N6 - Galway outer bypass: Is it needed?

Sponge Bob

antoobrien wrote: »

Not from Galway but a nice counter point:



Can't be safe either can it?

Don't think that is safe meself. The lack of enforcement and indeed basic consideration is shocking.

Could they not set a minimum height off the ground in a byelaw????

monument

Mod, general note:

Please no name calling or snipping -- both abstract and directed at poster.

Please no talk about moderation here or elsewhere (including replying to this post). My view commuting and transport is a good fit for a debate about not only the road but all modes of transport in the city, the kind of trips being taking, how planning affects transport and commuting, and how conditions for cycling, walking, and bus travel -- and how all of this fits into the question of the bypass.

Sponge Bob

If you are consciosly going to bring all that upon yourself Monument then make sure you go to the next Boards Beers in Galway where the local mods will feed you beers until you drop and then pick you up and feed you more beers for as long as you can stick Galway.

Anyway. Galway will be lovely once they figure out how to take the Ambulances and Cars and Trucks and HGVs out of it as much as possible.

In terms of vehicular traffic they have added (net) 2 cross city lanes in 100 years because they pedestrianised Shop Street and rendered O Briens bridge a taxi rank in the main when they built the QB S4 road in the 1980s ( S4 = unseparated dualler). We won't net up the rebuilds of Wolfe Tone brige in the 1800s and 1900s because they want to replace that too.

So the WHOLE of Connemara got an increase of 2 lanes across Galway City since the days BEFORE there were ANY CARS OR LORRIES at all and I am discounting the Cornamona Bypass and sure we know the Salmon Weir was built mainly to service the Prison-Courthouse traffic anyway and that they want to get the pedestrians off it.

And the WHOLE of Connemara is heartily sick of being funneled through this morass of constricted and still constricting road space for every transport mode maginable...not that I ever brought an Ass and Cart anywhere near Galway in my life may I add.


Onc can further make the case that the 2 Net New cross city lanes in well over 100 years is cancelled out by the Corpo blocking 'our' canal what let us sail down to the sea from Oughterard in the 1950s and that we lost 2 net lanes there too and only got them back with the QB.

But all we really want to do is not see the middle of Galway City unless we ABSOLUTELY have to and funnily enough most of the population of Galway City feel the exact same way.

antoobrien

Lapin wrote: »

Good points. A few years ago when the traffic lights broke down for a day on the Headford Road, Keith Finnegan on his radio show remarked on smoothly the traffic ran that day and questioned the need for having the lights there at all.

It summed up the mindset of the motorist in one sentence.

That did rather neatly undermine the city council's argument to replace all the roundabouts with traffic lights, because it was obvious that the lights here, and those at Liosban/Riverside and Parkmore were causing the major traffic flow problems. Any benefits in traffic flow from the new junctions can be directly attributed to increase numbers of lanes on the junctions, rather than the lights, since we have increased it has increased the junction lane capacity by 50% - 100%.

If the city council want to provide pedestrian & cyclist access they should ignore those that shout loudest and put in a series of pedestrian bridges at the sites of the major junctions. There are two junctions out of the 14 (former & current) roundabouts that are under consideration for removal where I can think this would be problematic due to space concerns, Cemetary Cross & Moneenagesha Cross.

The set of pedestrian and cyclist overpasses at the Liverpool St John Moores Campus at Byrum St seems to be effective at providing pedestrian access over busy roads, I can't see a reason why something similar can't be done in Galway for at lest pedestrians at the busiest junctions and places like this crossing at Duness Terryland, which should have been built as a bridge in the first place.

Sponge Bob

antoobrien wrote: »

and places like this crossing at Duness Terryland, which should have been built as a bridge in the first place.

And where an accident a few hours after Garglegate in the Ardilaun resulted in a death and in a traffic snarlup of historic proportions and with most of the government caught on the 'wrong' side of it, luckily.

yer man!

antoobrien wrote: »

this crossing at Duness Terryland[/URL], which should have been built as a bridge in the first place.

This was in the original plan years ad years ago but due to lack of money it never got the go-ahead and they never bothered to return to the scheme.

SeanW

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The GCOB, even if the ECJ had issued a ruling in its favour, will not be built for years yet.

True, but I trust we are all clear that this is not a good thing?

I can't quite believe that I have to post this image yet again to illustrate the basic reality of travel mode versus finite urban road space, but there you go.

Your theory assumes that if you just take away swathes of room from motorists and impose punishing restrictions on motorists, that will suddenly mean the streets will be swarming with new cyclists and the capacity of the road will go up 20 fold or something.

The only problem is that it's likely to be bunk.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What's insulting, in my opinion, is to tell commuters who travel by modes that contribute nothing to traffic congestion that there is "no room" for them

But they do - if they require room to be taken from motorists who have little choice but to drive, then increased congestion is a logical certainty.

and that they should wait for a higher Level of Service until cars have been accommodated, at some unspecified time in the future, with a shiny new road.

At which time, the cars are off the first road because they never had any reason to be there in the first place, e.g. Dublin-Connemara or Salthill traffic

As you point out, pedestrians, cyclists and bus users already comprise a higher than average proportion of commuters at present. In which case, they deserve a higher Level of Service now, since by their mode of travel they are by definition not contributing to traffic congestion.

Again, this is false unless you know for a fact that all the motorists have other choices.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Neo-Luddism? Really?

So London and Stockholm, two cities with well-established road pricing/congestion charging are run by Ned Ludd's ideological descendants?

London and Stockholm both have ring road bypass (or a partial ring in the latter case) and they both have extensive railway based public transport systems. Suggesting that Galway should follow those two cities with congestion charging and other "great ideas" without actually having the infrastructure of those cities is ... somewhat questionable. I could go further but I'd probably get banned.

Evidence please, that modal shift away from car use is economically detrimental.

Well, as you know in around 2005 the government told local authorities nationwide to raise more of their own revenue. So many small/medium towns went from a system of 2hrs free parking in the town centre to paid parking. This caused a shift to out-of-town supermarkets and shopping centres. The solution according to motorist hating boneheads like An Taisce? Force the free parking supermarkets to charge for parking too! Because aparently according to these a-holes, motorists are just giant piggybanks that government tax planners and eco-leftist boneheads can just smash whenever they like because all motorist are loaded with €€€ thousands in spare cash. This is news to me because I'm far from loaded driving a 14 year old car, the vast majority of the running cost of which is already government motor tax (approaching if not exceeding 100% of the cars' NBV), fuel tax, NCT related costs (now annual, YIPEE) VAT, parking charges (when I can't avoid them, which is rare) etc.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

You mean two cities that built an underground first and built beltways then for eg their Connemaras and THEN introduced charging much later when the alternative modes were long in place.

Really!

/thread

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Reallocation of road space is key, eg bus-cycle lanes on SQR (however badly they may have been implemented).

Here's the thing: I'm not against that per se: in fact I've seen what the recent N5 bypass did for Longford town, one Friday evening the town was, as usual, choked with through traffic including vast quantities of HGVs, then the bypass opened and traffic in the town went down more than 50%. The streets are wide for the most part and could easily accommodate cycle lanes and what have you. As for those street not wide enough, some could be made one way, others (such as Bridge Street) there are abandoned buildings you could knock down to provide off street parking to replace any nearby parking converted to cycle lanes.

In short, there is room to accomodate everyone.

I just think that a lot of this stuff, especially what you come out with, is just about screwing motorists for the sake of it, and there is at least some evidence to support that.

SeanW

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I won't even try to excuse the motorists in your pics but it's worth noting that some of this illegal parking occurs because of decisions to build streets too narrow for no reason, e.g. the Essex design of housing estates, which is something I believe you are a big fan of.

Victor

Could I ask that the antagonism from the Infrastructure thread be left there?

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Can you please reduce them in size in future, thanks. They ming the formatting in every thread you deploy them in.

Photos up to 800 x 800 are generally OK on boards.ie.

Moderator

Cookie_Monster

monument wrote: »

Is the Galway outer bypass needed?

In the current car centric setup of Ireland yes.

monument wrote: »

Are there alternatives? ....Be that a different route, or different type of road, or upgrades to current routes, or a different approach or a mix of all these?

A societal move away from the obsession with car to PT and cycling would easily solve the need for it.

Victor

I've only ever been to Galway twice, if I'm correct, the first time for a week, the second time for a weekend. I think I passed through another two times. The map I bought in 1986 showed little development beyond Bishop O'Donnell Road, Seamus Quirke Road, Sean Mulvey Road and the other roads that feed the Quincentennial Bridge. That means the west side of Galway has doubled in area in 28 years. I suspect car use has much more than doubled in that time.

No substantial business wants to set up on the west side of Galway, simply because they want to get their products to somewhere else, other than the west side of Galway and links are much better on the east side.

Connemara development patterns are part of the problem http://maps.osi.ie/publicviewer/#V1,511751,722450,6,3 - I suspect many of those people work on the east side of Galway City, but given the dispersed settlement pattern, public transport is impractical.

I would fear that if the bypass was built, that the west side of Galway would continue to grow unsustainably, as the councils would point to the massive capacity available, with the section of road from the new bridge to the Spiddal road becoming a prime target for misuse and development, Of course, there is the well known maxim that car use expands to fill all available road space.

I think that the councils were also motivated by the concept of 'someone else will be paying for this road'.

I think future development should be concentrated on the east side of the city, with residential, office development and any heavy industry (unlikely) concentrated on the railway, with other employment near the main roads network. The main roads should be protected from ribbon development and out-of-town shopping

Currently, the only meaningful population density is from Salthill to College Road. Population density in much of the city dropped from 2006 to 2011. It would be useful for future development to be medium density in-fill development.

The councils and Garda need to get serious about parking enforcement. Parking charges are needed for all parking. Just like in other places, large traffic generators need to put in place workplace management plans and the like, possibly using paid parking to fund park and ride services.

I wonder if a fifth lane could be added to Quincentennial Bridge by removing the cycle paths and providing a more pedestrian and cyclist suitable bridge (like connecting to Dyke Road and Distillery Road and having a premium cycle network), whether on the same structure or in a parallel on. This could be used to provide a central bus lane (it won't need bus stops), possible with tidal controls.

I think a one-way system on College Road to allow bus lanes is, at first appearance, attractive. However, as we know from Dublin, large one-way systems become very cyclist and pedestrian unfriendly and there is the risk it would merely encourage more people to drive.

Just because London has a motorway orbital, doesn't mean Galway needs one.

I think mandatory greenbelt around the city and along the coast would be useful.

antoobrien

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

In the current car centric setup of Ireland yes.

A societal move away from the obsession with car to PT and cycling would easily solve the need for it.

Not really no, given the fact that half the workers in Galway are from outside the city and suburbs cycling is impractical for them and we'd need to put a Dublin bus style network across an area that is 7 times bigger than Co Dublin to provide PT alternatives.

The simple fact of the matter is that no factory will locate on the west of the corrib because of the difficulty in getting people in and goods out, negating any possibility of balanced development.

lucernarian

Victor wrote: »

I would fear that if the bypass was built, that the west side of Galway would continue to grow unsustainably, as the councils would point to the massive capacity available, with the section of road from the new bridge to the Spiddal road becoming a prime target for misuse and development, Of course, there is the well known maxim that car use expands to fill all available road space.

I think that the councils were also motivated by the concept of 'someone else will be paying for this road'.

I think future development should be concentrated on the east side of the city, with residential, office development and any heavy industry (unlikely) concentrated on the railway, with other employment near the main roads network. The main roads should be protected from ribbon development and out-of-town shopping

They don't seem like arguments against an orbital bypass as things stand. The solutions to bad planning and inappropriate development involve attempts to reform local government there, the direction of govt. money at projects which reverse historic trends and also the provision of infrastructure to encourage sustainable development, not development dictating future infrastructure needs.

The outer bypass seems separate to those points in my mind for two key reasons. Firstly, strategic road users (particularly freight and goods vehicles) would also be better and more safely catered for by being kept off a road that has substantial local usage, by bicyclists, pedestrians and car users alike. It is proposed as a national route, after all.

Also, it seems that the specifics here point to a complete overburdening of existing infrastructure and even in the case of the most optimistic prospects of modal shifts to more sustainable transport, it doesn't change the fact that most people until recently lived on one side of the river and worked on the other.

I don't remember comparable road projects arousing the same level of controversy as this one in the C&T and Infrastructure forums. Are there reasons to suggest that the Waterford Bypass was a more appropriate solution to its traffic problems than the GCOB is for Galway?

The idea you mention of changes being made to the QB is an interesting one. It would be expensive however and it seems that many of the congestion problems stem from the capacity of road junctions, not just of the QB itself. Even a 6-lane QB would still suffer from congestion if all traffic meets the same junctions as they currently do. A separate pedestrian/cyclist bridge would offer greater safety and a possibly more direct route for those users at least.

Iwannahurl

A statement such as "many of the congestion problems stem from the capacity of road junctions" again misses a fundamental point, imo.

Where road space is finite, as it inevitably is on a planet that is itself finite, the real problem in our society is that there are too many cars not that junctions are too small.

If you increase the size of the junction, or add more lanes leading to that larger junction, you will create the conditions which, sooner or later, generate more traffic and induce more travel so that you're eventually back where you started or worse.

There is a populist demand from individuals and vested interests for a bypass in Galway, imo, because a large number of “people who want, need, prefer or like to use the car” would chew their own arm off rather than use any other mode of travel.

The economics of our car-dependent and car-centric culture are such that any mention of changing priorities is, for some, like a red rag to a bull.

When I mention on Boards the barriers faced by my child cycling to his creche at the age of three-and-a-half, this is sneered at as moaning about "first world problems". But ask adult drivers to leave their car and cycle and all of a sudden the deterrents, such as rain, are insurmountable.

Advocate more public transport services rather than yet more car-dependent and traffic-generating development and the sarcastic response from some is that if they used the buses they'd have to sit beside those "w*ankers" who advocate public transport!

Demand safer and more convenient facilities for pedestrians, including children walking to school, and you're told that there is "no room" and that "common sense" dictates that motorists must drive up on footpaths whenever they feel the need.

This is the political economy and cultural context in which the GCOB is being proposed, and there is no good reason to believe that the bypass would be anything more than a boost for business as usual. Or worse, like an addict switching from smoking heroin to mainlining it.

It is routinely claimed that many if not most motorists in Galway have "no choice" but to drive, and that the volume of traffic crossing the city West to East and vice versa is justification enough for the GCOB.

However, is that really the case? Why is it that traffic is generally much lighter in the summer (apart from extremely busy events such as the Galway Races) even with the influx of tourists?

It is an observation commonly made that traffic is much more bearable when schools are off. Here's a thread in the Galway City forum dated 1st September 2008, by way of example: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055368765

Yesterday, at short notice, I had to do the school run, and without thinking I made the stupid mistake of taking the car. Naturally I ended up stuck in traffic, and the trip took me twice as long as normal. While sitting in the pointless jams, grinding through several clogged-up roundabouts, I imagined that if you were to survey all the drivers sitting in the stalled or slow-moving traffic you would most likely find a majority of them favouring a bypass as the "solution"' to "Galway's traffic woes". We arrived at the school much later than usual, having walked the last stretch, from a legal parking spot, past lines of cars parked up on footpaths, impeding junctions etc. No doubt those motorists abandoning their cars in that manner, to save themselves and their children walking a few metres, would also agree with the view that there is "no room" for pedestrians and cyclists, and therefore it's only "common sense" to take over not just the roads and junctions but the footpaths as well.

I had to do the school run again today, but this time I knew in advance. It was lashing rain, but having had the painful reminder the previous day, I took the bike. On the way there I was overtaken by a motorist driving at, by my conservative estimate, more than twice the posted speed limit -- on a seriously wet road. Inevitably I caught up with him at the next roundabout, where he was stuck in the usual chaotic jam, and I looked in his window with the intention of asking him whether he knew the speed limit on the stretch of road where he just passed me. It turned out he was the father of a child at the same school, and perhaps one of those "decent people" (ie motorists) whose casually illegal behaviour AGS and the City Council decline to deal with for reasons apparently to do with not wanting to upset the People That Matter. On this occasion, discretion was the better part of valour and I moved quickly on.

Very quickly indeed, as I would expect when travelling by bike in such conditions. I reached the school in half the time it took by car the previous day, despite the heavy rain and heavier traffic. Clogged roundabouts, car-filled carriageways and flowing surface water notwithstanding, my mode of travel ensured that I was well on my way home before Mr Decent Speeder had even reached the school.

These are the repeated experiences, and the recurring traffic and transport circumstances, which convince me that much of the "need" for the GCOB emanates from a purely car-centric perspective.

One attitude seems to be that pedestrians, cyclists and bus users can be "entertained" (to borrow a term from one of the City Council's consultant engineers) once motorists have their bypass.

I disgree. What I want to see is a serious, integrated, multi-agency strategy to reduce car-dependence and car use, before the bypass is built. When such a strategy has been implemented, targets are met and the various statutory bodies have demonstrated both a willingness and an ability to deliver, then the GCOB can go ahead.

There is nothing to be lost. There isn't going to be a bypass for several years yet, if ever, so why wait?

In any case, maybe the traffic tide is turning at last: Blueprint for urban areas puts cars at bottom of hierarchy.

/bypass?

Victor

antoobrien wrote: »

The simple fact of the matter is that no factory will locate on the west of the corrib because of the difficulty in getting people in and goods out, negating any possibility of balanced development.

By "balanced development", do you mean equal amounts of development on each side of the Corrib?

This would be neither desirable or practical and not fit the usual meaning of "balanced development".

lucernarian

You're portraying the bypass as being contrary to the interests of cyclists and pedestrians. I don't see how or why that would be the case, especially when the removal of traffic from city centre areas would free up space to the users who need it most.

I don't at all accept the contention here:

If you increase the size of the junction, or add more lanes leading to that larger junction, you will create the conditions which, sooner or later, generate more traffic and induce more travel so that you're eventually back where you started or worse.

I see no reason why an appropriate management of road resources after the bypass is built could not ensure that all the capacity gains are enjoyed by cyclists, pedestrians and public transport only. I know GCC have a poor track record at doing this but that doesn't really take away from the need for a new river crossing or outer bypass. All that the poor planning and bad past decisions highlight is the need for better local Govt. in Galway, not that a bypass shouldn't be built.

Iwannahurl

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

All that the poor planning and bad past decisions highlight is the need for better local Govt. in Galway, not that a bypass shouldn't be built.

Did I say the GCOB shouldn't be built?

L1011

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Did I say the GCOB shouldn't be built?

You've been extremely careful in avoiding actually saying it, but the entire body of your posts on the subject entirely equals it. You don't want it built.

This ridiculous charade we have on here of opponents to something pretending they're not against it is pointless in the extreme

lucernarian

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Did I say the GCOB shouldn't be built?

It seems that you regard other measures being taken to reduce road usage as a priority before the bypass should be built. In theory, that doesn't mean that one is opposed to building a bypass but in reality it does. If you were in favour a proposal like the GCOB or a related proposal, the "priority" of building the road vs introducing other traffic and modal use measures wouldn't matter so much. In other words, all the measures that have been mentioned heretofore would be supported, including the construction of the bypass.

What would be the point in campaigning for other measures to be taken in lieu of building the GCOB, apart from recognition of the fact that its construction would be delayed? If anyone recognises that it needs to be built sooner or later, why would anyone offer up reasons for why it shouldn't be constructed? Like I said before I think the GCOB is necessary for thorough implementation of pro-cyclist and pedestrian measures and the two issues go hand-in-glove.

So do you think it should, or shouldn't be built?

TINA1984

Victor wrote: »

Just because London has a motorway orbital, doesn't mean Galway needs one.

This is a point lost not just on the good burghers of the Galway commuter belt, but applicable to other Irish towns masquerading as 'cities' as well.

Between the GCOB & the M17/18 build, the state is committing enormous sums of money via various financial mechanisms to, in essence, facilitate the long-distance commuting habits of a small urban area with a large dispersed population spread out over the sparsely populated west of Ireland.

Yes we know about the the need for a 'network' to be built and the importance of ease of access HGV traffic, tourist traffic, ambulances etc, but let's not kid ourselves, the GCOB and the M17/18 will be primarily used by people coming from their small village or one-off somewhere in the deep countryside, to their place of work somewhere in the Galway urban area.

AS outlined more eloquently by other posters, Galway CC needs to learn something about land use and transportation strategies, and implement them in a strict manner over a long period before any promises of funding for the GCOB are forthwith. That means clamping down on one-off housing, haphazard development & concentration any new development in the Galway urban area itself or its dormitory towns.

Then and only then should the case for GCOB be considered. Even then we should consider best practice from the continent in assessing whether or not it should be built. Afterall, do towns with similar population profiles in the UK or on the continent have similar bypasses built? from what I can tell, no they generally don't. Where they do, its a generally functional single carriageway no-frills bypass constructed as opposed to a fancy design like the GCOB complete with dual-carriageway & grade-seperated junctions.

Chances of any of that happening given what we know about the profile of west of Ireland politicians and the people who elect them? Zilch. In Ireland we're great at championing for the provision of infrastructure, but not so great when it comes to championing best use of it. The GCOB, if built, is destined to become another clogged up artery if old habits don't change on behalf of the locals and their local government.

antoobrien

Victor wrote: »

By "balanced development", do you mean equal amounts of development on each side of the Corrib?

This would be neither desirable or practical and not fit the usual meaning of "balanced development".

No a 50-50 split is not practical, however as it often stated the "problem" is that the majority of the workforce is in the west, the jobs the east with a river between them, so in this case it refers to facilitating jobs in the west. That means factories, which means goods access.

There are more than one set of problems with development in Galway though, the situation & access to schools & public hospital facilities - which are mostly West of the river, are also problems.

You made a point earlier about housing developments in the East, there are plans for at leas two new towns/villages near the city boundary that are under discussion in the county development plans since at least 2003 (one is a joint effort with the city council, the other is county council). But some of the loudest anti bypass voices are also against these developments because auctioneers were consulted on how to lay out one of the new areas.

The railway area is totally unsuited to large scale development due to it's proximity to the sea and limited space around it between Oranmore & Galway.

antoobrien

TINA1984 wrote: »

but let's not kid ourselves, the GCOB and the M17/18 will be primarily used by people coming from their small village or one-off somewhere in the deep countryside, to their place of work somewhere in the Galway urban area.

Proof please, given that census statistics indicate otherwise.

TINA1984

antoobrien wrote: »

Proof please, given that census statistics indicate otherwise.

How does the census indicate which people will or will not use roads that haven't yet been built?

But let's humour you anyway, where do you think a huge portion of traffic on other urban bypasses - the M50, the N40 - come's from? Do you reckon its primarily urban and intercity traffic on these roads? are you of the opinion that the large, primarily rural, commuting belts of the Greater Dublin area and the Cork Metropolitian area contribute nothing to these traffic flows?

You'd be very naive indeed to think such a thing, or that a significant porportion of traffic on any GCOB would not be long distance commuters emananting from the bowels of Connaght.

While we're on the census, all the census' from the past 2 decades show that strong population growth has generally occurred in the rural area's surrounding Irish cities - Co. Galway in this instance, several counties surrounding Dublin, Co. Limerick/Clare & Cork in the midwest and the south - Whilst population growth in the cities themselves has either been modest or stagnant in comparison.

Now you can play dumb here and pretend that all this population growth is just incidental, and has nothing to with Irish local adminstration implementing a lazy planning regime wholly reliant on the car.

however its quite clear that the county councils surrounding Irish urban area's have shown a willingness to facilitate enormous large amounts of one-off housing and haphazard development in rural area's within commuting range of their nearest cities. Thus puncturing any real attempts at taking people out of their cars.

That's why very little people in Co. Galway use the WRC to get into Galway, instead they are all sitting in their cars next to the WRC & Dublin line's, patiently waiting for a road to be built instead.

L1011

I think crap timings - both timetable and run times - as well as poor station positioning and lack of stations entirely in some cases are the reason people don't use the wrc.

It also ends east of the river

TINA1984

MYOB wrote: »

I think crap timings - both timetable and run times - as well as poor station positioning and lack of stations entirely in some cases are the reason people don't use the wrc.

It also ends east of the river

Imagine a bizarre parallel Ireland, a land where thanks to strict planning laws, small towns & villages like Craughwell, Tuam, Athenry & Gort were designated as hubs for housing and economic growth within the Galway metro area, and were blossoming as a result.

Instead of the WRC being an irrelevance like it is now, and the M17/18 forever destined to have low AADTs primatily composed of people coming fron the country into Galway, the good burghers of these towns would be crying out for decent road and rail connections into a Galway city that hasn't been blitzed by lazy development west of the river.

In that instance, the WRC phases 1&2 as well as sections of the N17/18 would be truly deserving of an upgrade, CBA's for these projects would definitely be positive. But as I said thats in a bizarro-fantasy world.

antoobrien

TINA1984 wrote: »

While we're on the census, all the census' from the past 2 decades show that strong population growth has generally occurred in the rural area's surrounding Irish cities - Co. Galway in this instance

Not really the city population is 50% bigger than it was in 1991, the county population is only 35% bigger and much of that is near/around towns and villages, whcih is not reflected properly due to estates being built outside the town boundaries (this happened in Tuam). There are several villages that were not in the census in 1991, that are in more recent censuses (e.g. Claregalway & Corofin don't appear in earlier census information).

I'd bet you'd be surprised to hear that (leaving the city out of it) the "urban" population of Co Galway has been steadily rising over the past 20 years. There has been a lot of growth in places like Claregalway, Athenry, Oranmore, Clarinbridge, Turloughmore/Lackagh, Tuam etc on the East, Moycullen & Bearna on the west and others (these are just the places I have had reason to visit in the past few years, there are more areas that I could mention that have estates that were not there 20 years ago).

TINA1984 wrote: »

That's why very little people in Co. Galway use the WRC to get into Galway, instead they are all sitting in their cars next to the WRC & Dublin line's, patiently waiting for a road to be built instead.

The WRC is not used by commuters because it is simply unusable as a commuter route. It's no good to anybody not starting work after 9am (9.30 if you don't work within 1km of the station), and many many factories start at 8am or earlier, making it particularly useless for many factory workers who start at 8 or earlier.

As for social use, if you want to go from Craughwell to watch the connacht rugby match on Friday night, it's not possible to do so both ways by train as the last train out of Galway is 6.35pm. That's a timetable issue rather than an indication of the potential utility of the line. If they ever fix that and it's not used, then we can discuss how the people of south Galway ignore it.

TINA1984 wrote: »

the M17/18 forever destined to have low AADTs

The N17 at Claregalway carries > 20k trips per day, about half of which are going to Galway. The N18 at Clarinbridge (Kilcolgan to be exact) carried an average of 16k per day so far this year. With AADTs of 9-10k south of Gort and census information stating that clare & Limerick are not large contributors to the city employee pool, it appears that a fair amount of this traffic is not necessarily bound for Galway.

It's worth noting that both the N17 & N18 are above capacity for a 2 lane road, one of the benefits of the M17/18 is to make medium and long distance bus journeys predictable, which is one of the things required to allow people to believe that not using the cars is an option (as has been seen on the Galway-Dublin routes).

Iwannahurl

MYOB wrote: »

You've been extremely careful in avoiding actually saying it, but the entire body of your posts on the subject entirely equals it. You don't want it built.

This ridiculous charade we have on here of opponents to something pretending they're not against it is pointless in the extreme

I've been extremely careful to say what I mean. My position on the proposed GCOB, and on the policy background/cultural context for the alleged "need" for the bypass, is set out in numerous posts on Boards.

If other posters are unwilling or unable to address what I've actually written, as opposed to what they like to think I think, what can I do? C'est la vie en Boards.

I'm trying not to mention the str*w word, Mods, really I am!

lucernarian

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I've been extremely careful to say what I mean. My position on the proposed GCOB, and on the policy background/cultural context for the alleged "need" for the bypass, is set out in numerous posts on Boards.

If other posters are unwilling or unable to address what I've actually written, as opposed to what they like to think I think, what can I do? C'est la vie en Boards.

I'm trying not to mention the str*w word, Mods, really I am!

I did ask you this earlier in a post today. Could you clarify for the sake of posterity, are you currently in favour or against the construction of the N6 GCOB as planned?

L1011

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I've been extremely careful to say what I mean. My position on the proposed GCOB, and on the policy background/cultural context for the alleged "need" for the bypass, is set out in numerous posts on Boards.

If other posters are unwilling or unable to address what I've actually written, as opposed to what they like to think I think, what can I do? C'est la vie en Boards.

I'm trying not to mention the str*w word, Mods, really I am!

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

You cry strawman whenever you can't challenge an argument, and then you retreat behind a front to try and disassociate yourself from your own position. You're telling me to read your posts to see your position - that's where I'm getting it from. You are against the bypass, no two ways about it.

That said, I can't even see why you're trying to do it - this pretence that you're not against the bypass actually seriously harms your debating position. Your position is nowhere close to Devil's Advocate, so stop trying to be one.

L1011

TINA1984 wrote: »

Imagine a bizarre parallel Ireland, a land where thanks to strict planning laws, small towns & villages like Craughwell, Tuam, Athenry & Gort were designated as hubs for housing and economic growth within the Galway metro area, and were blossoming as a result.

Instead of the WRC being an irrelevance like it is now, and the M17/18 forever destined to have low AADTs primatily composed of people coming fron the country into Galway, the good burghers of these towns would be crying out for decent road and rail connections into a Galway city that hasn't been blitzed by lazy development west of the river.

In that instance, the WRC phases 1&2 as well as sections of the N17/18 would be truly deserving of an upgrade, CBA's for these projects would definitely be positive. But as I said thats in a bizarro-fantasy world.

The WRC opened after the housing market had crashed. Meaning that there would have been far less reason to move to those areas, and its quite difficult to force someone to buy/rent a house in an area they don't want.

Additionally, none of this would prevent the need for Galway to have a river crossing that did not bring traffic that has no reason to be there within spitting distance of the city centre. You'd possibly get the traffic levels down to requiring a slightly cheaper road, but you'd still need one.

Victor

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Did I say the GCOB shouldn't be built?

MYOB wrote: »

You've been extremely careful in avoiding actually saying it, but the entire body of your posts on the subject entirely equals it. You don't want it built.

This ridiculous charade we have on here of opponents to something pretending they're not against it is pointless in the extreme

In fairness, if someone is looking for a few hundred million to build the bypass and there are other projects competing for that money, then the test for allowing that money should be quite high, especially when other measures would much reduce the need for the need for the bypass at a cost of a few tens of millions.

L1011

Victor wrote: »

In fairness, if someone is looking for a few hundred million to build the bypass and there are other projects competing for that money, the the test for allowing that money should be quite high, especially when other measures would much reduce the need for the need for the bypass at a cost of a few tens of millions.

The case has long since been proven, except to those who present random things as if they weren't their opinion, or who want to ensure we stay in a constant cycle of "are we sure? are we really sure?"

The main reasons that we appear to have remaining opposition is from people who want to "punish" Galway for its planning history, or who are deeply scared that the bypass will be so effective as to ensure that GCC does not bother with any other anti-car measures in future.

SeanW

Iwannahurl wrote: »

the real problem in our society is that there are too many cars not that junctions are too small.

Says you!

If you increase the size of the junction, or add more lanes leading to that larger junction, you will create the conditions which, sooner or later, generate more traffic and induce more travel so that you're eventually back where you started or worse.

Agreed on that point. Trying to facilitate East-West traffic (e.g. Connemara-Dublin, Salthill-Athlone etc) by providing more traffic capacity in the city centre is counterproductive on every possible level. That's why the bypass is needed - to serve long distance traffic.

There is a populist demand from individuals and vested interests for a bypass in Galway, imo, because a large number of “people who want, need, prefer or like to use the car” would chew their own arm off rather than use any other mode of travel.

Populist? Don't you mean democratic?

Demand safer and more convenient facilities for pedestrians, including children walking to school, and you're told that there is "no room" and that "common sense" dictates that motorists must drive up on footpaths whenever they feel the need.

I could agree with that if it was not for your ideological axe to grind.

Hypothetically speaking say a new school were planned to be built or an old one severely retrofitted. Say also that the plans included a well designed parents waiting area for those picking up their children by car. Well designed as in it's secondary to bus pickup, pedestrian, and promotes the safety of the children while providing parents with a legal place to wait for their children.

You would oppose that because of your ideological, anti-democratic axe grinding, then when the school was built without the waiting area, you would bitch and moan about illegal parking.

would also agree with the view that there is "no room" for pedestrians and cyclists, and therefore it's only "common sense" to take over not just the roads and junctions but the footpaths as well.

Again, I could accept this if your posting history showed that you favoured solutions that worked for all road users including motorists. But it shows the exact opposite.

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

I did ask you this earlier in a post today. Could you clarify for the sake of posterity, are you currently in favour or against the construction of the N6 GCOB as planned?

Take it from me - you are more likely to end up on IWHs "Ignore" list than to get a Yes or No answer to a simple question. It's pathetic.

Victor

SeanW wrote: »

Populist? Don't you mean democratic?

Fianna Fáil? Only slightly democratic - they only introduced one man, one vote last year.

lucernarian

Victor wrote: »

In fairness, if someone is looking for a few hundred million to build the bypass and there are other projects competing for that money, then the test for allowing that money should be quite high, especially when other measures would much reduce the need for the need for the bypass at a cost of a few tens of millions.

Here's the crux. I'm still searching for a way to avoid the need for building this expensive bridge or failing that, some other very expensive method of easing Galway's congestion problems (this doesn't just apply to cars) to the same extent as the GCOB would allow (again, in tandem with other far-reaching moves to ease the traffic situation and improve use of alternative modes of transport.

Have we seen anything that can comprehensively eliminate the need for a bypass while ensuring that all road users (even a certain level of car usage) can benefit from that alternative(s) to the same extent? I don't think so, though I do agree that the ideas you posted earlier would help. But these points have been made before and may be made again with no real difference, so why are people again thrashing out the need for this bypass when there's already been good evidence shown that the bypass is needed no matter how many cost-effective alternatives are put in place? There wasn't the same level of hand-wringing going on when the Waterford bypass was discussed.

I don't own a car and I don't live in Galway and but visit it annually. From my use of bus transport and shared journeys in cars, the need for another bridge crossing somewhere in Galway seems as clear to me as a need for better cycling access and pedestrian access and bus lanes (please GCC, more bus lanes!!) across the current "orbital" route. And a need for better planning too.

I think a sense of balance and fairness has been ebbing away since this court case cropped up and the last 50 posts in this thread have been no exception, from all sides.

galwaycyclist

Victor wrote: »

In fairness, if someone is looking for a few hundred million to build the bypass and there are other projects competing for that money, then the test for allowing that money should be quite high, especially when other measures would much reduce the need for the need for the bypass at a cost of a few tens of millions.

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
• a few buckets of cement to put in a ramp here and there,
• Removing a kissing gate or two in various locations
• putting up a 200 euro sign granting cyclists an exemption from a one-way street.
• A couple of thousand to close a rat run with a bollard here or there.
• Putting in bike parking in a small university city where there is a city centre car parking space for every 23 residents but cycle parking space only for every 400 residents.

It is disingenous to ask people to accept claims that the bypass will improve conditions for walking and cycling in a city where the officials calling for the bypass behave in a consistently hostile manner towards cyclists and pedestrians.

lucernarian

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
• a few buckets of cement to put in a ramp here and there,
• Removing a kissing gate or two in various locations
• putting up a 200 euro sign granting cyclists an exemption from a one-way street.
• A couple of thousand to close a rat run with a bollard here or there.
• Putting in bike parking in a small university city where there is a city centre car parking space for every 23 residents but cycle parking space only for every 400 residents.

It is disingenous to ask people to accept claims that the bypass will improve conditions for walking and cycling in a city where the officials calling for the bypass behave in a consistently hostile manner towards cyclists and pedestrians.

You see, describing it as disingenous more or less tars all the posts made to that effect with the one brush and it's only going to lead to yet more squabbles and recriminations. I have not always had a clean bib in that respect but I can hold my hands up if I erred. The way it's phrased, e.g. "accept claims that the bypass will improve conditions for walking" makes it sound like there is an alternative hypothesis that states that building the GCOB would do nothing to improve walking or cycling in Galway City. That beggars belief! To make just one example of this, I find it difficult to cycle around where I live Dublin because of traffic congestion, not so much because of the lack of bus lanes or cycle priority measures which nonetheless are inadequate in Dublin.

I don't claim that the GCOB is the only way of reducing congestion and improving conditions for other road users in Galway. I would support the view that it is a necessary way as part of those measures to improve conditions for others, in the longer term. Therefore I don't see a reason to oppose it on those grounds. Purely because GCC consists of a bunch of incompetents does not mean that the GCOB project should be abandoned pending other road measures.

galwaycyclist

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

You see, describing it as disingenous more or less tars all the posts made to that effect with the one brush and it's only going to lead to yet more squabbles and recriminations. I have not always had a clean bib in that respect but I can hold my hands up if I erred. The way it's phrased, e.g. "accept claims that the bypass will improve conditions for walking" makes it sound like there is an alternative hypothesis that states that building the GCOB would do nothing to improve walking or cycling in Galway City. That beggars belief! To make just one example of this, I find it difficult to cycle around where I live Dublin because of traffic congestion, not so much because of the lack of bus lanes or cycle priority measures which nonetheless are inadequate in Dublin.

I don't claim that the GCOB is the only way of reducing congestion and improving conditions for other road users in Galway. I would support the view that it is a necessary way as part of those measures to improve conditions for others, in the longer term. Therefore I don't see a reason to oppose it on those grounds. Purely because GCC consists of a bunch of incompetents does not mean that the GCOB project should be abandoned pending other road measures.

If we were analysing any other city yours would be a reasonable position.

The problem in Galway is that you are not dealing with reasonable people. It is entirely possible for the officials involved to both build the bypass and continue to make conditions for walking and cycling as a form of transport worse.

I once sat at a council meeting where the then acting Galway City Manager explained to the elected council that just because they were putting in bus lanes it did not necessarily mean they wanted more people to use public transport.

galwaycyclist

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

I don't claim that the GCOB is the only way of reducing congestion and improving conditions for other road users in Galway.

But you see there are key people who are effectively claiming this. Joe Tansey, the head of the city transport unit, was trenchantly opposed to putting in bus lanes on the Seamus Quirke Road unless the bypass was built first. It was forced on him by the elected council. We now have a direct bus service from Knocknacarra to Ballybrit industrial estate running every 20 minutes.

TINA1984

antoobrien wrote: »

Not really the city population is 50% bigger than it was in 1991, the county population is only 35% bigger and much of that is near/around towns and villages

Your point on population increases as a rebuttal to my point actually enhances it.

Let's do the math here: Taking Galway Citys population as 75k and Co. Galways as 175k. A 50% increase to 75k is ~37k population increase in the city. The County experienced a 35% increase means the county experienced an increase of ~60k people in the time period you mentioned. Which fits in neatly with my original point that the main urban area's in the state saw more growth in its rural hinterlands then in the cities themselves.

In the absence of any kind of meaningful LUTS strategy by local administration, and their fondness for granting PP for one-off housing and estates on the periphary of villages & towns, I'm going to presume that most of that 60k extra people in the county has been spread across the Co. Galway area surrounding the city in a haphazard disjointed manner in the small villages, towns and countryside of rural Co. Galway.

antoobrien wrote: »

I'd bet you'd be surprised to hear that (leaving the city out of it) the "urban" population of Co Galway has been steadily rising over the past 20 years. There has been a lot of growth in places like Claregalway, Athenry, Oranmore, Clarinbridge, Turloughmore/Lackagh, Tuam etc on the East, Moycullen & Bearna on the west and others (these are just the places I have had reason to visit in the past few years, there are more areas that I could mention that have estates that were not there 20 years ago).

Again you're ably demonstrating my point on the the non-existant planning policies in place which lead to poor population densities and a dependance on the car as the only means for travel. you've listed over half a dozen different places within the Galway 'metro' area which have experienced some population growth, but that not that much which can sustain nothing more then a rather limited, basic public transport infrastructure. As such car dependency is a given.

It'll be as much outlying areas in the West as it will the towns and villages near Galway city which will be the net benficiaries of any GCOB & M17/18. It'll be possible to live even further away from Galway city and 'commute' - AKA driving a car - in then it is now. Farmers and other landowners in the deepest west must be salivating at the prospect of their construction!

antoobrien wrote: »

The WRC is not used by commuters because it is simply unusable as a commuter route....


As for social use, if you want to go from Craughwell to watch the connacht rugby match on Friday night, it's not possible to do so both ways by train as the last train out of Galway is 6.35pm. That's a timetable issue rather than an indication of the potential utility of the line. If they ever fix that and it's not used, then we can discuss how the people of south Galway ignore it.

The WRC, as far as I can see, isn't used much because most Co. Galway commuters live nowhere near a WRC station, indeed it appears most Co. Galway commuters don't live near any reasonable public transport infrastructure full stop! Let's face it, the WRC timetable is as good as its going to get as it is what it is, a slow inter-city line with limited commuter demand at either end of the line and sparsely populated bits in between Athenry & Ennis.

Remember that bizarre fantasy land I mentioned earlier? the one where I dreamt that a proper LUTS strategy was implemented? In that fantasy scenario the case for both phase's 1 & 2 of the WRC, as well both bits of the M17 & 18 would've been overwhelming if Galway local administration had got its arse in order and concentrated development in the city itself and in one or two nodes in the metro area.

antoobrien wrote: »

The N17 at Claregalway carries > 20k trips per day, about half of which are going to Galway. The N18 at Clarinbridge (Kilcolgan to be exact) carried an average of 16k per day so far this year. With AADTs of 9-10k south of Gort and census information stating that clare & Limerick are not large contributors to the city employee pool, it appears that a fair amount of this traffic is not necessarily bound for Galway.

]It's worth noting that both the N17 & N18 are above capacity for a 2 lane road, one of the benefits of the M17/18 is to make medium and long distance bus journeys predictable, which is one of the things required to allow people to believe that not using the cars is an option (as has been seen on the Galway-Dublin routes).

Your citation of N17/18 AADTs again shows the chronic level of one-off housing and dispersed population settlement inherent in the Co. Galway countryside. There is very little in the way of urban area's north of ClareGalway and south of Gort, yet every morning and every evening these places seize up with traffic. Where are those 10k traffic movements a day that aren't going to Limerick or the Northwest coming from?

Victor

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

There wasn't the same level of hand-wringing going on when the Waterford bypass was discussed.

Waterford only has the two bridges - one in the city centre and one on the bypass. Galway effectively has four.

Waterford was never bypassed, whereas Galway was.

Much as Kilkenny County Council would like to change it, the vast majority of Waterford is on one side of the river.

But most importantly, there is something beyond Waterford - Tramore, Dungarvan and the rest of county Waterford and Cork and Kerry are connected to Wexford, Rosslare and parts of Kilkenny and Wicklow. Whereas in Galway, you have ribbon housing and Clifden.

That said, Waterford has made it's mistakes, e.g. the airport is in the wrong place to serve the wider south east region.

lucernarian

I don't think the existing N6 can be called a bypass when it passes so close to the city centre and surrounded by the admittedly bad planning decisions which are plain for all to see.

The rest of the bridges seem quite unsuited for long-distance traffic but then I'd dearly love to know what proportion of traffic and particularly vans and HGVs have much business in the area currently bound by the Seamus Quirke Road, the QB and the Ballybane Road.

But those are fair points concerning Waterford. I'll add it's not the only scheme where a large town has had an extra bridge crossing added nearby, that the "ring road" was choked with congestion or that there was environmental controversy surrounding the development. Did even Tara and the tolled M3 get this level of attention on boards? I know that's in a different context but I'm trying to highlight that the GCOB is not the first nor the last scheme to have proved controversial here. Between this and the Western Rail Corridor, I suspect there might be something in the water in Galway:pac:

Iwannahurl

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

I did ask you this earlier in a post today. Could you clarify for the sake of posterity, are you currently in favour or against the construction of the N6 GCOB as planned?

I have set out my position in the main GCOB thread and in other threads/forums, so I don't propose to rehash it here if at all possible.

I don't have time just now to find my early posts in the long-running Roads thread on the subject, but the following post is a good intro; you can start here and works backwards if you feel like it: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75477883&postcount=485

Much more recently, TINA1984 very articulately expresses a view on the GCOB that I would support.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84192601&postcount=71

Iwannahurl

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

I don't think the existing N6 can be called a bypass when it passes so close to the city centre and surrounded by the admittedly bad planning decisions which are plain for all to see.

[...]

But those are fair points concerning Waterford.

[...]

According to the NRA the existing set-up (Quincentenary Bridge etc) was built as a ring-road but that its 'bypass' function was seriously eroded by car-dependent and traffic-generating development. That situation developed very rapidly, IIRC. I have referred to the NRA report in the main thread -- all there on the record somewhere.

There are GCOB advocates who see the function of a new bypass mainly as a means of alleviating the traffic generated by the last round of development following a major roads project. Their long-term view is that if/when the congestion-relieving effects of the GCOB are eroded or reversed then the solution is to construct new roads. And so on.

By the way, when was the Waterford bypass opened?

Iwannahurl

galwaycyclist wrote: »

But you see there are key people who are effectively claiming this. Joe Tansey, the head of the city transport unit, was trenchantly opposed to putting in bus lanes on the Seamus Quirke Road unless the bypass was built first. It was forced on him by the elected council. We now have a direct bus service from Knocknacarra to Ballybrit industrial estate running every 20 minutes.

I was speaking to someone in City Direct recently, who said that between CD and BE there is now a bus from Knocknacarra to/through the city centre every 15 minutes (at peak times presumably).

With regard to the SQR, I believe the City Council also wanted several roundabouts in the space of less than 2 km.

From the latest urban road design guidelines:

Large roundabouts are generally not appropriate in urban areas. They require a greater land take and are difficult for pedestrians and cyclists to navigate, particularly where controlled crossings/cycle facilities are not provided, and as such, vehicles have continuous right of way.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/roads-turnaround-blueprint-for-urban-areas-puts-cars-at-bottom-of-hierarchy-1.1361132#.UW0Tjg73JeU.email

lucernarian

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I have set out my position in the main GCOB thread and in other threads/forums, so I don't propose to rehash it here if at all possible.

I don't have time just now to find my early posts in the long-running Roads thread on the subject, but this post is a good intro.

You can start here and works backwards if you feel like it: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75477883&postcount=485

Much more recently, TINA1984 very articulately expresses a view on the GCOB that I would support.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84192601&postcount=71

I emphasised the word "currently" for a reason. I wouldn't look at posts from 2011 to see what your current position is.

The latter post from TINA1984 suggests that you are opposed to this bypass pending an emphasis switch, if you will, to other more sustainable infrastructure development and planning within Galway and for the results of those measures to be borne out first.

Yet the contention here is that the GCOB is necessary regardless of every single other alternative measure. The sheer extent of Galway's traffic problems make me question whether a sufficiently large reduction in traffic volumes could be obtained, or if congestion can be eased to the same extent using alternative measures.

By the way, the Waterford Bypass opened in 2009.

antoobrien

TINA1984 wrote: »

Your point on population increases as a rebuttal to my point actually enhances it.

Not really, if you dig into the figures you'll find that the urban areas are growing far faster than the rural one offs, which some people would have us believe are the problem.

TINA1984 wrote: »

Let's do the math here: Taking Galway Citys population as 75k and Co. Galways as 175k. A 50% increase to 75k is ~37k population increase in the city. The County experienced a 35% increase means the county experienced an increase of ~60k people in the time period you mentioned.

Ignoring that fact that that growth was mostly not in one offs, which is your original point.

TINA1984 wrote: »

In the absence of any kind of meaningful LUTS strategy by local administration, and their fondness for granting PP for one-off housing and estates on the periphary of villages & towns, I'm going to presume that most of that 60k extra people in the county has been spread across the Co. Galway area surrounding the city in a haphazard disjointed manner in the small villages, towns and countryside of rural Co. Galway.

I suggest you get hold of the Galway co development plans then. As for the "estates on the periphary of villages & towns", did it cross your mind that these are the only locations where there is space to do so effectively?

TINA1984 wrote: »

Again you're ably demonstrating my point on the the non-existant planning policies in place which lead to poor population densities and a dependance on the car as the only means for travel. you've listed over half a dozen different places within the Galway 'metro' area which have experienced some population growth, but that not that much which can sustain nothing more then a rather limited, basic public transport infrastructure. As such car dependency is a given.

4!=6. The metro area is Bearna-Moycullen-Claregawaly-Oranmore. The other twons and villages are outside (by several miles) the metro area, so stop with the rubbish please.

TINA1984 wrote: »

It'll be as much outlying areas in the West as it will the towns and villages near Galway city which will be the net benficiaries of any GCOB & M17/18. It'll be possible to live even further away from Galway city and 'commute' - AKA driving a car - in then it is now. Farmers and other landowners in the deepest west must be salivating at the prospect of their construction!

I suggest you go read the M17/18 thread, becuase you'll find that among other things the farmers have already been apid and there is open debate as to how useful the road is to commuters. This is especially true considering that less than 1,000 commuters come from clare & limerick to Galway, yet the N18 south of Gort (i.e. traffic from clare/Limerick) is 10k. That's long distance traffic, not commuting traffic.

TINA1984 wrote: »

The WRC, as far as I can see, isn't used much because most Co. Galway commuters live nowhere near a WRC station, indeed it appears most Co. Galway commuters don't live near any reasonable public transport infrastructure full stop! Let's face it, the WRC timetable is as good as its going to get as it is what it is, a slow inter-city line with limited commuter demand at either end of the line and sparsely populated bits in between Athenry & Ennis.

No, it's because it very badly timetabled. There ar eplenty of letters to the editior in the lcoal papers deriding the fact that people can not use it to get to work early enough!

TINA1984 wrote: »

Remember that bizarre fantasy land I mentioned earlier? the one where I dreamt that a proper LUTS strategy was implemented? In that fantasy scenario the case for both phase's 1 & 2 of the WRC, as well both bits of the M17 & 18 would've been overwhelming if Galway local administration had got its arse in order and concentrated development in the city itself and in one or two nodes in the metro area.

That is a fantasy land, considering there are - East of the river - the towns/Villages of Claregalway, Oranmore, Clainbridge, Craughwell, Loughrea, Tuam, Athenry, Headford, Ballinasloe, Gort, Portumna & Mounbellew covering an area about the size of Co Meath. They all have needs and they are seeing businesses being lost and not replaced because of attitudes like yours, whcih is causing more traffic problems for Galway as more people come to Galkway looking for jobs.

West of the river we have Bearna, Spiddle, Indreabhan, Clifden, Oughterard and Moycullen, as well as the tourist spots like Roundstone & Maam.

That fantasy world you are planning can't cope with the sheer physical size of Galway, and Galway Co Co are smart enough to realise it for the fantasy that it is.

TINA1984 wrote: »

Your citation of N17/18 AADTs again shows the chronic level of one-off housing and dispersed population settlement inherent in the Co. Galway countryside.

Utter fail, south of Gort on the M18 is Crusheen Co Clare. I suggest you stop tring to find solutions base on maps and bad research

If you have some proof that it is one offs that are causing this especially when the numbers in the aggregate town areas are increasing - please show it.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Yesterday, at short notice, I had to do the school run, and without thinking I made the stupid mistake of taking the car. Naturally I ended up stuck in traffic, and the trip took me twice as long as normal.

Given the very strong winds that were in Galway Tuesday morning (severely buffeting my 4 door), are you sure that it was as an unthinking ans stupid mistake to take the car? I saw several cyclists struggling to keep the bike straight on the roads & cyclepaths, so it would seem that putting your child in the back seat was in fact the smart safe move.


Wait, you constantly complain about people who "chose to be car dependent" and yet you have chosen to live in an area with inadequate public transport coverage for you to bring the young 'uns to school if the alternative (presumably a lift from a neighbour in a car) - making you dependent on a car on short notice.

Smells of hypocrisy.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I had to do the school run again today, but this time I knew in advance. It was lashing rain, but having had the painful reminder the previous day, I took the bike. On the way there I was overtaken by a motorist driving at, by my conservative estimate, more than twice the posted speed limit

While I was out at the end of the morning rush there was no road east of the river where it was possible to reach 100km/h due to the levels of traffic (including the BNT). What alternative reality were you cycling in?

Your "conservative" estimates of speeds are skewed by the observation bias caused by the fact that you are travelling a much slower speed. While it looks extremely fast, the difference is almost never as severe as received.

Did you ever get the bike mounted radar gun?

Con Logue

TINA1984 wrote: »

Imagine a bizarre parallel Ireland, a land where thanks to strict planning laws, small towns & villages like Craughwell, Tuam, Athenry & Gort were designated as hubs for housing and economic growth within the Galway metro area, and were blossoming as a result.

Instead of the WRC being an irrelevance like it is now, and the M17/18 forever destined to have low AADTs primatily composed of people coming fron the country into Galway, the good burghers of these towns would be crying out for decent road and rail connections into a Galway city that hasn't been blitzed by lazy development west of the river.

In that instance, the WRC phases 1&2 as well as sections of the N17/18 would be truly deserving of an upgrade, CBA's for these projects would definitely be positive. But as I said thats in a bizarro-fantasy world.

No, instead we got a weird hybrid of Pierre Poujade and Antonio Salazar in rural Ireland, where selling the family farm for development explains the animosity towards any kind of spatial planning.

In other words, if the unholy alliance of rural kids who went to UCD and who were thrilled to be at the feet of Moore McDowell, their parents who owned "the land" and local politicians who faciliated narrow lane dual carriageways and breeze block industrial estates masquerading as shopping centres want a monument, let the chaos of Galway City be it. This is why the Western Rail Corridor has been targetted, it could be used as the backbone of a revolution in spatial planning. It doesn't fit into the existing model that leaves us with massively dispersed development.

galwaycyclist

antoobrien wrote: »

While I was out at the end of the morning rush there was no road east of the river where it was possible to reach 100km/h due to the levels of traffic (including the BNT). What alternative reality were you cycling in?

Your "conservative" estimates of speeds are skewed by the observation bias caused by the fact that you are travelling a much slower speed. While it looks extremely fast, the difference is almost never as severe as received.

Your post confirms one of the key arguments against the bypass. In the absence of an effective national police service it is the traffic congestion that is keeping a lid on traffic speeds in the city.

Take away that congestion and you make the roads more dangerous. If you want to see support for the bypass then show us a city-wide enforced speed management plan first (something that the city officials worked strenuously to keep out of the Walking and Cycling Strategy)

The danger posed by speeding cars is proportional to the square of the speed. The impact energy involved in an impact at 60km/h is substantially higher than that at 50km/h. For a pedestrian the "survivability" drops from around 50% to 10%.