Outer City Bypass

bonzodog2

Gerobrien25 wrote: »

I beg to differ took route 409 a few times in the last few months. Took me an hour and a half each time to get to city centre. Meanwhile other members of my family drove into town on same evenings and took approx 45 mins on each occasion. There was no major reason why it should have taken so long other than all the traffic crossing the CORRIB has to go through 3 points in the town

Maybe I'm missing something here. The 409 doesn't cross the river.

Bobeagleburger

There's gonna be objections no matter what route is picked.

They need to just pick the one that will benefit the city the most for years to come while disrupting as little as is possible.

Gerobrien25

bonzodog2 wrote: »

Maybe I'm missing something here. The 409 doesn't cross the river.

What I'm saying is bus was delayed by all the traffic trying to cross the city and it has to go through one of three points

what_traffic

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Ahh, I'm not sure that the evidence supports that claim.

In the first five months of 2014, bus usage grew by 7%, following from strong growth in 2013 as well.

Why? In 2012, they did a radical overhaul of routes, and making the timetables more sensible.

ref: http://connachttribune.ie/big-jump-numbers-taking-bus-galway/

Same goes for the 405 route since the SQR Bus Lanes were put in. Usage has gone up on this route.
The REAL Time signs, LEAP card and a few extra shelters have helped as well. Small measures like can be done all over the city to increase public transport usage.

Zzippy

Gerobrien25 wrote: »

I beg to differ took route 409 a few times in the last few months. Took me an hour and a half each time to get to city centre. Meanwhile other members of my family drove into town on same evenings and took approx 45 mins on each occasion. There was no major reason why it should have taken so long other than all the traffic crossing the CORRIB has to go through 3 points in the town

I'm calling BS on this. I take the 409 regularly, I have NEVER spent more than 40 minutes on it, and that was in what I would call exceptionally heavy traffic - College Road completely blocked. For most of the rest of the route the bus lanes render traffic irrelevant. 20 minutes is the normal time from Doughiska to town or vice versa.

Gerobrien25

Zzippy wrote: »

I'm calling BS on this. I take the 409 regularly, I have NEVER spent more than 40 minutes on it, and that was in what I would call exceptionally heavy traffic - College Road completely blocked. For most of the rest of the route the bus lanes render traffic irrelevant. 20 minutes is the normal time from Doughiska to town or vice versa.

It has happened to me 4 times since January, its not BS, it is fact.

mercuroman

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It has been pointed out repeatedly that just 5% of traffic on a bypass would be through traffic and that a substantial majority of trips are intra-city only:

I just want to clarify how you're using this 5% figure. That's a percentage of people who would use the by-pass to travel from one end to the other. If someone was travelling from Carraroe to Boston Scientific then they would not fall into that category as they would exit the bypass early.
From my reading someone completing that journey would more readily fall into the 58% figure.

galwaycyclist

Gerobrien25 wrote: »

What I'm saying is bus was delayed by all the traffic trying to cross the city and it has to go through one of three points

Gerobrien25 wrote: »

It has happened to me 4 times since January, its not BS, it is fact.

Where was this "cross city" traffic coming from?

And where was it going to?

If it was inbound rush-hour traffic that came past Doughiska expecting to park in the city centre for the entire day then it should not have been there.

That traffic should have been diverted to a Park and Ride site and the car occupants directed to use the 409 service, or walk, or cycle.

Iwannahurl

galwaycyclist wrote: »

The central issue is that the "bypass" cannot achieve the things being claimed for it. Therefore this cannot be the purpose for which it is being sought by various politicians and commentators. Why should anyone accept the spending of vast sums of public money on a project that clearly cannot have the effect being claimed?

Well, it depends on the claims made and who is making them. Self-evidently there is a cohort of motorists, elected representatives and other vested interests who are absolutely clear what they want it for: to facilitate car commuters not just on the "bypass" but also within the city. No surprise there.

There is another cohort who believe, or say they believe, that a "bypass" is a prerequisite for major developments in public transport within the city. The concern is that, without a bypass, the road space reallocations needed would cause even more traffic chaos than, say, the back-to-school mania in August/September and the Lough Atalia road modifications combined.

The former claim should not prompt the allocation of a red cent in public money, imo. The latter requires much more detailed and extensive investigation and discussion.

what_traffic wrote: »

The Arup engineers responsible for the "N6 Transportation Study scheme" have stated this as well. They know a bypass on it's own will not solve Galway's transport woe's yet have ZERO proposals to do anything about it. Madness.

It obviously bears repeating: the Arup project manager has already stated publicly that an outer bypass will not solve Galway's traffic problems.

Let's wait and see what happens wrt alternative proposals. Assuming that the Rainbow Routes are roundly rejected, there are reasons to be hopeful that Arup will come up with plans for alternative solutions. Necessity is the mother of invention...

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Everything would have to wait until there was a bypass.

...

It was like the city engineers were trying to put a gun to everyone's head; "Give us our bypass or we will make sure you will all suffer".

...

So in one analysis - as long as there is a possibility of a bypass - the city roads engineers will use it as an excuse for making the city traffic worse - so that they can demonstrate the "need" for a bypass. By that logic - if the bypass option can be made to "go away" then maybe there is a chance of getting the roads engineers to do their jobs and start managing the city for the benefit of those who live in the city.

Absolutely. The converse is that the opening of a "bypass" would immediately allow them to go back to their old lazy ways.

On occasion I've even had Gardai using the lack of a bypass as an excuse for not enforcing road traffic law. Basically their view was that motorists' law-breaking was an adaptation to the lack of a bypass, and therefore the appropriate response was a light touch on the part of the law enforcers.

In my opinion this, along with Local Authority inaction/incompetence over the past 25 years and more, points to the existence of a long-established two-tier system in which the facilitation of private motorised transport is officialdom's primary objective, with everything else coming a poor second.

Perhaps the time is right for a good old-fashioned paradigm shift? Rejection of the Rainbow Routes, and final acceptance that the old GCOB is never coming back, may be what's needed to catalyse real change at last.

Bertrand Piccard wrote:

It wasn’t people selling candles that invented the light bulb.

http://2014.internationaltransportforum.org/sustainable-transport-all

Iwannahurl

dubhthach wrote: »

The QCB has been open for what 25 years? How come Bus Éireann haven't routed any buses over it? Surely with the presence of Bus Lanes on SQR you'd end up with quite an efficient service that could directly link West side of city to the east. What I see is that Galway suffers a worse case of "An Lár-ism" than Dublin.

This has been mentioned repeatedly. There is a provision for a Q Bridge bus lane in the 2007 Strategic Bus Study, but it was made contingent on a bypass.

My understanding is that the bus services providers would not dream of routing buses over the QB in its current configuration, because the delays would be unsustainable.

Running buses to a reliable timetable is still a novelty in this country, and in that regard a bus route over an unmodified QB would be entirely farcical.

With proper bus corridors and priority at junctions, we could at last approximate a bus service on a par with that in more efficient EU countries.

Gerobrien25 wrote: »

I beg to differ took route 409 a few times in the last few months. Took me an hour and a half each time to get to city centre. Meanwhile other members of my family drove into town on same evenings and took approx 45 mins on each occasion. There was no major reason why it should have taken so long other than all the traffic crossing the CORRIB has to go through 3 points in the town

Buses are stuck in traffic because too many people are using their cars and because of other obstacles such as illegal (and indeed legal) parking. See 2007 Strategic Bus Study.

One of the reasons that people use their cars so much is that it is cheaper and more convenient. Last year I spoke to someone in a neighbourhood west of the city who pointed out that it was cheaper for his family of four to drive into town rather than take the bus. Free or comparatively cheap parking is a factor in that. By the way, they also have a bunch of bikes rusting in the shed...

rarnes1 wrote: »

There's gonna be objections no matter what route is picked.

They need to just pick the one that will benefit the city the most for years to come while disrupting as little as is possible.

The emphasis on "routes" presupposes that a "bypass" is inevitable. That's not the way things are heading at present. My best guess is that all the Rainbow Routes are set to be rejected by the public. If all six are not kicked out at the initial stage, and one is selected by the N6GCTP team, what will happen is that public opposition will focus on just one route. Five sets of NIMBY objectors may consider that their job is done at that stage, but I would expect that there would be enough local objections plus principled opposition to keep the selected route at bay for years.

mercuroman wrote: »

I just want to clarify how you're using this 5% figure. That's a percentage of people who would use the by-pass to travel from one end to the other. If someone was travelling from Carraroe to Boston Scientific then they would not fall into that category as they would exit the bypass early.

From my reading someone completing that journey would more readily fall into the 58% figure.

Where would there be such an exit on the "bypass"? The 58% refers to the proportion of traffic across the river with origins and destinations entirely within the city.

Iwannahurl

Iwannahurl wrote: »

.

The former claim should not prompt the allocation of a red cent in public money, imo. The latter requires much more detailed and extensive investigation and discussion.

So the majority of people who use their cars to get around and therefore the majority contributors of money should not have their wishes carried out. You couldn't male it up.

I don't want my income tax, road tax and vrt funding things I will never use while ignoring vital infrastructure that I will.

galwaycyclist

Jazmin Green Straightjacket wrote: »

So the majority of people who use their cars to get around and therefore the majority contributors of money should not have their wishes carried out. You couldn't male it up.

I don't want my income tax, road tax and vrt funding things I will never use while ignoring vital infrastructure that I will.

Your missing the point. The public roads are a public good - they exist for everybody's use - from the smallest schoolchild to the barely mobile pensioner.

The roads are there for everybody to use to get around.

If providing for cars results in a situation where nobody can move - not even public transport - not even walkers - then we have to stop providing for cars.

It is a waste of public funds providing city public transport and then allowing out-of- town car owners to avoid using that service because "they feel like it".

If you choose to be stuck in your car then good luck to you - but you have no right to impose that on everybody else.

Mrs OBumble

Jazmin Green Straightjacket wrote: »

So the majority of people who use their cars to get around and therefore the majority contributors of money should not have their wishes carried out. You couldn't male it up.

I don't want my income tax, road tax and vrt funding things I will never use while ignoring vital infrastructure that I will.

Have you heard the phrase "the tyranny of the majority"? It's one of the well known hazards of democracy.

I have never and will never use government funded sports fields or primary schools. (I grew up in another country, at a time when Catholic primary schools didn't receive any government funding.) That doesn't give me the right to say that I don't want my income etc taxes used on building or maintaining these pieces of infrastructure. That's just not how the tax-system works.

No one is suggesting that the roading infrastucture should be ignored: in fact in the last seven years, it has been markedly improved (Dublin Rd bus lanes, removal of roundabouts, SQR road redevelopment, widening of Wellpark - this latter one has had a big impact on my personal commute time).

But it needs to be planned and managed as part of an overall multi-mode transportation system. Not from a private-cars-are-the-only-focus mindset.

Iwannahurl

Jazmin Green Straightjacket wrote: »

So the majority of people who use their cars to get around and therefore the majority contributors of money should not have their wishes carried out. You couldn't male it up.

I don't want my income tax, road motor tax and vrt funding things I will never use while ignoring vital infrastructure that I will.

It obviously has to be repeated: the Arup project manager has already stated publicly that an outer bypass will not solve Galway's traffic problems.

So are you saying that an estimated €500-750 million should be spent on a road which won't fix the traffic problems but which will ensure that you can easily traverse the city in your nice, comfortable, convenient and flexible private car?

Just because you pay tax like the rest of us?

Are you in a minority of one with that particular opinion, by any chance?

TerrorFirmer

She stated that the GCOB or any variation of it would not solve all of the city's traffic problems.

You do realise that there is a distinction between the N6 Galway City Transport Project and the GCOB.

She was referring to a variation of the old GCOB in response to criticism over the six routes, not the current six proposed routes. Don't know why you keep on about that statement?

Arup also conducted feasability studies on public transport only solutions and found them completely unfeasible in the context of the current situation. They're a firm with an international standing and frankly I trust their findings more than I trust the 'cars-are-evil' brigade.

Have you heard the phrase "the tyranny of the majority"? It's one of the well known hazards of democracy.

Jesus christ. So now we're seeking to undermine democracy by suggesting that what the majority want is wrong? That's how democracy works. It panders to the will of the people.

In fact here in Ireland we have PRSTV, which is an even fairer system democractically speaking than FPTP in the UK.

Perhaps a single party dictatorship would suit you better where you get to make executive decisions regardless of the actual will of the people.

That's not the way things are heading at present. My best guess is that all the Rainbow Routes are set to be rejected by the public. If all six are not kicked out at the initial stage, and one is selected by the N6GCTP team, what will happen is that public opposition will focus on just one route. Five sets of NIMBY objectors may consider that their job is done at that stage, but I would expect that there would be enough local objections plus principled opposition to keep the selected route at bay for years.

The biggest mistake made by most opponents of the project is to think that the opposition to the project is much bigger than it actually is.

The public don't have a say in the matter, rightfully so as people are not engineers. Furthermore though most people are in favor of a bypass. Media focus has been on the opposition simply because they're so vocal, but they don't represent the 'voice of the city' as is implied.

Councillors are obssessed with finding a way to halt the process despite having no power whatsoever (nor do TD's obviously) and some of the absolute nonsense they're coming up with in the chamber is embarrassing. Again, they're reacting to the voice of the affected.

Councillors are blowing the most hot air because they're the most parochial. TD's are slightly more divided.

They want a magical solution where nobody is affected but a route is constructed. Almost no councillors are against the actual construction of a route, nor are the majority of opposition groups. Their concern is purely with peoples homes being affected but let's be realistic the options are extremely limited.

Yes there's the issue of the SAC's but that's an EU issue. It's not like ARUP just choose to knock down homes for the craic. They were commissioned to propose a solution that balanced all considerations as best as they could under the circumstances. Of course, keyboard politicans will always think they know better than qualified engineers of international standing.

Look at the comparitavely small scale of the Quincentenary bridge in the 80's - homes were knocked to build that. Now we want to build an almost billion euro piece of infrastucture and people want a magic solution that gives everything and affects no-one.

dubhthach

Iwannahurl wrote: »

This has been mentioned repeatedly. There is a provision for a Q Bridge bus lane in the 2007 Strategic Bus Study, but it was made contingent on a bypass.

My understanding is that the bus services providers would not dream of routing buses over the QB in its current configuration, because the delays would be unsustainable.

Wether there is a provision but a bus lane or not is immaterial, nothing has stopped CIÉ from running a bus service over QCB at any stage in last 25 years. I highly doubt that one bus every 30 minutes (which was CIÉ standard operating frequency in Galway for years) would cause gridlock. Given that the routes would avoid the Salmon Weir Bridge and "An Lár" you'd end up with quicker service.

Bus-lane would be cherry ontop allowing significantly reduced headway between buses as well as alot better transit times.

Iwannahurl

dubhthach wrote: »

Wether there is a provision but a bus lane or not is immaterial, nothing has stopped CIÉ from running a bus service over QCB at any stage in last 25 years.

It makes no sense to provide buses so that passengers can sit in traffic congestion caused by motorists. Who in their right mind would pay daily, monthly or yearly for such a 'service'?

That said, the thought occurs that the time to put a bus route in was when the QB was being built.

Of course if bus lanes are a step too far for decision-makers and their motoring clientele now, 15 years into the 21st Century, you can imagine how unevolved transport policy was in in 1984...

spurscormac

Why don't we take cyclists and pedestrians off the QCB, convert them to bus lanes and hang cycling/pedestrian lanes off the side, totally separated from the traffic?

Saw that suggested by some politician, and to be honest, whether an outer bypass gets built or not, its not a bad idea.

Iwannahurl

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

She stated that the GCOB or any variation of it would not solve all of the city's traffic problems.

You do realise that there is a distinction between the N6 Galway City Transport Project and the GCOB.

She was referring to a variation of the old GCOB in response to criticism over the six routes, not the current six proposed routes. Don't know why you keep on about that statement?

Arup also conducted feasability studies on public transport only solutions and found them completely unfeasible in the context of the current situation. They're a firm with an international standing and frankly I trust their findings more than I trust the 'cars-are-evil' brigade.

I'm beginning to trust Arup more, since getting additional information about the current process, and I am confident that they are operating at a level orders of magnitude beyond popular perceptions such as that scepticism/opposition re the "bypass" can be glibly dismissed as being from "'the cars-are-evil' brigade".

According to local press reports, what Arup said was that an "outer bypass" won't solve the traffic problems.

I haven't yet seen any new studies on public transport options, have you?

My understanding is that NTA models are being used to develop proposals in that regard. Perhaps they're getting the "route selection" out of the way first?

Iwannahurl

spurscormac wrote: »

Why don't we take cyclists and pedestrians off the QCB, convert them to bus lanes and hang cycling/pedestrian lanes off the side, totally separated from the traffic?

Saw that suggested by some politician, and to be honest, whether an outer bypass gets built or not, its not a bad idea.

Watch this space...

dubhthach

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It makes no sense to provide buses so that passengers can sit in traffic congestion caused by motorists. Who in their right mind would pay daily, monthly or yearly for such a 'service'?

And it makes sense for bus's to sit in traffic congestion trying to traverse University Road, Salmon Weir Bridge, Francis Street and Eyre Square and Bohermore?

After all if you provide a bus route over the QCB you might actually get modal shift given that it would be more direct route for people going to east side of city instead of been routed through An Lár

galwaycyclist

dubhthach wrote: »

And it makes sense for bus's to sit in traffic congestion trying to traverse University Road, Salmon Weir Bridge, Francis Street and Eyre Square and Bohermore?

After all if you provide a bus route over the QCB you might actually get modal shift given that it would be more direct route for people going to east side of city instead of been routed through An Lár

None of the city centre bridges should be open to private motor traffic. If Galway was in the Netherlands they probably wouldn't be -the Salmon Weir bridge would be psv, foot and bicycle only. That would solve part of that problem.

There is still merit in an orbital bus route to connect the radial routes.

Padkir

galwaycyclist wrote: »

None of the city centre bridges should be open to private motor traffic. If Galway was in the Netherlands they probably wouldn't be -the Salmon Weir bridge would be psv, foot and bicycle only. That would solve part of that problem.

If Galway was in the Netherlands, there would be a bypass around it to realistically suggest such a proposal.

galwaycyclist

Padkir wrote: »

If Galway was in the Netherlands, there would be a bypass around it to realistically suggest such a proposal.

Was that not what the quincentennial was supposed to be?

And still could be.

crusier

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Was that not what the quincentennial was supposed to be?

And still could be.

1984, time has moved on for most of us!

dubhthach

crusier wrote: »

1984, time has moved on for most of us!

More like 1974 , think of this way most road projects in this country are in planning for at least 10 years before construction begins

If you want a good example in Netherlands go to Leeuwarden the capital of Friesland, where not only do you have a full motorway bypass to south in form of A31/N31 but you also have a full ringroad (mix of single/dual carriageway with bus lanes etc.) that helps distrubute traffic around the city. Which by the way is a nice city to walk around even in -5c (December 2009!)

Padkir

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Was that not what the quincentennial was supposed to be?

And still could be.

At the time; it's just a pity it was planned terribly. Times have changed.

In any case, that's irrelevant. Are saying that one major river crossing open to cars would be adequate? You're not living in the real world.

dubhthach

galwaycyclist wrote: »

None of the city centre bridges should be open to private motor traffic. If Galway was in the Netherlands they probably wouldn't be -the Salmon Weir bridge would be psv, foot and bicycle only. That would solve part of that problem.

There is still merit in an orbital bus route to connect the radial routes.

If Galway was the Netherlands no body would be talking about closing 3 out of 4 bridges to vehicular traffic, ye obviously don't know many Dutch people cause in my experience working with them they are a practical people.

Mrs OBumble

galwaycyclist wrote: »

None of the city centre bridges should be open to private motor traffic.

As an inner city resident who occasionally rents a car, I'd take issue with that.

Unrealistic

Jazmin Green Straightjacket wrote: »

So the majority of people who use their cars to get around and therefore the majority contributors of money should not have their wishes carried out. You couldn't male it up.

I don't want my income tax, road tax and vrt funding things I will never use while ignoring vital infrastructure that I will.

Wow! You really think a person's input into our democratic processes should be dependent on the amount of tax he has paid rather than 'one man one vote'? Maybe you'd like a return to 19th Century practices of only allowing property owners to vote.

As a car owning, motor tax paying (what is this road tax you mention?) and VRT paying citizen I'd prefer not to have you deciding that you can speak for my wishes, thank you very much. I certainly don't want a bypass or a pretend bypass just because the powers that be have not shown the imagination to consider other options and are determined to keep Galway 20-30 years behind more enlightened European cities in terms of transport policy.