Outer City Bypass

Iwannahurl

dinneenp wrote: »

And in a way I don't see anything wrong with more sprawl, as long as it's planned.

That sounds like an oxymoron to me. Sprawl generally denotes inefficient land use policies, poorly integrated transport strategies and promotion of car dependence.

Iwannahurl

Doc Ruby wrote: »

I don't know, I appreciate the outdoors more than most people, but it seems like the stout defenders of the countryside are doing a lot more damage to the environment by ensuring that more cars are burning more fuel for longer periods due to the existing shambles of the traffic network in Galway. And that's to say nothing of the economic damage.

Is it an example of well meaning regulations being abused by a minority for their own personal benefit?

No.

Those cars are burning more fuel for longer periods anyway, due to the location of their owners/drivers for the most part, I would suggest.

dinneenp

Iwannahurl wrote: »

That sounds like an oxymoron to me. Sprawl generally denotes inefficient land use policies, poorly integrated transport strategies and promotion of car dependence.

you know what I mean, I only used the word sprawl as the previous person did. ....

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

No.

Those cars are burning more fuel for longer periods anyway, due to the location of their owners/drivers for the most part, I would suggest.

Said suggestion would be wrong. A car driving around galway city will produce more pollution than a similar vehicle using a bypass of the type proposed to travel the same distance. I know this by noting the amount of fuel used on city roads vs dc/motorway driving.

Somebody driving from Mervue to Knocknacara today will probably produce as much pollution as an Oranmore to Knocknacara trip over the proposed route.

antoobrien

Predalien wrote: »

In fairness, the whole saga also highlights the idiocy of the developer and An Bord Pleanala, given they couldn't grasp the meaning of the word integrity, and continued to argue about it's definition, ignoring the plain meaning of the word.

Funnily enough the UK - despite their supposedly better record with planning and dealing with the countryside - agreed with ABP & the council as to the approach taken, so it's not as if the council & ABP make the decisions they made in a slipshod manner.

In fact if one reads the inspectors report you'll get an idea of the kind of shenanegans that ABP & the co.co. had to put up with from NPWS & others over the course of the process.

Referring to the extension of the Special Area of Conservation, Mr. Keane said that the NPWS had done this two to three days prior to publication of the EIS, which was too late for it to be incorporated in the EIS.

This was 5 years after the initial consultations as to the proposed routing of the scheme.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Said suggestion would be wrong. A car driving around galway city will produce more pollution than a similar vehicle using a bypass of the type proposed to travel the same distance. I know this by noting the amount of fuel used on city roads vs dc/motorway driving.

Somebody driving from Mervue to Knocknacara today will probably produce as much pollution as an Oranmore to Knocknacara trip over the proposed route.

I would very much doubt that, overall, cars travelling larger distances from various rural locations to and through Galway City are producing lower emissions and using less fuel than cars travelling shorter distances within the city.

Likewise, modes of travel within the city that are far more efficient in terms of energy consumption per passenger produce far less pollution than cars in either setting.

These modes of travel (bus, bike, Shank's pony) are also vastly more efficient in terms of land use, and give an excellent payback in terms of other societal benefits, which is why they are well worth prioritising.

Predalien

antoobrien wrote: »

Funnily enough the UK - despite their supposedly better record with planning and dealing with the countryside - agreed with ABP & the council as to the approach taken, so it's not as if the council & ABP make the decisions they made in a slipshod manner.

In fact if one reads the inspectors report you'll get an idea of the kind of shenanegans that ABP & the co.co. had to put up with from NPWS & others over the course of the process.



This was 5 years after the initial consultations as to the proposed routing of the scheme.

The UK are relatively Eurosceptic, it was no surprise they wanted the Commission to have less say in these matters. The Greeks also agreed with the developer, they don't have a terrific track record in planning matters...

Time to incorporate a designation into the EIS wouldn't have made any difference, the EIS is a study of the probable impacts on the environment, the extension of the SAC did not change the environment, just it's status. As soon as the designation was made the project was clearly going to have an adverse impact on the integrity of the site, at that point it should have been accepted that the project could only proceed via the Imperative reasons of overriding public interest route, arguing that removing a number of hectares of protected area doesn't affect the integrity of a site is complete folly, a Judge will always give plain words their plain meaning, in this case they've wasted years and hundreds of thousands on legal fees.

antoobrien

Predalien wrote: »

The UK are relatively Eurosceptic, it was no surprise they wanted the Commission to have less say in these matters. The Greeks also agreed with the developer, they don't have a terrific track record in planning matters...

The Eurosceptic nature of the UK is irrelevant, their planning processes - which are supposedly more environmentally friendly than ours - are.

Predalien wrote: »

Time to incorporate a designation into the EIS wouldn't have made any difference, the EIS is a study of the probable impacts on the environment, the extension of the SAC did not change the environment, just it's status. As soon as the designation was made the project was clearly going to have an adverse impact on the integrity of the site, at that point it should have been accepted that the project could only proceed via the Imperative reasons of overriding public interest route, arguing that removing a number of hectares of protected area doesn't affect the integrity of a site is complete folly, a Judge will always give plain words their plain meaning, in this case they've wasted years and hundreds of thousands on legal fees.

They treated it that way all along, but it's interesting how it's seemingly okay for NPWS to behave badly, but for GCC & ABP and the High Court to take precedent form practices in other countries during a decision making process is not.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I would very much doubt that, overall, cars travelling larger distances from various rural locations to and through Galway City are producing lower emissions and using less fuel than cars travelling shorter distances within the city.

Your doubt doesn't make you any less wrong. My car in city traffic gets between 3l/km3km/l and 7l/km7km/l (1.4l petrol). On DC it gets 14km. It's laughable to suggest that a car idling at the moneen for several minutes is producing less pollution than one cruising along a DC.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Likewise, modes of travel within the city that are far more efficient in terms of energy consumption per passenger produce far less pollution than cars in either setting.

Irrelevant to the question at hand and also brings up the point of practicality. After all do we really want to put patients that should be in an ambulance on buses or trailers drawn by bicycle :eek:

Not everything is about commuters.

Predalien

antoobrien wrote: »

The Eurosceptic nature of the UK is irrelevant, their planning processes - which are supposedly more environmentally friendly than ours - are.

Their planning processes are of no relevance whatsoever, what is relevant is the application of European law which our authorities failed completely to interpret correctly and wasted time and money trying to redefine the word integrity. As for the UK submission, their Eurosceptic nature is relevant as it provides the basis of the motivation behind their submission.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

1. Your doubt doesn't make you any less wrong. My car in city traffic gets between 3l/km and 7l/km (1.4l petrol). On DC it gets 14km.

2. Irrelevant to the question at hand and also brings up the point of practicality.

3. After all do we really want to put patients that should be in an ambulance on buses or trailers drawn by bicycle :eek:

4. Not everything is about commuters.

1. Your figures don't make you right. Between 3 and 7 litres per kilometre??? On dual carriageway "it gets 14 km"? Ya wha?

2. Relevant to this fanciful rhetoric:

Doc Ruby wrote: »

I don't know, I appreciate the outdoors more than most people, but it seems like the stout defenders of the countryside are doing a lot more damage to the environment by ensuring that more cars are burning more fuel for longer periods due to the existing shambles of the traffic network in Galway. And that's to say nothing of the economic damage. Is it an example of well meaning regulations being abused by a minority for their own personal benefit?

3. Did someone suggest that? Or could it just be the latest red herring/straw man/heart-rending hyperbole?

4. The commuting component within Galway City is hugely relevant, given that so many car journeys are single occupant over relatively small distances.


.

Doc Ruby

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Nope, and I'd imagine any regular contributor here knows that from my previous posts.

What makes you think I'm aiming for good taste?

You could at minimum aim to not compound objective ignorance with subjective ignorance, JustMary. It doesn't look good.

Iwannahurl wrote:

Relevant to this fanciful rhetoric:

Speaking of which, there isn't even a modicum of underlying logic here. This is what you said:

Iwannahurl wrote:

overall, cars travelling larger distances from various rural locations to and through Galway City are producing lower emissions and using less fuel than cars travelling shorter distances within the city.

You're contradicting your entire argument and have just agreed with the bypass. Well done.

Iwannahurl wrote:

Likewise, modes of travel within the city that are far more efficient in terms of energy consumption per passenger produce far less pollution than cars in either setting.

These modes of travel (bus, bike, Shank's pony) are also vastly more efficient in terms of land use, and give an excellent payback in terms of other societal benefits, which is why they are well worth prioritising.

You know what else would use less wasteful environmentally-damaging artificial energy? Hand rendering lye and washing our clothes in the river. But why stop there, lets go back to the abacus and rearing donkeys for freight purposes, all locally produced. As an added bonus, after the population has collapsed to a quarter of its current levels when you dispense with this new fangled crop rotation malarky there will be fewer people to plague poor mother earth, with a lot less time to think about bettering themselves.

If it was the case that similar efficiencies could be achieved without an outer bypass, I would agree with you. But what I'm looking at are empty bus lanes, buses that barely run past 9pm, red lights on empty streets, and traffic flows worse than ever despite the brassily trumpeted advantages of public transport. I'm looking at wretched, sodden pedestrians and cyclists soldiering through an Irish winter past posters of a turtle on a bloody skateboard, and where do we get a refund for that waste of public money.

Oh wait I forgot, the last time someone got fired from the local authority for incompetence was when a stablehand forgot to groom one of the DeBurgos' horses, despite the biohazard introduced into the public water supply only a few years ago. And the shameful farce of Eyre square. And the ongoing traffic lights debacle. Lest we forget, Micahel Crowe's double dealing for his own benefit. And god knows how many more shambles.

And these people want us to pay into a property tax to keep them in the style to which they are accustomed?

Quite seriously the magical fairyland of mythical "Europe"'s fantastical public transport works great in mythical Europe. Back on earth, we need to deal with realities without concern for the personal greed of special interest groups just outside the city boundaries.

Go ahead and launch into another tirade IwannaHurl, but you've already contradicted yourself.

Iwannahurl

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Speaking of which, there isn't even a modicum of underlying logic here. This is what you said:

Er, not actually the full quote by Iwannahurl
overall, cars travelling larger distances from various rural locations to and through Galway City are producing lower emissions and using less fuel than cars travelling shorter distances within the city.

You're contradicting your entire argument and have just agreed with the bypass. Well done.

You could at a minimum read people's posts before (mis)quoting them and drawing erroneous conclusions.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

You know what else would use less wasteful environmentally-damaging artificial energy? Hand rendering lye and washing our clothes in the river. But why stop there, lets go back to the abacus and rearing donkeys for freight purposes, all locally produced. As an added bonus, after the population has collapsed to a quarter of its current levels when you dispense with this new fangled crop rotation malarky there will be fewer people to plague poor mother earth, with a lot less time to think about bettering themselves.

Survivalism & Self-Sufficiency forum>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Doc Ruby wrote: »

If it was the case that similar efficiencies could be achieved without an outer bypass, I would agree with you. But what I'm looking at are empty bus lanes, buses that barely run past 9pm, red lights on empty streets, and traffic flows worse than ever despite the brassily trumpeted advantages of public transport. I'm looking at wretched, sodden pedestrians and cyclists soldiering through an Irish winter past posters of a turtle on a bloody skateboard, and where do we get a refund for that waste of public money.

Oh wait I forgot, the last time someone got fired from the local authority for incompetence was when a stablehand forgot to groom one of the DeBurgos' horses, despite the biohazard introduced into the public water supply only a few years ago. And the shameful farce of Eyre square. And the ongoing traffic lights debacle. Lest we forget, Micahel Crowe's double dealing for his own benefit. And god knows how many more shambles.

And these people want us to pay into a property tax to keep them in the style to which they are accustomed?

Quite seriously the magical fairyland of mythical "Europe"'s fantastical public transport works great in mythical Europe. Back on earth, we need to deal with realities without concern for the personal greed of special interest groups just outside the city boundaries.

Good one. There's "mythical Europe" and there's "back on Earth", which is where Ireland is, presumably.

Here's an example of what those wretched sodden donkey-rearing backward Mythical Europeans have produced, using their abacuses no doubt: http://www.cycling-embassy.dk/2011/05/28/copenhagen-bicycle-account-2010/

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Go ahead and launch into another tirade IwannaHurl

No comment.

Doc Ruby

Iwannahurl wrote: »

You could at a minimum read people's posts before (mis)quoting them and drawing erroneous conclusions.

If I had been misquoting you, it would have been very simple for you to correct the error. And yet you haven't. Bottom line is you yourself by your own words see the environmental damage being done by not building a bypass, so I guess that's the bog cotton argument out the window.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Good one. There's "mythical Europe" and there's "back on Earth", which is where Ireland is, presumably.

Here's an example of what those wretched sodden donkey-rearing backward Mythical Europeans have produced, using their abacuses no doubt: http://www.cycling-embassy.dk/2011/05/28/copenhagen-bicycle-account-2010/

You are aware Europe isn't a country, right? Here's another story from mythical Europe, or maybe this is real world Europe:
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2012/11/pedicabs-latest-victim-of-copenhagens.html

Iwannahurl wrote: »

No comment.

And yet here we are.

dloob

This is why we can't have nice things, like traffic threads

Mrs OBumble

Doc Ruby wrote: »

. But what I'm looking at are empty bus lanes, buses that barely run past 9pm,

There are places where that statement is true.

Galway City is not one of them.

Iwannahurl

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

There are places where that statement is true.

Galway City is not one of them.

Of course there is also the irony, which I have heard repeatedly at first hand, of commuters sitting in their cars on such routes complaining about "empty" buses and "empty" bus lanes.

More than a few of them live on the west side of the city and commute to places like NUI Galway, UHG and locations further east.

I was having a quick look at the draft Galway Walking & Cycling Strategy last night, and I noticed a graph on page 15 ('Travel patterns for journeys to work in NUIG') which appears to show that 60% of staff car journeys to work in that institution are 2km or less.*

I had to drive to NUI Galway recently on business, and I was struck by how every available corner seems to be allocated to staff parking.







*EDIT: In 2010, 78% of NUI Galway staff travelled to work by car, as driver or passenger.

EDIT 2: I misread that (rather clunky) graph. What it actually shows is that, among those NUI Galway staff commuting 1km or less to work, around 25% of them travel by car. Of those commuting 1.1-2km, 45% or so use the car. Approximately 85% of those travelling 2.1-5km do so by car. NUI Galway has around 2200 staff.

Robbo

So then lads, bicycles for some, miniature American flags for others?

On topic, from a quick skim of the Advocate General's opinion and the fact that all sides are reading different things into it, I think I'll wait for the full judgment whilst rocking back and forth and babbling the words "Van Gend en Loos" over and over.

Iwannahurl

Van Gend & Loos, the glue that binds us (mythical) Europeans together...

yer man!

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Of course there is also the irony, which I have heard repeatedly at first hand, of commuters sitting in their cars on such routes complaining about "empty" buses and "empty" bus lanes.

More than a few of them live on the west side of the city and commute to places like NUI Galway, UHG and locations further east.

I was having a quick look at the draft Galway Walking & Cycling Strategy last night, and I noticed a graph on page 15 ('Travel patterns for journeys to work in NUIG') which appears to show that 60% of staff car journeys to work in that institution are 2km or less.*

I had to drive to NUI Galway recently on business, and I was struck by how every available corner seems to be allocated to staff parking.







*EDIT: In 2010, 78% of NUI Galway staff travelled to work by car, as driver or passenger.

EDIT 2: I misread that (rather clunky) graph. What it actually shows is that, among those NUI Galway staff commuting 1km or less to work, around 25% of them travel by car. Of those commuting 1.1-2km, 45% or so use the car. Approximately 85% of those travelling 2.1-5km do so by car. NUI Galway has around 2200 staff.

Let the council put in some proper cycle infrastructure and you'll have more people cycling on dry days, cycling around town is annoying, tight streets and where there is separation of bike lane and road, they're covered in glass and leaves.

Mearings

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Of course there is also the irony, which I have heard repeatedly at first hand, of commuters sitting in their cars on such routes complaining about "empty" buses and "empty" bus lanes.

More than a few of them live on the west side of the city and commute to places like NUI Galway, UHG and locations further east.

I was having a quick look at the draft Galway Walking & Cycling Strategy last night, and I noticed a graph on page 15 ('Travel patterns for journeys to work in NUIG') which appears to show that 60% of staff car journeys to work in that institution are 2km or less.*

I had to drive to NUI Galway recently on business, and I was struck by how every available corner seems to be allocated to staff parking.







*EDIT: In 2010, 78% of NUI Galway staff travelled to work by car, as driver or passenger.

EDIT 2: I misread that (rather clunky) graph. What it actually shows is that, among those NUI Galway staff commuting 1km or less to work, around 25% of them travel by car. Of those commuting 1.1-2km, 45% or so use the car. Approximately 85% of those travelling 2.1-5km do so by car. NUI Galway has around 2200 staff.

So there is a heap of money to be made by Revenue by taxing UCG's free parking as a benefit in kind. I'm sure the profs will accept this sine qua non.

Iwannahurl

Mearings wrote: »

So there is a heap of money to be made by Revenue by taxing UCG's free parking as a benefit in kind. I'm sure the profs will accept this sine qua non.

Or perhaps they regard it as an Ex Officio perk?

There's also a wee municipal car park in Mill Street that Revenue might like to take a look at...

Mearings

Iwannahurl wrote: »

There's also a wee municipal car park in Mill Street that Revenue might like to take a look at...

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

yer man!

Mearings wrote: »

So there is a heap of money to be made by Revenue by taxing UCG's free parking as a benefit in kind. I'm sure the profs will accept this sine qua non.

It's not free, student's pay €45, staff €55 for the year. It prevents the staff having to pay the €100 car parking space tax the govt brought in a few years ago for employees who had a free parking space in urban areas.

Mearings

yer man! wrote: »

It's not free, student's pay €45, staff €55 for the year. It prevents the staff having to pay the €100 car parking space tax the govt brought in a few years ago for employees who had a free parking space in urban areas.

I sit corrected. Glad to see the B.Comm Dept. is on the ball.

Iwannahurl

Robbo wrote: »

On topic, from a quick skim of the Advocate General's opinion and the fact that all sides are reading different things into it, I think I'll wait for the full judgment whilst rocking back and forth and babbling the words "Van Gend en Loos" over and over.

Try adding "the fish cannot go to court" for extra effect.

galwayrush

Pike v's baby trout.:rolleyes: Way too surreal.

Zzippy

galwayrush wrote: »

Pike v's baby trout.:rolleyes: Way too surreal.

snubbleste

GCC CEO Brendan McGrath was on the wireless last week and said there are 80,000+ vehicles crossing the four bridges daily and that GCC have 50 scientists working full time on the bogs issue in order to progress with the bypass Galway Transport Solution, as it is now called.

what_traffic

snubbleste wrote: »

GCC CEO Brendan McGrath was on the wireless last week and said there are 80,000+ vehicles crossing the four bridges daily and that GCC have 50 scientists working full time on the bogs issue in order to progress with the bypass Galway Transport Solution, as it is now called.

I thought he said "50 of our best scientists" ?