N6 - Galway outer bypass: Is it needed?

antoobrien

what_traffic wrote: »

So will it be An Bord Plenala that decide's this "IROPI" once the County/City Council submit the new plans?

From previous judgements it appears that if IROPI is argued, then the commission must approve the compensatory measures proposed to offset the loss of habitat.

This guidance document from the Marine Management Organisation in the UK has a flowchart of the steps required, as well as sample forms for the submission to the Commission supporting the request.

This part of the discussion (the process) probably belongs back in infra as it has nothing to do with commuting. Will I start a thread on it, as it affects more than just GCOB?

monument

This is the commuting AND transport forum.

The IROPI process seems intertwined with the discussion on this thread.

antoobrien

monument wrote: »

This is the commuting AND transport forum.

The IROPI process seems intertwined with the discussion on this thread.

The process has much wider implications than just transport, e.g. the building of interperative centres in places like the burren (remember that?), fisheries works on the Corrib, the use of Galway bay (the powerboat races last year), the potential flooding of 500 acres of bog in Laois/Offaly to create a another artificial lake to support Dublin.

So yeah, I'm thinking that this forum is a bit restrictive.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

You're not fooling anyone except yourself.

That's glib and self-serving, coming as it does from someone who earlier dismissed the 2007 Galway Strategic Bus Study as "vaporware".

It's also an attempt at dodging real debate. Other posters in this thread and elsewhere have tried the same approach: attacking a fabricated or distorted version of someone's position in order to claim some sort of hollow victory in specious arguments. There's a name for that kind of thing.

Iwannahurl

what_traffic wrote: »

So will it be An Bord Plenala that decide's this "IROPI" once the County/City Council submit the new plans?

My understanding is that, in the context of Priority sites, the Local Authority and An Bord Pleanala would be regarded as the "competent authorities" in determining IROPI only in the area of human health and safety.

The EU Commission ultimately determines IROPI in relation to all other aspects, or so I believe.

Key components of IROPI are compensatory measures and the consideration of alternatives. I'm not sure where the former stands after the ECJ and Supreme Court decisions, but I suspect the latter will be a very interesting exercise. The relevant government minister deals with compensatory measures, subject to final EU approval one supposes.

The assessment of alternative solutions is a process by which an examination is made of alternative ways of achieving the objectives of the plan/project, which would avoid or reduce any adverse effects on the integrity of the Natura 2000 network of sites. The assessment of alternative solutions is required when the Competent Authority, at the Appropriate Assessment stage, has concluded that an adverse effect is likely, or cannot be ruled out. Alternative solutions could incorporate alternative locations, different scales or designs for the development, or the provision of alternative production processes. The ‘zero-option’ or ‘do-nothing’ scenario must also be considered as part of the exercise and it is also necessary to consider the relative impacts of the other alternative solutions upon the Natura 2000 network. Source: http://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/licensing/public_register/cases/documents/sacd/annexe.pdf

My understanding is also that the public interest can only be overriding if it is long-term. Public interests that are short-term economic benefits, for example, or other aspects which would bring only short-term benefits for society are probably not regarded as being sufficient.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

That's glib and self-serving, coming as it does from someone who earlier dismissed the 2007 Galway Strategic Bus Study as "vaporware".

Something that promises big but fails to deliver (or be delivered) is classic vaporware, not clib but concise.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It's also an attempt at dodging real debate. Other posters in this thread and elsewhere have tried the same approach: attacking a fabricated or distorted version of someone's position in order to claim some sort of hollow victory in specious arguments. There's a name for that kind of thing.

I might take you seriously if you didn't shout stawman every time you see an argument you do not like, or if you acknowledge that the posiiton set forth in your posts is at odds with what your stated position. This is not doging debate, this is putting forward an inconvenient truth.


If you would like to see dodging debate, this thread is a clear example of discussion of items that have aboslutely nothing to do with the potential provison of an outer bypass of galway, but we're stuck trying to get out of the mud becuase the debate can't be moved on to the real issues because certain parties do not want it to get there becuase their position would become immediately & clearly untenible.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

This is not doging debate, this is putting forward an inconvenient truth.

Nice one. The Bellman meets Al Gore.

antoobrien wrote: »

Something that promises big but fails to deliver (or be delivered) is classic vaporware, not clib but concise.

Hmmm, promises big but fails to deliver. Like the Waterford Bypass perhaps?

Sponge Bob wrote: »

This will have to be the first bypass where they drop the toll. I reckon it is only taking 4000 cars a day off the Rice Bridge in Waterford ( around 10% of traffic pre bypass) and that 37,000 cars are still taking the Rice Bridge daily.

Anybody reckon the bypass is taking 14000 cars a day , not out of Waterford itself it ain't??

And if any green gobsh1te wants to try tolling the Galway Bypass I will strangle him !

SeanW

And that (assuming its true) has nothing to do with the fact that the Waterford "Bypass" is tolled? I've seen the M4 toll literally cause a tailback all the way from Enfield to Kilcock the entire length of the old road - I assume a similar dynamic transpires in other places with tolled bypasses e.g. Waterford.

They aren't planning to toll the GCOB I hope?

monument

SeanW wrote: »

The roads forming the current N6 may not be so densely urban, but it has still become what the American advocacy groups calls a "Stroad" that is, a hybrid combination of a "Street" and a "Road." that provides poor value for money and fails abjectly at both roles. I'll let Strong Towns explain what a Stroad is far better than I could.

N6 does not really fit into the meaning of a Stroad. The west side of the Headford Road section is the only bit that even comes close and not very close at that.

antoobrien wrote: »

http://www.cso.ie/en/census/census2011reports/census2011populationclassifiedbyareaformerlyvolumeone/ - table CD118.

For those of you too lazy to click on the link the actual number of permanent residents west of the city boundary is 39,238,

Grand, I stand corrected -- 39k spread over ~1,600km².

A central problem is most don't go near the city on a daily bases. For example, the only 3,663 commute into the city for work (2011 Cencus Powscar data) and you'd image some of those would be working on the west side of the city -- and Barna alone accounts for nearly 25% of the 3,663.

Away from the city, smallpercentages of people [work in the city] ...

antoobrien wrote: »

Lets not forget the industry west of the corrib, which can not develop because goods can't get out

Delay or slower travel does not equal "can't get out"!

In any case, the delay in most cases of goods following the N6 route would equal so little of the overall journey that its hardly relevant.

antoobrien wrote: »

meaning that connemara residents have to look to the city for work - further increasing strain on the city infrastructure

The map above shows that small percentages of Connemara work in the city -- under 10% in most areas and in areas above 10% the actual numbers are only between 7-12 people working in Galway City!

antoobrien wrote: »

Nah the parking and other such trivia is much more relevant because of

Parking is trivia?

antoobrien wrote: »

the ridiculous notion that a minor change is all that's needed, rather than actually looking at what's affecting the system.

Who exactly said a minor change is all that is needed? Can you quote them?

monument

Cut the personlisations out!

SeanW

monument wrote: »

N6 does not really fit into the meaning of a Stroad. The west side of the Headford Road section is the only bit that even comes close and not very close at that.

I disagree, the existing route East-West - and remember that the N6 only forms part of it - is trying very much to fulfil both the roles of a road and city street. On the N6 the Headford Road is very much a Stroad, last time I was there trying to leave Salthill it was a traffic hellhole, and this is some years back. It fails miserably as a road but you couldn't very well call it a street either. Lets not forget that Iwannahurl complains bitterly about the current N6 being used as a Road (again see the definition, large volumes of high speed long distance traffic) by complaining about people driving 80-100kph on a section of it that has a single housing estate access, plus all the moaning about roundabouts) so it's very difficult to see how the current N6 (even the old dual carriageway section that has had roundabouts removed because they're too motorist "centric") can be called a "Road"

But of course the East-West route also includes large portions of the R338 after the N6 finishes plus the N59 for traffic heading North West. Not so familiar with the latter but again - if you go by the Strong Towns definitions (which I do) none of these can be called "Roads."

So in as much as they try to accommodate long distance traffic on city streets, they can only be called Stroads, and that's not good.

SeanW

monument wrote: »

Delay or slower travel does not equal "can't get out"!

Businesses need to get their goods out quickly and in a predictable timeframe for cost, fleet management reasons etc. A place that has actual roads for high speed long distance motor traffic will be more competitive than a place where the business depends on low speed, unreliable, traffic congested urban streets. We should also be doing what we can IMO to make railfreight etc more competitive but that's another story.

monument

SeanW wrote: »

I disagree, the existing route East-West - and remember that the N6 only forms part of it - is trying very much to fulfil both the roles of a road and city street. On the N6 the Headford Road is very much a Stroad, last time I was there trying to leave Salthill it was a traffic hellhole, and this is some years back. It fails miserably as a road but you couldn't very well call it a street either. Lets not forget that Iwannahurl complains bitterly about the current N6 being used as a Road (again see the definition, large volumes of high speed long distance traffic) by complaining about people driving 80-100kph on a section of it that has a single housing estate access, plus all the moaning about roundabouts) so it's very difficult to see how the current N6 (even the old dual carriageway section that has had roundabouts removed because they're too motorist "centric") can be called a "Road"

But of course the East-West route also includes large portions of the R338 after the N6 finishes plus the N59 for traffic heading North West. Not so familiar with the latter but again - if you go by the Strong Towns definitions (which I do) none of these can be called "Roads."

So in as much as they try to accommodate long distance traffic on city streets, they can only be called Stroads, and that's not good.

Look, it's nothing like the US examples where frontage of business is directly onto the road, where there is on-street parking and way more access points than most of the N6.

There's 30km/h limits on motorway slips -- does that make them Strodes? No, it does not and you'll find roads are not just for cars!

SeanW wrote: »

Businesses need to get their goods out quickly and in a predictable timeframe for cost, fleet management reasons etc. A place that has actual roads for high speed long distance motor traffic will be more competitive than a place where the business depends on low speed, unreliable, traffic congested urban streets. We should also be doing what we can IMO to make railfreight etc more competitive but that's another story.

My main point was that it is hyperbole to say goods can't be got out currently.

My second point was that the delay with the current trips likely will not be that notable given the overall journey time.

Nothing you have said really deals with those points -- furthermore, many businesses do not their goods out as quick -- many are not as time dependent. But working in a business that got something from Galway overnight the other day after ordering it the evening before and one that brings goods into Galway often, I think talking up congestion's affect on goods is a none-runner and as usually you can help goods move faster by dealing with unnecessary car trips. The rush hour for cross-country cargo is in any case after the commuting rush hour, but if you want to help the small amout of more time dependent trips you cut unnecessary car trips.

SeanW

monument wrote: »

Look, it's nothing like the US examples where frontage of business is directly onto the road, where there is on-street parking and way more access points than most of the N6.

You're right: in Galway it's far worse, along the N6 and R338, there are shopping centres and supermarkets that are far in from the stroads with vast car parks. From my memories of the current East-West route, it makes the Stroad in that video look pleasent by comparison. I just don't think the current East-West route is appropriate either for through traffic or local travel. And its the mix of the two that makes it so.

There's 30km/h limits on motorway slips

Which I think are bat**** crazy, in some cases.

-- does that make them Strodes?

No, because they are grade separated and designed primarily for cars. That makes them roads.

No, it does not and you'll find roads are not just for cars!

True, but roads are primarily designed for motor traffic. Streets are primarily designed to capture value in a limited space, so transport wise the are designed primarily for everything other than motor traffic (with the possible exception of buses).

This is why I am a big time supporter of bypass construction (combined with severe planning laws against building houses, shops etc onto roads) they allow for clear demarcation between streets (designed to capture local value) and roads (desinged to facilitate large scale motor traffic).

SeanW

monument wrote: »

Nothing you have said really deals with those points -- furthermore, many businesses do not their goods out as quick -- many are not as time dependent. But working in a business that got something from Galway overnight the other day after ordering it the evening before and one that brings goods into Galway often, I think talking up congestion's affect on goods is a none-runner and as usually you can help goods move faster by dealing with unnecessary car trips. The rush hour for cross-country cargo is in any case after the commuting rush hour, but if you want to help the small amout of more time dependent trips you cut unnecessary car trips.

Granted I have limited knowledge here but I remember a television debate about a proposal for a dual carriageway from the N11/N25 junction to Rosslare Europort (this is some years back) and the debate was on between:

1. A community of NIMBYs saying it wasn't needed.
2. The Irish Exporters Association saying "we need speed and reliability in our freight movements, and this will help"

To do that you need roads, as defined by Strong Towns, clearly and unapolagetically catering to the needs of motor traffic, i.e. freight lorries. Otherwise you risk creating too much variance in freight transit times.

monument

SeanW wrote: »

Which I think are bat**** crazy, in some cases. Of course, no matter how insanse a 30kph limit on a motorway slip road or overpass, some people would rather choke *** cough cough, Iwannahurl *** than admit that they might be too low or admit that a motorist exceeding them may have a reason other than recklessness to do so.

There was just a warning about personlisations a few posts above -- cut it out!

- Mod

SeanW wrote: »

You're right: in Galway it's far worse, along the N6 and R338, there are shopping centres and supermarkets that are far in from the stroads with vast car parks. From my memories of the current East-West route, it makes the Stroad in that video look pleasent by comparison. I just don't think the current East-West route is appropriate either for through traffic or local travel. And its the mix of the two that makes it so.

I've just re-read Strong Towns stuff on Stroads -- the N6 overall just noes not fit into their meaning of what is a Stroad. If you want to continue to claim otherwise, that's fine.

In any case, I've already said access should and can be limited more along the route -- that would be a key part of upgrading the route to be more aimed at longer-distance traffic.

SeanW wrote: »

True, but roads are primarily designed for motor traffic. Streets are primarily designed to capture value in a limited space, so transport wise the are designed primarily for everything other than motor traffic (with the possible exception of buses).

Not really. Both are defined by function and not what mode of transport uses them.

A road is supposed to be designed for as a thoroughfare -- for travel along it regardless of mode of transport.

A street is supposed to be the destination with less priority on movement. Regardless of personal views of what should get priority, streets can be primarily designed for motor traffic -- ie mostly taken up by parking, traffic lanes etc.

Both roads and streets pre-date motor traffic.

SeanW

I've just re-read Strong Towns stuff on Stroads -- the N6 overall just noes not fit into their meaning of what is a Stroad. If you want to continue to claim otherwise, that's fine.

Again; the current N6 is only a part of the current East-West route, that includes the R338 and N59. But I see many similarities on the Headford Road part of the N6. Plus some of the complaints from certain quarters about the rest of the N6 re: roundabouts, housing estate accesses etc.

In any case, I've already said access should and can be limited more along the route -- that would be a key part of upgrading the route to be more aimed at longer-distance traffic.

And to be fair you have given some good examples as to how you would do this, but I contend that these would only ever work for part of the route, i.e. up as far as the Headford Road. Beyond that I don't there should be any attempt to upgrade the thoroughfare beacuse they are city streets and should be treated as such. Again, this includes the Headford Road, R338 and N59.

That's where a bypass comes in.

Not really. Both are defined by function and not what mode of transport uses them.

A road is supposed to be designed for as a thoroughfare -- for travel along it regardless of mode of transport.

Fair enough, but I am sure you will agree that regarding medium-long distance travel, motors are going to be a very large part of that, if not the majority.

A street is supposed to be the destination with less priority on movement.

Again, true. Fair cop. But I tend to agree with ST that a street will not function as expected if there is too heavy an emphasis on motorised traffic. Sometimes its unavoidable: you will need lots of parking on a street if its a destination that people drive to, there will also be cases where people use a street as a main trunk route within a local area, such Dorset Street in Dublin being the main route from the City Centre to Drumcondra and points North (and I once lived in Dublin and sometimes used it as a both a street and a road).

And in the case of Dorset Street or the Dublin "Circular" roads, a "Stroad-ish" profile of usage is sort of unavoidable. But with Galway, with the R338, Headford Road, N59 and the like it's absolutely 100% avoidable because there is a viable bypass proposal to eliminate a lot of that. That is why I disagree with bypass skepticism and disagree very strongly with the outright anti-bypass opposition that has been observed from certain quarters.

Aard

Would a tunnel underneath some of the narrower, non grade-separable stretches of the N6/R338 be feasible? Might it work out cheaper than the land acquisition and overall construction of the proposed bypass in the open countryside?

I would contend that having the new motorway interchanges as close as possible to the city would discourage sprawl (i.e. what got us into this mess in the first place), as well as keeping the city centre alive by not facilitating the growth of retail parks outsides the city.

Keeping the motorway inside the existing urban fabric also avoids the nasty problem of SAC/SPA/NHA interference. It would also be far better at facilitating cross-city traffic, something which I don't think the proposed design does a good job of.

Even if it cost the same, it might work out better in a cost-benefit analysis.

dowlingm

the tricky part about tunnel cost benefit is that they can be pricey to maintain over the longer run - look how much work has been done on Jack Lynch tunnel since opening.

monument

Short sections of cut and cover I'd imagine is cheaper to maintain than tunnels.

Iwannahurl

monument wrote: »

Delay or slower travel does not equal "can't get out"!

This notion of thousands of people being somehow trapped in Connemara due to the lack of a bypass is an example of the hyperbole associated with the proposal. The various threads on the GCOB are peppered with such rhetorical flourishes.

?Cee?view wrote: »

...cut off from the rest of the country due to traffic gridlock

The GCOB seems to mean different things to different people, at least rhetorically.

For example, we're led to believe that the bypass is needed as a bypass to get traffic out of the city that shouldn't be there, yet it also seems to be regarded as necessary for getting shoppers into the city so that they don't speed off to more distant and, but of course, car-friendly places:

"Business and retail outlets in the city are increasingly fearful that Galway’s headline position in the national traffic jam league will prompt customers to choose other locations for their main shopping expeditions.

This week, one city councillor, Nuala Nolan, said that she had been contacted by a number of shoppers from the county area who told her that they would be making Athlone their main shopping destination, after being caught up in last week’s city gridlock."

http://www.galwaynews.ie/21329-emergency-meeting-tackle-city-traffic-chaos

antoobrien wrote: »

all we have heard to this point is opposition to the plans, mostly from people outside of Galway (almost totally invalid, they don't have to sit in traffic to get the shopping)

The GCOB is apparently promising a lot to a lot of people. More on that anon.

SeanW

Yes, it is clearly the view taken locally that the current N6/R338 etc are congested with through traffic mixed with people going to those places as a destination.

With the bypass in place taking medium and long haul through traffic will be gone, and there will be road/street space for shoppers coming in from outside the city who must use their cars. You could argue that this is not the most efficient use of freed-up road space and I'm certain that you would prefer more bus lanes, cycle lanes, traffic lights, lower speed limts and all the rest, but the reasoning from the commercial sector seems clear.

I should have thought that this was self evident and that you would clearly be able to deduce this from your own links and quotations.

monument

SeanW wrote: »

Yes, it is clearly the view taken locally that the current N6/R338 etc are congested with through traffic mixed with people going to those places as a destination.

With the bypass in place taking medium and long haul through traffic will be gone, and there will be road/street space for shoppers coming in from outside the city who must use their cars. You could argue that this is not the most efficient use of freed-up road space and I'm certain that you would prefer more bus lanes, cycle lanes, traffic lights, lower speed limts and all the rest, but the reasoning from the commercial sector seems clear.

I should have thought that this was self evident and that you would clearly be able to deduce this from your own links and quotations.

Basically the space will be filled up by other motor traffic -- maybe not straight away but quickly enough. Likely extra local traffic as much as extra Co Galway and beyond traffic.

Then we'll back to wanting more roads build or maybe we can then add more lanes to the outer bypass and the N6.

antoobrien

Aard wrote: »

Would a tunnel underneath some of the narrower, non grade-separable stretches of the N6/R338 be feasible?

No, it was ruled out in the ABP inspectors report as being a) considerably more expensive and b) more damaging to the limestone slab than any of the proposed bridge options (7 in total).

galwaycyclist

SeanW wrote: »

With the bypass in place taking medium and long haul through traffic will be gone, and there will be road/street space for shoppers coming in from outside the city who must use their cars. You could argue that this is not the most efficient use of freed-up road space and I'm certain that you would prefer more bus lanes, cycle lanes, traffic lights, lower speed limts and all the rest, but the reasoning from the commercial sector seems clear.

This is indeed one of the central problems with an element of the pro-bypass arguments. The apparent intent is not to rid the city of unnecessary motor traffic but to change the types of trip that predominate within the mix of motor vehicles. The intent it seems is not to manage car use but to further facilitate greater use of cars around and within the city. The idea that shoppers from outside the city must use their cars is spurious and unsupportable. They may need cars to reach the city outskirts but the idea that they should then be facilitated to drive cars back and forth inside the city centre is ridiculous.

Providing for this would be an outright perversion of the bypass concept as it would be understood elsewhere on the northern European mainland. Of itself this vision of a bypass as a "traffic facilitation" measure provides direct grounds for opposing the bypass. This is something that the bypass lobby don't seem to get - that it is their own arguments for the bypass that are generating opposition to the bypass. If the bypass lobby wish to understand what is causing some of the opposition then they need only look in the mirror.

antoobrien

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Providing for this would be an outright perversion of the bypass concept as it would be understood elsewhere on the northern European mainland.

Define irony:

The justification of obstructing of a piece of infrastructure by arguing for the use of polices to provide an alternative when those policies require said piece of infrastructure present in order to enable the aforementioned policies.

galwaycyclist

antoobrien wrote: »

Define irony:

The justification of obstructing of a piece of infrastructure by arguing for the use of polices to provide an alternative when those policies require said piece of infrastructure present in order to enable the aforementioned policies.

Define disingenuousness:

The issue is that the policies are needed regardless of whether a particular piece of infrastructure is also needed. The policies are needed independently of whether or not a piece of infrastructure is provided.

Saying that one absolutely requires the other is, in my view, dishonest. Trying to make one the price of the other appears to confirm the weakness of some pro-bypass arguments and again invites the conclusion that other agendas are at work.

If the bypass argument stands on its own two legs then why not let it stand on them?

Afraid of something?

antoobrien

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Define disingenuousness:

Okay, here you go:

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Saying that one absolutely requires the other is, in my view, dishonest.

So stating that a house absolutely requires a foundation would be dishonest?

My opinion is based on an examination & analysis of the issues raised. There is a significant common thread in all the towns/cities raised that are considered to be acceptable alternatives to Galway: they all have bypasses.

So not only is the finding neither dishonest nor disingenuous, but it is a quite logical finding that a bypass must be a fundamental piece of infrastructure in facilitating those other initiatives.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Trying to make one the price of the other appears to confirm the weakness of some pro-bypass arguments and again invites the conclusion that other agendas are at work.

The surest sign that the "reasoned objectors" are running out of ideas is when they start claiming "that other agendas are at work", the ultimate strawman argument. I'm not going to let another such argument drag us away from the core of the problem: the fact that cross-town traffic is being funnelled into the main commercial area when it is not the intended destination of said traffic*.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

If the bypass argument stands on its own two legs then why not let it stand on them?

Oh but it does, that's the sad thing about the "reasoning" against the bypass. Every example of "alternatives" raised fall down on simple analysis, such as actually trying to quantify the supposed benefits of their provision.

The reasoning for the bypass is quite clear and I'll repeat it again: cross-town traffic is being funnelled into the main commercial area when it is not the intended destination of said traffic*.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Afraid of something?

Et tu Brute?

You & other posters have been repeatedly been asked for an example of a city that does what it is you ask without providing a bypass and you (collectively) have failed/refused to do so, claiming that it's irrelevant.

If you want to be taken seriously by town engineers anywhere, you'd better start producing case studies that can be assessed. The fact that you (collectively) have thus far failed/refused to do so is the real disingenuous trait being displayed in this "debate".

I'll give an example of an urban area that has grown up on two sides of a river (just like Galway), that has an unbalanced population development, but does provide alternatives that keeps traffic out of city center areas and provides plenty of PT: Liverpool/Birkenhead (strictly speaking two separate municipal areas, but then that was the case Galway & the Claddagh in the dim and distant past).

* traffic is an inclusive term indicating all users of a road system and should not be equated solely with private motorists.

antoobrien

monument wrote: »

N6 does not really fit into the meaning of a Stroad. The west side of the Headford Road section is the only bit that even comes close and not very close at that.

As a frequent cyclist and pedestrian on various sections of that road I will just laugh at that totally ridiculous statement. Facilities could be better but they by no means exclude cyclists and pedestrians.

monument wrote: »

Grand, I stand corrected -- 39k spread over ~1,600km².

Oh don't worry I'll get you to a realistic view of Galway's problems. The problem isn't the fact that the population is vastly higher than you had previously stated, or even that it's spread out over a large area. No the problem is what has happened over the past 50 or so years to make Connemara just like the rest of Co Galway - almost totally dependent on the city. But I've explained that a few times, so I'm not going over it again.

monument wrote: »

A central problem is most don't go near the city on a daily bases. For example, the only 3,663 commute into the city for work (2011 Cencus Powscar data) and you'd image some of those would be working on the west side of the city -- and Barna alone accounts for nearly 25% of the 3,663.

Why am I correcting you again, the commute from bearna (village) is 455 - less than half your percentage again.

monument wrote: »

Away from the city, smallpercentages of people [work in the city] ...

https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/5842/264494.JPG

Oh look, you've found out that Galway is largely rural (just like Mayo). Have you found out yet that it always has been, is slowly turning more urban (mostly in the past 30 years) and that the reason that people are travelling to Galway is that employment has more or less collapsed in the County?

monument wrote: »

Delay or slower travel does not equal "can't get out"!

Yes it does, if it's taking several times loner

monument wrote: »

In any case, the delay in most cases of goods following the N6 route would equal so little of the overall journey that its hardly relevant.

Talk about a logic fail. A friend of mine told me that it took a visitor 1 hour to get through town last week to visit her in Satlhill. That trip should take about 20 minutes (based on actual distance) so we're adding 40 minutes to a 2.5 hour trip from Galway to Dublin. That is a very significant delay to hauliers for whom time spent in traffic and waiting at ports is wasted money.

monument wrote: »

The map above shows that small percentages of Connemara work in the city -- under 10% in most areas and in areas above 10% the actual numbers are only between 7-12 people working in Galway City!

monument wrote: »

Parking is trivia?

The idea that the provision of parking in the city is the core of the problem is ludicrous and trivialising the issue. Also the idea that removing parking from the center will promote using buses is laughable, it will encourage them going elsewhere - as Dublin city centre found out when they bus gate was introduced.

monument wrote: »

Who exactly said a minor change is all that is needed? Can you quote them?

Everybody stating that TDM, buslanes or cycle lanes is all that's needed (that includes you I believe) are claiming that minor tinkering is needed.

Here's two quotes that I find particularly risible:

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Of course in some cases we are not even talking about tens of millions. We are talking about;

• spending a couple of thousand (at most) to knock a wall here and there

This (and the rest of the post, omitted for space) is a classic example of minor tinkering that will not help the target audience of cross town traffic.

galwaycyclist

antoobrien wrote: »

Okay, here you go:


So stating that a house absolutely requires a foundation would be dishonest?

My opinion is based on an examination & analysis of the issues raised. There is a significant common thread in all the towns/cities raised that are considered to be acceptable alternatives to Galway: they all have bypasses.

Yes, in my view, quite dishonest. The significant common thread of cities that manage their infrastructure sustainably is a decision to manage their infrastructure sustainably. Bypasses may be a component of policies to manage city infrastructure sustainably but they are not a "foundation". The "foundation" is the starting premise that private car use must be restricted in favour of the common good. In order for the Galway bypass to be supportable it must rest on such a foundation.

Otherwise, as we have just seen argued here, bypasses are also a component of unsustainable policies such as by using the extra road space created to hold even more private cars or to increase traffic speeds and flow.

antoobrien

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Yes, in my view, quite dishonest.

Well then I am glad that I don't share your "logic" because you are showing a fundamental lack of design know-how.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

The significant common thread of cities that manage their infrastructure sustainably is a decision to manage their infrastructure sustainably. Bypasses may be a component of policies to manage city infrastructure sustainably but they are not a "foundation".

Okay, then lets do a though experiment. Lets remove the Stockholm (a favourite "sustainable" example) ring road. What happens?

The approach roads get clogged up with traffic that is not trying to access areas on those routes but now have to use them in order to get to their intended destinations. This sounds eerily familiar, I wonder where we could have seen this before?

galwaycyclist wrote: »

The "foundation" is the starting premise that private car use must be restricted in favour of the common good. In order for the Galway bypass to be supportable it must rest on such a foundation.

Your definition of common good is obviously very different from mine, because to me the common good includes providing/improving access to facilities, not removing it. Measures that restrict car use without practical alternatives will not help, they will make the situation worse - see the bus gate in Dublin for what happens when "sustainability" and practicality aren't in the same room when a project is touted.

A solution that does not include a bypass of Galway is unsustainable because it will have the effect of further increasing the focus of traffic on the centre of the urban area, which is already unable to handle what it is getting.

But hey, we don't like cars in Galway, so lets not build a road that will keep those vehicles that do not need to be in the main commercial area out of it. That will help us get our "sustainable" future right?

The principle behind the proposed bypass is the same one behind those cities that you describe as sustainable - removing traffic from areas that is not the intended destination of said traffic. A very simple concept that is very fundamental to providing true sustainability of traffic.

SeanW

But hey, we don't like cars in Galway, so lets not build a road that will keep those vehicles that do not need to be in the main commercial area out of it. That will help us get our "sustainable" future right?

And that in my view is so deeply questonable about the bypass-skeptics side - it appears to be the view that "sustainability" is the only objective so it's OK to take actions that are extremely anti-motorist (such as congestion charging as advocated previously) without providing alternatives to those affected.

It's the main reason that I do not believe the "modal shift first" plans are not "modal shift only" because the only focus is on motorist hostility, without providing alternative routes. Indeed it had been specifically inferred that the "facilitation of private motorists" was fundamentally bad and IIRC there was a fear expressed not that the bypass would backfire, but that it would work, peoples lives would be improved and then with no problem left to solve, there would be no impetus for dramatically reduced speeds and congestion charges and whatnot, which for some I believe is the final objective.

There is little or nothing in any of your posts that would indicate you support a bypass under any circumstances and there has been zero condemntation of the individual who caused the bypasses current legal difficulties. Again, this makes me wonder whether your "modal shift first" plans are not really "modal shift only" plans?

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Saying that one absolutely requires the other is, in my view, dishonest.

Granted, it is not absolutely required, but when you advocate it you leave yourself open to a charge of anti-motorist extremism. If I understand correctly, your side is advocating large scale removals of road space from motorists, large scale reductions in parking, reductions in permitted speed allied with massive increases in enforcement, even possibly a London style congestion charge, but without providing an alternative for through traffic that's only going through the affected areas because there is no alternative - even though an alternative could be easily provided.

Sometimes this is unavoidable, as with intra-city traffic. But in this case the topic is regional and long distance traffic for which there was a bypass planned, only scuppered because a serial-objector got lucky in the courts.

If the bypass argument stands on its own two legs then why not let it stand on them?

Ok, well as Iwannahurls post clearly demonstrates, the bypass will do two things, in and of itself.

1. It will get traffic out of the urban areas it has no business in.
2. It will free up road space within the bypassed area.

What is done with the freed up road space is - in and of itself - an secondary, independent question. You could use it to add bus lanes and cycle tracks, etc (and this might not be a bad idea), you could use it to convert the existing roads into city streets with higher density development, or also you could use it to make access to the city easier for shoppers as the commercial interests seem to want - obviously this would boost the local economy. Or you could do a mix of all these.

SeanW

galwaycyclist wrote: »

They may need cars to reach the city outskirts but the idea that they should then be facilitated to drive cars back and forth inside the city centre is ridiculous.

Here's the thing, if you read Iwannahurls post you would see that many rural residents who go out for the day shopping have a choice between Galway and Athlone. Athlone does not have the same problems, because it has been bypassed. So shoppers have easy access to the place.

What you are proposing (assuming that you are not proposing large scale interference in the running of Athlone town) is that shoppers in Roscommon and suchlike parts should have the choice between:

1. Easy access to Athlone town (bypassed, so theres room for shoppers)
2. A congested mess in Galway with speed traps everywhere, sky parking costs and a congestion charge, all avoidable only by using a BUS for park and ride.

Hmmm ... which do you Joe Rós Commoner is going to choose?

Iwannahurl

galwaycyclist wrote: »

The apparent intent is not to rid the city of unnecessary motor traffic but to change the types of trip that predominate within the mix of motor vehicles.

The intent it seems is not to manage car use but to further facilitate greater use of cars around and within the city.

My reading of numerous posts in the various GCOB threads is that the rhetoric proclaims a bypass will simultaneously free up space for public transport, walking and cycling yet at the same time will facilitate car use within the city, all while having the remarkable property of not generating new traffic in Galway City or its 'rural' hinterland.

Such miraculous infrastructure would be great value for €300 million.

MYOB wrote: »

Those heading in to the city aren't going to get much benefit [from the Galway City Outer Bypass] but the bulk of them who are heading to anywhere but the city are.

Any traffic improvements for the city are nearly entirely unconnected to the bypass - and QBCs, cycle facilities etc are definitely part of the mix required for the city.

The bypass is needed as a bypass. Not a relief road for the city, it already has that, except its expected to carry masses of traffic around the city.

SeanW wrote: »

[The Galway City Outer Bypass] would benefit the city's tourism trade by making Salthill ... dramatically more accessible by providing tourists and daytrippers from the Midlands and West with a route less dependent on choked city streets

In this regard I thinks it's instructive to look at what has happened in Waterford City. The Census travel statistics clearly show a move away from walking, cycling and public transport and towards car use. One detail I find interesting is that the proportion of adult car passengers decreased while the percentage of car drivers notably increased. Curious also that the number of children cycling to secondary school before the bypass was equal to the number driving their own cars, but by 2011 the secondary school drivers outnumbered their cycling peers by more than two to one. Still, we should acknowledge the four-fold increase in the number of children travelling to primary school by bike two years after the Waterford bypass opened. Absolute pessimism is not warranted, perhaps.




Note: some CSO categories omitted for space reasons. All figures open to correction.

galwaycyclist

SeanW wrote: »

Here's the thing, if you read Iwannahurls post you would see that many rural residents who go out for the day shopping have a choice between Galway and Athlone. Athlone does not have the same problems, because it has been bypassed. So shoppers have easy access to the place.

What you are proposing (assuming that you are not proposing large scale interference in the running of Athlone town) is that shoppers in Roscommon and suchlike parts should have the choice between:

1. Easy access to Athlone town (bypassed, so theres room for shoppers)
2. A congested mess in Galway with speed traps everywhere, sky parking costs and a congestion charge, all avoidable only by using a BUS for park and ride.

Hmmm ... which do you Joe Rós Commoner is going to choose?

Good lord but at the risk of pointing out the obvious of course Athlone should be the first choice of destination for people in Roscommon seeking retail services. The whole point of having a coherent spatial planning strategy is to locate goods and services close to the populations they serve.

If you are suggesting that the Galway bypass is needed because shopkeepers in Galway object to Athlone having viable services for its rural periphery then that is a truly daft reason for having a bypass.

Retail services etc exist to serve the adjacent population. Populations do not exist to service (selected) sources of retail services.

monument

SeanW wrote: »

ut when you advocate it you leave yourself open to a charge of anti-motorist extremism

That's just basic name-calling.

How many times do I have to say cut it out? Don't answer that or reply to this!

Read the charter please.

galwaycyclist

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Good lord but at the risk of pointing out the obvious of course Athlone should be the first choice of destination for people in Roscommon seeking retail services. The whole point of having a coherent spatial planning strategy is to locate goods and services close to the populations they serve.

If you are suggesting that the Galway bypass is needed because shopkeepers in Galway object to Athlone having viable services for its rural periphery then that is a truly daft reason for having a bypass.

Retail services etc exist to serve the adjacent population. Populations do not exist to service (selected) sources of retail services.

Just to add to this point. If there are commercial interests in Galway city who are calling for a bypass because they see it as a way of "sucking in" customers and retail services that are currently served by, and located in, Gort, Loughrea, Ballinasloe, Tuam, Athenry etc. then this would be a very very dumb reason to build a bypass and would do more damage than good.

If this is what is going on then alarm bells need to be ringing in the various county towns.

serfboard

Shopkeepers in Galway would be the last people whose opinion I would ask about transport planning in Galway. It was they who held up pedestrianisation of Shop Street for years.

Saw a YouTube video (don't have the link) of some town planner type fella walking around the city of Bergen in Norway. He says it's the same the world over - businesses reckon that without the two parking spaces outside their premises city centres will collapse. Of course, that's nonsense as we have seen in Galway.

WRT Waterford, interesting statistics. Seems part 1 (bypass) has been done, but part 2 (using freed-up streets for more pedestrianisation/public transport) has not. Interesting though that more kids feel confident (or have permission) to cycle to school now that the bypass has been built.

It's carrot and stick. IMO the carrot is the bypass and better bus and train services. The stick, to follow after, is reduced and/or more expensive car parking. However, under pressure from retailers, parking prices have been reduced in Galway (see "two parking spaces" above).

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

The surest sign that the "reasoned objectors" are running out of ideas is when they start claiming "that other agendas are at work", the ultimate strawman argument.

Perhaps.

antoobrien wrote: »

skewed analysis to support an agenda

antoobrien wrote: »

I automatically don't trust figures quoted by people that look like they have an agenda

SeanW wrote: »

a radical motorist-hating environmental-left agenda

?Cee?view wrote: »

contrarian and negative agenda

I guess the temptation is to accuse the other side in a debate of "having an agenda", the inference being drawn that others' arguments are disingenuous.

Speaking for myself, I have no hidden agenda. I have stated my view clearly that there is a high risk that the GCOB could lead to more car use within Galway City, not less. That seems to have happened in Waterford, for example.

OTOH, I would contend that GCOB advocates are either in denial about the potential traffic-inducing effects of a bypass, or else they accept at some level that it will occur but are either indifferent to that prospect or actually welcome it.

SeanW

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Good lord but at the risk of pointing out the obvious of course Athlone should be the first choice of destination for people in Roscommon seeking retail services. The whole point of having a coherent spatial planning strategy is to locate goods and services close to the populations they serve.

If you are suggesting that the Galway bypass is needed because shopkeepers in Galway object to Athlone having viable services for its rural periphery then that is a truly daft reason for having a bypass.

Presumably Galway should have an advantage in terms of size, therefore choice of shops and goods. Additionally, some peoples origin points may be equi-distant to both Athlone and Galway. I just used Co. Roscommon as an example. And yes, for some things you have to go to shopping to higher-order areas. E.g. Athlone, Galway as opposed to Ballygobackwards. And its reasonable to assume that Galway shopkeepers are going to want to get as much of this trade as they can.

Iwannahurl wrote:

SeanW wrote:

[The Galway City Outer Bypass] would benefit the city's tourism trade by making Salthill ... dramatically more accessible by providing tourists and daytrippers from the Midlands and West with a route less dependent on choked city streets

Wow - I didn't realise that helping tourists get to tourist attractions (like Salthill) was such a bad thing! If I read your post right, it seems keeping tourists and daytrippers stuck on the Headford Road and the R338 is a much better idea.

My reading of numerous posts in the various GCOB threads is that the rhetoric proclaims a bypass will simultaneously free up space for public transport, walking and cycling yet at the same time will facilitate car use within the city, all while having the remarkable property of not generating new traffic in Galway City or its 'rural' hinterland.

Only that's not what's being claimed:

1. The bypass would get people from East of the City to points West much easier.
2. Road space would be freed up, which could be used in various ways.

Such miraculous infrastructure would be great value for €300 million.

Yes indeed it is great value - for what it is actually expected to accomplish.

galwaycyclist

SeanW wrote: »

Presumably Galway should have an advantage in terms of size, therefore choice of shops and goods. Additionally, some peoples origin points may be equi-distant to both Athlone and Galway. I just used Co. Roscommon as an example. And yes, for some things you have to go to shopping to higher-order areas. E.g. Athlone, Galway as opposed to Ballygobackwards. And its reasonable to assume that Galway shopkeepers are going to want to get as much of this trade as they can.

Perhaps - but it is neither reasonable, nor good public policy, to let Galway shopkeepers get this trade if it has negative effects on other town centres.

Therefore as with other likely negative impacts that have been identified, mitigating measures are needed in advance before any bypass is constructed.

This is one of the reasons why Galway City Council should have been merged with the County Council there is a need for careful consideration of how to prevent such negative outcomes for the county towns etc if the bypass goes ahead.

Iwannahurl

serfboard wrote: »

WRT Waterford, interesting statistics. Seems part 1 (bypass) has been done, but part 2 (using freed-up streets for more pedestrianisation/public transport) has not.

Interesting though that more kids feel confident (or have permission) to cycle to school now that the bypass has been built.

Using terms such as "Part 1" and "Part 2" suggests that Waterford City had/has a coherent plan for significant modal shift, with a bypass as a major component of the strategy. Is there any evidence for that?

On what are you basing your comment that "more kids feel confident (or have permission) to cycle to school [in Waterford City] now that the bypass has been built"?

galwaycyclist

Iwannahurl wrote: »

On what are you basing your comment that "more kids feel confident (or have permission) to cycle to school [in Waterford City] now that the bypass has been built"?

I'll jump in on this one. If it were a "bypass effect" I would expect to see it happen more for secondary schoolkids than primary children. (Older kids are much more likely to be let off on their own)

However what has happened is that cycle use fell among secondary students and although there has been growth among primary kids (9 more cycling) overall cycling participation at National school level is vestigial at 0.22%.

If I were to guess at what might have gotten 9 more kids cycling to primary school I would say the green schools program. The kids might all be from the same school.

Iwannahurl

Use determines function, as someone once said. So what is the function of the GCOB, according to some of its advocates?

It seems the GCOB is needed to make room for public transport, walking and cycling in Galway City:

antoobrien wrote: »

What they should do about this is have a referendum of the people who live and work in Galway city & environs and ask US and NOBODY ELSE if a bypass should be built. If approved invite the environmental lobby to HELP BUILD a FULLY INTEGRATED TRANSPORT SYSTEM for galway - which is not possible without a bypass.

Chris_533976 wrote: »

Absolutely no public transport improvements can be achieved in Galway until the bypass is built. Through traffic HAS to be removed before road space can be freed up for bus lanes, cycle lanes, or god help us, tram lines. The bypass, ironically, will be the biggest boost to public transport overall in Galway. It wont SOLVE the traffic problem, granted, but it will remove enough of it to make public transport viable.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Build the bypass and see what we can do with the alt.greeny sh1te after the bypass is built. There should be road space for buses and trams and bicycles then. For now there ain't in Galway. Way it is.

Irish and Proud wrote: »

[An outer bypass] would divert most through traffic away from the city, thereby freeing up existing road space for public transport use particularly during peak hours.

Actually no, the Galway City Outer Bypass is needed as a bypass:

MYOB wrote: »

Those heading in to the city aren't going to get much benefit but the bulk of them who are heading to anywhere but the city are.

Any traffic improvements for the city are nearly entirely unconnected to the bypass - and QBCs, cycle facilities etc are definitely part of the mix required for the city.

The bypass is needed as a bypass. Not a relief road for the city, it already has that, except its expected to carry masses of traffic around the city.

MYOB wrote: »

Those who can feasibly cycle to work are not those who will benefit from the GCOB as has been pointed out over and over. The GCOB is a bypass for those who do not need to be in or forced around the outside of Galway City, not a relief road for those that do. If you take a look at the plans this becomes blindingly obvious so I suggest that you do.

cafecolour wrote: »

And just realized the point of a 'bypass' would not be for galwegians but folks going from Dublin to Clifden and the like.

Then again, the Galway City Outer Bypass is needed for commuters and travellers entering or crossing the city, and for residents in the western suburbs of the city including those in Kingston Road, Bishop O'Donnell Road, Salthill and Knocknacarra:

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

It would also mean you can get from Knocknacarra to the Dublin road in 10 minutes almost guaranteed.

cafecolour wrote: »

Via the outer bypass you mean, or because the dublin road through the city should have that much less traffic?

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Bypass will be 10 minutes approx. Well, more accurately it'll be about 18km from the Cappagh Road to the end of the bypass at the M6. Ok this does include the refused western part of the route but whatever new one they come up with cant be much longer. 100kmh limit (as the bypass wont be motorway) : works out at about 12 minutes. Not bad, anytime of day or night

antoobrien wrote: »

[The GCOB] is about moving large volumes of people around Galway city from both inside AND Outside the city area.

antoobrien wrote: »

I presume you're talking about cross town traffic to & from Knocknacara and environs. In fairness [the GCOB] will take this traffic away from the congested school & business areas.

dubhthach wrote: »

Of course the bypass proposal is suppose to stretch to Bearna and have a spur to Western Distributor road if it wasn't for that common as dirt Bog cotton. The spur to western distrubitor road would probably take a big chunk of the traffic originating in Knocknacarra. The Gaelgóirs would get on at Bearna.

kiwipower wrote: »

You also have the issue of people living in the Salthill/Knocknacarra and further west, working on the eastern side of the city. This is why the bypass of the city is essential.

antoobrien wrote: »

In the 2006 census there were approx 9,500 two way journeys to work or school of 5-9km out of just over 50,000 recorded trips. I'd expect at least half these to use the Bypass. (meaning a reduction of up to 10k trips going through the Galway Triangle).

?Cee?view wrote: »

Ever hear of Kingston Road, Bishop O'Donnell Road, Knocknacarra, Barna, Spiddal, Cois Fharraige? All of these need the bypass now.

We're assured the GCOB will take cars out of the city for everybody's benefit...

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I dont know why cyclists are so against they bypass, considering it would take cars out and around the city out of the city, making it safer for cycling.

...and bring cars back into the city for everybody's benefit:

KevR wrote: »

A friend of mine had to pay a visit to the Galway Shopping Centre last week or the week before. It took her an hour to get back out of the Shopping Centre car park because traffic was so bad. The traffic is seriously damaging to the local economy. I don't know why anyone would want to come anywhere near Galway unless it was a matter of life and death. There are alternative towns which don't have crippling traffic.

antoobrien wrote: »

all we have heard to this point is opposition to the plans, mostly from people outside of Galway (almost totally invalid, they don't have to sit in traffic to get the shopping)

SeanW wrote: »

[The Galway City Outer Bypass] would benefit the city's tourism trade by making Salthill ... dramatically more accessible by providing tourists and daytrippers from the Midlands and West with a route less dependent on choked city streets

SeanW wrote: »

With the bypass in place taking medium and long haul through traffic will be gone, and there will be road/street space for shoppers coming in from outside the city who must use their cars. You could argue that this is not the most efficient use of freed-up road space and I'm certain that you would prefer more bus lanes, cycle lanes, traffic lights, lower speed limts and all the rest, but the reasoning from the commercial sector seems clear.

And last but by no means least, the Galway City Outer Bypass is some sort of payback time for motorists:

antoobrien wrote: »

In a nutshell motorists through various taxes levies and duties in 2010 paid an extra €4 billion in taxes into the exchequer. that figure as a contributer is second only to income tax receipts (€11.5 . The take from motor tax alone is €950m but the road maintenance (not to be confused with capital improvements, such as building roads or this insanity project), which is paid directly to the councils - not central government or the NRA - is about half that. Can I have my bypass now please?

?Cee?view wrote: »

Why would one own a car other than to use it?

veryangryman wrote: »

Cars rock. Fact.

Would the real Galway City Outer Bypass please stand up?


.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

My reading of numerous posts in the various GCOB threads is that the rhetoric proclaims a bypass will simultaneously free up space for public transport, walking and cycling yet at the same time will facilitate car use within the city, all while having the remarkable property of not generating new traffic in Galway City or its 'rural' hinterland.

Here's the answer to all that rubbish:
Employed in Waterford 2006: 25,838
Employed in Waterford 2011: 23,332
Difference: 2,506

Out of city commuters: drop: 1,039
City based commuters drop: 1,467
Decreases in workers walking, cycling and using PT: 1,078

Sorry hurl, the bypass has clearly not caused the drop in in walking, cycling and bus use, the drop in employment has.

antoobrien

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I'll jump in on this one. If it were a "bypass effect" I would expect to see it happen more for secondary schoolkids than primary children. (Older kids are much more likely to be let off on their own)

However what has happened is that cycle use fell among secondary students and although there has been growth among primary kids (9 more cycling) overall cycling participation at National school level is vestigial at 0.22%.

If I were to guess at what might have gotten 9 more kids cycling to primary school I would say the green schools program. The kids might all be from the same school.

I'd love to see where you're getting those figures, because the two tables I have been able to find show an increase from 30 5-12 years in 2006 to 100 in 2011.

The small increase of 7 from 137 13-18 year olds cycling in 2006 is more in line with your figures.

But then we should not be comparing 13-18 year old sections between periods, because the composition of the group changes completely. Instead we should be looking at the 5-12 and comparing it with the 13-18 section in the next census as a large portion of these children will be in the 13-18 section for the following census. And as it has been pointed out to me, people tend not to change their mode of transport.

galwaycyclist

antoobrien wrote: »

I'd love to see where you're getting those figures, because the two tables I have been able to find show an increase from 30 5-12 years in 2006 to 100 in 2011.

The small increase of 7 from 137 13-18 year olds cycling in 2006 is more in line with your figures.

But then we should not be comparing 13-18 year old sections between periods, because the composition of the group changes completely. Instead we should be looking at the 5-12 and comparing it with the 13-18 section in the next census as a large portion of these children will be in the 13-18 section for the following census. And as it has been pointed out to me, people tend not to change their mode of transport.

Sorry Anto but you seem to be looking at the Galway figures. This is a discussion of the figures for Waterford that IWH posted up thread.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

<snip>
In this regard I thinks it's instructive to look at what has happened in Waterford City. The Census travel statistics clearly show a move away from walking, cycling and public transport and towards car use. One detail I find interesting is that the proportion of adult car passengers decreased while the percentage of car drivers notably increased. Curious also that the number of children cycling to secondary school before the bypass was equal to the number driving their own cars, but by 2011 the secondary school drivers outnumbered their cycling peers by more than two to one. Still, we should acknowledge the four-fold increase in the number of children travelling to primary school by bike two years after the Waterford bypass opened. Absolute pessimism is not warranted, perhaps.




Note: some CSO categories omitted for space reasons. All figures open to correction.

antoobrien

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Sorry Anto but you seem to be looking at the Galway figures. This is a discussion of the figures for Waterford that IWH posted up thread.

Ah cheers, can you edit the post to clarify that you are talking about waterford for clarity.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Here's the answer to all that rubbish:
Employed in Waterford 2006: 25,838
Employed in Waterford 2011: 23,332
Difference: 2,506

Out of city commuters: drop: 1,039
City based commuters drop: 1,467
Decreases in workers walking, cycling and using PT: 1,078

Sorry hurl, the bypass has clearly not caused the drop in in walking, cycling and bus use, the drop in employment has.

So let's see, if the drop in employment is the causal factor in the Waterford example, it has also led to an increase in the number/proportion of people driving to work (11794/58% in 2006 versus 11811/64% in 2011), an increase in the number of children travelling by car to primary school (3005/63% versus 3548/66%), an increase in the number of children travelling by car to secondary school (1446/45% versus 1742/50%) and an increase in the number of Third Level students driving to college (446/24.5% versus 784/30.5%)?

Is that your theory? If so, can you elaborate on the supposed mechanism by which a drop in employment increases car use, in absolute and relative terms, as a means of travel to work, school and college?

While you're at it, perhaps you could also expand a bit on your thought-provoking idea of a referendum restricted to "the people who live and work in Galway city & environs" regarding a road scheme that is supposedly intended for motorists from outside the area who actually want to bypass the city altogether? How would that work? Why would all those motorists who will be passing by not be allowed a vote? Or is it a just a vote about keeping them out, so they shouldn't be asked?

antoobrien wrote: »

What they should do about this is have a referendum of the people who live and work in Galway city & environs and ask US and NOBODY ELSE if a bypass should be built.

In that regard, I'd be very interested to know also how both a restricted-plebiscite referendum and the proposed Galway City Outer Bypass would relate to "shopping":

antoobrien wrote: »

people outside of Galway ... don't have to sit in traffic to get the shopping

The GCOB is a bypass, we're told, and any traffic improvements within the city will be "nearly entirely unconnected" with it. Meanwhile, people from outside Galway City don't have valid opinions on the subject because "they don't have to sit in traffic to get the shopping".

So, is the GCOB about Connemara people "cut off" from the rest of the country due to lack of a bypass? Is it for external and visitor traffic trying to avoid the city? It it for drawing visitors to the city and Salthill? Is it for commuters in Kingston and Knocknacarra who want to get Parkmore? Is it about getting cars out of Galway, getting them into Galway, or both? Or is its main function to help us drive to the shops for the 'messages'?

Could GCOB advocates get their story straight please? It's hard work trying to make sense of all the various conflicting notions regarding its intended function.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

So let's see, if the drop in employment is the causal factor in the Waterford example, it has also led to an increase in the number/proportion of people driving to work (11794/58% in 2006 versus 11811/64% in 2011), an increase in the number of children travelling by car to primary school (3005/63% versus 3548/66%), an increase in the number of children travelling by car to secondary school (1446/45% versus 1742/50%) and an increase in the number of Third Level students driving to college (446/24.5% versus 784/30.5%)?

Is that your theory? If so, can you elaborate on what the supposed mechanism by which a drop in employment increases car use, in absolute and relative terms, as a means of travel to work, school and college?

So a 20 car increase equates to a 5% modal share increase. 20 cars is a rounding error in 12,000 journeys.

As for kids, lets look back at the past:
Year | 5-12 | Passengers (incl vans) | %
96 | 5312 | 2363+41=2404 | 45%
02 | 4817 | 2872+10=2882 | 59%
06 | 4791 | 3005+10=3015 | 63%
11 | 5253 | 3509+07=3516 | 52.5%


Hey wait a sec, that's a severe drop off in the % of car & van passengers between 2006 & 2011, despite an actual increase (that makes a mockery of your 5% increase for 20 cars in 12,000 work journeys).

Now let's look at the cycling and bus figures over that time:

Year | 5-12 | cycle | bus
96 | 5312 | 38 | 449
02 | 4817 | 9 | 356
06 | 4791 | 3 | 242
11 | 5253 | 12 | 275


Your assertion that the bypass is responsible for increases/drops is not supported by the trend shown over the past 4 census enumerations, as it shows increasing car numbers