M6 - Galway City Ring Road [planning decision pending]

monument

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

So...cui bono from messing with the plan (apart from the Neanderthal anti-roads munch-kins) ??

So it's Neanderthal-like to try to say that more and more roads are not the solution?

Claiming more and more roads is the solution brings the phrase "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing year after year and expecting different results" to mind. Unintelligent or insanity... hard choice. But maybe those who are suffering insanity are not best placed to know who is a Neanderthal or not?...

spacetweek

Schadenfreudia and monument - tone down the nonsense about munchkins, Neanderthals and the insane.

dubhthach

monument wrote: »

So it's Neanderthal-like to try to say that more and more roads are not the solution?

Claiming more and more roads is the solution brings the phrase "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing year after year and expecting different results" to mind. Unintelligent or insanity... hard choice. But maybe those who are suffering insanity are not best placed to know who is a Neanderthal or not?...

Given Homo Neanderthalensis had a bigger brain than Homo Sapiens (due to cranial capacity) perhaps it's meant as a compliment, either way I've proud of the the 2.8% of my genome that's Neanderthal in origin

Schadenfreudia

monument wrote: »

Claiming more and more roads is the solution brings the phrase "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing year after year and expecting different results" to mind.

Does it indeed? And who made such a claim? Links?

I cannot recall a single person ever saying something as manifestly daft as we need "more and more roads".

But do we need more roads? Absolutely.

And we certainly need the Galway bypass. Or at least Galway does...I obviously don't :cool:

youngrun

Latest very brief update here
http://www.n6galwaycity.ie/phase-3/bulletin-11-update-of-project-timeline-26012016/

Timescale slipping a bit v the original
Phase 4

Work has not yet commenced on this phase. The targeted date for the commencement of this phase is 2015 Q2. The phase will be completed when the planning application is submitted to An Bord Pleanála in 2015 Q4.

Carawaystick

monument wrote: »

Claiming more and more roads is the solution brings the phrase "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing year after year and expecting different .

What's the traffic like in Moate, Loughrea, Kinnegad these days?

monument

Carawaystick wrote: »

What's the traffic like in Moate, Loughrea, Kinnegad these days?

Non of those examples are comparable with Galway

I'm pro-bypass in principal. Especially where heavy national and HGV traffic can't be well segregated from narrow streets, residential frontage without buffer area, and space for people walking and cycling -- Galway already has routes where this could be done at a fraction of the cost of what's planned..

Galway isn't mainly planning a real bypass, it's a commuter ring road. It's planning to be worse than what the M50 became -- and the M50 became this way because of bad planning and matters which were discussed at the planning tribunal.

Also: The bypasses of Moate, Loughrea, and Kinnegad are routes which link large population areas, but there is no large population area west of Galway city and suburbs.

Deedsie

monument wrote: »

Non of those examples are comparable with Galway

I'm pro-bypass in principal. Especially where heavy national and HGV traffic can't be well segregated from narrow streets, residential frontage without buffer area, and space for people walking and cycling -- Galway already has routes where this could be done at a fraction of the cost of what's planned..

Galway isn't mainly planning a real bypass, it's a commuter ring road. It's planning to be worse than what the M50 became -- and the M50 became this way because of bad planning and matters which were discussed at the planning tribunal.

Also: The bypasses of Moate, Loughrea, and Kinnegad are routes which link large population areas, but there is no large population area west of Galway city and suburbs.

Well, the Connemara area has a population of 32000 and if you add in tourism traffic that is routed through the city to get to Connemara it is link to a large population area. This bypass is long overdue... Get some of the traffic out of the streets and then look at possible public transport options to improve the city further

Reuben1210

monument wrote: »

Non of those examples are comparable with Galway

I'm pro-bypass in principal. Especially where heavy national and HGV traffic can't be well segregated from narrow streets, residential frontage without buffer area, and space for people walking and cycling -- Galway already has routes where this could be done at a fraction of the cost of what's planned..

Galway isn't mainly planning a real bypass, it's a commuter ring road. It's planning to be worse than what the M50 became -- and the M50 became this way because of bad planning and matters which were discussed at the planning tribunal.

Also: The bypasses of Moate, Loughrea, and Kinnegad are routes which link large population areas, but there is no large population area west of Galway city and suburbs.

I really can't understand why they wouldn't make this motorway, and a bypass, instead of, as you have described, actually planning an urban spine like the M50, but not even motorway standard, so anything will go on it!

I also feel the anti-bypass campaigners are being a bit disingenuous by putting that mock-up of a dark and imposing bridge up as the campaign headline picture for shock value.

Schadenfreudia

monument wrote: »

It's planning to be worse than what the M50 became -- and the M50 became this way because of bad planning and matters which were discussed at the planning tribunal.

The M50 is a magnificent and vital piece of transport infrastructure.

Whatever its limitations Dublin would be the traffic-choked mess it used to be before the M50 was built; only many times worse given the explosion on traffic, population and employment.

If the Galway by-pass is a fraction as successful as the M50, it will become Galway's greatest asset in terms of future growth and prosperity.

monument

Deedsie wrote: »

Well, the Connemara area has a population of 32000 and if you add in tourism traffic that is routed through the city to get to Connemara it is link to a large population area. This bypass is long overdue...

32k spread over such a wide area isn't significant. The vast bulk of the predicted traffic is going to/from city and suburb locations -- they are planning the worse and most unsustainable part of the M50 (unsustainable in the sense of it will just fill up like the M50 and/or related issues of local roads not being able to take the commuter traffic).

Deedsie wrote: »

Get some of the traffic out of the streets and then look at possible public transport options to improve the city further

The streets in Galway are long bypassed. You don't need to travel on any streets to drive to Connemara.

Reuben1210 wrote: »

I really can't understand why they wouldn't make this motorway, and a bypass, instead of, as you have described, actually planning an urban spine like the M50, but not even motorway standard, so anything will go on it!

Because there's little point building a motorway to serve just 32,000 people.

Reuben1210 wrote: »

I also feel the anti-bypass campaigners are being a bit disingenuous by putting that mock-up of a dark and imposing bridge up as the campaign headline picture for shock value.

Agreed, as bridges go, it would likely look attractive.

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

The M50 is a magnificent and vital piece of transport infrastructure. ...If the Galway by-pass is a fraction as successful as the M50, it will become Galway's greatest asset in terms of future growth and prosperity.

It's a highly miss-used and poorly planned vital piece of transport infrastructure. Even if Dublin has some hope of next steps of an outer route and/or an eastern bypass and/or Dart and metro routes, if Galway follows the same path it does not have any hope of such things.

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Whatever its limitations Dublin would be the traffic-choked mess it used to be before the M50 was built; only many times worse given the explosion on traffic, population and employment.

Dublin is still a traffic-choked and the M50 is already at breaking point and getting worse. If the economy keeps growing traffic going to get worse and worse in the city and there's no alternatives which are being funded to the extend they need to be.

Poor planning and unsustainable travel patterns generally have been fueled by the poor planning around the M50... And Galway seems intent on copying this!

Reuben1210

monument wrote: »

Because there's little point building a motorway to serve just 32,000 people.




Poor planning and unsustainable travel patterns generally have been fueled by the poor planning around the M50... And Galway seems intent on copying this!

Yes I agree about Galway following in Dublin's tracks, but with the huge expansion of the local economy there with a lot of FDI coming in, and the resultant increases in population (it is a growing city), I say at least put it to motorway most of the way so that certain types of traffic are kept off it.

what_traffic

A bit OT; but shows the mindset that exists at Dept of Transport & City Council.

http://connachttribune.ie/new-transport-steps-to-tackle-traffic-woes-032/
"
Transport Minister Paschal Donohue has confirmed some €2.1 million will be spent this year to drive-forward 10 different transport projects in Galway City.
"

This really is peanuts. No real proposals to develop alternative solutions.

what_traffic

what_traffic wrote: »

A bit OT; but shows the mindset that exists at Dept of Transport & City Council.

http://connachttribune.ie/new-transport-steps-to-tackle-traffic-woes-032/
"
Transport Minister Paschal Donohue has confirmed some €2.1 million will be spent this year to drive-forward 10 different transport projects in Galway City.
"

This really is peanuts. No real proposals to develop alternative solutions.

Did you read a different pages than the one you linked to? Extending old and developing new Bus lanes and cycle lanes, expansion of the bike scheme and also greenways.

Yes some of the money is for junctions but I've no doubt those new versions will only lead to improvements for pedestrians and cyclists when compared to the current versions

Schadenfreudia

Reuben1210 wrote: »

Yes I agree about Galway following in Dublin's tracks, but with the huge expansion of the local economy there with a lot of FDI coming in, and the resultant increases in population (it is a growing city), I say at least put it to motorway most of the way so that certain types of traffic are kept off it.

I don't think the bypass requirement will reach anything like Dublin levels any time soon; the M50 functions brilliantly as both bypass and distributor, the Galway bypass can do the same.

I think all this "repeating Dublin's mistakes" is bizarre given the M50 is one of Ireland's great infrastructural success stories. The only mistakes made were (a) not to built it as three lane and remove the toll booths from the start and (b) the failure to complete the Eastern by-pass.

The failure to provide adequate Luas/Metro systems to the normal standards of a modern city should not be conflated with the success of the M50.

Both are required, as indeed will be the DOOR/M45 in time.

Reuben1210

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

I don't think the bypass requirement will reach anything like Dublin levels any time soon; the M50 functions brilliantly as both bypass and distributor, the Galway bypass can do the same.

I think all this "repeating Dublin's mistakes" is bizarre given the M50 is one of Ireland's great infrastructural success stories. The only mistakes made were (a) not to built it as three lane and remove the toll booths from the start and (b) the failure to complete the Eastern by-pass.

The failure to provide adequate Luas/Metro systems to the normal standards of a modern city should not be conflated with the success of the M50.

Both are required, as indeed will be the DOOR/M45 in time.

I have to agree with that!

monument

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

I don't think the bypass requirement will reach anything like Dublin levels any time soon; the M50 functions brilliantly as both bypass and distributor, the Galway bypass can do the same.

I think all this "repeating Dublin's mistakes" is bizarre given the M50 is one of Ireland's great infrastructural success stories. The only mistakes made were (a) not to built it as three lane and remove the toll booths from the start and (b) the failure to complete the Eastern by-pass.

The failure to provide adequate Luas/Metro systems to the normal standards of a modern city should not be conflated with the success of the M50.

Both are required, as indeed will be the DOOR/M45 in time.

Success of the M50? Are you talking about the M50 in this reality or an alternative reality? M50 is at critical levels -- that's not a success, that's seriously poor management and planning.

And no, I'm not talking about the M50 in isolation, I'm talking about the M50 and the sprawling and unsuitable transport and land use practices which have been built out around it. It's bad enough in Dublin, what'll happen in Galway where land use is already very poor in the city and county and there's even less public transport support?

As for the M50 depending on the Eastern bypass -- if posters here think objections in Galway look over the top, they should wait for what happens when residents of south Dublin wake up the under-the-radar planning of the Eastern Bypass... And if Dublin needs an Eastern Bypass, will Galway need a Southern Bypass?

marno21

monument wrote: »

Success of the M50? Are you talking about the M50 in this reality or an alternative reality? M50 is at critical levels -- that's not a success, that's seriously poor management and planning.

And no, I'm not talking about the M50 in isolation, I'm talking about the M50 and the sprawling and unsuitable transport and land use practices which have been built out around it. It's bad enough in Dublin, what'll happen in Galway where land use is already very poor in the city and county and there's even less public transport support?

As for the M50 depending on the Eastern bypass -- if posters here think objections in Galway look over the top, they should wait for what happens when residents of south Dublin wake up the under-the-radar planning of the Eastern Bypass... And if Dublin needs an Eastern Bypass, will Galway need a Southern Bypass?

The M50 does its job very well, it's both a bypass of Dublin and a distributor road as pointed out above.

The transport planners who decided to dump all the traffic onto it, instead of creating alternatives and planning for the future, didn't do their jobs very well

marno21

monument wrote: »

Success of the M50? Are you talking about the M50 in this reality or an alternative reality? M50 is at critical levels -- that's not a success, that's seriously poor management and planning.

And no, I'm not talking about the M50 in isolation, I'm talking about the M50 and the sprawling and unsuitable transport and land use practices which have been built out around it. It's bad enough in Dublin, what'll happen in Galway where land use is already very poor in the city and county and there's even less public transport support?

As for the M50 depending on the Eastern bypass -- if posters here think objections in Galway look over the top, they should wait for what happens when residents of south Dublin wake up the under-the-radar planning of the Eastern Bypass... And if Dublin needs an Eastern Bypass, will Galway need a Southern Bypass?

The M50 does its job very well, it's both a bypass of Dublin and a distributor road as pointed out above.

The transport planners who decided to dump all the traffic onto it, instead of creating alternatives and planning for the future, didn't do their jobs very well

dubhthach

marno21 wrote: »

The M50 does its job very well, it's both a bypass of Dublin and a distributor road as pointed out above.

The transport planners who decided to dump all the traffic onto it, instead of creating alternatives and planning for the future, didn't do their jobs very well

Politicians accepting brown envelopes like "snuff at a wake" didn't help the matter. Liffey Valley should never have gotten planning permission, likewise for alot of development in area outside Dublin city boundary.

Schadenfreudia

monument wrote: »

Success of the M50? Are you talking about the M50 in this reality or an alternative reality

I'm talking about the M50 that I live close to and use several times every day.

M50 is at critical levels -- that's not a success, that's seriously poor management and planning.

Bad planning only in the sense that public transport alternatives have not been provided (such as a metro/luas network) and most cities the size of Dublin would have public rail transport options linking suburban areas to the centre and to each other.

Again, it is not because of the M50 that these have not been delivered over the past 60 years.

And no, I'm not talking about the M50 in isolation, I'm talking about the M50 and the sprawling and unsuitable transport and land use practices which have been built out around it.

So...how do you double the size of a city in a generation without building outwards or upwards? The mentality (in my experience) that objects to roads also objects to tall building and to urban sprawl (and indeed to almost anything new)

As for the M50 depending on the Eastern bypass --

Straw man. I never said that; I said it was a mistake not to build the Eastern Bypass.

if Dublin needs an Eastern Bypass, will Galway need a Southern Bypass?

No. Not in this century :cool:

monument

marno21 wrote: »

The M50 does its job very well, it's both a bypass of Dublin and a distributor road as pointed out above.

The transport planners who decided to dump all the traffic onto it, instead of creating alternatives and planning for the future, didn't do their jobs very well

The M50 is the M50 we have, it's not an M50 in an alturnative reality with other transport and planning policies which we do not not have... and I think you'll find that transport planners in Dublin have very little power and are a relatively new professional grouping for this country.

A mix of local politicians, higher level civil servants (ie city/county managers, gov department heads) and national politicians -- namely national governments -- hold most of the power and they made mistakes different major mistakes with planning, zoning, and holding back on alternatives and traffic demand management measures.

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Bad planning only in the sense that public transport alternatives have not been provided (such as a metro/luas network) and most cities the size of Dublin would have public rail transport options linking suburban areas to the centre and to each other.

No, bad planning in various things -- junction placement, zoning (some of which is linked to corruption and one man spending time in jail), funding motorways and motorway upgrades before Dart Underground etc, and other things such as not building up along railway lines half as much as possible, bad planning in placing residential and employment centres in such a scattered way and locations which make them next to impossible to be served by much other than cars, bad planning in allowing areas outside the GDA to be zoned and planning given for developments when these were designed as Dublin commuter estates... etc

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

So...how do you double the size of a city in a generation without building outwards or upwards? The mentality (in my experience) that objects to roads also objects to tall building and to urban sprawl (and indeed to almost anything new)

Who said I expected a city to double the size without going upwards or outwards? I've already stated that Galway should focus on high density. Other cities manage to go out without being so car dependent.

"Tall" is a bit of distraction. Amsterdam and Dublin have comparable density -- Amsterdam just has better land use and transport planning (in terms of metro, trams, rail and cycling). Copenhagen has higher density than both cities without having any notable amounts of tall buildings.

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Straw man. I never said that; I said it was a mistake not to build the Eastern Bypass.

No. Not in this century :cool:

Just like few would have said that the M50 would have needed its last upgrade or that it would be struggling so much so soon after that upgrade.

Galway city and county is already a basket case in terms of planning, land use and transport -- fueling that fire before changing the culture and policies is not wise.

spacetweek

Traffic was never "dumped onto" the M50. If you build 8-lane motorways they will attract a lot of traffic.

Areas like Liffey Valley are fundamentally car-dependent in a way that cannot be changed simply by the provision of PT. It's not enough to run luas lines around it, you have to design nearby residential buildings to a higher density too. Almost the whole of west Dublin is low density.

If Metro West was built, I'd be amazed if it mopped up more than 10% of M50 traffic. M50 drivers are moving from one car-oriented area to another, the existence of a railway line isn't going to make much difference to them.

Schadenfreudia

Not going to engage in pointless debate about the M50 on the Galway bypass thread - except to say you are conflating all sorts of issues with the necessity of the M50...or in your rather odd view, with there being no need for the M50! :rolleyes:

monument wrote: »

"Tall" is a bit of distraction. Amsterdam and Dublin have comparable density -- Amsterdam just has better land use and transport planning (in terms of metro, trams, rail and cycling). Copenhagen has higher density than both cities without having any notable amounts of tall buildings.

Interesting. Take a look at a map of Amsterdam or Copenhagen - what enables all the PT in the city and efficient movement in and around both cities?

Could it be the vast motorway network as well as the PT network in both places??

Rhetorical.

monument

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Not going to engage in pointless debate about the M50 on the Galway bypass thread - except to say you are conflating all sorts of issues with the necessity of the M50...or in your rather odd view, with there being no need for the M50! :rolleyes:

My rather odd view, with there being no need for the M50? The oddest thing is maybe that I don't hold such a view!?!?

There's very much so a need for an M50. But just not the current setup which is to allow commuter traffic to go uncontrolled, at the expense of the road's motorway bypass function.

And I'm not conflating any issues which are not linked already -- planning, zoning, transport planning etc are all interlinked.

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Interesting. Take a look at a map of Amsterdam or Copenhagen - what enables all the PT in the city and efficient movement in and around both cities?

Could it be the vast motorway network as well as the PT network in both places??

Rhetorical.

As rhetorical questions go that's a fairly poor one given the core public transport networks in both cities are grade-segregated railways which are not effect in any way my motorways.

But re surface transport (including how cars and public transport, and waking and cycling interact), Amsterdam starred to implement car restrictions and a transfer of space from cars to other modes long before their metro and motorway ring road were finished.

Schadenfreudia

monument wrote: »

But re surface transport (including how cars and public transport, and waking and cycling interact), Amsterdam starred to implement car restrictions and a transfer of space from cars to other modes long before their metro and motorway ring road were finished.

As has Dublin actually.

But you seem to advocate increasing those restrictions before either the road alternatives (in the case of Galway) or the grade-separated PT systems are even started in the case of Dublin!

Amsterdam also built is motorway network long before there was any M50 in Dublin.

This transport "sectarianism" - arguing against roads when we are chronically deficient in roads and rail and other PT solutions is part of the reason Irish cities, and Dublin especially, has such primitive infrastructure.

Much better to argue and debate, snipe at and criticise the few successful projects we do have or propose than actually acknowledge when we build normal European infrastructure and demand more across the board.

monument

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

As has Dublin actually.

But you seem to advocate increasing those restrictions before either the road alternatives (in the case of Galway) or the grade-separated PT systems are even started in the case of Dublin!

Re advocate increasing those restrictions before either the road alternatives or the grade-separated PT -- Yes, that's what Amsterdam did.

Galway already has a roads which bypass any narrow streets or urban centre.

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Amsterdam also built is motorway network long before there was any M50 in Dublin.

Amsterdam did a lot of things long before Dublin. It's still 30 years ahead of Dublin on giving areas and routes within its motorway over to sustainable modes and livable places.

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

This transport "sectarianism" - arguing against roads when we are chronically deficient in roads and rail and other PT solutions is part of the reason Irish cities, and Dublin especially, has such primitive infrastructure.

Transport sectarianism -- all I can do is laugh at that!

Ireland is not chronically deficient in roads, while there are urban areas which still need bypasses and routes to be upgraded, the funding has for a long time being biased towards roads -- while public transport and cycling continues to only get scraps.

So, yes, there's transport "sectarianism" and that is clear in funding.

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Much better to argue and debate, snipe at and criticise the few successful projects we do have or propose than actually acknowledge when we build normal European infrastructure and demand more across the board.

You've lost in any attempt to actually tackle the points I've made so you have tired to flinging muck and trying to say I'm not demanding better PT funding... Unreal

Carawaystick

monument wrote: »

Ireland is not chronically deficient in roads, while there are urban areas which still need bypasses and routes to be upgraded, the funding has for a long time being biased towards roads -- while public transport and cycling continues to only get scraps.

Good roads have greatly improved public transport, it's not an either or.
It's quicker form Dublin city centre to Galway city centre by road on a bus, than by tram&train, not to mention the disaster of getting to Galway by train from Limerick.

youngrun

N6 action group meeting tomorrow I understand, I wonder where they are at re a campaign against the route or otherwise , might go along.

what_traffic

youngrun wrote: »

N6 action group meeting tomorrow I understand, I wonder where they are at re a campaign against the route or otherwise , might go along.

Yes public meeting Wednseday the 3rd Feb at 20h00 in the Westwood House Hotel, Newcastle.
https://galwayn6action.wordpress.com/2016/01/26/public-information-evening-febuary-3rd-2016/