasing total road capacity will also have the simultaneous effect of reducing car use, facilitating the expansion of public transport and promoting walking and cycling. Once the city's roads are no longer congested by car traffic, thousands of people will suddenly feel the urge to leave their cars at home and take to the bikes and buses like never before.

Chris_5339762

€500 million has to be nonsense. The entire of the M20 has been valued at €1 billion.

GDSGR8

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Actually no, it was lucky in one important sense, because the Celtic Bubble Blowers never got to use and abuse it for their usual purposes.






It has occurred in numerous places (Kildare Village immediately springs to mind -- "park for free just a step away from your favourite boutiques!") and An Bord Pleanala are still letting it happen.






€500-750 million according to the latest estimates being bandied about.

And how could you say such a thing -- it's not intended to get people from one end of the city to another. It's to "take out traffic that doesn't need to be there" so that "traffic that needs or wants to be there" can move freely.

Amazingly enough, making car commuting easier by greatly increasing total road capacity will also have the simultaneous effect of reducing car use, facilitating the expansion of public transport and promoting walking and cycling. Once the city's roads are no longer congested by car traffic, thousands of people will suddenly feel the urge to leave their cars at home and take to the bikes and buses like never before.

Moving through traffic (and some commuters, I'm sure) onto a bypass would allow existing road space in the city to be dedicated to public transport initiatives, most likely in the form of a QBC style development along the SQR/QB/N6 corridor effectively reducing the sections available to private vehicles to a single carriageway.

what_traffic

GDSGR8 wrote: »

Moving through traffic (and some commuters, I'm sure) onto a bypass would allow existing road space in the city to be dedicated to public transport initiatives, most likely in the form of a QBC style development along the SQR/QB/N6 corridor effectively reducing the sections available to private vehicles to a single carriageway.

Will it though?

Why have they not included proposals like that then when discussing these proposed rainbow routes.

http://www.n6galwaycity.ie/phase-2/public-consultation-number-2-display-graphics/

It is after all a "Transportation Study". They seem to have public transport as just one option? I would have thought public transport elements should be included in all THE options? Park and Ride or BRT as an example?

GDSGR8

what_traffic wrote: »

Will it though?

Why have they not included proposals like that then when discussing these proposed rainbow routes.

It is after all a "Transportation Study". They seem to have public transport as just one option? I would have thought public transport elements should be included in all THE options? Park and Ride or BRT as an example?

I think the intention is to combine 'smart' travel, public transport and a preferred bypass option as the ultimate solution. I might wander over to the public consultation next week and ask the question. Looking at the routes, I can this effort being even more unpopular than the last one.

cgcsb

GDSGR8 wrote: »

Moving through traffic (and some commuters, I'm sure) onto a bypass would allow existing road space in the city to be dedicated to public transport initiatives, most likely in the form of a QBC style development along the SQR/QB/N6 corridor effectively reducing the sections available to private vehicles to a single carriageway.

What is stopping that from happening already? €10m is loads of money to build proper bus priority space and banning cars, build a few park and rides.

If you wanted to really splash out we could have a 2 line light rail system criss-crossing the City with p and r on the outskirts and spend maybe €200mil on it. €750mil on a single road in a City of only 75k is ridiculous.

GDSGR8

cgcsb wrote: »

What is stopping that from happening already? €10m is loads of money to build proper bus priority space and banning cars, build a few park and rides.

If you wanted to really splash out we could have a 2 line light rail system criss-crossing the City with p and r on the outskirts and spend maybe €200mil on it. €750mil on a single road in a City of only 75k is ridiculous.

You'd just gridlock the city as things stand. Light rail is a nonsense for Galway - sexy, no doubt, but too expensive and inflexible given the population density and distribution. Public transport will be bus based going forward.

cgcsb

GDSGR8 wrote: »

You'd just gridlock the city as things stand.

Not necessarily, simply ban cars from all but a few City streets to allow minimum access requirements, build park and ride on the edges. The City Car parks could be CPOed and demolished/converted to apartments. A radically improved bus service/BRT/light rail(if your splashing out). And there you have it a permanent solution.

GDSGR8 wrote: »

Light rail is a nonsense for Galway - sexy, no doubt, but too expensive

Perhaps but it's cheaper and more sensible in comparison to a 750mil bypass and would have a much more positive impact.

lucernarian

cgcsb wrote: »

Perhaps but it's cheaper and more sensible in comparison to a 750mil bypass and would have a much more positive impact.

As this has been central to some of your latest points, could you provide some sources or at least a somewhat comprehensive rationale for reaching this figure?

What is stopping that from happening already? €10m is loads of money to build proper bus priority space and banning cars, build a few park and rides.

Could you elaborate further on what you meant by "proper bus priority space"? As in the provision of bus lanes etc? Does the €10 million figure you used serve as a total cost for a few park and rides and also bus priority and car bans?

L1011

Baselessly ratcheting prices to make them sound scarier doesn't improve your argument to people who actually know the figures are bollox. May as well stop it as it makes you look very silly

2rkehij30qtza5

LillySV wrote: »

Is the blue route not the one that tunnels under the corrib?

No. There will be a bridge on the city side of Menlo Castle.

2rkehij30qtza5

Aard wrote: »

The best route imo is the red route (perhaps slightly modified to also bypass Bearna).

Unfortunately the red route is full of cut and cover tunnels, which would mean it is by far the most expensive option...the possibility that this route could reach €1billion would be likely upon completion. The number of houses that would have to be leveled due to cut and cover tunneling would be phenomenal. This route will not be the final recommended route for those reasons. However Arup will have to show why it is less favourable than going through a SAC (Special Area of Conservation).

antoobrien

LillySV wrote: »

Is the blue route not the one that tunnels under the corrib?

That's the orange one, basically goes under corrib village.

antoobrien

Kieran Yummy Market wrote: »

Unfortunately the red route is full of cut and cover tunnels, which would mean it is by far the most expensive option...the possibility that this route could reach €1billion would be likely upon completion. The number of houses that would have to be leveled due to cut and cover tunneling would be phenomenal. This route will not be the final recommended route for those reasons. However Arup will have to show why it is less favourable than going through a SAC (Special Area of Conservation).

There was also something about the possibility of a second parallel bridge beside the QB, which apart from impacting on a few of the university buildings - would also be smack bang in the middle of an SAC (the entire river/lake complex is covered).

There's no route that doesn't cross one.

antoobrien

Benbecul97 wrote: »

How is the final route decided upon - Least cost, Least CPOs, Least objections?

They have several criteria among them safety of the route, socio economic (e.g. housing, community) impact, noise, ecological constraints & financial constraints. They didn't elaborate any more than that, but they have taken account of the SACs and habitats and are either going under or over the areas in question (e.g. the tunnel in the blue section will use the disused quarry in Menlo to go under the pavement).

Iwannahurl

GDSGR8 wrote: »

Moving through traffic (and some commuters, I'm sure) onto a bypass would allow existing road space in the city to be dedicated to public transport initiatives, most likely in the form of a QBC style development along the SQR/QB/N6 corridor effectively reducing the sections available to private vehicles to a single carriageway.

Many thanks for making the effort to engage with this aspect of the plan, which in my view is absolutely critical in the short, medium and long term.

You say "some commuters". What proportion of commuters would you reckon? Are you aware of any studies?

As an example of what needs to be studied, the old bypass plan envisaged a 166% increase in motor traffic (2004 actual versus 2025 post-bypass projections) on one of the main commuter routes west of the city, ie the Western Distributor Road. The WDR is already a hostile environment for users of public transport (buses stuck in traffic, no shelters etc), cyclists (numerous roundabouts, rubbish cycle lanes etc) and pedestrians (no crossings, clogged junctions, speeding etc).

What will happen when a new "bypass" becomes accessible to car commuters living in the western suburbs? Are we really expected to believe that the number of cars on the road will significantly decrease and that commuters will suddenly decide that public transport, cycling and walking are preferable? What would motivate them to do so?

Where are the proposals in the current documentation for the "N6 Galway City Transport Project" which address such important considerations?

The core question is this: motorists and various vested interests are demanding a "bypass" in order to alleviate car-based commuter traffic congestion by removing "bypassable traffic that doesn't want to be there." When commuter traffic starts to flow freely, what would lead motorists to leave their cars at home? I would be grateful if someone could explain that scenario, because I have trouble understanding and accepting it.

In relation to this very topic, the question has been asked elsewhere on Boards: why would anyone own a car and not want to use it?

Additionally, since vested interests such as Galway Chamber of Commerce equate car traffic with income and profit, why would they support a measure supposedly intended to reduce the number of cars coming into the city? And if the "bypass" really is about taking cars out, what is the explanation for this exchange between a local radio presenter (and prominent member of Galway Chamber) and the Chamber's spokesperson on Traffic & Transportation?

Galway Chamber: “At the end of the day there is absolutely -- we [Galway Chamber of Commerce] can't see any solution -- you can be tinkering away at bus routes, at cycle lanes, at reducing traffic, at reducing cars coming into the city, all this is right, nothing is contradictory, there is no mutual exclusion or whatever. It's not saying no we shouldn't have more traffic in the city, or yes we should have. We have to reduce traffic, we have to increase walking, we have to coordinate public transport or whatever."

GBFM: "But that's where you have to be very careful, because reducing traffic will or could affect members [of Galway Chamber of Commerce]. Because traders are finding it very difficult. So they need the bodies to come in. The infrastructure is not there to bring the bodies in."

Galway Chamber: "Absolutely. Sure."

Source: http://galwaybayfm.ie/keith-finnegan-show-wednesday-october-29th

cgcsb

lucernarian wrote: »

As this has been central to some of your latest points, could you provide some sources or at least a somewhat comprehensive rationale for reaching this figure?

A mere quote from another poster, iwannahurl, I believe

lucernarian wrote: »

Could you elaborate further on what you meant by "proper bus priority space"?

An enforced, sufficiently wide bus lane.

lucernarian wrote: »

As in the provision of bus lanes etc? Does the €10 million figure you used serve as a total cost for a few park and rides and also bus priority and car bans?

Car bans have almost 0 capital cost. Bus lanes are a lick of paint. Park and ride is the only significant expenditure I suggested. The cost of similar suburban bus based park and ride systems can give us an idea of what cost range we're looking at.

As an example see the Dundonald park and ride in East Belfast. Cost of circa €2mil, with 520 car spaces. Galway could easily have 3 or 4 such facilities without exceeding €10m in costs.

All these measures presesnt much better value than circa half a billion for a bypass that will simply encourage more suburban car usage.

dubhthach

The WDR should be widen to at least include one alternating Bus-lane (if there isn't the space to put dedicated buslane on each side), you could then at least have continuity with SQR. As an aside I'd be curious what percentage increase has occurred since 2004 on the road.

Of course issues with regards to bus shelters is really something that should be brought up with Bus Éireann.

Iwannahurl

GDSGR8 wrote: »

You'd just gridlock the city as things stand. Light rail is a nonsense for Galway - sexy, no doubt, but too expensive and inflexible given the population density and distribution. Public transport will be bus based going forward.

I'm agnostic on the subject of light rail.

But the gridlock question is a very dodgy one in my view.

Firstly, we already know that gridlock is not a permanent fixture. As is already widely known, when the schools are off traffic flows freely. We had 'experimental' proof of this again during the most recent secondary teachers' one-day strike. I know for a fact that it created free-flow conditions west of the city, and just this morning I was also told that it freed up city-centre traffic also.

Where are the studies examining this phenomenon? Have the various roads authorities used the teachers' strikes (or just school holidays indeed) to measure in detail the effects on traffic flow, delay times etc of school travel?

Claiming that "gridlock" rules out solutions other than a "bypass" is beggaring the question, in my view. It assumes by implication that a "bypass" is the only solution, even though no other solution (costing €500-750 million or anywhere near it) has been proposed, let alone attempted.

Iwannahurl

dubhthach wrote: »

The WDR should be widen to at least include one alternating Bus-lane (if there isn't the space to put dedicated buslane on each side), you could then at least have continuity with SQR. As an aside I'd be curious what percentage increase has occurred since 2004 on the road.

Of course issues with regards to bus shelters is really something that should be brought up with Bus Éireann.

The WDR has had almost no work done since it was constructed (by developers) in the late 1990s. I believe there are now two bus shelters, and perhaps one bus bay, on a road 3 km long serving a population of over 15,000.

Even the "planning" of mere bus shelters is a joke, so it's not hard to imagine that there are numerous other deficits.

antoobrien

dubhthach wrote: »

The WDR should be widen to at least include one alternating Bus-lane (if there isn't the space to put dedicated buslane on each side),

If there isn't room for a full one don't bother, it makes a royal f**k of the howth road having a partial one near the junction.

2rkehij30qtza5

antoobrien wrote: »

There was also something about the possibility of a second parallel bridge beside the QB, which apart from impacting on a few of the university buildings - would also be smack bang in the middle of an SAC (the entire river/lake complex is covered).

There's no route that doesn't cross one.

Correct. But the red route has a lesser impact on the SACs. The cost factor and human displacement factors are what will rule the red route out, rather than impacts on SACs, although of course they have to be considered also. The red route is, from a technical and financial point of view, the least likely to go ahead. The cheapest routes to construct from a construction point of view are green, blue and yellow.

2rkehij30qtza5

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The WDR has had almost no work done since it was constructed (by developers) in the late 1990s.

Incorrect. The WDR was constructed by the City Council, not developers. Infact, the City Council have still not removed the last remaining project sign, which is located at the roundabout on the Ballymoneen Road.

Iwannahurl

It's a minor detail in the present context, but all the same I'll check it out. It was said to me by somebody active in local community development around that time.

dubhthach

antoobrien wrote: »

If there isn't room for a full one don't bother, it makes a royal f**k of the howth road having a partial one near the junction.

Well going on aerials most of it has the width (boundary walls setup etc.) one tight spot is the first section built which put in place back when Fort Lorenzo was been built (it operated as a glorified Cul de Sac at the time)