M6 - Galway City Ring Road [planning decision pending]

Schadenfreudia

lucernarian wrote: »

It's still an example that belies this concept of "bypass must come before bus" or Luas indeed.

Endless repetition of complete nonsense doesn't magically turn it into sense. How many more times are you going to repeat a claim that has been comprehensively exposed as counter-factual?

Schadenfreudia

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The road is also non-existent.

The "N6 Galway City Transport Project" is real, at least notionally on paper.

Yes, but this thread is about "the Galway Outer Bypass" which is also "real on paper"!

Maybe you should open a new thread to talk about imaginary public transport?

veryangryman

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The road is also non-existent.

The "N6 Galway City Transport Project" is real, at least notionally on paper.

:rolleyes: Sure it is. Lets see what gets built first. I didn't see anywhere in that emerging route a Gluas or anything resembling public transport. If you find it, open a thread about it and i'm sure we'll all love it.

I hope that you eventually manage to hurl. It may refresh your thinking.

Iwannahurl

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Yes, but this thread is about "the Galway Outer Bypass" which is also "real on paper"!

Maybe you should open a new thread to talk about imaginary public transport?

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 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.

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

Carry on.

SeanW

I notice this 5% figure keeps getting repeated despite being routinely call into question. But I find this interesting:

while 58 per cent of trips across the River Corrib were entirely within Galway City.

That means 42% of trips across the Corrib either begin, end, or both begin and end outside the city ...

hardy_buck

SeanW wrote: »

I notice this 5% figure keeps getting repeated despite being routinely call into question. But I find this interesting:

That means 42% of trips across the Corrib either begin, end, or both begin and end outside the city ...

If we took 42% of the traffic out of the city during rush hour that would make an incredible difference!

Iwannahurl

If we took even 20% of the cross-town car traffic out it would make a significant difference: http://www.transportportal.se/swopec/CTS2014-7.pdf

That doesn't require a €500 million expressway, which would most likely result in an overall increase in car travel.

kippy

Iwannahurl wrote: »

If we took even 20% of the cross-town car traffic out it would make a significant difference: http://www.transportportal.se/swopec/CTS2014-7.pdf

That doesn't require a €500 million expressway, which would most likely result in an overall increase in car travel.

So what are we talking about then? Bikes? A train from East side to Westside, not going near the centre? More buses that don't go near the centre?

hardy_buck

kippy wrote: »

So what are we talking about then? Bikes? A train from East side to Westside, not going near the centre? More buses that don't go near the centre?

That's the issue I have with all the opposition to the Bypass. Sure we absolutely should consider developing Public transport moreso, however when questioned on the how of such a proposal there's not much to be said I find.

Iwannahurl

There's plenty to be said, and a lot has been said on the subject.

Firstly, there are numerous recommendations made in transport studies which have not yet been implemented. That's why the Council is tasked with cobbling together some sort of report which synthesises all the previous ones. No new study, of course, or ITMP project on the scale of the road-based proposal. I've heard it said that consultants have been engaged to put together a report based on the previous consultants' reports, but I have no evidence to support such a claim.

Secondly, there are major issues requiring study and an implementation plan, some of which are mentioned in the above studies:

• Parking in the city centre (paid, free and illegal)
• Parking in areas zoned commercial and industrial (free at present)
• School travel (responsible for up to a third of traffic congestion at peak times)
• Workplace travel plans (for all major employers especially)
• Park & Ride (east and west of city)
• Roundabouts (hostile to cyclists and pedestrians, and therefore inimical to public transport as well)
• Permeability for pedestrians, cyclists and bus users in residential estates
• One-way systems in city centre
• Lack of connectivity for pedestrians in city centre
• Bus shelters
• Speeding on key routes
• Excessively high speed limit in city centre and residential estates
• HGV management plan for city
• Pedestrian/cycle-hostile signalised junctions
• Safe routes to school (eg lack of safe crossings near most schools)
• Inadequate road space allocated to bikes on many routes (Fr Griffin Road being an example)
• Congestion charge/road-pricing
• Lack of training and awareness among transportation policy-makers.

There are probably many more, but that's all I can think of for now.

kippy

Iwannahurl wrote: »

There's plenty to be said, and a lot has been said on the subject.

Firstly, there are numerous recommendations made in transport studies which have not yet been implemented. That's why the Council is tasked with cobbling together some sort of report which synthesises all the previous ones. No new study, of course, or ITMP project on the scale of the road-based proposal. I've heard it said that consultants have been engaged to put together a report based on the previous consultants' reports, but I have no evidence to support such a claim.

Secondly, there are major issues requiring study and an implementation plan, some of which are mentioned in the above studies:

• Parking in the city centre (paid, free and illegal)
• Parking in areas zoned commercial and industrial (free at present)
• School travel (responsible for up to a third of traffic congestion at peak times)
• Workplace travel plans (for all major employers especially)
• Park & Ride (east and west of city)
• Roundabouts (hostile to cyclists and pedestrians, and therefore inimical to public transport as well)
• Permeability for pedestrians, cyclists and bus users in residential estates
• One-way systems in city centre
• Lack of connectivity for pedestrians in city centre
• Bus shelters
• Speeding on key routes
• Excessively high speed limit in city centre and residential estates
• Pedestrian/cycle-hostile signalised junctions
• Safe routes to school (eg lack of safe crossings near most schools)
• Inadequate road space allocated to bikes on many routes (Fr Griffin Road being an example)
• Lack of training and awareness among decision-makers.

There are probably many more, but that's all I can think of for now.

So basicilly make the city more bus and walk friendly and more people will cycle/walk from the westside of the city to the east side of the city in the morning and evening?
Yeah, thats the answer.

Iwannahurl

I've long maintained that a suite of key measures could be introduced which would achieve a reduction in traffic volume at least equivalent to that experienced when the schools are off.

As we know, traffic congestion is much reduced or even entirely absent when the schools are closed. There is no reason why that can't be replicated all year round, imo. The biggest obstacle is that large numbers of car owners want to keep driving as much as they like, no matter what. That has to be stopped. A congestion charge would have an immediate effect. So would charging for currently free parking.

kippy

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I've long maintained that a suite of key measures could be introduced which would achieve a reduction in traffic volume at least equivalent to that experienced when the schools are off.

As we know, traffic congestion is much reduced or even entirely absent when the schools are closed. There is no reason why that can't be replicated all year round, imo. The biggest obstacle is that large numbers of car owners want to keep driving as much as they like, no matter what. That has to be stopped. A congestion charge would have an immediate effect. So would charging for currently free parking.

I'm not sure how making cycling and walking more attractive round the town center will resolve that issue.

I'd add that your assertions that traffic congestion is almost entirely absent when the schools are closed shows a complete lack of travelling any of the routes that get busy during peak hours even when the schools are closed.

There is a very basic reason why it can't be replicated all year round, in the same way, as stated above, that traffic patterns between 2 and 6 am cannot be replicated 24 hours a day.

Iwannahurl

kippy wrote: »

I'm not sure how making cycling and walking more attractive round the town center will resolve that issue.

I'd add that your assertions that traffic congestion is almost entirely absent when the schools are closed shows a complete lack of travelling any of the routes that get busy during peak hours even when the schools are closed.

There is a very basic reason why it can't be replicated all year round, in the same way, as stated above, that traffic patterns between 2 and 6 am cannot be replicated 24 hours a day.

Not just the city centre.

According to the Council's own figures, school travel contributes 25-33% to traffic volumes on key routes. If school travel can be addressed by various measures, including the provision of a proper school bus service, then workplace travel can be similarly tackled. No one measure will work on its own. No comprehensive ITMP has yet been devised, never mind funded and implemented.

I used to commute 12 km across the city, so I'm well familiar with the issues.

monument

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I've long maintained that a suite of key measures could be introduced which would achieve a reduction in traffic volume at least equivalent to that experienced when the schools are off.

As we know, traffic congestion is much reduced or even entirely absent when the schools are closed. There is no reason why that can't be replicated all year round, imo. The biggest obstacle is that large numbers of car owners want to keep driving as much as they like, no matter what. That has to be stopped. A congestion charge would have an immediate effect. So would charging for currently free parking.

A congestion charge is also highly unlikely to happen in a city the size of Galway and would have massive issues rolling one without alternatives in place first.

Aard

kippy wrote: »

I'm not sure how making cycling and walking more attractive round the town center will resolve that issue.

One of the problems is people making short trips, but using infrastructure that is essential for longer trips. This is inefficient use of a scarce resource, so to speak. By encouraging shorter trips to be made on foot (easy up to about 2km), by bike (easy up to about 4km), space is freed up for longer trips that do not have as many transport options.

Iwannahurl

monument wrote: »

A congestion charge is also highly unlikely to happen in a city the size of Galway and would have massive issues rolling one without alternatives in place first.

Perhaps. I'd like to see the idea being seriously studied. Road pricing would very quickly eliminate unnecessary car travel.

Aard wrote: »

One of the problems is people making short trips, but using infrastructure that is essential for longer trips. This is inefficient use of a scarce resource, so to speak. By encouraging shorter trips to be made on foot (easy up to about 2km), by bike (easy up to about 4km), space is freed up for longer trips that do not have as many transport options.

Very good point. Current use of existing infrastructure is ridiculously inefficient. A new expressway for car commuters is being proposed for the precise purpose of avoiding the need to increase efficiency on the existing network, for reasons I believe are nothing to do with impracticality. Arup's brief is for a road, which means a road-based solution was decided on a priori.

kippy wrote: »

I'd add that your assertions that traffic congestion is almost entirely absent when the schools are closed shows a complete lack of travelling any of the routes that get busy during peak hours even when the schools are closed.

There's also the fact that a large contributor to traffic congestion is the volume of traffic entering the city from "one-off" land in the county. The residents of hacienda-land are not bypassing the city, they are driving into it or across parts of it. I've heard anecdotal reports of motorists taking 15-25 minutes just to get out of the car park (free, of course) in Parkmore and Ballybrit.

hardy_buck

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I've long maintained that a suite of key measures could be introduced which would achieve a reduction in traffic volume at least equivalent to that experienced when the schools are off.

As we know, traffic congestion is much reduced or even entirely absent when the schools are closed. There is no reason why that can't be replicated all year round, imo. The biggest obstacle is that large numbers of car owners want to keep driving as much as they like, no matter what. That has to be stopped. A congestion charge would have an immediate effect. So would charging for currently free parking.

And what, pulverise the retail sector of Galway while you're at it? This isn't London we're talking about. Galway does not have the draw or the population to even consider such a ludicrous suggestion. What about the vast amounts of people living out of the reach of public transport, do you think they will bother spending 4-5 euro congestion charge on top of 4-5 more for parking for the sake of a few hours in town?

Iwannahurl

hardy_buck wrote: »

And what, pulverise the retail sector of Galway while you're at it? This isn't London we're talking about. Galway does not have the draw or the population to even consider such a ludicrous suggestion. What about the vast amounts of people living out of the reach of public transport, do you think they will bother spending 4-5 euro congestion charge on top of 4-5 more for parking for the sake of a few hours in town?

I'd like to see the idea of a congestion charge given serious study. There may be other ways of achieving the same effect, eg charging for currently free parking.

A recent study by the NTA showed that walkers, cyclists and users of public transport contributed a lot more to retail turnover in Dublin city centre than car drivers did. Another crucial point is that cars are such a waste of road space that even if walkers, cyclists and public transport users spend less, far more of them can be accommodated, which means prioritising those modes has major advantages in terms of cost-benefit ratio. Plus they don't kill people, make you fat, pollute the air, add as much to GHG emissions etc. What's not to like?

kippy

Aard wrote: »

One of the problems is people making short trips, but using infrastructure that is essential for longer trips. This is inefficient use of a scarce resource, so to speak. By encouraging shorter trips to be made on foot (easy up to about 2km), by bike (easy up to about 4km), space is freed up for longer trips that do not have as many transport options.

I get the theory. I do. And indeed I agree with and get what Iwannahurl is saying, however what you are talking about is a complete change of attitudes and life habits of an entire populace.
Granted, you might chip away at the edges but you'll find it nigh on impossible to have a city full of walking/cycling populace due to the weather alone for the majority of the year.
I walk/cycly myself during the summer months because I don't have to drop kids to a creche and I have that bit of time in the morning, but theres little chance of me walking or indeed cycling on bad day when I have a car sitting outside the house.

Iwannahurl

kippy wrote: »

I get the theory. I do. And indeed I agree with and get what Iwannahurl is saying, however what you are talking about is a complete change of attitudes and life habits of an entire populace.

Granted, you might chip away at the edges but you'll find it nigh on impossible to have a city full of walking/cycling populace due to the weather alone for the majority of the year.

I walk/cycly myself during the summer months because I don't have to drop kids to a creche and I have that bit of time in the morning, but theres little chance of me walking or indeed cycling on bad day when I have a car sitting outside the house.

A complete change of attitude/culture/policy/leadership direction is indeed what is required, which is why the consultants' brief is for a new road.

The weather situation is grossly exaggerated, which can be easily demonstrated: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90532385&postcount=399

There ought to be public transport available too, as the #1 option. At the moment it's all too easy to hop into our cars and go anywhere we like, partly because of habit but mainly because it's just about always the easier choice. For example, it's more expensive for a family to drive into town of a Saturday and park than to take the bus. That's just wrong.

In general, despite all the moaning about congestion, there are almost no disincentives to driving.

Aard

kippy wrote: »

I get the theory. I do. And indeed I agree with and get what Iwannahurl is saying, however what you are talking about is a complete change of attitudes and life habits of an entire populace.
Granted, you might chip away at the edges but you'll find it nigh on impossible to have a city full of walking/cycling populace due to the weather alone for the majority of the year.

Behavioural change is tricky, there's no doubt about it.

Essentially the debate boils down to: gradual change vs big-bang change. Both have their pro's and con's, their supporters and their detractors. One of the big problems with sudden/big-bang investment is that you could be waiting a long time for it to materialise.

kippy

Iwannahurl wrote: »

A complete change of attitude/culture/policy/leadership direction is indeed what is required, which is why the consultants' brief is for a new road.

The weather situation is grossly exaggerated, which can be easily demonstrated: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90532385&postcount=399

There ought to be public transport available too, as the #1 option. At the moment it's all too easy to hop into our cars and go anywhere we like, partly because of habit but mainly because it's just about always the easier choice. For example, it's more expensive for a family to drive into town of a Saturday and park than to take the bus. That's just wrong.

In general, despite all the moaning about congestion, there are almost no disincentives to driving.

You've got to remember if you have a car parked in the driveway at all, you're obviously more likely to use it - why - because you've paid a lot to have it in the first instance - mostly in upfront costs.

Your weather study makes interesting reading however I would question some of the conclusions taken from it, in a big way.
It's probably also important to point out that the scenario being displayed is not at all close to a scenario that would see a wholesale up take in cycling to school.

There is a chicken and an egg scenario really in many different variables.

Iwannahurl

Aard wrote: »

Behavioural change is tricky, there's no doubt about it.

Essentially the debate boils down to: gradual change vs big-bang change. Both have their pro's and con's, their supporters and their detractors. One of the big problems with sudden/big-bang investment is that you could be waiting a long time for it to materialise.

I'm sure that the plastic bag levy doesn't fall under the rubric of "big-bang change", but imo it's an example of an economic incentive having a more-or-less overnight effect.

Actually, now that I think of it, maybe water metering is a better analogy.

Do the same with habitual car use and you will find that people's behaviour changes PDQ even if their attitudes (such as "I've paid for my car so I'm damn well going to use it") don't follow suit so quickly.

The problem with the proposed expressway is that it is big-bang business-as-usual, ie a major incentive to continue that which it is allegedly supposed to curtail. Which, I repeat, is exactly why for some its the only show in town: it's primary function is to ensure continuity of the status quo, only more so.

kippy wrote: »

1. You've got to remember if you have a car parked in the driveway at all, you're obviously more likely to use it - why - because you've paid a lot to have it in the first instance - mostly in upfront costs.

2. Your weather study makes interesting reading however I would question some of the conclusions taken from it, in a big way. It's probably also important to point out that the scenario being displayed is not at all close to a scenario that would see a wholesale up take in cycling to school.

3. There is a chicken and an egg scenario really in many different variables.

1. Absolutely. Regarding that behaviour, the most succinct comment on it I've seen on Boards is "why would anyone own a car other than to use it?" Basically, this pro-bypass argument is that mere fact of car ownership among a significant proportion of the population inherently gives "legitimacy" to proposals for yet more road-building. As a motorist myself, I vehemently disagree. Car ownership in Germany and the Netherlands is higher, yet in many if not most of their cities modal share for cars is lower, often dramatically lower. Car ownership in Denmark is about the same, yet look at their level of cycling in Copenhagen, for example. You have to look to cities in the UK, Australia and the USA to find car dependence like ours. IIRC in the EU only Malta has a greater level of car dependence.

2. The weather data speak for themselves. My 100-day commuting weather diary was prospective, but I was not surprised by how it turned out. I've since done a 'desktop study' since, using Met Eireann data for March 2015. I'll post that shortly, but I can tell you now that it points to the same conclusion: claims about rain in Galway are greatly exaggerated.

3. Chickens, eggs and Catch 22s abound in this debate. The biggest obstacle is lack of political will (see #1 above).



EDIT -- Here's the rainfall 'diary' for March: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95973516&postcount=430

kippy

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I'm sure that the plastic bag levy doesn't fall under the rubric of "big-bang change", but imo it's an example of an economic incentive having a more-or-less overnight effect.

Actually, now that I think of it, maybe water metering is a better analogy.

Do the same with habitual car use and you will find that people's behaviour changes PDQ even if their attitudes (such as "I've paid for my car so I'm damn well going to use it") don't follow suit so quickly.

The problem with the proposed expressway is that it is big-bang business-as-usual, ie a major incentive to continue that which it is allegedly supposed to curtail. Which, I repeat, is exactly why for some its the only show in town: it's primary function is to ensure continuity of the status quo, only more so.

Neither analogy is close to what we are talking about here for numerous reasons.

The primary function of the "whatever you want to call it" is to provide for a route for traffic to bypass the city itself from east to west. Who or what this route is used for is a moot point really as it will take pressure off other routes within the city and perhaps open up areas to improvements for cyclists/buses/peds etc because less traffic is in or around the city.
There are a number of categories of people that will use the road or parts of it.
If you want to come up with something to disencentivise car use, you are first going to have to give a viable alternative to car use or there is no way, from a political standpoint it will ever gain widespread adoption.

monument

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Perhaps. I'd like to see the idea being seriously studied. Road pricing would very quickly eliminate unnecessary car travel.

Not practical when there's little or no alternatives or where the alternatives are very unattractive.

Even if congestion charging was in any way suited to cities of Galway's size (which I don't think is the case), you'd have to have attractive alternatives. Galway has a long way to work on its alternatives.

kippy

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I'm sure that the plastic bag levy doesn't fall under the rubric of "big-bang change", but imo it's an example of an economic incentive having a more-or-less overnight effect.

Actually, now that I think of it, maybe water metering is a better analogy.

Do the same with habitual car use and you will find that people's behaviour changes PDQ even if their attitudes (such as "I've paid for my car so I'm damn well going to use it") don't follow suit so quickly.

The problem with the proposed expressway is that it is big-bang business-as-usual, ie a major incentive to continue that which it is allegedly supposed to curtail. Which, I repeat, is exactly why for some its the only show in town: it's primary function is to ensure continuity of the status quo, only more so.




1. Absolutely. Regarding that behaviour, the most succinct comment on it I've seen on Boards is "why would anyone own a car other than to use it?" Basically, this pro-bypass argument is that mere fact of car ownership among a significant proportion of the population inherently gives "legitimacy" to proposals for yet more road-building. As a motorist myself, I vehemently disagree. Car ownership in Germany and the Netherlands is higher, yet in many if not most of their cities modal share for cars is lower, often dramatically lower. Car ownership in Denmark is about the same, yet look at their level of cycling in Copenhagen, for example. You have to look to cities in the UK, Australia and the USA to find car dependence like ours. IIRC in the EU only Malta has a greater level of car dependence.

2. The weather data speak for themselves. My 100-day commuting weather diary was prospective, but I was not surprised by how it turned out. I've since done a 'desktop study' since, using Met Eireann data for March 2015. I'll post that shortly, but I can tell you now that it points to the same conclusion: claims about rain in Galway are greatly exaggerated.

3. Chickens, eggs and Catch 22s abound in this debate. The biggest obstacle is lack of political will (see #1 above).

Well there is no political will because there is very little appetite for decades of trying to change the behaviour of the population all the time trying to implement little bits and pieces that will most likely make no difference anyway because like it or lump it, the weather is a factor in relation to anything that doesn't involve have a cover over your head when commuting by bike. It's not just the weather either. There are other factors that put people off cycling or walking.

I am actually sick of hearing about other countries and other cities at this stage to be honest. No doubt we can learn a lot from them but in a similiar vein as comparing wages here and in other countries, if you want to implement the same base line you also have to implement all the other factors that add up to it (better planned cities in the first instance, better suited to public transport, higher population densities, high rise buildings etc etc
You cannot just view it as "Well the manage perfectly fine in X city without cars - we should be able to do it here as well"

And again, at no point do I rule out making those changes that you speak of over time to assist those that want to cycle/walk and feel it suits their lifestyle.

Schadenfreudia

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Carry on.

A bypass is a bypass; not a substitute for city centre public transport. It can, of course, as the Galway bypass will, help matters.

Carry on.

Or should I say - carry on.

Schadenfreudia

kippy wrote: »

So what are we talking about then? Bikes? A train from East side to Westside, not going near the centre? More buses that don't go near the centre?

Carts pulled by donkeys probably!

Schadenfreudia

monument wrote: »

A congestion charge is also highly unlikely to happen in a city the size of Galway and would have massive issues rolling one without alternatives in place first.

I was tempted to simply ridicule the idea (it being ridiculous), but I'll let your comment speak for me!