M6 - Galway City Ring Road [planning decision pending]

Iwannahurl

From the Galway Independent, 11th February 2015, page 4 ("Galway facing 'civil war' over bypass project"):

Eileen McCarthy, project manager for Arup consulting engineers, pointed out that just 5% of commuters along the proposed route would travel the entirety of the journey, while 58% of trips across the River Corrib were entirely within Galway City. This, she said, meant that an Outer Bypass was not the solution to Galway's traffic woes.

Well well well.

Let's just look at that again. Arup's analysis reportedly indicates that "just 5% of commuters" would travel "the entirety of the journey". My understanding of this figure is that only five in every hundred trips on an "outer bypass" would comprise motorists actually bypassing Galway en route to other destinations.

Meanwhile, 58% of trips across the river (many via The Auld Triangle, presumably) are "entirely within Galway City".

The implication, according to the project consultants quoted in the article, is that an Outer Bypass is not the solution to Galway City's absurd levels of car traffic.

We have had for years, in this thread and elsewhere, repeated claims that (a) an "outer bypass" is needed to rescue all those unfortunates in Connemara who are "cut off" from the rest of the country, and (b) that "traffic which doesn't need or want to be there" is the cause of all the traffic congestion.

Now it turns out that the volume of car commuting across the river but within the city is more than ten times greater than that comprised of "bypassable" traffic.

So it seems that, all along, many if not most "bypass" advocates were really looking for the expenditure of €300 million (2010 estimate), and now €500-750 million, to enable them to stay in their cars while travelling at most 13 km across, or within, a small west European town of around 75,000 people.

Is that what we are proposing to tell the EU when attempting to justify a major road-building project? Or is there some new spin that will explain away the 58% of within-city trips and the consultants' reported warning that "an Outer Bypass is not the solution"?

yer man!

Iwannahurl wrote: »

From the Galway Independent, 11th February 2015, page 4 ("Galway facing 'civil war' over bypass project"):

Eileen McCarthy, project manager for Arup consulting engineers, pointed out that just 5% of commuters along the proposed route would travel the entirety of the journey, while 58% of trips across the River Corrib were entirely within Galway City. This, she said, meant that an Outer Bypass was not the solution to Galway's traffic woes.

Well well well.

Let's just look at that again. Arup's analysis reportedly indicates that "just 5% of commuters" would travel "the entirety of the journey". My understanding of this figure is that only five in every hundred trips on an "outer bypass" would comprise motorists actually bypassing Galway en route to other destinations.

Meanwhile, 58% of trips across the river (many via The Auld Triangle, presumably) are "entirely within Galway City".

The implication, according to the project consultants quoted in the article, is that an Outer Bypass is not the solution to Galway City's absurd levels of car traffic.

We have had for years, in this thread and elsewhere, repeated claims that (a) an "outer bypass" is needed to rescue all those unfortunates in Connemara who are "cut off" from the rest of the country, and (b) that "traffic which doesn't need or want to be there" is the cause of all the traffic congestion.

Now it turns out that the volume of car commuting across the river but within the city is more than ten times greater than that comprised of "bypassable" traffic.

So it seems that, all along, many if not most "bypass" advocates were really looking for the expenditure of €300 million (2010 estimate), and now €500-750 million, to enable them to stay in their cars while travelling at most 13 km across, or within, a small west European town of around 75,000 people.

Is that what we are proposing to tell the EU when attempting to justify a major road-building project? Or is there some new spin that will explain away the 58% of within-city trips and the consultants' reported warning that "an Outer Bypass is not the solution"?

But sure that's like saying the M17/M18 project shouldn't be built because only a few people travel from Gort to Tuam only. Its a ridiculous thing to state. Yeah many journeys may be within the city boundary but many of these journeys are trying to get from one side to the other. This is something you cannot do easily with the lack of crossing points and unhindered carraigeway. If someone from salthill wanted to go to briarhill it would be a hell of a lot quicker for them to get there if there was a bypass instead of traveling through the city. The point of the bypass is that it can remove traffic whether that traffic is traveling the route in entirety or just a portion of.

dubhthach

Of course the other way to look at it is 42% of trips on current bridges are from traffic that isn't within city boundary. You remove this from existing infrastructure and you free up road space for bus corridors and the like.

SeanW

Iwannahurl wrote: »

From the Galway Independent, 11th February 2015, page 4 ("Galway facing 'civil war' over bypass project"):

Eileen McCarthy, project manager for Arup consulting engineers, pointed out that just 5% of commuters along the proposed route would travel the entirety of the journey, while 58% of trips across the River Corrib were entirely within Galway City. This, she said, meant that an Outer Bypass was not the solution to Galway's traffic woes.

Well well well.

Let's just look at that again. Arup's analysis reportedly indicates that "just 5% of commuters" would travel "the entirety of the journey". My understanding of this figure is that only five in every hundred trips on an "outer bypass" would comprise motorists actually bypassing Galway en route to other destinations.

I never thought I'd have cause to question an Arup report but it looks like on this occasion I do.

People don't just take to the roads to "commute" there are also domestic, leisure and social uses for cars/roads as well. So saying 5% of "commuters" is much the same as saying 5% of a piece of string. There are likely to be more than that in other categories of driver, making more than "5 in 100." Additionally, important bypass manoeuvres such as Clifden-Leinster would be excluded from your 5 in 100 because this would also not use the entire bypass, only a part of it. To use the entire bypass it would be necessary to go from the M6 to the coastal roads, out to Barna etc.

The 58% part if true only lends strength to my view that the whole thing should be handed to the NRA, for reasons I explained in a previous post.

The implication, according to the project consultants quoted in the article, is that an Outer Bypass is not the solution to Galway City's absurd levels of car traffic.

Again, you seem to be missing the point of a bypass. Yes, it can relieve traffic in a town/city, but it also provides a fast alternative for long distance traffic. Eg. Clifden to Leinster/Munster, anywhere to Barna, Spiddal, Connemara etc.

Zzippy

All these stats and figures - why can't we access them during the public consultation instead of getting parsed selective quotes from an Arup engineer? No, we're too stupid to be given that kind of information, a few shiny graphics and maps will do the peasants... sure they wouldn't want well-informed submissions now, would they.... :rolleyes:

antoobrien

Zzippy wrote: »

All these stats and figures - why can't we access them during the public consultation instead of getting parsed selective quotes from an Arup engineer? No, we're too stupid to be given that kind of information, a few shiny graphics and maps will do the peasants... sure they wouldn't want well-informed submissions now, would they.... :rolleyes:

The public consultation is not over, we can ask Arup directly about the plans until February 27th.

Iwannahurl

dubhthach wrote: »

Of course the other way to look at it is 42% of trips on current bridges are from traffic that isn't within city boundary. You remove this from existing infrastructure and you free up road space for bus corridors and the like.

There is something in what you say. It is also the case that if the 58% is tackled at source, then space can be made available for measures such as QBCs etc.

Except that is not what is on offer (so far). It certainly never was on offer as part of the old GCOB proposal.

Perhaps this is where opinion really divides, and differing values become apparent. Simply put, perhaps the two camps are the Supply Siders and the Demand Siders.

If I'm wrong on that score, at what stage over the past 20-30 years has there been any serious plan implemented to tackle intra-city traffic on the scale suggested by the 58% figure?

antoobrien wrote: »

The public consultation is not over, we can ask Arup directly about the plans until February 27th.

They have already been asked. They have not provided any answers that I know of.

Zzippy

antoobrien wrote: »

The public consultation is not over, we can ask Arup directly about the plans until February 27th.

The whole point of public consultation is to give the public the information it needs in order to make well-informed submissions. I'm preparing documentation for a public consultation at the moment, so I know that by only presenting a small amount of information, you are leaving yourself open to accusations of hiding information so the public can't make well-informed decisions. Or to put it another way, trying to slant the consultation in the direction you want by putting out selective bits of information that suit the argument for your preferred option.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

They have already been asked. They have not provided any answers that I know of.

So you haven't asked yourself then.

Zzippy

antoobrien wrote: »

So you haven't asked yourself then.

At the public consultation meeting I asked for several pieces of information. I was told that they considered it wasn't appropriate to give out that information as it "might be misleading" to the public. I don't know what's misleading about statistics, just the way they're interpreted and presented, but not releasing statistics and just giving selective interpretations of data is not what anyone in their right mind would call a proper public consultation.

antoobrien

Zzippy wrote: »

At the public consultation meeting I asked for several pieces of information. I was told that they considered it wasn't appropriate to give out that information as it "might be misleading" to the public. I don't know what's misleading about statistics, just the way they're interpreted and presented, but not releasing statistics and just giving selective interpretations of data is not what anyone in their right mind would call a proper public consultation.

Therein lies the problem. There were some very misleading "statistics" (based on figures that could not be sourced) used to "prove" that a bypass has caused a reduction in use of other modes of transport by commuters in Waterfrod City, despite the actual numbers of drivers commuting being LOWER in 2011 (11,496) than they were in 2006 (11794).

You're complaining about not getting enough information, fair enough but I've never heard of a public consultation that gives out all the information they have gathered.

Zzippy

antoobrien wrote: »

Therein lies the problem. There were some very misleading "statistics" (based on figures that could not be sourced) used to "prove" that a bypass has caused a reduction in use of other modes of transport by commuters in Waterfrod City, despite the actual numbers of drivers commuting being LOWER in 2011 (11,496) than they were in 2006 (11794).

You're complaining about not getting enough information, fair enough but I've never heard of a public consultation that gives out all the information they have gathered.

It's good practice to provide stakeholders with enough information to make an informed decision. It's not good practice to withhold information that could help that process. Yes, all the information is not necessary, but information that is useful, and is clearly being used to justify the project itself, and evidently to justify a particular route option in this case, should be presented in full, not a few selective stats from an engineer involved in the project. It's easy to present a few stats that favour a certain argument, while omitting other stats that may be unfavourable for that argument. People should be allowed to view a report in its entirety and not rely on such selected quotes from a non-independent party. I

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Therein lies the problem. There were some very misleading "statistics" (based on figures that could not be sourced) used to "prove" that a bypass has caused a reduction in use of other modes of transport by commuters in Waterfrod City, despite the actual numbers of drivers commuting being LOWER in 2011 (11,496) than they were in 2006 (11794).

Yeah right, they're really voting with their feet in Waterford. A mere 80% modal share for private cars in 2011. It's amazing what can be achieved in Ireland when people make an effort. Keep this up, and the Deise will pass out LA in no time!



http://www.epomm.eu/tems/result_city.phtml?city=502&list=1

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Yeah right, they're really voting with their feet in Waterford. A mere 80% modal share for private cars in 2011.

That statistic goes to show just how idiotic the use of % figures are - actual levels of driving go down, but somehow the "share" goes up. It rather succinctly shows the pointlessness of modal share as a statistic.

dubhthach

Doubling of unemployment in period 2006->2011 in Waterford led to collapse in number of people using public transport/walking. Of course the fact that Waterford Bypass is tolled which if anything should limit short trips keeps on been ignored. As for LA at least it has twice the density of Waterford as a result it can sustain quite a large public transport system (LA Metro etc. which is growing), of course comparing a city with nearly 4million people within it's city limits (close on 13 million in urban area) to Waterford is beyond silly.

fcio

So far the only objections are coming from one poster here leaving the rest of us scratching heads as to the ideologically tainted line of logic involved.

Unfortunately the poster in question suffers from the same issues which many ideologically driven environmentalists suffer, they cut their nose to spite the face. Example: Greenpeace opposition and campaign against nuclear fission has resulted in a world where a large coal plant is build every week spewing **** tons of CO2 and other nasties (which ironically also release radioactive patricles by the boat load into the air we breathe) into the atmosphere.

Me on the other hand are a pragmatist, coming from engineering background i suppose. Yes we have an environmental problem, yes it can and will be fixed with technology (as is slowly happening). No de-industrialization and giant population reduction will NOT happen to save the planet, despite whatever wet dreams ideologically driven (or blinkered?) environmentalists harbor.

Anyways lets get back to our little corner of the world (and ignore than likes of China are building so much infrastructure to make any environment points moot in this modern reality, since we share the same planet) to Galway

Yes Galway is a small town but there is only one major river crossing, the rest are old, narrow bridges in an old city center, we do not have a modern grid city like in US, where population of Galway could fit in a 10 block area and not experience major traffic. The city infrastructure is limited by:
1) Geography
2) Environment
3) Historic and chronic underdevelopment (more money to be made building shoddy housing)
4) Politics

Since a certain prolific poster in this thread cares only about the environment while ignoring that the rest of us do not have that much time to spend being an internet keyboard warriors and have to work, shop, and get around to live our lives. Lets only address environmental concerns.

A bypass (and more importantly a major river crossing whether is a bridge or tunnel) is essential to the city as it will move traffic out of the congested center, allowing more room for bus lanes, cycle lanes (i spend many many years cycling in Galway it aint fun) and pedestrianized roads. Instead of cars idling on our roads in a slow moving car parks spewing CO2 they be able to move more efficiently reducing emissions and saving people time which they can spend I dont know doing things like work.

I do not understand why from environmental point a bypass is a bad idea. Hell lack of bypass already has lead to a sprawl of one off housing in east county Galway since it is faster to drive 20 miles from east country than to get to work (or anywhere for that matter) from the estates along the western distributor roads (and of course there are no west<>east buses for factory workers

More congestion is also caused by schools in city center which have no reason any longer to be located there since most of their students live in suburbs nowadays.

So ideally

1. build bypass
2. once build concentrate on expanding bus lanes, public transport (this can not be done until 1 is done without leading to more gridlock)
3. build large modern schools on outskirts and provide school buses to bring kids in

This helps the city be a better place to live/work AND helps the environment

On the other hand ensuring that the city remains in gridlock is not an option and HARMS the environment, but then again i suspect that some environmentalists in reality care little for the environment they just want to impose their Luddite/Hippy aspirations for a "simpler" society where everyone wears patchouli

?Cee?view

fcio wrote: »

So far the only objections are coming from one poster here leaving the rest of us scratching heads as to the ideologically tainted line of logic involved.

............


On the other hand ensuring that the city remains in gridlock is not an option and HARMS the environment, but then again i suspect that some environmentalists in reality care little for the environment they just want to impose their Luddite/Hippy aspirations for a "simpler" society where everyone wears patchouli

You had me all the way to patchouli :-)

Seriously, an excellent and cogent summary of the situation.

Iwannahurl

dubhthach wrote: »

of course comparing a city with nearly 4million people within it's city limits (close on 13 million in urban area) to Waterford is beyond silly.

You are again missing the point. No surprise there.

LA is a large sprawling city, and its modal share for cars if 78%, less than that of Waterford.

What is beyond silly (but of course utterly normal for Ireland) is that a town of c. 50,000 has managed to achieve an 80% modal share for cars, which exceeds numerous other towns and cities of similar size, and indeed much larger, throughout the EU and elsewhere.

You can keep believing what you want to believe. What I'm hearing lately from informed sources is that those who "can't wait" for a "bypass" in Galway will have to wait longer than they might like...

Iwannahurl

fcio wrote: »

Me on the other hand are a pragmatist

Quite.

KevR

Iwannahurl wrote: »

You can keep believing what you want to believe. What I'm hearing lately from informed sources is that those who "can't wait" for a "bypass" in Galway will have to wait longer than they might like...

So basically you know someone who is going to launch legal proceedings to drag it through the courts for as long as possible? I'm not sure that constitutes an "informed source".

dubhthach

Iwannahurl wrote: »

You are again missing the point. No surprise there.

LA is a large sprawling city, and its modal share for cars if 78%, less than that of Waterford.

What is beyond silly (but of course utterly normal for Ireland) is that a town of c. 50,000 has managed to achieve an 80% modal share for cars, which exceeds numerous other towns and cities of similar size, and indeed much larger, throughout the EU and elsewhere.

You can keep believing what you want to believe. What I'm hearing lately from informed sources is that those who "can't wait" for a "bypass" in Galway will have to wait longer than they might like...

And you're involved in both soap boxing and thread derailment, grounds enough to ban you from the forum for two weeks. (let alone your previous attempt at backseat modding with regards whether the thread should be closed or not)

What you've failed to bring up in the case of Waterford either way is
(a) low density -- half that of LA, the effect this has on walking/cycling and PT.
(b) what was modal share in 2002/2006
(c) What was the last major spend on public transport in Waterford? I'd imagine it was probably the closing of the Waterford Tramore railway line in the 1960's (track lifting).

Instead you rail about percentage shift which in grand sum of things are immaterial. Given the complete lack of investment in viable public transport options as well as the low housing density is it any wonder people are force to rely on their cars.

Either way you keep on with your thread derailment and you will be banned, so consider this your last warning.

shgavman

At a talk in the Westwood last night a professor from the Uni (though not representing the Uni) who's name I can't remember outlined a few interesting points in terms of the city's growth rate and the true source of traffic issues at peak times.

His work suggests that our inner city schools play a big roll.

That the bulk of our traffic issues are on the east side of the city (Tuam/Claregalway to Galway).

The cost is estimated around €750 million. Between 50 - 120 houses to be demolished.

Personally, I feel the loss to the environment would be a terrible shame - anyone who's ever taken the time to walk around the Coolough Fen in the Spring/Summer might feel the same - but I realise there are a lot of people who don't care for this.

Sorry I couldn't quote more of the figures that were presented last night and for forgetting the name of this academic. Anyway, I'm opposed to it myself.

Disclosure: I'm a resident of Terryland

?Cee?view

shgavman wrote: »

At a talk in the Westwood last night a professor from the Uni (though not representing the Uni) who's name I can't remember outlined a few interesting points in terms of the city's growth rate and the true source of traffic issues at peak times.

His work suggests that our inner city schools play a big roll.

That the bulk of our traffic issues are on the east side of the city (Tuam/Claregalway to Galway).

The cost is estimated around €750 million. Between 50 - 120 houses to be demolished.

Personally, I feel the loss to the environment would be a terrible shame - anyone who's ever taken the time to walk around the Coolough Fen in the Spring/Summer might feel the same - but I realise there are a lot of people who don't care for this.

Sorry I couldn't quote more of the figures that were presented last night and for forgetting the name of this academic. Anyway, I'm opposed to it myself.

Disclosure: I'm a resident of Terryland

Prof Gerry Lyons spoke. Not sure if that's who you mean? He's some sort of Engineer

dubhthach

?Cee?view wrote: »

Prof Gerry Lyons spoke. Not sure if that's who you mean? He's some sort of Engineer

He was the head of the IT department in my day, before it got subsumed into Engineering faculty (at time it was quasi-independent though nominally under Science), going off NUIG page it looks like he's now Dean of Engineering and Informatics now.

dubhthach

shgavman wrote: »

Personally, I feel the loss to the environment would be a terrible shame - anyone who's ever taken the time to walk around the Coolough Fen in the Spring/Summer might feel the same - but I realise there are a lot of people who don't care for this.

Well I don't think "the hidden lakes" are affected, here's a screenshot of various routes in that vicinity, obviously the green route is further north at Menlo. The yellow route has the most impact, though if you ask me that's a sub-optimal route anyways. Blue/Purple is the main route in vicinity.

Iwannahurl

I gather most if not all City Councillors (bar one?) support the idea of a "bypass", but now it seems the elected members of the lead authority for the project are being asked to cancel or at least postpone the entire thing:

A County Councillor is asking the council to scrap all progression on the N6 Galway City Transport Project and go back to the drawing board.

Oranmore-Athenry Independent Councillor Jim Cuddy has put down the motion ahead of Monday’s meeting.

He’s looking for support from his fellow councillors to halt the project and urge consultants to engage in more in-depth consultations before further alternatives are considered.

http://connachttribune.ie/council-motion-calls-for-n6-city-transport-project-to-be-scrapped/

dubhthach

Funny how a councillor is concerned about people who aren't his constituents, of course it's outside of remit of the councillors anyways (leaving aside that majority of all routes are within City boundary). National roads are the remit of the NRA.

Iwannahurl

dubhthach wrote: »

Funny how a councillor is concerned about people who aren't his constituents, of course it's outside of remit of the councillors anyways (leaving aside that majority of all routes are within City boundary). National roads are the remit of the NRA.

Perhaps, but since the County Council's NRPO is managing the project, perhaps the Councillor believes the elected members can change the direction of policy.

If a motion calling for the abandonment of the scheme was passed, and even if it had no effect on the NRPO/NRA, it would be an odd situation if a majority of City Councillors remained in favour.

It'll be interesting to see whether the County Councillor is on a solo run entirely.

Aard

Just to complicate matters, there are talks about merging Galway City and County councils, or at least expanding the city limits of Galway City.

Middle Man

Look, it's a transport project and such has a number of elements. To simply predict and provide and just build more roads is no solution - I think mainstream society is well beyond that thinking now. However, to build no roads in belligerent fashion is no solution either. Cars are a fact of life, but at the same time, can not be the panacea. Anti-car thinking is immature as is auto-totalitarian thinking and to me, the N6 Galway City Transport Project is the sign of a maturing public mindset. We need get used to the idea of integrated and inclusive transport strategies. Cars have a place, public transport has a place and people have a place and IMO, transport planning for an area should come under 4 headings (all equal):

1) Motor Transport (including freight and bus services);

2) Rail and Rapid Transit (including BRT and LRT);

3) Integration (Information, Fares, Park and Ride, Pedestrian Access etc);

4) Amenity (Public Realm, Greenways, Linear Parks etc).

About Cycling - this IMO has a future in leisure travel, but will never be a major player in commuting. It is one thing going out for a freetime cycle in pleasant weather and it's quite another cycling to the clock - believe me, I've been there and done that for years and commuter cycling is very stressful. Walking is a lot less stressful as is the short drive to the station - in fact, my commuter journey is mostly by rail, but the first few kilometers to the station is by car (P+R) - I dread the idea of a rail strike as I don't actually fancy having to do the M50 every day at rush hour. Yes, I practice what I preach - integrated transport.

On the subject of Galway, An Bord Pleanala will probably give permission for the bypass, but I guess the other elements of the transport plan will be included as strict conditions - such will demolish the theory of the 'Transport Project' being a window dressing exercise just to get the bypass through. Galway will probably get at least a BRT system - it would be nice to see the GLUAS though.

Good luck to Galway with its initiative!