M6 - Galway City Ring Road [planning decision pending]

Iwannahurl

spacetweek wrote: »

^^ This times 1000.
It should be built exactly as you've described, and the existing bypass converted to a rapid bus corridor. Knocknacarra residents wishing to get to the far end of the city should be facilitated by a frequent and fast bus service.

If a "bypass" is to be built, then it should do exactly what it says on the tin.

There should be clear objectives, and imo one of them should not be to provide a huge release valve for car commuters in the western suburbs.

However, that is exactly what is being demanded and expected. The rest is rhetorical window-dressing.

antoobrien wrote: »

Knocknacarra should have a junction or it prevents development that could rebalance the city in terms of jobs and services. Otherwise we're just perpetuating one of the the problems that causes the congestion.

That's more of the same sales pitch, along the lines that a "bypass" is intended to create the right conditions for public transport, walking and cycling.

The only reason for putting in a "bypass" junction in Knocknacarra would be to suit the thousands of car commuters crossing the city west to east in the morning and back again in the evening. Doing so would greatly undermine the viability of public transport, imo. Not that such a scenario would bother the car commuters in the least, since they have no plans to switch modes -- not now, and certainly not ever once they have their "bypass".

antoobrien wrote: »

Not putting a junction there will force non residential traffic down residential roads e.g. the start of N59 was originally an access road for the estates built in Newcastle, now it's the right turn for the N6 off the QB.

Nobody in Knocknacarra would be "forced" in the manner you describe, just as thousands of them are not forced to drive to schools in Knocknacarra and Salthill, or to UHG, NUI Galway and other city-centre traffic generators.

Aard wrote: »

Knocknacarra has the highest car use in the city. Any longterm solution for the suburb involves people switching to less space-consuming modes of transport. A road will not do this. A road will allow Knocknacarra's dependence on the car to continue. Knocknacarra needs alternative transport option, and not more of the same, if the traffic problem is to be sorted out.

Much of which could be done now. An 'orbital' bus lane would be essential for high-capacity BRT, but I now have reason to believe this could be achieved by modifying current infrastructure, perhaps at a fraction of the cost of a "bypass".

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

The mode share looks impressive but the real world numbers are what matters and the actual numbers are low.

At the time of writing of the report, there were (2006 census) 11,758 people working in Galway that left home between 8am & 9am, and the proposers of the main alternative being touted state that they think it will only be able to take 10% of them to work.

Will the proposals be enough to justify not building a bypass? Here's some food for thought - in 2011 the number of people leaving for work between 8am and 9am had reduced to 10,204 - a 13% drop. And yet we still had fairly serious congestion during peak travel times.

If employment returns to where it was, then BRT & PT is clearly not going to be enough.

PT is just one part of the mix. Galway should be aiming for a combined modal share for PT, walking, cycling, car-pooling etc well in excess of the figures you suggest. Push and pull factors could also be modified, with the aim of reducing travel demand at peak times.

I have not seen any figures for traffic volumes and delay times plotted against time of day, time of year etc. Have you? For example, what are the hard data on traffic volumes and delay times at key junctions when the schools are off?

In my view it is misleading to compare simple percentages in any case. The relationship between traffic volume and traffic congestion is non-linear.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

PT is just one part of the mix. Galway should be aiming for a combined modal share for PT, walking, cycling, car-pooling etc well in excess of the figures you suggest.

What figures have I suggested?

spacetweek

Anto, I think the figures in the report you quoted are fairly good - and they don't include walking and cycling. Cycling in particular has a lot of growth potential.
Not sure why you came to the conclusion you did.

antoobrien

spacetweek wrote: »

Anto, I think the figures in the report you quoted are fairly good - and they don't include walking and cycling. Cycling in particular has a lot of growth potential.
Not sure why you came to the conclusion you did.

Short answer population growth, so while cycling has growth potential, any upswing will happen in the context of greater overall numbers on the move.

Also there's already quite a large proportion of Galway city residents that walk to work in Galway, this is masked in many reports by the fact that the city is the employment hub for the county.

Unless actual numbers driving fall - and population growth reduces the prospect of that (unless one is naive enough to believe that there will be nobody moving to Galway that will also use a car to get to work) - then the impact of upswings will take some of the slack, but not enough.

Iwannahurl

Population growth is a favourite excuse of the various roads authorities, and it's a red herring.

The reason is simple: more people does not have to mean more cars.

The population of County Galway increased by 35% 1991-2011. I can't find the figure for Galway City just now.

In the same period car usage increased while the modal share for public transport, walking and cycling fell.

Mode of transport is not related to demographic changes. However, it is clearly related to traffic congestion. Population change is one of the weakest arguments in favour of a "bypass" -- Prof Gerry Lyons made this point, iirc.

GDSGR8

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Population growth is a favourite excuse of the various roads authorities, and it's a red herring.

The reason is simple: more people does not have to mean more cars.

The population of County Galway increased by 35% 1991-2011. I can't find the figure for Galway City just now.

In the same period car usage increased while the modal share for public transport, walking and cycling fell.

Mode of transport is not related to demographic changes. However, it is clearly related to traffic congestion. Population change is one of the weakest arguments in favour of a "bypass" -- Prof Gerry Lyons made this point, iirc.

It's hardly an excuse, it's a perfectly valid reason though if you aren't mentally enslaved to the modern cult of 'four wheels bad, two wheels good'. Why there's so much opposition in certain quarters to a relatively modest, modern road skirting the margins of Galway City really is hard to understand. Well, it's not really that hard to understand I suppose.

Iwannahurl

Interview with Peter Sweetman in today's Galway City Tribune, page 34.

"The bypass was more than the bypass to me. It was about implementing the Habitats Directive in Ireland and the bypass was the vehicle I used to do it."

"We were sold the PR hype on the outer city bypass that it was going to be the solution. The figures on usage [new data has found that just 5% of traffic actually wanted to bypass the city] show that's not the case.

The next generation will thank me. They will see the light -- at least I hope they'll see the light -- that I was right. Not even for the fact that it was against the law, but the fact that the original road was the wrong road. Even if it hadn't gone through the priority habitat, it was not the right road for Galway; it wasn't going to solve the traffic problems."

L1011

Sweetman's delusions have got worse.

Iwannahurl

L1011 wrote: »

Sweetman's delusions have got worse.

Such accusations might be more appropriately directed elsewhere.

With regard to the Habitats Directive, Sweetman was vindicated by no less a body than the European Court of Justice.

With regard to an "outer bypass" as the supposed solution to traffic congestion in the city, this is what the consultants have to say:

Addressing councillors, Project Manager for Arup Consulting Engineers, Eileen McCarthy ... said that any variation on the Galway City Outer Bypass route would be doomed to failure as it had been proven that there were alternatives. Pursuing another outer bypass along a similar route would fail and “waste another €14 million”, she said.

In addition, Ms McCarthy pointed out that just 5 per cent of commuters along the proposed route would travel the entirety of the journey, while 58 per cent 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.

http://galwayindependent.com/20150211/news/road-to-war-S50711.html

Are the ECJ and Arup deluded as well? Some sort of high-level conspiracy of fools, perhaps?

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Population growth is a favourite excuse of the various roads authorities, and it's a red herring.
....
The population of County Galway increased by 35% 1991-2011. I can't find the figure for Galway City just now.

Galway City population 1991 - 50,853
Galway City population 2001 - 75,529
Population increase = 48.5%
Average yearly increase >4%. Wasn't it claimed that this has never happened in Galway?

There's a red herring there all right, just not the one you think.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The reason is simple: more people does not have to mean more cars.

That's at best wishful thinking at worst willfully failing to plan for the potential for extra cars due to a higher population level.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

In the same period car usage increased while the modal share for public transport, walking and cycling fell.

That some about face from this stance yesterday:

Iwannahurl wrote: »

In my view it is misleading to compare simple percentages in any case.

I agree totally, simple percentages are very misleading so lets look at actual figures:


Mode|1991 | 2011
On foot | 3,804 | 4,666
Bike | 1,317 | 1,343
Bus | 1,023 | 1,630
Train | 23 | 40
Motor Cyle | 198 | 96
Driver | 7,609 | 16,843
Passenger | 1,385 | 1,561
Other (e.g. lorry, van) | 492 | 1076


So actual numbers of walkers, cyclists, PT use are up in the 20 year period, but hey let's ignore that in favor of supporting support naive policies.:rolleyes:

Middle Man

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Interview with Peter Sweetman in today's Galway City Tribune, page 34.

You do realise that Europe is giving up on this anti-roads nonsense and are instead focusing on integrated transport policy? Look at the Netherlands (the bike capital) and not only are they investing massive sums of money in motorways, but are also building bypasses. Belguim seems to be turning its back too with its new R4 upgrade along with other planned bypasses - just look at the Highways and Autobahns section on the Skyscraper City site. Look at Germany and all the road widening they're doing. Britain is also well ahead of us in terms of thinking when one sees the bypasses being planned there too.

As per usual, Ireland lags 30 years behind Europe. Instead of wasting time since 1991 with stupid anti-road ideology, all motorways including the M4 and M20 could be long since built and I could be writing this under the streets of Dublin - sorry, got to go, I need to change at Stephen's Green and get the Metro to Swords...

...sorry mate, I'm dreaming! I was also thinking of taking that 200kph train to Cork next week - yeah right!

We as a nation seriously need to grow up!

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

That some about face from this stance yesterday:

I agree totally, simple percentages are very misleading so lets look at actual figures:

You're deliberately using incomplete quotes out of context in order to make a spurious point. There are names for that sort of thing, none of them complimentary. What I said earlier was:

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I have not seen any figures for traffic volumes and delay times plotted against time of day, time of year etc. Have you? For example, what are the hard data on traffic volumes and delay times at key junctions when the schools are off?

In my view it is misleading to compare simple percentages in any case. The relationship between traffic volume and traffic congestion is non-linear.

In this context there is no one-size-fits-all definition of the term "simple percentage" and attempting to do so is nonsense. The key point above is that the relationship between traffic volume and traffic congestion is non-linear. This is central to any informed discussion about the potential increase in traffic congestion caused by a higher level of car use, or to the potential reductions in congestion that could be achieved by fewer car trips and/or by modal switch to public transport, walking and cycling.

antoobrien wrote: »

Galway City population 1991 - 50,853
Galway City population 2001 - 75,529
Population increase = 48.5%
Average yearly increase >4%. Wasn't it claimed that this has never happened in Galway?

There's a red herring there all right, just not the one you think.

That's at best wishful thinking at worst willfully failing to plan for the potential for extra cars due to a higher population level.

Mode|1991 | 2011
On foot | 3,804 | 4,666
Bike | 1,317 | 1,343
Bus | 1,023 | 1,630
Train | 23 | 40
Motor Cyle | 198 | 96
Driver | 7,609 | 16,843
Passenger | 1,385 | 1,561
Other (e.g. lorry, van) | 492 | 1076


So actual numbers of walkers, cyclists, PT use are up in the 20 year period, but hey let's ignore that in favor of supporting support naive policies.:rolleyes:

So according to those figures in the twenty years 1991-2011 we had 26 more cyclists travelling to work or education, 862 more pedestrians and 607 more bus users.

However, in stark contrast we had 9234 more car drivers, as well as 176 more car passengers and 584 more travelling in vans and lorries. That's an increase of 121% in the number of car drivers, compared to the general population increase of 48.5% which you cite.

Taking the car/van/lorry occupants all together, that's a 72% modal share for private motor vehicles (PMV). If Galway Corporation/City Council had not sat around for years scratching its collective arse while apathetically allowing ridiculous levels of car dependence to develop, and had instead worked hard to achieve a modal split on a par with, say, Leiden, the hypothetical changes over the two decades 1991-2011 might look something like this:



The implication of the above table (purely hypothetical of course) is that if Galway had initiated a plan 25 years ago to achieve a Leiden-like modal split, there would have been no more than 1400 extra cars on the road in 2011, a 14% increase over two decades instead of the c. 120% increase that actually occurred.

In contrast, there would have been a 218% increase in the number of bus users and a 580% increase in the number of people cycling (7632 in absolute terms, compared to the 26 extra cyclists you mention). Just to be clear: what I am doing here is comparing actual figures for Galway in 1991 versus hypothetical figures for Galway in 2011, using Leiden's modal split percentages.

That's just Leiden, purely for the purposes of illustration. Other EU cities, eg those with higher modal share for public transport and walking, may tell a different story.

The presence of more people does not have to result in more cars on the road, unless transportation policy is based on an individualistic ideology characterised by the notion of "why would anyone own a car other than to use it".

If you spent less time rolling your eyes and more time carefully looking at the various facts and figures and considering their implications you might eventually understand that what is at issue is not the movement of cars but the mobility of people.



EDIT: figures done in a rush. All open to correction.


.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

You're deliberately using incomplete quotes out of context in order to make a spurious point.

the only spurious thing here are these images as I have never ever seen a real world collection of cyclists like this when they are travelling from A-B.

The only time I see pedestrians like this is major sporting/cultural evens or in shopping areas or generally confined spaces.

veryangryman

Jess harry christ, does anyone else never want to hear the word 'modal' again.

Boards has officially got its new 'mysterious'.

Aard

antoobrien wrote: »

Galway City population 1991 - 50,853
Galway City population 2001 - 75,529
Population increase = 48.5%
Average yearly increase >4%. Wasn't it claimed that this has never happened in Galway?

There's a red herring there all right, just not the one you think.

Your numbers are wrong. You gave the population in 2011 but only calculated growth for a ten year period. The average growth rate from 1991 to 2011 was <2%.

Gerobrien25

Iwannahurl wrote: »

You're deliberately using incomplete quotes out of context in order to make a spurious point. There are names for that sort of thing, none of them

Wouldn't have been the only poster to have ever done that

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

the only spurious thing here are these images as I have never ever seen a real world collection of cyclists like this when they are travelling from A-B.

The only time I see pedestrians like this is major sporting/cultural evens or in shopping areas or generally confined spaces.

What are you talking about? There are perhaps a dozen cyclists in the photo (4th panel), and the overall purpose of the image is to illustrate the reality that private cars are self-evidently a massive waste of finite road space.

Would you care to address the substantive issues in my post instead of raising yet more lame hares?

Iwannahurl

Aard wrote: »

Your numbers are wrong. You gave the population in 2011 but only calculated growth for a ten year period. The average growth rate from 1991 to 2011 was <2%.

Perhaps related to the typo in red below? It should be 2011 of course, and a 20-year average growth is obviously very different from a 10-year one.

antoobrien wrote: »

Galway City population 1991 - 50,853
Galway City population 2001 - 75,529
Population increase = 48.5%
Average yearly increase >4%. Wasn't it claimed that this has never happened in Galway?

There's a red herring there all right, just not the one you think.

Chris_5339762

Middle Man wrote: »

Britain is also well ahead of us in terms of thinking when one sees the bypasses being planned there too.

Nah, Britain is the worst of the worst when it comes to new build stuff. Nothing is built or some D2AP with roundabouts and a half arsed affair. Just look at the sorry state of the Aberdeen bypass.

They also have bottlenecks the likes of which we can't even imagine. Stonehenge for instance.

Iwannahurl

Middle Man wrote: »

Britain is also well ahead of us in terms of thinking when one sees the bypasses being planned there too.

...

We as a nation seriously need to grow up!

Ireland certainly gives the UK a good run for its money in the EU car dependence stakes.



Waterford was bypassed some years ago. Does increasing car traffic mean they're growing up?

Traffic management and transportation planning are as important as infrastructure, imo. If you build roads without any serious intention to manage travel demand you just end up with greater levels of car use. Of course, for some people that is the entire purpose or road building, and the proposed Galway "bypass" is no exception in that regard.

SeanW

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Interview with Peter Sweetman in today's Galway City Tribune, page 34.

If Peter Sweetman is using the 5% figure, he's being economical with the truth to an extreme level.

The claim was that of commuters, only 5% would use the bypass in its entirity.

That means someone (as just one example) driving from Clifden to Dublin would be excluded from the 5% figure on two grounds:

1. They're probably not commuting
2. They would not be using the bypass in full, only the bulk of it from the N59 to the M/N6.

For both of these reasons, you have to seriously question the intellectual honesty of anyone who quotes the 5% figure.


Your infographic is also deeply flawed in that it assumes the best way to deal with long distance traffic (given the dishonesty above we can assume it's significant) is to get all the long distance drivers to stop at the city boundary, put the car on their back, cycle through the city and then plonk the car back on the road on the other side?

antoobrien

Aard wrote: »

Your numbers are wrong. You gave the population in 2011 but only calculated growth for a ten year period. The average growth rate from 1991 to 2011 was <2%.

Oops, bad copy paste leading to typo already pointed.:o

However, despite the mistake in the calculations, the numbers as sourced from the CSO are correct.

1991: 50,853
2011: 75,529


Difference in 20 years: 24,676
20 year population change: +48.5%
Average growth: 1,233.8
Average % growth since 1991*: +2.42%

Aard

Your numbers are wrong again. That's not how you calculate annual compound growth. As I said above, the average rate over those twenty years was <2%.

75529-50853=24676

Population grew 1.4852417753131575324956246435805 times.

1.4852417753131575324956246435805^(0.05)=1.019975776549246062859807983472

So the average increase per year was 1.9975776549246062859807983472% rounded to 2%.

antoobrien

Aard wrote: »

Your numbers are wrong again. That's not how you calculate annual compound growth. As I said above, the average rate over those twenty years was <2%.

75529-50853=24676

Population grew 1.4852417753131575324956246435805 times.

1.4852417753131575324956246435805^(0.05)=1.019975776549246062859807983472

So the average increase per year was 1.9975776549246062859807983472% rounded to 2%.

Okay, you assumed that I was doing anything vaguely complex rather than just using a straight line analysis. Confusion solved.

That formula will be useful, can you share a link?

serfboard

Iwannahurl wrote: »

If you build roads without any serious intention to manage travel demand you just end up with greater levels of car use.

Although we disagree about the need for a bypass, I completely agree with you about this.

After the carrot of bypass (and Park & Rides just inside it), Galway City Council (GCC) will have no excuse not to bate motorists out of their cars using sticks such as:

1. The conversion of all C4 roads within the bypass area to be B2 + C2.
2. Upgrading of Western Distributor Road to be C2 + B2.
3. Reduction in the amount of city centre parking.
4. Introduction of Public Transport only streets (College Road/Lough Atalia road comes to mind).
5. Increased pedestrianisation.
6. Congestion charging

However, like you I am sceptical of the will on the part of GCC to do this. Imagine the howls from the Chamber of Commerce?! Despite the fact that I know for a fact of people from East Galway who would sooner go to Athlone than Galway to shop, such is the congestion - congestion which will, if these measures are not introduced after a bypass, only get worse.

serfboard

serfboard wrote: »

Although we disagree about the need for a bypass, I completely agree with you about this.

After the carrot of bypass (and Park & Rides just inside it), Galway City Council (GCC) will have no excuse not to bate motorists out of their cars using sticks such as:

1. The conversion of all C4 roads within the bypass area to be B2 + C2.
2. Upgrading of Western Distributor Road to be C2 + B2.
3. Reduction in the amount of city centre parking.
4. Introduction of Public Transport only streets (College Road/Lough Atalia road comes to mind).
5. Increased pedestrianisation.
6. Congestion charging

However, like you I am sceptical of the will on the part of GCC to do this. Imagine the howls from the Chamber of Commerce?! Despite the fact that I know for a fact of people from East Galway who would sooner go to Athlone than Galway to shop, such is the congestion - congestion which will, if these measures are not introduced after a bypass, only get worse.

Completely agree with everything you said with the exception of lough atalia. Do that + college rd and you shut down access to a bridge across the river

Aard

antoobrien wrote: »

Okay, you assumed that I was doing anything vaguely complex rather than just using a straight line analysis. Confusion solved.

That formula will be useful, can you share a link?

"Straight line analyis" isn't a thing with percentages. You simply find the nth root where n equals the number of years. Look up compound interest; it's the same concept.

If you're gonna refute somebody's figures you should probably use the correct formula.

Iwannahurl

And if anyone is going to argue population figures they should get them right, both in terms of calculation and application.

The population argument is flawed, for a number of reasons. Population change clearly affects transport demand, but population growth is far from the whole story. I'll get back to it when I have time.

Meanwhile, here are a couple of snippets to ponder.

At 1.88 million vehicles, private car ownership in Ireland has more than doubled since 1989, far outstripping population growth. “While this staggering level of growth is reflective of our move towards a culture of two car families’, it also highlights the shortcomings of our public transport infrastructure.”

AA Roadwatch, September 2014

http://www.theaa.ie/blog/aa-roadwatch-warns-worst-traffic-season-years-celebrates-25-years-air/

And here's a graphic from the Western Development Commission, based on Census 2006:



I haven't been able to get a similar map for 2011 data, but I doubt it's changed much.

yer man!

Another action group formed this week in Barna this time, great! This road will never get built by this NIMBYism.