Do city bypasses deliver the goods, and if so what's the evidence?

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

That's your evidence justification for the thread being about joined up thinking - very weak. Especially considering the blast into how PT & pedestrian facilities are lacking (roads are for both). You had long enough to edit your OP to include these, now you're trying to bring the tread away from an implicit criticism of road building.

What's implicit in this thread is that there are very few examples to date of where bypasses have been constructed as part of a coherent strategy to reduce traffic congestion sustainably, urban planning being part of that. I'm still not convinced that joined-up thinking has resulted in many bypasses giving towns and cities "back to their people" (post #4) in a sustainable way.

Sure, there are specific cases such as the M50 and Moate etc, but in other locations such as Waterford, Cork and Portaoise I just don't see it. There's much more to life, and to this issue, than traffic counts.

You've had long enough in this thread to point to bypass success stories, in the context set out in the OP and subsequent posts. I don't see where you have done so thus far.

IIRC, nothing I have said so far is implicitly or explicitly critical of road building per se. The how and the why of road planning and road use in Ireland is a different matter, as comparisons with some other EU countries make clear.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Oh dear oh dear oh dear - it's not working because everybody, especially the taxis, ignore it when possible and at rush hour 30kmph is often an aspiration in the center of Dublin. In fact several city councilors are in fear of their seats over that hopelessly silly idea in the next council election.

Who's "everybody"?

If it's not working, er, up to speed it's because (a) this is Ireland where such concepts are alien, (b) we don't do law enforcement or compliance.

Some councillors may be "in fear of their seats" because of a hysterical reaction from the car lobby, much of it media-generated. Only in Ireland would such a proven road safety measure be the target of such campaigning and political backlash.

Iwannahurl

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Yet Galway is different :rolleyes:

Erm, is it?

Pray continue...

Aidan1

I keep hearing these figures about the tax take, but nobody ever posts evidence of it.

Theres a stack of academic work on this, with Edgar Morgenroth being the most prolific that I'm aware of. This article is particularly good, not least because it also looks at infrastructural spend;

http://ideas.repec.org/p/esr/wpaper/wp195.html

But assuming that they are true, would you lie that situation to continue or would you like, say Laois to start to become a net contributor as well?

In an ideal world, yes, but it'd be great if the three cities that do not presently do so could become net contributors for a start. Making towns like Portlaoise successful economic entities in their own right is almost impossible to be honest, but you could do a great deal of damage by trying. To quote from the above article "regional equity considerations may undermine efforts to increase productivity growth, which will be the main driver of future prosperity". In other words, given the fact that public funds to spend on infrastructure are finite, and it is already clear that the greatest returns on infrastructure spend comes from in and around cities, then the logical thing to do is to focus your limited resources on the 5 cities (or maybe more), and to drive prosperity that way. Spreading the cap ex around thinly means that the cities choke on traffic, and economy doesn't grow. None of this is a call to 'abandon' (or any such emotive language) rural towns, just to be rational about how resources are prioritised in the interest of evertone who lives in the State.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Some councillors may be "in fear of their seats" because of a hysterical reaction from the car lobby, much of it media-generated. Only in Ireland would such a proven road safety measure be the target of such campaigning and political backlash.

It looks media generated from the outside, but when you're sitting in an office in Dublin it's not media generated. The idea is so silly that it doesn't have to be.

Motorists are so p*ssed off that they are the only people that are being held to account for traffic law in this country it's just sickening. The rules of the road apply equally to pedestrians & cyclists too. This rather silly idea aimed at making it safer for cyclist and pedestrians to ignore the rules that they are already ignoring.

The last time I was in Dublin city center with a car, I lost count of the amount of times pedestrians just strolled out into the road without looking around. Now I find it particularly stupid when crossing a road not to look about beforehand to see if there's anybody driving a machine that can kill you (after all roads are designed for wheeled vehicles, most of which are far heavier than the average human). All this 30 km/h limit does is make them less culpable for their own actions.

monument

antoobrien wrote: »

It looks media generated from the outside, but when you're sitting in an office in Dublin it's not media generated. The idea is so silly that it doesn't have to be.

Motorists are so p*ssed off that they are the only people that are being held to account for traffic law in this country it's just sickening. ...

Again: In the Dublin City Council area 77,300 households (out of 190,000) don't even have cars, and lots of the others [who do own cars] use buses, trains and walk or cycle into the city centre. The whole 30km/h limit was just a non-issue for so many people.

Then you have another bulk of drivers from the city council area who are going no where near the 30km/h zone and many who are but just don't care about it.

The national cycle policy includes on-the-spot fines for cyclists -- I can't wait until that measure is brought in.

dubhthach

monument wrote: »

The national cycle policy includes on-the-spot fines for cyclists -- I can't wait until that measure is brought in.

I wouldn't hold my breath if I was you

The real problem in Ireland is enforcement, as a result all road users be they motorists/cyclists/pedestrians have no problem flouting the law as there is no fear of been punished.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

It looks media generated from the outside, but when you're sitting in an office in Dublin it's not media generated. The idea is so silly that it doesn't have to be.

Motorists are so p*ssed off that they are the only people that are being held to account for traffic law in this country it's just sickening. The rules of the road apply equally to pedestrians & cyclists too. This rather silly idea aimed at making it safer for cyclist and pedestrians to ignore the rules that they are already ignoring.

The last time I was in Dublin city center with a car, I lost count of the amount of times pedestrians just strolled out into the road without looking around. Now I find it particularly stupid when crossing a road not to look about beforehand to see if there's anybody driving a machine that can kill you (after all roads are designed for wheeled vehicles, most of which are far heavier than the average human). All this 30 km/h limit does is make them less culpable for their own actions.

This is OT, as you know, but since you have revisited the issue...

How many motorists have been killed or seriously injured in this country by pedestrians or bicycles, or by 'jaywalkers' and renegade cyclists (I am fully aware that cyclists have injured pedestrians)? There's an imbalance there in terms of vulnerability, which is why any sustainable road safety strategy tries to emphasise 'forgiveness' in the system. Lower speed is an essential part of any such strategy.

If you think 30 km/h zones are a "rather silly idea" then it appears you rate your own opinion higher than the established evidence showing a clear benefit for them in terms of reductions in death and injury, especially among children.

Or do you have evidence to the contrary? If so, references and links please. Without such evidence your opinion is just that: your own view and nothing more.

30 km/h zones are pretty much standard throughout many European cities. Only in Ireland, where general compliance with and enforcement of road traffic law is so lax, do (some) people regard such proven measures as silly. More of that post-colonial adolescence, perhaps.

"Roads are designed for wheeled vehicles". Are they indeed? Do you mean motorised vehicles and thoroughfares like O'Connell Street, and zones like the centre of Galway City, for example?

Iwannahurl

monument wrote: »

Again: In the Dublin City Council area 77,300 households (out of 190,000) don't even have cars, and lots of the others [who do own cars] use buses, trains and walk or cycle into the city centre. The whole 30km/h limit was just a non-issue for so many people.

Then you have another bulk of drivers from the city council area who are going no where near the 30km/h zone and many who are but just don't care about it.

The national cycle policy includes on-the-spot fines for cyclists -- I can't wait until that measure is brought in.

30 km/h zones stand on their own evidence-based merits. They don't need anybody to care about them conceptually to be effective.

Visibility (of the speed limit), compliance (with the rule of law) and enforcement are different matters. Unfortunately, Ireland just doesn't do compliance, enforcement or rational implementation of rational policy.

Iwannahurl

dubhthach wrote: »

I wouldn't hold my breath if I was you

The real problem in Ireland is enforcement, as a result all road users be they motorists/cyclists/pedestrians have no problem flouting the law as there is no fear of been punished.

It's also a cultural issue. In civilised cities where 30 kph zones are widespread, compliance with road traffic law (at traffic signals, yield signs, pedestrian crossings etc) tends to be much better, in my experience. For example, in Copenhagen, where there are many thousands of cyclists streaming through the streets constantly, I saw literally only a few cases where cyclists broke the law and bypassed a queue at a red light, for instance. The vast majority also yielded to pedestrians at bus stops, who were crossing the cycle path to get on and off the buses. By the same token there was very little misbehaviour by motorists either. Yet I saw very few traffic police or other enforcers.

MYOB

MYOB wrote: »

From what I can see, IWH has spent pages now arguing about planning and Irish drivers attitudes to parking, none of which has ANYTHING to do with city bypasses.

Thread lock time?

+2

Aidan1

IWH has spent pages now arguing about planning and Irish drivers attitudes to parking, none of which has ANYTHING to do with city bypasses.

On the contrary, it has EVERYTHING to do with bypasses.

ei.sdraob

The questions raised by the OP have been answered quite concisely in post 144

Close any of the bypasses in the the cities that already have one :rolleyes: and watch the fun that ensues.

The OP has no interest in discussing bypasses that much is obvious since the galway bypass thread got hijacked and now this, but continuing drumming on about his cycling>motoring theory which should be in its own thread.

Aidan1

To be frank, the only thing displayed in Post 144 is a casual disregard for the concept of causality. Without the M50, a lot of the traffic that uses it would never have arisen in the first instance, for good or for ill, so the suggestion of removing it now 'proves' nothing.

As has been said throughout the thread, by several posters, by passes are a critical part of the transport infrastructure of any large developed world city. But they only 'deliver the goods' if they are built as part of a supportive planning enviroment - the M50 is an orbital motorway as much as it is a a 'bypass', but it ceased being effective at delivering the goods' (getting goods vehicles to where they needed to be) because the city was allowed to envelop it, and swamp it with traffic. While, it is also the case that it undoubtedly facilitated a significant amount of economic growth by allowing freerer movement of goods (the point of a 'bypass'), you also have to account for the fact that the 'goods' it was supposed to deliver were stuck in traffic made up of vast numbers of car based commuters, each cursing the 'traffic'.

Extending that argumentto Galway is slightly tenuous btw - it's not like there's a massive amount of traffic trying to get past Galway to the bustling metropolises of Carraroe or Spiddal. The city needs a bypass, but mainly to remove blockages from the centre; without proper planning, including the provision of public transport, all that will happen is that the ingress/egress routes from the bypass will clog and the situation will repeat itself in 10 years time (or sooner if the economy ever picks up).

Iwannahurl

ei.sdraob wrote: »

The questions raised by the OP have been answered quite concisely in post 144

Close any of the bypasses in the the cities that already have one :rolleyes: and watch the fun that ensues.

The OP has no interest in discussing bypasses that much is obvious since the galway bypass thread got hijacked and now this, but continuing drumming on about his cycling>motoring theory which should be in its own thread.

Contrary to your own impression of your own "concise" post #144, I don't believe that many outstanding examples have yet been given of cities or large towns where a bypass has had a sustainable effect in terms of traffic reduction in the bypassed urban area.

Moate is a very good example of a bypassed small town, where a massive amount of passing traffic on a national route has been taken out of a settlement (population <2000) that could never and should never have to cope with it.

Portlaoise (urban pop. c. 3500, "rural" pop. c. 11000) was bypassed in 1997, and in the years 1996-2002 experienced a 41% growth in local population, much of that influx being car-dependent Dublin commuters. There is also no sign that the town itself has experienced a reduction in local traffic. On the contrary, there is evidence that even housing developments that were intended to reduce the impact of car use reveal a level of car dependence so high that their owners can not or will not walk a few metres from a designated parking court to their own front door.

Athlone (urban population c. 7000, "rural" pop. c. 10,000) was bypassed in the early 1990s. In common with every other town and city in the country, whether bypassed or not, Athlone has experienced a large increase in car use and car dependence, with a concomitant decrease in active commuting, even among schoolchildren. In contrast with similar-sized towns in countries such as Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden (which may or may not be bypassed) only a small number of children travel to primary or secondary school by means other than the car. Though Athlone is not a large town, those travelling by car outnumber pedestrians by about 4:1 and there is a grand total of 16 students cycling to secondary school, only four more than actually drive their own cars. Apparently the reasons for such phenomena have to do with political popularity and Irish people liking their cars, rather than any coherent transportation and land use policies. The Athlone bypass didn't reduce local traffic, but then again it "was not intended to". As elsewhere, any effective measures designed to sustainably reduce car use and car dependence in the town would be tantamount to state oppression and punishment of the locals.

In Dublin City, the M50 has provided significant benefits after major remedial works were carried out to reduce congestion, part of which was due to traffic-generating developments in its vicinity. The Port Tunnel has taken HGVs off Dublin's streets, which is of significant benefit to sustainable transport modes and vulnerable road users. Public transport, cycling and walking are popular modes of travel in Dublin City (cycling may even be undergoing something of a resurgence). However, other universal measures that would favour sustainable models of travel and which could function very well in the context of bypass-related traffic reduction, such as bus priority measures and a central 30 km/h zone, have been greatly resented by the car lobby, who seem to regard such evidence-based and sustainable congestion-reducing policies as both "silly" and "punitive" forms of state oppression.

Traffic levels in Cork City's impressive Jack Lynch Tunnel apparently exceeded projections by a large multiple within four years of its opening in 1999. Though bordered by car-dependent urban sprawl and very hilly in places, Cork City itself is fairly compact and therefore could be an ideal location for innovative and sustainable traffic reduction measures, in tandem with strategic use of the JLT and other arterial roads infrastructure. Despite Cork being a "Champion City" in the EU Niches+ programme, such coherent and comprehensive measures have yet to materialise on a sufficient scale, and Cork City Council states that traffic congestion and high levels of car use and car dependence are still problematic:

Geographically, Cork is a reasonably compact city yet analysis of mode split shows that in 2006 approximately half of all journeys in Cork were made by car, and only 9% were made by Public Transport. 80% of commuting journeys into the central area are made by car. Cork faces a number of transport challenges:

• A congested city centre and central business district (CBD)
• Excessive dependence on the private car
• A need to prioritise public transport systems
• Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) travelling on routes adjacent to the city centre

Cork City may actually be the best example outside of Dublin so far, but their Niches+/Smarter Travel plans seem to be on hold.

Severely congested Galway City is a bypass candidate and a Smarter Travel applicant, and given the reality that a bypass is several years off, the Council is proceeding (despite severe resistance from the car lobby) with remedial works on the N6 in conjunction with an AUTC. Of necessity, traffic and transportation policy is changing in order to cope with current levels of traffic in the city. However, it remains to be seen whether such policies will be maintained and whether the GCOB is "intended" to reduce local traffic, or whether the long-term "intention" is actually to clear the way for more traffic-generating development within the city. A best practice example from elsewhere in Ireland would be most welcome, IMO, as Galway City could do with an inspirational role model.

I would ask those who would prefer to circle the wagons rather than engage meaningfully and constructively with these issues to provide any example of another city (or large town) in Ireland where a bypass has led to a sustainable reduction in traffic within the bypassed area, especially in tandem with measures that reduce car use and car dependence (preferably in keeping with the rhetoric of 'giving the heart of cities back to the people', 'breathing new life into the residents' and 'allowing city dwellers, visitors and tourists to enjoy a more pleasant, healthier and safer environment'). I may be missing one or two, but I am open to correction.

antoobrien

Aidan1 wrote: »

To be frank, the only thing displayed in Post 144 is a casual disregard for the concept of causality. Without the M50, a lot of the traffic that uses it would never have arisen in the first instance, for good or for ill, so the suggestion of removing it now 'proves' nothing.

Let me rephrase that into two questions.
Would there be less traffic in Dublin had the M50 not been in place?
Would economic growth not have happened without the M50?
The economic growth policies that drove the modern economy came largely in the late 80s, when the westlink was already complete e.g. the redevelopment of the docklands, the IFSC etc. The traffic was going to be generated regardless of the M50. The M50 merely changed where the traffic was going. That the M50 was part of the economic growth plans is indisputable. Stating that the M50 caused the traffic growth is so simplistic, so ignorant of the overall plan, as to be laughable.

The conclusion being made ignores:
a) the fact that people still have to get from A-B
b) the fact that the dart was opened in the 80s
c) IIRC the Maynooth line was double tracked in the 80s

Before the M50 was eventually completed there was significantly increase in PT availability. Causality - the M50 didn't cause the traffic to come to Dublin, the economic policies of the 80s did (when the M50 was either under construction or already in place).

To me the evidence points to the incorrect configuration and relatively high price of PT causing people to choose not to use it, using the alternative i.e. the M50 instead. It's not like they don't have the choice to use PT instead. In that regard the only way the road can be "blamed" for generating traffic is when PT in the area is deemed unsuitable by the person undertaking the journey.

Aidan1 wrote: »

Extending that argumentto Galway is slightly tenuous btw - it's not like there's a massive amount of traffic trying to get past Galway to the bustling metropolises of Carraroe or Spiddal. The city needs a bypass, but mainly to remove blockages from the centre; without proper planning, including the provision of public transport, all that will happen is that the ingress/egress routes from the bypass will clog and the situation will repeat itself in 10 years time (or sooner if the economy ever picks up).

In 2009, when the city council did the traffic survey for the smarter travel bid, there were almost 37k vehicles using the QB every day. The pattern of where the traffic goes after that (through examining where numbers decrease) indicates that the majority of this is cross town traffic, which doesn't belong in the center of Galway.

invinciblePRSTV

antoobrien wrote: »

Let me rephrase that into two questions.
Would there be less traffic in Dublin had the M50 not been in place?
Would economic growth not have happened without the M50?
The economic growth policies that drove the modern economy came largely in the late 80s, when the westlink was already complete e.g. the redevelopment of the docklands, the IFSC etc. The traffic was going to be generated regardless of the M50. The M50 merely changed where the traffic was going. That the M50 was part of the economic growth plans is indisputable. Stating that the M50 caused the traffic growth is so simplistic, so ignorant of the overall plan, as to be laughable.

You seem to be wilfully ignoring the mess that was the planning regime around the M50 and attributing other developments to its construction. It was designed as a bypass and the "indisputable" economic growth view you've associated with it was generally shared by messrs O' Callaghan, Burke, Dunlop, Gogarty, REdmond and their ilk.

All the economic growth you're going on about could have and should have been concentrated in the Dublin area inside the M50, rather then the haphazard and corrupt manner in which it has been outside the M50 ring and repeated in other bypassed cities in the state.

That's what made the M50 become so congested by the mid 1990s, it was the out of town commerical and residential development free for all which local authorities allowed which caused it, and not just because Dublin was the cockpit of the Celtic tiger. There was nothing inevitable about it.

antoobrien wrote: »

The conclusion being made ignores:
a) the fact that people still have to get from A-B
b) the fact that the dart was opened in the 80s
c) IIRC the Maynooth line was double tracked in the 80s

You're making little sense here, the DART serves an area primarily inside the M50 and of course was never finished. The Maynooth line was redeveloped on the cheap whilst a brand spanking new motorway was built next to it.

Most importantly your A to B analogy is far too simplistic, in Dublin's case because of it's awful planning practices A could be one of any number of towns and villages up to 100km away from the M50!

antoobrien wrote: »

Before the M50 was eventually completed there was significantly increase in PT availability.

Was there now? you seem to confuse 2 cheapo line upgrades in the Dublin area with an increase in PT across the region, this clearly was not the case. Indeed it was impossible for the poorly funded PT agencies to provide comprehensive PT options to to the newly enlarged GDA brought about as it was by an unholy alliance of corrupt planners, politicians and developers.

antoobrien wrote: »

Causality - the M50 didn't cause the traffic to come to Dublin, the economic policies of the 80s did (when the M50 was either under construction or already in place).

Wrong. Corrupt politicians and planners, and the people who voted for them, ensured the M50 became as congested as it idid.

antoobrien wrote: »

To me the evidence points to the incorrect configuration and relatively high price of PT causing people to choose not to use it, using the alternative i.e. the M50 instead. It's not like they don't have the choice to use PT instead. In that regard the only way the road can be "blamed" for generating traffic is when PT in the area is deemed unsuitable by the person undertaking the journey.

Lol Irish PT is relatively high priced! have you ever used PT in other Euro countries?

You also seem to be unawares of how poor PT links have been and are in the M50 commuter belt. Once again it all comes back to poor planning policies, if you build a bypass and let politicians rezone land in whatever way they like, then it's inevitable there will be numerous small developments and one offs developed 10s of KMs away from the main urban area, which means you can't provide decent PT links and people have to rely on the car.

Aidan1

Would there be less traffic in Dublin had the M50 not been in place?

Yes, there would be, for two reasons.

1. The same level of economic growth would not have occurred (which is why the M50 was required).
2. That economic growth which did occur would not have been as car focussed, due to the additional useage costs imposed on motorists (the costs, in time, spent stuck in traffic.

Would economic growth not have happened without the M50?

As above, there would have been economic growth, but the M50 was, and remains a vital economic artery which supports a larger economy than would otherwise be the case. This is why spending money on infrastructure is an 'investment', and why investments must be safeguarded to preserve their efficiency.

There's a paradox at the heart of the argument in your last post - the M50 was either required, or it was not. It is either necessary anda major causal factor in traffic growth, or unneccessary and peripheral to economic growth. You seem to be suggesting that the M50 was irrelevant to economic growth, but necessary all the same to move traffic around. How can it be necessary but irrelevant?

On Galway, you've effectively made my argument for me. As per the figures quoted repeatedly by Monument, the majority of the journeys that cross the QB in Galway are initiated within the city - people are effectively commuting from one side of the city to the other.

(I'm sure you've seen this before Anto, but for other readers, this is informative; http://www.galwaycity.ie/AllServices/CommunityCulture/ProjectsandSchemes/GalwayCityAtlas20082009/FileEnglish,5903,en.pdf)

When the bypass opens at some point in the next decade, what will happen is that the commuter traffic that leaves Barna/Rahoon/Knocknacarra will head west to the GCOB, around the ring, and back in at junction 21 or 20, joining the commuter traffic coming from Tuam/Athenry/Limerick. Instead of being at QB, the congestion will simply move to the Eastern approaches to the city (and the inverse in the evening). It will probably be less, in a net sense, at the outset, but not for long. How do I know this? Well, apart from it being the case everywhere, we have an existing example in Ireland already, in Cork. As Iwannahurl pointed out, the JLT is way over capacity, and has been for years, not just because it's on a national route, but because it facilitates cross town commuting, and has driven traffic volumes by dint of its very existence. The same will happen to Galway, unless some means are found to get people across the city without them having to get into their car. After all, having them queue up in Ballybrit or Mervue as opposed to getting across the QB isn't a huge change for the better.

antoobrien

Aidan1 wrote: »

Yes, there would be, for two reasons.

1. The same level of economic growth would not have occurred (which is why the M50 was required).
2. That economic growth which did occur would not have been as car focussed, due to the additional useage costs imposed on motorists (the costs, in time, spent stuck in traffic.


As above, there would have been economic growth, but the M50 was, and remains a vital economic artery which supports a larger economy than would otherwise be the case. This is why spending money on infrastructure is an 'investment', and why investments must be safeguarded to preserve their efficiency.

There's a paradox at the heart of the argument in your last post - the M50 was either required, or it was not. It is either necessary anda major causal factor in traffic growth, or unneccessary and peripheral to economic growth. You seem to be suggesting that the M50 was irrelevant to economic growth, but necessary all the same to move traffic around. How can it be necessary but irrelevant?

Not saying not irrlevant, just saying it's not the only factor. It seems from your post you agree that the level of traffic generated by the economic growth is not all down to the M50, which is where I was trying to get. Fair?

Aidan1 wrote: »

On Galway, you've effectively made my argument for me. As per the figures quoted repeatedly by Monument, the majority of the journeys that cross the QB in Galway are initiated within the city - people are effectively commuting from one side of the city to the other.

Sorry but you're describing the cross town traffic I've described. It's clear that there are two major routes across town N6 corridor (QB) and Wolfe Tone - Bohermore (R336 on Google maps), the traffic fall off patterns are too similar to discount. I've seen the traffic on the ground, through having been in cars, buses, walked and cycled around it during rush hour and it's clear that a significant portion (I'd say probably half) is cross town traffic.

Aidan1 wrote: »

When the bypass opens at some point in the next decade, what will happen is that the commuter traffic that leaves Barna/Rahoon/Knocknacarra will head west to the GCOB, around the ring, and back in at junction 21 or 20, joining the commuter traffic coming from Tuam/Athenry/Limerick.
.
.
.
having them queue up in Ballybrit or Mervue as opposed to getting across the QB isn't a huge change for the better.

Instead of oh say, getting off at the Headford road and using BNT (which should now have far less traffic) to get to Parkmore? There are so many extra routes provided by the bypass that are not immediately obvious to those that don't know Galway. I know it's not a panacea, but it should allow things like the Galway smarter travel plan which will proposes to close off places like Forst St to everything but local traffic. It's gotta go somewhere

I agree that the junction at the Headford Rd isn't ideally placed, but the reason for it is so that traffic on the Tuam Rd will use the M17/18 to get past Claregalway and not just continue going in the N17 to access the bypass. I'd like to see it between the Headford and Tuam roads with a small link rd (I think it'd only be something like 2/3 km) which would minimize impact of junctions on the existing roads and maximize the distributive effects of the road. And before IWH gets onto my case for being a property developer again I don't and my relations don't (to my knowledge) own land in the area, so it's not to open it up for houses.

In case you haven't noticed (but then you'd know this if you were from Galway) Ballybrit & Mervue can't get any worse. that is unless the RAB conversion turns out to be as bad as I (and from what I hear the residents of Mervue & Ballybrit) fear it will be.

antoobrien

I don't have figures for employment in 1990 for any of the towns you've mentioned but I do know that there are more people in employment in both Galway & Dublin in 2006 than there were in 1990. There has also been a marked reduction in the number of jobs in the county areas in most of the areas serving the cities above (Dublin probably being the exception).

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Portlaoise (urban pop. c. 3500, "rural" pop. c. 11000) was bypassed in 1997, and in the years 1996-2002 experienced a 41% growth in local population, much of that influx being car-dependent Dublin commuters. There is also no sign that the town itself has experienced a reduction in local traffic. On the contrary, there is evidence that even housing developments that were intended to reduce the impact of car use reveal a level of car dependence so high that their owners can not or will not walk a few meters from a designated parking court to their own front door.

Really, in 2006 the CSO had this to say about Portlaoise:

5,018 workers resided in Portlaoighise in April 2006. Of these, 2,615 worked outside the town, leaving 2,403 persons who both lived and worked in the town. A further 4,198 workers travelled, into Portlaoighise to work resulting in a working population of 6,601. Portlaoighise was therefore a net gainer in employment terms.

Thats > 50% inward travel for employment. No reason for extra traffic then.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Athlone (urban population c. 7000, "rural" pop. c. 10,000) was bypassed in the early 1990s.

6,122 workers resided in Athlone in April 2006. Of these, 2,838 worked outside the town leaving 3,284 persons who both lived and worked in the town. A further 4,424 workers travelled into Athlone to work resulting in a working population of 7,708. Athlone was therefore a net gainer in employment terms.

Thats > 50% inward travel for employment. Again absolutely no reason for the extra traffic then.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

In Dublin City, the M50 has provided significant benefits after major remedial works were carried out to reduce congestion, part of which was due to traffic-generating developments in its vicinity.

50% of the city population that can drive don't own a car, so in common with other towns and cities the traffic is being generated by external factors like people coming in for employment, business & recreation.

394,720 workers resided in Dublin City in April 2006. Of these 56,752 worked outside the city leaving 337,968 who both lived and worked in the city. A further 104,865 workers travelled into Dublin to work resulting in a working population of 442,833. Dublin City was therefore a net gainer in employment terms.

Well whaddya know, less people coming in from outside than already live there. Congestion with the PT network available to the Dubs, whatever next? Reorganization of said network, well lets see, this is what happened when Dublin bus attempted to change the schedule of the 128, which runs between Clongriffin (N32) & Rathmines (south Dublin, so you don't have to look it up on gmaps) to allow the start & finish of routes at the Quays. Strike.

Limited service: 4, 27, 29a, 31, 32/b, 37x, 38/a, 38b/c, 39, 39x, 41, 41x, 42/a/b, 103, 130, 237.

Cancelled routes: 4a, 13/13a, 17a, 27b, 27x, 31b, 32a, 32x, 33b, 40/a/b/c/d, 42, 42a, 43, 53/a, 83, 102, 104, 128, 140, 142, 238, 239, 270.

The dispute follows the suspension of one driver who refused to work a new schedule on the 128 route.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Traffic levels in Cork City's impressive Jack Lynch Tunnel apparently exceeded projections by a large multiple within four years of its opening in 1999.

65,288 workers resided in Cork City (including its suburbs) in April 2006. Of these, 13,085 worked outside the city leaving 52,203 persons who both lived and worked in the city. A further 31,909 workers travelled into Cork City to work resulting in a working population of 84,112. Cork City was therefore a significant net gainer in employment terms – second only to Dublin City in absolute terms.

Nope, no need for that traffic there either.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Severely congested Galway City is a bypass candidate and a Smarter Travel applicant

You do realize that the "Smarter Travel" plans are based on 2006 figures, which are now out of date, right? For a quick analysis of traffic flow see my previous post (its based on that map you couldn't read in the bypass thread). The CSO figures also indicate that almost half those working in the city don't live there.

It's interesting that in the local press schoolkids get such a going over during term time for not walking/cycling to school. The figures indicate that 5,285 people walk and 1,098 cycle to work. The city travel statistics from the same census indicate that there are 13,363 foot journeys and 2,309 bike journeys. But as I've shown before there are approximately 5,550 car passengers going to school.

26,017 workers resided in Galway City in April 2006. Of these, 5,056 worked outside the city leaving 20,961 persons who both lived and worked in the city. A further 18,931 workers traveled into Galway City to work resulting in a working population of 39,892. Galway City was therefore a significant net gainer in employment terms and had the third largest working population in the State after Dublin and Cork.

18k people from an area with poor pt crowding into 4 junctions within 1.5km of road, no reason for any congestion there.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I would ask those who would prefer to circle the wagons rather than engage meaningfully and constructively with these issues to provide any example of another city (or large town) in Ireland where a bypass has led to a sustainable reduction in traffic within the bypassed area, especially in tandem with measures that reduce car use and car dependence (preferably in keeping with the rhetoric of 'giving the heart of cities back to the people', 'breathing new life into the residents' and 'allowing city dwellers, visitors and tourists to enjoy a more pleasant, healthier and safer environment'). I may be missing one or two, but I am open to correction.

[/QUOTE]

You're as usual focusing on a single symptom of the problem, not even bothering to dig a bit deeper to look for causes because it fits your ideological world view. If you had you might have come up with some of the material I have quoted from.

If discussion is being hindered on this board it's because of you. So stop trying to pretend that you're anything but anti-car, you consistently ignore the fact that employment, business & leisure activities creates traffic not the existence of roads. Instead you choose to focusing on other things like where pople have chosen to live. Or as one person I have talked to, who had to move out of Dublin so that they could raise their family in a home that they afford live, people feel they were forced to move to for economic reasons. It's not all down to things like that and you're attempts to make it all about things like one off housing or Dublin based commutes are lame.

At this point I'm getting out, there's no talking sense to zealots like you.

SeanW

Aidan1 wrote: »

To be frank, the only thing displayed in Post 144 is a casual disregard for the concept of causality. Without the M50, a lot of the traffic that uses it would never have arisen in the first instance, for good or for ill, so the suggestion of removing it now 'proves' nothing.

For the sake of argument, lets say you're right. Which bypasses should not have been built?

Zubeneschamali

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Athlone has experienced a large increase in car use and car dependence, with a concomitant decrease in active commuting, even among schoolchildren.

Did the bypass deliver the goods? For the town? Yes, congestion dropped through the floor, journey times dropped, everyone can commute in minutes. For the Dublin-Galway traffic? Yes, 30-60 minutes off a Friday evening trip.

Could you have made it a cycling mecca with the N6 going the whole length of the town down the main street? No. Has anyone tried since the bypass went in? No, because nobody cares but you.

Aidan1

Fair?

Fair.

There are so many extra routes provided by the bypass that are not immediately obvious to those that don't know Galway.

Absolutely, which is why it should be built. The problem is that in the absence of other measures, each and every one of them would become clogged up in short order. You can try and build your way out of those pinch points in due course (just like they've done in Cork, with the KRR and the two other junctions being addressed now), but you will run into obvious issues of space. It's worse in Galway because of the environmental restrictions over Lough Corrib, and the geography of the place (and the fact that the city centre itself is extremely 'tight', narrow streets etc). Cork had all of this already, and after the BKS study in the 1970s, at least tried to integrate Land Use and Transport planning (LUTS).

Again, as Iwannahurl has pointed out repeatedly (and the link I posted shows), most of the journeys in Galway are generated in the city, and are less than 9km in distance. Are you really suggesting that the only way to get these people from A-B is via an orbital motorway?

Ballybrit & Mervue can't get any worse

I do know Galway, and it can always get worse. In fact, it will. More to the point, the generally crap nature of Galway traffic now is not an excuse for making it worse in future by simply avoiding the issue. The OCB will buy time and space, if and when it comes. But regardless of whether or not its built, the CC (and County Council) will still have to get stuck into planning to provide for other means of transport.

There has also been a marked reduction in the number of jobs in the county areas in most of the areas serving the cities above

Without being picky, no, there hasn't been (although it will depend on how you define those areas). In fact, economic and population growth has become increasingly concentrated in the peri-urban regions, as the 2011 census shows. Our urban transit problems are going to get worse, not better.

At this point I'm getting out

That would be a pity - this debate is hugely informative (for me, don't know about anyone else), and in the absence of actual news of investment, a good advertisement for this forum. It would be a pity to lose well informed posters, and a healthy debate.

Aidan1

For the sake of argument, lets say you're right. Which bypasses should not have been built?

For the sake of argument, where did I say that any of them shouldn't have been built? In fact, so far I've explicitly said that the M50 should have been built, and the GCOB should be built. The point I'm flailing about trying to make is that merely slapping up a bypass, crossing your fingers, and hoping is not enough.

Amtmann

Aidan1 wrote:

As has been said throughout the thread, by several posters, by passes are a critical part of the transport infrastructure of any large developed world city. But they only 'deliver the goods' if they are built as part of a supportive planning enviroment - the M50 is an orbital motorway as much as it is a a 'bypass', but it ceased being effective at delivering the goods' (getting goods vehicles to where they needed to be) because the city was allowed to envelop it, and swamp it with traffic. While, it is also the case that it undoubtedly facilitated a significant amount of economic growth by allowing freerer movement of goods (the point of a 'bypass'), you also have to account for the fact that the 'goods' it was supposed to deliver were stuck in traffic made up of vast numbers of car based commuters, each cursing the 'traffic'.

So, on foot of the above and the previous 175 odd posts, is there any new ground left for the thread to cover?

tharlear

So, on foot of the above and the previous 175 odd posts, is there any new ground left for the thread to cover?

I think this has been an interesting dabate and worth continuing. (due to time zone issues I'm rather sidelined)There has been some going of on tangents,using galway moate as an examples, and the claims of anti-road and anti cylce, anti ped , anti dub, anti country.
But much of it is bringing out information and data that others many not have seen before, or knew how to access.

tharlear

I do know Galway, and it can always get worse. In fact, it will. More to the point, the generally crap nature of Galway traffic now is not an excuse for making it worse in future by simply avoiding the issue. The OCB will buy time and space, if and when it comes. But regardless of whether or not its built, the CC (and County Council) will still have to get stuck into planning to provide for other means of transport.

It will buy time just as the Wolf Tone bridge and the QB bought time. The outer bypass will fill up as the population increases.
The city center has expanded hughly in the last 20 years, as I've said before, very few people/apt in the city center pre 1980's, 30 years on the population/number of apartments 1.0KM from Lynches castle (I'm taking that cross roads as being a centre point, others may not agree) has increased dramatically.
The city will expand outward in the next 20 years, and if the CC stop one offs(as some would like) it will accelerate the citys expansion.
Population grows, people need jobs, they move to the city, they need houses and roads, and cycle paths and footpaths and schools and PT (once cie is killed and they have resaon to believe it will turn up)

The car is not going to go away any time soon even if the doomsday peak oil folks are right, another "fuel" will power the car (personnal transportation device) of the future.

The m50 was Dublins bypass, how many companies are located on the m50 or on the motorways that connect to it. The m50 is one of the biggest ecomonic engines in Ireland.
Cork has the southern ring road, a northern ring road has been proposed, waterford has a bypass, Limerick has one also.
These bypass will be the backbone of future investmant.
Galway may get along without one but the city expansion will then occour on the eastern side of the river, and around the m6/m17-18 junction. The western side of the city/county will be at an economic disadvantage without a bypass.This area already has historic disadvantages due to lack of investmant.

Then we have a repeat of what happened to many I grew up with including myself. If you can't get a job in dublin you sit on the dole or leave. Infastructure investment is what moves modern ecomonies, in a small country like Irleand education, broadband, power, roads, water sewage, and rail in Dublin will be what drives the new (next) wave of foreign (US) investmant. The motorways are the only thing that has change dramatically in the last 10 years.

Aidan1

is there any new ground left for the thread to cover?

Given how widely the subject has roamed, and the diversity of views expressed, I would imagine that there is. Ultimately it's not my call to make, but I would suggest letting this run - just because I'm all talked out on the subject doesn't mean that others can't have a run at it.

SeanW

Iwannahurl wrote: »

any sustainable road safety strategy tries to emphasise 'forgiveness' in the system. Lower speed is an essential part of any such strategy.

If you think 30 km/h zones are a "rather silly idea" then it appears you rate your own opinion higher than the established evidence showing a clear benefit for them in terms of reductions in death and injury, especially among children.

You are familiar with the concept of Moral hazard? Basically if you insulate Peter from the consequences of all or part of his stupidity by making Paul assume liability for it, Peter is going to act like a right tool. That's what happened in the banking system, and in the U.K. the cycling lobby wants a blanket "bigger vehicle pays" insurance law whereby in the case of any road accident, the user with the largest vehicle pays (via insurance) regardless of who caused the accident. I.E. under laws the cyclists lobbies want, a cyclist/pedestrian come come drunk out of an alleyway, charge right into the path of an oncoming car in such a way that the motorist could not possibly see them in time, but the motorist would be held absolutely 100% at fault and fully liable.

Also most people will have a "risk tolerance" (I think that's the term) which means that people will take risks for reward up until they perceive the risks to be of a certain level. Most pedestrians, myself included, will take MUCH greater care with traffic going at 80kph late at night than with traffic going at 30kph at most times of the day. Though I accept that you have a point re: children, I would imagine that's more of an issue in residential areas or around schools.

Regarding specifically the 30kph zone in Dublin, is there ANY evidence that it has saved lives? Had there been a single case in the preceding years of an accident causing a death that could have been avoided but for the fact that the motorist was traveling between 30kph and 50kph specifically? Even one case that you are aware of?

SeanW

Galway may get along without one but the city expansion will then occour on the eastern side of the river, and around the m6/m17-18 junction. The western side of the city/county will be at an economic disadvantage without a bypass.This area already has historic disadvantages due to lack of investmant.

This is the only problem I have with the Galway Bypass - it would indeed allow more development in the Western side of the city - I believe this would be a mistake because the railways are all on the East side - Oranmore could have a station built for it, Athenry, the Northern portion of the WRC etc. If the city does grow towards the Eastern side, e.g. with a new train station in Oranmore and new business parks located there, there would be a genuine chance to get people out of their cars by using "carrots" rather than "sticks."