Outer City Bypass

snubbleste

antoobrien wrote: »

Not stopping Connolly spout rubbish is an anti motorist bias?

The presenter takes the view that Galway needs a bypass.
Not looking at it objectively or neutrally

antoobrien

snubbleste wrote: »

The presenter takes the view that Galway needs a bypass.
Not looking at it objectively or neutrally

What programme were you listening to? She never made a statement but asked questions and Catherine Connolly (channeling IWH) would not shut up to let Feeney answer her.

In her denial of public support "forgot" that in the connacht tribune poll 80+% of respondents picked one of the routes over the do nothing or PT only option -hardly no support.

It's also laughable that the Westwood meeting was described as being not NYMBY, when the organiser stated publicly that he is directly affect by two routes -the definition of NIMBY.

what_traffic

dubhthach wrote: »

Is the geology of Clann Fergaile suddenly radically more different from that of East Galway? It's perfectly reasonable comparison, the cost per km on both those scheme should be fairly equivalent to that for Green/Blue/Pink route (leaving aside cost for tunneled sections on Blue/Pink) though there would be more houses to be knocked.

More you say? How much more as a percentage would you say? How many houses and businesses were knocked for the M6 and M17/M18?

Iwannahurl

snubbleste wrote: »

The presenter takes the view that Galway needs a bypass.
Not looking at it objectively or neutrally

That can be hard to pin down, but the very title of the programme demonstrates how RTE is utterly wedded to car culture. We can't even hear the weather forecast these days without it being used as an opportunity for yet more car advertising.

The biggest faux pas by the presenter was giving unopposed airtime to Galway Chamber's dilettante drivel which they laughably call a "survey". Mary Wilson even quoted as fact their figure of 54% of commuters being from "rural" areas. And I wish the nation had been given a chance to hear the 'researchers' explain what they meant by an "extremely positive response rate".

I was surprised by Cllr Connolly's position wrt to stopping the N6 Galway City Transport Project. The way things are going the six routes are set to be rejected. Even if one route is selected it will generate major opposition and will go nowhere except the courts. Maybe I'm naive, but I think it would be better if Cllr Connolly could trust the process (and Arup's associate director). Time will tell I suppose. Certainly my trust is contingent on the N6GCTP producing more on alternative solutions than some colourful graphics.

Lapin wrote: »

I find it very hard to believe a word Peter Feeney is saying.

Cllr Sweeney had no credibility, imo. In his version of reality Connemara has a population of 70,000 souls who "can't get out" and so are "isolated" from the rest of the country (there appears to be a commonly-held notion that there are tired, poor and huddled masses in Galway West "who are cut off from the rest of the country due to traffic gridlock").

Cllr Feeney appeared to have no awareness that only 5% of traffic would travel the length of a bypass and that 58% of traffic crossing the river is entirely within the city. Either he has no grasp of the figures presented to him by Arup or else, like many others, he's in the state of denial that unquestioning support for a "bypass" requires.

He got this bit right though:

Cllr Peter Feeney wrote:

The people who want this are sitting in their cars...

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

in the connacht tribune poll 80+% of respondents picked one of the routes over the do nothing or PT only option -hardly no support.

It's also laughable that the Westwood meeting was described as being not NYMBY, when the organiser stated publicly that he is directly affect by two routes -the definition of NIMBY.

How was the sample selected in the Connacht Tribune survey? What was the profile of the respondents?

The N6 Action Group, which appears to have been established in Dangan/Bushy Park, has more than one organiser/committee member. There is also an opposition group forming on the far side of the river. There was way more opposition to all routes at the Westwood meeting than there was NIMBY opposition to one or two routes.

galwaycyclist

dubhthach wrote: »

Perhaps you should visit Utrecht because you need to get your facts straight. All vehicular traffic is banned from Utrecht pedestrian zone, that includes mounted cyclists. It started out as two shopping streets and has now been extended, there's no reason why the whole of Galway within the area of the Old city walls can't be full pedestrianised either.

All it requires is provision of proper infrastructure for both public transport and for cyclists (along with removal of cross urban motorists from the area). So for example put a cyclist/pedestrian bridge over the old Railway piers, likewise put one over the Queen's gap providing a link from Cathedral to Bowling Green area. (Heck I'd put a pedestrian/cyclist bridge from Claddagh Basin over to Merchant road)

Pedestrian Ghetto? really how old are you 5?

This is a classic Boards tactic - if you are losing a debate start accusing the other side of saying things that they never said.

I never mentioned pedestrian zones in Utrecht. You raised pedestrian zones in Galway when it was pointed out that Utrecht had closed major city centre roads to private motor traffic. You were attempting to draw an equivalence between Shop street and roads like Potterstraat which were arterial dual carriageways dominated by cars.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK-ESyajHLY

dubhthach

if you look at the AADT for all 4 bridges in the city, then 42% of this AADT is equivalent to 36,120 vehicle/day. This volume of traffic meets the criteria of a Type 1 dualcarriageway (eg. motorway). Are you happy that over 36,000 vehicles trips are made through city streets for traffic that originated outside of the city and probably has no purpose been anywhere near the existing four bridges?

As for 5% it would be nice to get a breakdown with ingress/egress junctions. So for example:

Western Terminus <-> N59
Western Terminus <-> N84
Western Terminus <-> Coolaugh Junction
Western Terminus <-> Eastern Terminus (eg. M6 eastbound enroute to/from Dublin ) -- the magical 5%

N59 <-> N84
N59 <-> Coolaugh Junction
N59 <-> Eastern Terminus

N84 <-> Coolaugh Junction
N84 <-> Eastern Junction

Coolaugh <-> Eastern Junction (people heading to Dublin, commuters coming in from Athenry etc.)

Without an actual data set the 5% figure is a red herring sorta like your €7billion to build 7km of road. Given that the current bridge layout my money would be that the level of traffic crossing O'Brien's bridge and Claddagh Bridge that originate outside the city is somewhat lower (in 30% for Claddagh bridge), as a result it's probable that over 50% of traffic on QCB originates from outside the city, likewise for Salmon Weir (whose AADT alone is enough to qualify for Type 2 Dual carriageway!), thus if one removes 50% of traffic from QCB the free up capacity would allow for reducing of bridge to single carriageway with bus lanes.

dubhthach

galwaycyclist wrote: »

This is a classic Boards tactic - if you are losing a debate start accusing the other side of saying things that they never said.

I never mentioned pedestrian zones in Utrecht. You raised pedestrian zones in Galway when it was pointed out that Utrecht had closed major city centre roads to private motor traffic. You were attempting to draw an equivalence between Shop street and roads like Potterstraat which were arterial dual carriageways dominated by cars.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aK-ESyajHLY

How can I loose a debate when you've never actually made a statement that's worth debating, instead you've constantly ignored the facts regarding every major Dutch city have a motorway ringroad, but hey if ye can unclamp that crack pipe from your mouth perhaps I can get a toke of whatever crazy juice ye on.

dubhthach

what_traffic wrote: »

More you say? How much more as a percentage would you say? How many houses and businesses were knocked for the M6 and M17/M18?

Probably at least a dozen, I know at least 4 were demolished for Gort to Rathmorissery section of the N18. Again how is the geology of Clann Fergaile radically different from East Galway so that the cost of construction would be massively different?

galwaycyclist

dubhthach wrote: »

How can I loose a debate when you've never actually made a statement that's worth debating, instead you've constantly ignored the facts regarding every major Dutch city have a motorway ringroad, but hey if ye can unclamp that crack pipe from your mouth perhaps I can get a toke of whatever crazy juice ye on.

I didnt ignore any facts - I fully acknowledged the Dutch motorways and I pointed out why they are needed.

You havent made any convincing case for motorway standard infrastructure passing Galway when there is nothing to the west of the city except Connemara - population 39,000

galwaycyclist

dubhthach wrote: »

. Are you happy that over 36,000 vehicles trips are made through city streets for traffic that originated outside of the city and probably has no purpose been anywhere near the existing four bridges?
.

Are you telling us you think there are 18,000 motorists passing through Galway on a daily basis whose origin and destination lie outside the city {including Parkmore)?

The equivalent of the population of Castlebar Clonmel - all in their own individual cars - all trying to pass through the city to get to some unidentified destination?

Where might they be going exactly? And where might they be coming from?

crusier

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I didnt ignore any facts - I fully acknowledged the Dutch motorways and I pointed out why they are needed.

You havent made any convincing case for motorway standard infrastructure passing Galway when there is nothing to the west of the city except Connemara - population 39,000

39000 people who have the same rights and entitlements as you, you sound worse than Cromwell!

antoobrien

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Are you telling us you think there are 18,000 motorists passing through Galway on a daily basis whose origin and destination lie outside the city {including Parkmore)?

Okay so you're basically saying that if both endpoints are not in the city area it's an invalid use of the road.

What's your viewpoint on somebody from Maynooth using the M50 to go to either Dublin Airport or Bray - valid on invalid?

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

How was the sample selected in the Connacht Tribune survey? What was the profile of the respondents?

Over 1,000 people fewer than 200 of which support your preferred stance of no bypass/PT first.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The N6 Action Group, which appears to have been established in Dangan/Bushy Park, has more than one organiser/committee member.

What is the profile of these organizers, how many are not affected by any of the routes?

Iwannahurl wrote: »

There is also an opposition group forming on the far side of the river. There was way more opposition to all routes at the Westwood meeting than there was NIMBY opposition to one or two routes.

There was a NIMBY group as well for the previous route - which has no been heard of for years. The howls from Menlo are the said same - well BS - we heard the last time, and the NIMBYism of former supporters whose house now fall on the route is comically undermining the credibility of any group

galwaycyclist

crusier wrote: »

39000 people who have the same rights and entitlements as you

Exactly I think we are finally starting to get the idea. Car-based commuters do not have superior rights or entitlements to anyone else.

Their needs must be balanced with what is good for society as a whole - must be balanced against the rights and entitlements of all citizens.

crusier

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Exactly I think we are finally starting to get the idea. Car-based commuters do not have superior rights or entitlements to anyone else.

Their needs must be balanced with what is good for society as a whole - must be balanced against the rights and entitlements of all citizens.

As long as the needs are your preferred needs! As I said before if you were around when the wheel.was invented you would have objected! Look at mutton island and the objections at the time, all objections but no solutions!

spurscormac

It seems that according to some, there are 39,000 folks living in Connemara who should put up with terrible traffic should they ever want to get east of Galway city.
Let's ignore the fact that we could be opening up Connemara for better tourism access and improving the day to day lives of not just those 39,000 but the many thousands of of Galwegians who sit in traffic jams on a daily basis.

I am pro an outer bypass, however I am against all of the options as currently proposed. None of them provide an adequate number of access points and so will result in new congestion areas at the points where the existing access points join the road. I am specifically talking about the N59/Lettaragh junction as proposed, which has no plans to upgrade the Rahoon Road up past Mincloon towards Keeraun which would see a massive increase in traffic, which in its current state, is not fit to take.

Whatever final route is decided, there should be multiple slip roads on and off bringing you down towards different parts of Knocknacarra. This doesn't need to be massive work, but access from Cappagh, Ballymoneen,Clybaun and down towards Bothar Stiofain by improving existing roads and linking them to the new road, would be enough to spread out the traffic to different areas of Knocknacarra and prevent the bottleneck currently proposed.

Give us some options, but please don't spend hundreds of millions on an option that will only go and cause more traffic problems.

galwaycyclist

antoobrien wrote: »

Okay so you're basically saying that if both endpoints are not in the city area it's an invalid use of the road.

What's your viewpoint on somebody from Maynooth using the M50 to go to either Dublin Airport or Bray - valid on invalid?

No I am pointing out that if both end points are either end point is in the city then that is a transportation challenge of an entirely different character to a bypass.

The M50 was not built for what is in effect the exclusive benefit of the people of Maynooth which is what seems to be proposed for the people of Connemara.

The M50 has a function for many other communities.

galwaycyclist

spurscormac wrote: »

It seems that according to some, there are 39,000 folks living in Connemara who should put up with terrible traffic should they ever want to get east of Galway city.
Let's ignore the fact that we could be opening up Connemara for better tourism access and improving the day to day lives of not just those 39,000 but the many thousands of of Galwegians who sit in traffic jams on a daily basis.

No I don't think that is a fair representation of the issue. It might be better to represent the issue as follows; only a subset of those 39,000 people happen to need to travel past Galway - should they be allowed to dictate transport management solutions for everybody else?

If it is about traffic jams caused by traffic that has its destination in Galway then that is a different transport project.

We could also be working on a project to improve how the city works for everybody, including tourism in the city itself.

Take it from me - tourists do not visit historic medieval cities so that they can drive around in their cars. Likewise a large proportion of tourists do not arrive by car - they arrive by private coach or public transport. Arguing that we make the city an attractive tourist destination by prioritising cars is silly in my view.

spurscormac wrote: »

I am pro an outer bypass

That is your right. Likewise I would not assume that others are "anti" a new road. Just because people are questioning the pro-car arguments being used it does not mean they are inherently opposed to any new roads infrastructure.

spurscormac wrote: »

Give us some options, but please don't spend hundreds of millions on an option that will only go and cause more traffic problems.

Exactly - where are the solutions? Why do the solutions always have to wait for a bypass?

antoobrien

galwaycyclist wrote: »

No I am pointing out that if both end points are either end point is in the city then that is a transportation challenge of an entirely different character to a bypass.

And therein lies the problem with this "debate" - the goalposts are being changed so often as to make it impossible to get anything but the solution you want, regardless of the fact that every study on PT in Galway conceeds that a bypass would be of benefit to PT - even the feasibility study.

For the record a bypass is defined as:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bypass

1. (Civil Engineering) a main road built to avoid a city or other congested area

galwaycyclist wrote: »

The M50 was not built for what is in effect the exclusive benefit of the people of Maynooth which is what seems to be proposed for the people of Connemara.

A nice strawman.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

The M50 has a function for many other communities.

So would a bypass of Galway. It would help Barna & points west along the Spiddal Rd. It would help Moycullen & points north & west along the Oughterard road. That's just on the west side.

On the east side of the river lake, I could start going into exhaustive territory but i'll suffice to say there are 3 N roads that converge on Galway from he North & East and one runs it the main easterly route from the south.

That's a lot of communities, just like the M50.

galwaycyclist

antoobrien wrote: »

So would a bypass of Galway. It would help Barna & points west along the Spiddal Rd. It would help Moycullen & points north & west along the Oughterard road. That's just on the west side.

What would that population be? 39,000 by any chance? EU750 million to service those Moycullen and Bearna residents who don't happen to work in, or do business in, Galway city?

antoobrien wrote: »

On the east side of the river lake, I could start going into exhaustive territory but i'll suffice to say there are 3 N roads that converge on Galway from he North & East and one runs it the main easterly route from the south.
That's a lot of communities, just like the M50.

Are we not supposed to understand that the M18 works will take care of that situation? In which case what we are left with are those people on the east of the city who work in, or do business in Galway city? Which is a whole different transport issue.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Over 1,000 people fewer than 200 of which support your preferred stance of no bypass/PT first.

What is the profile of these organizers, how many are not affected by any of the routes?

There was a NIMBY group as well for the previous route - which has no been heard of for years. The howls from Menlo are the said same - well BS - we heard the last time, and the NIMBYism of former supporters whose house now fall on the route is comically undermining the credibility of any group

What I asked was: how was the sample selected in the Connacht Tribune survey, and what was the profile of the respondents?

Merely stating the number 1000 doesn't even begin to answer such questions. The Connacht Tribune poll might be indicative of a particular mindset or attitude, but it is not necessarily generalisable, and neither does it address the complex issues inherent in a transport project on the present scale.

The "survey" by Galway Chamber of Commerce is equally unreliable in terms of sampling and 'generalisability'.

The GCOB NIMBY group hasn't been heard of for years, because a realisable GCOB hasn't been heard of for years. What were they going to do? Keep the group going just to say "I told you so"?

If you think the credibility of the N6 Action Group has been "comically undermined" wait till they get to work on Arup's "preferred route". I wouldn't underestimate their determination and ability.

spurscormac wrote: »

I am pro an outer bypass

...

Whatever final route is decided, there should be multiple slip roads on and off bringing you down towards different parts of Knocknacarra. This doesn't need to be massive work, but access from Cappagh, Ballymoneen,Clybaun and down towards Bothar Stiofain by improving existing roads and linking them to the new road, would be enough to spread out the traffic to different areas of Knocknacarra and prevent the bottleneck currently proposed.

The words "outer" and "bypass" do not apply to what you describe above.

antoobrien wrote: »

So would a bypass of Galway. It would help Barna & points west along the Spiddal Rd. It would help Moycullen & points north & west along the Oughterard road. That's just on the west side.

On the east side of the river lake, I could start going into exhaustive territory but i'll suffice to say there are 3 N roads that converge on Galway from he North & East and one runs it the main easterly route from the south.

That's a lot of communities, just like the M50.

Do you accept Arup's figure of 5% with regard to the proportion of traffic travelling the full length of a "bypass"?

biko

dubhthach wrote: »

if ye can unclamp that crack pipe from your mouth perhaps I can get a toke of whatever crazy juice ye on.

Please don't post in this style in this forum again

Iwannahurl

According to a report in today's City Tribune, the Acting City Chief Executive has warned that funding for the proposed "bypass" could be lost if Councillors delay the "route selection process".

That old chestnut again.

"Stopping or delaying the process now will make congestion worse and will impeded economic development. Funding for [the "bypass"] will be spent somewhere else."

At this week's City Council meeting, only one Councillor present, Noel Larkin (Ind), reportedly approved of the current "route selection process".

Elsewhere in the City Tribune, Cllr Larkin explains why he believes that the "preferred route" to be chosen by Arup is 'the solution to Galway's traffic woes':

"People from Tuam, Dunmore, Mountbellew and Headford tell me they are travelling to Claremorris, Castlebar and Athlone, rather than travel to Galway. People from Portumna, Killimor, Loughrea and Ballinasloe are travelling to Nenagh, Birr or Limerick rather than travel to Galway, simply because of the chronic traffic congestion in the city which takes far too long to negotiate."

So to summarise this Independent thinking: a "bypass" is needed for Galway so that motorists who are currently bypassing Galway will stop bypassing Galway.

I'm glad that's been cleared up.

spurscormac

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The words "outer" and "bypass" do not apply to what you describe above.

Talk about picking on semantics.
I support the building of an alternative bridge/tunnel over/under the Corrib, somewhere between the QCB and the lake itself in order to facilitate the better movement of traffic around the city.
This includes those that want to bypass the city itself and those that want to get to parts of the city without having to go as far as the QCB.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Do you accept Arup's figure of 5% with regard to the proportion of traffic travelling the full length of a "bypass"?

I accept their figure of 5%, however I don't accept that building this is road is only for the 5%. Far more people will use shorter sections of it, getting on and off at different points without having to use the full length.
This 5% is a red herring flouted by the anti-road brigade to say its not value for money to spend so much on so few.

galwaycyclist wrote:

No I don't think that is a fair representation of the issue. It might be better to represent the issue as follows; only a subset of those 39,000 people happen to need to travel past Galway - should they be allowed to dictate transport management solutions for everybody else?

I don't think yours is a fair representation of the issue.
Of course only a subset of those people need to travel past Galway on a regular basis, but I'd bet a lot of them do on an occasional basis.
You're also conveniently ignoring the amount of people from north, south & east of the city, those technically within the city boundaries, that will use it or part of it.

galwaycyclist wrote:

Take it from me - tourists do not visit historic medieval cities so that they can drive around in their cars. Likewise a large proportion of tourists do not arrive by car - they arrive by private coach or public transport. Arguing that we make the city an attractive tourist destination by prioritising cars is silly in my view.

You claim it's only for car users.
There's other traffic too, such as buses, and commercial vehicles of all sizes that would benefit from it.

If you want to improve the situation for pedestrians/cyclists in and around the city centre, then you'll have to start by providing an alternative way for the traffic(of all forms, not just cars), to get from one side of the city to the other, to reduce the volume of traffic in and around the city itself.

It's Friday, on that note I'm out for now.

Iwannahurl

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The words "outer" and "bypass" do not apply to what you describe above.

This really is a nonsense outlook. Is the road outside the city..yes therefore its "outer". Is it possible to bypass galway city using this road....yes therefore it is a "bypass".

It would be ridiculous to build it exclusively as a bypass and not have exits at various points where people can use it to get close to their destination thus keeping their car out of parts of the city they would otherwise have to drive through and therefore reduce congestion.

Unrealistic

Jazmin Green Straightjacket wrote: »

This really is a nonsense outlook. Is the road outside the city..yes

For someone with such strident opinions on the matter it's strange that you would give the impression that you haven't even looked at the map of the various options, all of which are within the city for most of their length.

Unrealistic

Unrealistic wrote: »

For someone with such strident opinions on the matter it's strange that you would give the impression that you haven't even looked at the map of the various options, all of which are within the city for most of their length.

Its outside the city centre I mean.

galwaycyclist

spurscormac wrote: »

If you want to improve the situation for pedestrians/cyclists in and around the city centre, then you'll have to start by providing an alternative way for the traffic(of all forms, not just cars), to get from one side of the city to the other, to reduce the volume of traffic in and around the city itself.

No, in my view the fundamentally wrong place to start. If you want to improve the situation for walking and other sustainable modes then the starting position has to be an acceptance that these modes have merit - that people who walk or use other sustainable modes also have rights and are also entitled to be treated with dignity. From there you then have to move to an acceptance that in many environments cars must be managed for the benefit of vulnerable roads users and not the other way around.

Unless you reach that point first, anything you do will be mostly window dressing - designed to have the appearance of being walking friendly while doing nothing to address fundamental structural deficiencies.

We have seen here people in favour of the bypass openly sneering at the idea of alternative modes of transport. The conclusion is invited that the bypass proposals are informed in part by an attitude of contempt for other road users. There is not even an attempt to hide such attitudes.

spurscormac wrote: »

You claim it's only for car users.
There's other traffic too, such as buses, and commercial vehicles of all sizes that would benefit from it.

If you want to improve the situation for pedestrians/cyclists in and around the city centre, then you'll have to start by providing an alternative way for the traffic(of all forms, not just cars), to get from one side of the city to the other, to reduce the volume of traffic in and around the city itself.

No - traffic is not some inanimate object that will simply flow in a particular direction because you have provided a particular route. Traffic is about human behaviour - under the current proposals - if the bypass is built then as soon a traffic starts building up on the bypass in the mornings people will start looking for alternative routes through town. The traffic will split up into various streams on various routes all trying to get an advantage.

The repeated lesson everywhere has been that simply throwing more road capacity at rush-hour car traffic leads to more car traffic.

In the current situation, in traffic management terms, we lack an effective police service. If city-centre traffic volumes decrease it is entirely possible that the place will become a race track for cars - while the guards look the other way. It is entirely possible that the city will become more hostile for people who walk or use other sustainable traffic modes.

You argue that a bypass will improve the situation for sustainable transport modes - for this to be correct a bypass must be accompanied by specific measures to limit traffic on other routes and specific measures to improve the situation.

Arguing that one will follow the other is not viable in my view.

Somebody has to put something concrete on the table. What Arup put on the table - Bearna Greenway etc - was farcical.

Mrs OBumble

spurscormac wrote: »

If you want to improve the situation for pedestrians/cyclists in and around the city centre, then you'll have to start by providing an alternative way for the traffic(of all forms, not just cars), to get from one side of the city to the other, to reduce the volume of traffic in and around the city itself.

I'm sorry, but that's not true. In the last 5 years, the situation for many, many pedestrians has been improved greatly by removing roundabouts, and restructuring the bus routes / timetables. All without a bypass.

We need a traffic system that plans for people who use cars (not the cars themselves!), people who cycle, people who walk, people who drive trucks, etc.

That means roads, bridges (yes I support a 2nd bridge), carparks, bus-shelters, cycle lanes, etc.

Saying "Shure build the bpyass first and sort the rest later" is just pure ignorance of human behaviour.