M6 - Galway City Ring Road [planning decision pending]

monument

dubhthach wrote: »

And if we were in Netherlands a city the size of Galway would have a proper bypass. Posting copious links to external sites isn't gonna do you any favours, if you want to discuss childhood obesity, the chronic underfunding of Health service by the Government or social housing take it to the appropriate forum.

Not necessarily. Here's one example.

Nijmegen

City population 169,000
Metro population 287,500

No east-west bypass.

There's also very large differences:

If we're taking about provding a bypass for non-local commuter traffic (ie intercity or regional traffic), Dutch bypasses are also an internal part of their motorway network and their motorway network would be unlikely to extend towards a population size as low as what's west of Galway City.

Their bypasses in many of not most cases were linked to or indeed came after a radical overhaul of their city road networks to become cycling friendly and also for many of their city centres to become almost car free. Irish and UK bypasses follow a very different level of overall network design and focus.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

supersized.

Thanks for that link. Fairly clearly shows the link between more motoring and inactivity and people becoming overweight.

dubhthach

Sure but they just have a motorway bypass going South to North (eg. E31 interconnecting with A50), if you want to go from point directly east of Nijmegen they have urban dual carriageway cut through the urban area which acts as a (half) ringroad around the city center.

But hey what about a better example such as Leeuwarden when it comes to population size as well as been in lower density part of the country, where you have motorway bypass (just finished) running east to west. The coastal area to west of Leeuwarden has a population somewhat greater than Conamara (40-50,000) it's not an interurban route.



The Haak om Leeuwarden cost €250 million for 12 km's of dual carriageway. This is leading aside a fact that within the urban area you also have decent quality ringroad around the urban core.

Sam Russell

Leeuwarden appears to have a network of trains which Galway got rid of a century ago. Maybe that is a difference worth taking into account.

monument

dubhthach wrote: »

Sure but they just have a motorway bypass going South to North (eg. E31 interconnecting with A50), if you want to go from point directly east of Nijmegen they have urban dual carriageway cut through the urban area which acts as a (half) ringroad around the city center.

But hey what about a better example such as Leeuwarden when it comes to population size as well as been in lower density part of the country, where you have motorway bypass (just finished) running east to west. The coastal area to west of Leeuwarden has a population somewhat greater than Conamara (40-50,000) it's not an interurban route.



The Haak om Leeuwarden cost €250 million for 12 km's of dual carriageway. This is leading aside a fact that within the urban area you also have decent quality ringroad around the urban core.

That's not some kind of a costal dead end, it's part of a choice of routes to Amsterdam and the areas north of Amsterdam.

Even north of Amsterdam alone, there's a larger population than the population of Connemara and Galway city combined.

TINA1984

I don't see the logic in comparing urban area's in densely populated Holland with sparsely populated West of Ireland.

Schadenfreudia

Sam Russell wrote: »

Leeuwarden appears to have a network of trains which Galway got rid of a century ago. Maybe that is a difference worth taking into account.

I don't, and am not opposed to rail in Galway. But don't forget Leeuwarden's network of motorways.

The "population density" argument applies even more to urban transport than to bypass roads.

KevR

dubhthach wrote: »

The main issue for Public Transport is the lack of investment in relevant infrastructure. For example in Galway there needs to be in place buslanes on for example:

• WDR
• QCB
• Seán Mulvoy Road
• Tuam Road

I'd go further and convert the old N6 dual carriageway out to Oranmore to 2+2 with bus lanes. That way you have a continuous bus corridor from end of WDR to Oranmore that would bypass City center.

I presume that you are suggesting that all of the roads mentioned above are physically widened to add bus lanes?

A smash and grab of existing road space cannot be considered as 'investment' in public transport.

No city bus service has ever been trialled over the QCB which is fairly disgraceful. It's hard at this point to justify any sort of a bus lane over the QCB when nothing has been trialled on the existing infrastructure.

Investment in public transport to me means building new infrastructure (e.g. - spending money to widen roads to add bus lanes or build tram lines alongside existing roads). I actually have no issue with huge sums of money being spent on public transport infrastructure in Galway. Infrastructure is a one-off cost. My issue is with the unknowns surrounding long term day-to-day operational subsidy. I have raised this a number of times on this forum and none of the staunch public transport supporters have even attempted to address tbe questions raised. I guess ignorance is bliss...

KevR

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Build a park-n-ride system, make the out of town car parks free and subsidise the bus services, would probable solve about half the congestion problems.

Where does the subsidy come from though and how much will it cost?

monument

KevR wrote: »

I presume that you are suggesting that all of the roads mentioned above are physically widened to add bus lanes?

A smash and grab of existing road space cannot be considered as 'investment' in public transport.

No city bus service has ever been trialled over the QCB which is fairly disgraceful. It's hard at this point to justify any sort of a bus lane over the QCB when nothing has been triallef on the existing infrastructure.

Investment in public transport to me means building new infrastructure (e.g. - spending money to widen roads to add bus lanes or build tram lines alongside existing roads). I actually have no issue with huge sums of money being spent on public transport infrastructure in Galway. Infrastructure is a one-off cost. My issue is with the unknowns surrounding long term day-to-day operational subsidy. I have raised this a number of times on this forum and none of the staunch public transport supporters have even attempted to address tbe questions raised. I guess ignorance is bliss...

You have a point about on-going costs, maybe not a show-stopping point but a point all the same.

But I'm afrade you're a bit confused re space bring reallocated not being investment -- if that wast the case key parts of Dublin's Luas, and the city's QBC network would not be investment.

Reallocating road space is often the investment with the best value for money and best return on the investment made. You not liking it does not change that.

KevR

monument wrote: »

But I'm afrade you're a bit confused re space bring reallocated not being investment -- if that wast the case key parts of Dublin's Luas, and the city's QBC network would not be investment.

Reallocating road space is often the investment with the best value for money and best return on the investment made. You not liking it does not change that.

Sorry, but re-painting road markings to convert an existing road lane into a bus lane is not a public transport infrastructure investment. It might be a good value for money investment in public transport, but it cannot be considered an infrastructure investment. People in this thread were complaining that no serious investment is planned for public transport infrastructure, that's the point I am addressing.

Point taken regarding the Luas investment.

KevR

monument wrote: »

You have a point about on-going costs, maybe not a show-stopping point but a point all the same.

Will anyone even attempt to come up with some figures on here? Or will people continue to post casual suggestions that public transport is a realistic alternative (without providing any detail whatsoever on potential operational costs which will have to be paid for decades to come)?

monument

KevR wrote: »

Will anyone even attempt to come up with some figures on here? Or will people continue to post casual suggestions that public transport is a realistic alternative (without providing any detail whatsoever on potential operational costs which will have to be paid for decades to come)?

The other side of it is that you think Galway is so different than any other place that it's not worth paying for at least some level of public transport?

Nobody as far as I can tell is suggesting covering Galway in metro lines with gold-plated stations. The most expensive solution I've seen suggested in tram lines and these have been made to work in cities of different sizes and densities.

And to note: Luas will never pay for its construction costs.

dubhthach

KevR wrote: »

I presume that you are suggesting that all of the roads mentioned above are physically widened to add bus lanes?

A smash and grab of existing road space cannot be considered as 'investment' in public transport.

No city bus service has ever been trialled over the QCB which is fairly disgraceful. It's hard at this point to justify any sort of a bus lane over the QCB when nothing has been trialled on the existing infrastructure.

Investment in public transport to me means building new infrastructure (e.g. - spending money to widen roads to add bus lanes or build tram lines alongside existing roads). I actually have no issue with huge sums of money being spent on public transport infrastructure in Galway. Infrastructure is a one-off cost. My issue is with the unknowns surrounding long term day-to-day operational subsidy. I have raised this a number of times on this forum and none of the staunch public transport supporters have even attempted to address tbe questions raised. I guess ignorance is bliss...

Tuam Road should be widen yes as well as the WDR, after all there's no space for Buslane on them in current configuration without widening. They are already planning on widening the Tuam road from "North Point" out to Parkmore junction for bus lane so it would be continuation of that.

I'm fine with Seán Mulvoy road losing a lane (tieing in with bus lane on Dublin road) as for QCB, well I could be wrong but the lanes are 12 feet wide right? you could narrow these to nine feet as well as take the "elevated cycle lane"/narrow footpath to enable a seperate buslane. Though I'd imagine in situation that you weren't taken a lane of traffic ye probably need to remove footpaths and put in place a parallel pedestrian/cyclist bridge.

Again as I've stated before I'd only in favour of taking road space on QCB once the Outer bypass was in place, that I don't believe in 24x7 bus lanes (mainly as no-one runs such a service). As for "public transport subsidies" well personally I'm in favour of any new routes been put up for tender. I don't believe in state subsidy apart from the point of putting in the core infrastructure which can be open to any operator which can win a tender to operate a service.

dubhthach

As an example I regard the state subsidy for the Ennis to Athenry train line to be a disgrace, the money spent on this White Elephant would have been better spent restoring the twin track to Oranmore (rip up in the 1920's) and putting place commuter rail stations on this route (Renmore say, with shuttle bus). Though I'd probably would have went dual-track to Athenry, which would also have helped with intercity times etc.

KevR

KevR wrote: »

Where does the subsidy come from though and how much will it cost?

Local taxes as usual, how long is this piece of string?

dubhthach

Deleted User wrote: »

Local taxes as usual, how long is this piece of string?

Local taxes? What as in rates/property tax? I'd imagine given how centralised this state is that it would have to come out of central government funding.

Though I would say it would be cool if for example like in the US that you could have a vote on say putting 1% on VAT in a district to help fund provision of infrastructure. I'm thinking of example of Seattle where they added 1-2% to Sales tax to fund the construction of Link Light Rail to Tacoma international airport.

dubhthach

dubhthach wrote: »

Local taxes? What as in rates/property tax? I'd imagine given how centralised this state is that it would have to come out of central government funding.

Though I would say it would be cool if for example like in the US that you could have a vote on say putting 1% on VAT in a district to help fund provision of infrastructure. I'm thinking of example of Seattle where they added 1-2% to Sales tax to fund the construction of Link Light Rail to Tacoma international airport.

Basically central government can fund the initial phase and local government can fund the ongoing operation of such a system.

dubhthach

Deleted User wrote: »

Basically central government can fund the initial phase and local government can fund the ongoing operation of such a system.

But given that local government is majority funded from central government (Local Government fund -- LPT collected by Revenue distributed after Central Gov takes its "share" etc.) it's kinda just adding another layer of bureaucracy and cost.

Schadenfreudia

dubhthach wrote: »

But given that local government is majority funded from central government (Local Government fund -- LPT collected by Revenue distributed after Central Gov takes its "share" etc.) it's kinda just adding another layer of bureaucracy and cost.

Not sure that amounts to Central Government "funding" local authorities. It sounds more like robbing a slice of their revenue!

Iwannahurl

It looks like the DTTAS/Govt doesn't have money for some proposed road schemes:

Transport minister Pascal Donohoe has sparked a furious row after again postponing the proposed €1bn Cork-Limerick motorway.

The motorway could slash 30 minutes from the commute time between Ireland's second- and third-largest cities - and remove some of the most dangerous stretches of single-carriageway primary road in the country.

The N20 Cork-Limerick road suffers from some of Ireland's worst accident black-spots - particularly around the infamous Limeworks in Buttevant, which has been the scene of multiple fatal accidents.

It was hoped the motorway would also ease congestion - with major bypasses of towns such as Mallow, Buttevant, Charleville - and enhance access to areas such as Croom.

Mr Donohue stunned Cork and Limerick councils by refusing to allow the project even go to the planning stage.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/fury-as-minister-blocks-proposal-for-corklimerick-road-31211331.html

So if the Minister is not willing to spend €1 billion on a motorway that reportedly could "slash" the commute time between Ireland's second and third largest cities - and remove "some of the most dangerous stretches of single-carriageway primary road in the country", what are the chances he'll be willing to spend an estimated €600 million on an expressway to shorten the 15-minute cross-town commutes of motorists in Galway?

dubhthach

There's nothing to stop them going to route selection. The M20 route was selected well before the crash, the issue of lack of funding of course prevents the issuing of CPO's plus stuff like doing the actual engineering design of relevant structures.

The M17/M18 which just started was basically at the position of current Outer bypass circa 2002-4.

Iwannahurl

I wonder whether the DTTAS will regard the "outer bypass" and the "expressway" as one and the same?

The €300 million "bypass" was supposedly a top priority, before the ECJ euthanased it:

"The outer bypass has been assessed by the Department of Transport as the top-ranking roads project in the State in terms of a cost-benefit ratio, and it remains an absolute priority."

http://connachttribune.ie/kenny-pledges-bypass-funding-if-go-ahead-given/

Brian Walsh also got confirmation of the degree of priority for the Galway Outer Bypass in a communication from National Roads Authority boss Fred Barry. Said Fred Barry: "The importance of the scheme is undiminished and we fully share your objective of delivering the scheme as soon as possible."

http://connachttribune.ie/galway-outer-bypass-topped-list-in-tests-to-establish-value-for-money/

The estimated price tag has just doubled, only now what's being proposed is not an outer bypass.

This presents a number of scenarios, I would suggest:

• The DTTAS regards the proposed "expressway" as being of equal importance compared to the original "outer bypass", but does not have €600 million to spend.
• The DTTAS regards the proposed expressway/Galway City Transport Project as more important, and is willing and able to spend €600 million on it plus the extra (hundreds of millions?) required for the public transport component.
• The DTTAS regards an expressway for cross-town car commuters as being of less importance than the original bypass proposal and therefore does not believe €600 million is justified.
• The DTTAS believes that public transport investment is needed along with the €600 million expressway but does not have the funds for to develop the project as required, and therefore (a) the expressway is built but there is no funding for public transport or (b) you can't have one without the other so neither is funded.
• Any permutation or combination of the above, plus other possibilities you could mention.

dubhthach

Tunneling is notorouious expensive, the fact that an active quarry is permitted in the area but that the road will need to tunnel under the "pavement" is a nice quirke.

How is it not a Bypass? It removes traffic from the urban core that have no business there (such as traffic going N59 <-> M6)

Iwannahurl

dubhthach wrote: »

Tunneling is notorouious expensive, the fact that an active quarry is permitted in the area but that the road will need to tunnel under the "pavement" is a nice quirke.

How is it not a Bypass? It removes traffic from the urban core that have no business there (such as traffic going N59 <-> M6)

It's not an Outer Bypass, according to ARUP:

In addition, Ms McCarthy pointed out that just five 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. “It’s not necessarily a case of traffic trying to get from Clifden to the motorway.”


http://galwayindependent.com/20150211/news/galway-facing-civil-war-over-bypass-project-S50711.html

dubhthach

Again I don't see any statement that the route isn't a bypass. That article is from February before the route selection had been done, secondly I think it's fairly obviously that she's saying that bypass alone isn't solution, which is good point. You need bypass + improved public transport infrastructure.

Going by that stat 42% of traffic crossing the river originates from outside the city boundary. This actually correlates with what the census shows us which puts the number of people commuting into the city from outside it at close on 50% of total city workforce.

monument

I'm not sure why the two of you are doing it or if you're doing it without knowing or not but... One of you are saying 'bypass' and the other is saying 'outer bypass'.

Chris_5339762

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It looks like the DTTAS/Govt doesn't have money for some proposed road schemes:



So if the Minister is not willing to spend €1 billion on a motorway that reportedly could "slash" the commute time between Ireland's second and third largest cities - and remove "some of the most dangerous stretches of single-carriageway primary road in the country", what are the chances he'll be willing to spend an estimated €600 million on an expressway to shorten the 15-minute cross-town commutes of motorists in Galway?

Good as the Cost Benefit Analysis for the M20 is, the Cost Benefit for the Galway bypass came out far, far higher in the study they did (don't ask me for details!). If funding were available today, and the plans were approved, I could see this getting fast-tracked.

dubhthach

monument wrote: »

I'm not sure why the two of you are doing it or if you're doing it without knowing or not but... One of you are saying 'bypass' and the other is saying 'outer bypass'.

I say "potatoe" you say "potato"

What percentage of Galway city population live outside the proposed route as published recently? As far as I can see there are only two reasons not to call it an "Outer bypass"

1. To avoid confusion with previous scheme. which was called "The Outer bypass"
2. Majority it runs within city boundary -- even if outside the urban core

One thing it most certainty ain't is an "Inner Relief Road"!

Iwannahurl

dubhthach wrote: »

Again I don't see any statement that the route isn't a bypass. That article is from February before the route selection had been done, secondly I think it's fairly obviously that she's saying that bypass alone isn't solution, which is good point. You need bypass + improved public transport infrastructure.

monument wrote: »

I'm not sure why the two of you are doing it or if you're doing it without knowing or not but... One of you are saying 'bypass' and the other is saying 'outer bypass'.

The key word is "outer". You may also recall that the City Council's Director of Services said a couple of months ago that an outer bypass "circling the city" would not do:

Mr O’Neill also told councillors that options which circled the city, taking a route out into the countryside would have less benefit in terms of reducing the traffic burden on the city, as they would not be convenient enough to convince drivers to use them.

“People in Knocknacarra are not going to go out by Moycullen,” said Mr O’Neill. “It has to be close enough to the city to attract people on to it.”

http://galwayindependent.com/20150204/news/rocky-road-ahead-S50450.html

This is a quite different creature from the one previously imagined, which was going to rescue the people in Connemara "cut off" from the rest of the country etc. The proposed "expressway" seems a lot less about Connemara now, and much more about Knocknacarra. I wonder how that will be seen by the likes of An Bord Pleanala, now that the broader policy environment might force them to take a less permissive approach to car-dependent, traffic-generating development (though they're still more than willing to accommodate it, eg their decision to allow a near doubling in size of the Kildare Village car magnet).

dubhthach wrote: »

Going by that stat 42% of traffic crossing the river originates from outside the city boundary. This actually correlates with what the census shows us which puts the number of people commuting into the city from outside it at close on 50% of total city workforce.

If 50% of the workforce living outside the city are commuting into the city then they are self-evidently not bypassing it. Again, this contrasts with the claims made for the old GCOB plans, which we were told made it "blindingly obvious" that the proposed scheme was "not a relief road":

L1011 wrote: »

The GCOB is a bypass for those who do not need to be in or forced around the outside of Galway City, not a relief road for those that do. If you take a look at the plans this becomes blindingly obvious so I suggest that you do.

Are the GCOB and the Knocknacarra-Parkmore Expressway really one and the same? I'm just wondering whether Paschal Donohoe might feel the same about it as his predecessors did about the GCOB.

IWH, quick question, you keep posting 600 million, can you cite a source for that figure.

I'm honestly curious as I've seen official figures markedly lower than that stated, just wondering where it's coming from