N6 - Galway outer bypass: Is it needed?

Aidan1

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.

Just because it's becoming less of a problem doesn't mean that it's not still a problem! Lets talk figures - "of the 20,560 persons commuting into the city 17,932 (87%) lived in Galway county ... Oranmore was the main feeder town for the city (1,211), followed by Athenry (597), Bearna (455) and Maigh Cuilinn (361)" (from the CSO - link below). Or, in other words, if you take the top three satellite towns feeding Galway, about 8% of the commuting population come from there. The rest comes from everywhere else, and from the map below, you will see that 'everywhere else' means quite literally that. Some will come from towns (centres of more than 1,500 people), some will come from rural one offs, and some will come from estates tacked on to small vilages and towns. The 2010 Review of the NSS categorised the problem as follows;

"Almost half (48%) of total urban population growth between 2002 and 2006 took place in urban areas with a population of less than 10,000 in 2006, although these towns accounted for only 28% of the national total. Essentially, despite the main cities and towns being the key centres for national employment growth, smaller towns and villages within a 50 to 80 km commuting range of major cities and towns have often been the destination of choice for many new home owners over more centrally located areas and for a variety of reasons including cheaper land and house prices, driven in turn by a very flexible local zoning process ...Much of the population growth that occurred in more rural areas within the commuting catchments of the Gateways and Hubs appears to have been urban generated and due to higher than average inward migration, with a lot of the associated employment focussed on the construction, manufacturing and services sectors. "

This is why spatial planning is so critical - if you allow people to build all over the place, you can never hope to provide them with public transport (or have critical mass for all other services). Nor does it mean that rural one offs are still not an issue, or are not being built, just that we built a stack of houses in small rural villages and towns that outweighed that build rate elsewhere.

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

Not fail, win. In fact, it's a good example of the nature of the problem. According to the CSO figures, 1,098 workers commuted into Galway from Mayo on a daily basis, and 457 workers from Clare (p.23 at the link below). If you have a look at the maps at the link, you can see the spatial dispersion of the people commuting into Galway, including from Mayo and Clare - clearly these people are coming from a very wide area, outside the main towns - what is generally referred to as urban generated rural housing. Or at least urban supported rural housing.

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/census/documents/census2011profile10/Profile,10,Full,Document.pdf

lucernarian

galwaycyclist wrote: »

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%.

This is a counterintuitive suggestion, to say the least. That congestion and higher traffic volumes could make roads safer and easier to navigate by other road users? My experiences in Dublin has been markedly different. Unless there is some aspect of separation and enforcement applied, I can't see how congestion can help cyclists. I'm sick of cycling around Dublin in peak traffic while I have to take a line away from footpaths to avoid people and then have Mr. Motorist yell and beep at me for trying to cycle safely and also obey the rules of the road. I would never cycle down the quays in Dublin if the port tunnel hadn't been built. I find that the mere presence of trucks are an inevitable and severe risk to the safety of cyclists and the experience of Dublin in the last decade or two would bear this out.

Do trucks and other large vehicles form a big part of the traffic currently using the QB and Seamus Quirke road?

antoobrien

Aidan1 wrote: »

Not fail, win. In fact, it's a good example of the nature of the problem. According to the CSO figures, 1,098 workers commuted into Galway from Mayo on a daily basis, and 457 workers from Clare (p.23 at the link below).

Am no utter fail, the contetnion is that there will be low AADTs on the M18. Those figures show conclusively that there is not heaving commuting traffic coming from clare & and limerick - 457 commuters from approx 10k using the M18 south of gort with approx another 6-8k at clarinbdrige is proof that the N18 is not a commuter road.

Aidan1

Am no utter fail

*Bangs head on table*

Here's a thought experiment for you. We have a situation whereby people now choose to commute, on a bad and busy road, headlong into serious traffic. What will happen if and when the road is dramatically improved, and the GCOB is built, and in the absence of any measures to better plan housing development? Again, the M18 from Clare is just one example - the M17/M18 will reduce commuting times from a broad swath of rural Galway. Are you seriously suggesting that there will be no effect on the spatial pattern of development because of this?

Also, you wanted figures on housing sprawl in the commuting zone for Galway. You now have them, showing both the nature and extent of the problem. Any comment?

galwaycyclist

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

This is a counterintuitive suggestion, to say the least. That congestion and higher traffic volumes could make roads safer and easier to navigate by other road users? My experiences in Dublin has been markedly different. Unless there is some aspect of separation and enforcement applied, I can't see how congestion can help cyclists. I'm sick of cycling around Dublin in peak traffic while I have to take a line away from footpaths to avoid people and then have Mr. Motorist yell and beep at me for trying to cycle safely and also obey the rules of the road. I would never cycle down the quays in Dublin if the port tunnel hadn't been built. I find that the mere presence of trucks are an inevitable and severe risk to the safety of cyclists and the experience of Dublin in the last decade or two would bear this out.

Do trucks and other large vehicles form a big part of the traffic currently using the QB and Seamus Quirke road?

Not counterintuitive at all. There is a reason why rural collisions are more likely to be fatal - it is because the impact energies are higher. That road deaths fall with congestion is a widely reported effect. I didnt say it was necessarily easier - but congested lower speed traffic is much less threatening than cars skimming by you at 60-70km/h.

In some cases it may be easier. I would argue that, for cyclists and pedestrians, a roundabout that is locked up with traffic is less of a challenge than one where cars and trucks are taking a "racing line" through the junction at 60km/h or more.

The Port Tunnel in Dublin had that effect because a decision was made to exclude HGVs from the city. The Shannon Tunnel in Limerick has not had anything like that effect because it is tolled and because there was no strategy for keeping inappropriate traffic out of the city.

In Galway, the city officials fought to keep a HGV management strategy out of the Walking and Cycling Strategy. At a recent meeting a city engineer indicated that sludge lorries from Mutton Island were being directed out Threadneedle Road (Where there are two secondary schools and two nearby primary schools) during school travel times. When challenged on this his reply was that it was no different to sending Roadstone lorries out the same route.

Do not judge the rest of the country by what happens in Dublin

antoobrien

Aidan1 wrote: »

*Bangs head on table*

Keep banging it, the myths might dissipate.

Aidan1 wrote: »

Here's a thought experiment for you. We have a situation whereby people now choose to commute, on a bad and busy road, headlong into serious traffic. What will happen if and when the road is dramatically improved, and the GCOB is built, and in the absence of any measures to better plan housing development? Again, the M18 from Clare is just one example - the M17/M18 will reduce commuting times from a broad swath of rural Galway. Are you seriously suggesting that there will be no effect on the spatial pattern of development because of this?

Also, you wanted figures on housing sprawl in the commuting zone for Galway. You now have them, showing both the nature and extent of the problem. Any comment?

Aidan1 wrote: »

Just because it's becoming less of a problem doesn't mean that it's not still a problem! Lets talk figures - "of the 20,560 persons commuting into the city 17,932 (87%) lived in Galway county ... Oranmore was the main feeder town for the
city (1,211), followed by Athenry (597), Bearna (455) and Maigh Cuilinn (361). (from the CSO - link below". Or, in other words, if you take the top three satellite towns feeding Galway, about 8% of the commuting population come from there. The rest comes from everywhere else

Lets get realistic about the situation in Co Galway, it has always had a widely dispersed settlement pattern. Any kind of cursory glance of the historical records will show "sprawl" is nowhere near a recent phenomenon in Co Galway.

In 1956 there were 27 towns/villages in Co Galway that had populations of 200 or more - population 44791 including the (then) town of Galway. That leaves a "dispersed" or rural population of 110,762. That figure now stands at 135,578.

It should be noted that county Galway's population is now back where it was
in 1861.

The one off argument is hiding the fact that the center of employment has changed drastically over the past 30 years. How many factories have closed in places like Tuam, Loughrea, Ballinasloe? How many have been replaced in those towns? How many farmers are now supplementing their income by working?

Start getting to the bottom of these questions, then we start to see the real situation in Co Galway.

antoobrien

galwaycyclist wrote: »

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.

You got that from "you can't accurately guestimate the speed speed of a fast moving object from a slower one", well done.:rolleyes:

galwaycyclist wrote: »

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

There's no first/second about it, both are needed.

Aidan1

Any kind of cursory glance of the historical records will show that the "dispersed" natured of "development" is a myth.

Half right. Economic activity (manufacturing, services, higher order retail) has become urban focused (and thus less dispersed), but housing development has not, or at least not even nearly to the same extent. Instead, it has been allowed spread out over the entire county (not unique to Galway of course, it's a national issue). Again, this is a well understood and much studied phenomenon, and one that has some critical implications for infrastructure provision.

This has a load of downsides, even aside from the service and infrastructure provision question. The housing bubble was at it's most bubbly in those areas as the focus on construction activity completely distorted the local economy, and the effect of the collapse has been at it's worst in the outer periphery of the peri-urban region. Again, proper spatial planning would have prevented the worst of this.

antoobrien

galwaycyclist wrote: »

The Port Tunnel in Dublin had that effect because a decision was made to exclude HGVs from the city. The Shannon Tunnel in Limerick has not had anything like that effect because it is tolled and because there was no strategy for keeping inappropriate traffic out of the city.

In Galway, the city officials fought to keep a HGV management strategy out of the Walking and Cycling Strategy. At a recent meeting a city engineer indicated that sludge lorries from Mutton Island were being directed out Threadneedle Road (Where there are two secondary schools and two nearby primary schools) during school travel times. When challenged on this his reply was that it was no different to sending Roadstone lorries out the same route.

All of those are good arguments to having a minimum of bypass with a HGV free toll (e.g. DPT). The Limerick & Waterford bypasses show the folly of tolling full bypasses.

Just as a matter of curiosity, what's your alternative route for the HGVs that should avoid schools, since pretty much every major road in Galway has a school nearby?

galwaycyclist

antoobrien wrote: »

You got that from "you can't accurately guestimate the speed speed of a fast moving object from a slower one", well done.:rolleyes:

No I got it from this

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?
[/URL]?

Careful now Anto your straw men are starting to show.

antoobrien

Aidan1 wrote: »

Half right. Economic activity (manufacturing, services, higher order retail) has become urban focused (and thus less dispersed), but housing development has not, or at least not even nearly to the same extent. Instead, it has been allowed spread out over continued across the entire county as it always has.

FYP

Aidan1 wrote: »

This has a load of downsides, even aside from the service and infrastructure provision question. The housing bubble was at it's most bubbly in those areas as the focus on construction activity completely distorted the local economy, and the effect of the collapse has been at it's worst in the outer periphery of the peri-urban region. Again, proper spatial planning would have prevented the worst of this.

There's an industrial estate designated in Athenry that was built near the motorway - perfect site, easy access etc. No takers and no word of anyone that wants to go it it. Spatial planning can only go so far, you have to also try to direct demand and of course somehow make it all affordable.

One of the reasons I'm in favour of the two roads being argued for os the possibility of making the west more competitive and making that site in Athenry and others something that potential employers/investors will see as will be practical.

galwaycyclist

antoobrien wrote: »

All of those are good arguments to having a minimum of bypass with a HGV free toll (e.g. DPT). The Limerick & Waterford bypasses show the folly of tolling full bypasses.

Just as a matter of curiosity, what's your alternative route for the HGVs that should avoid schools, since pretty much every major road in Galway has a school nearby?

I would have thought it was obvious. If a road is clearly a school route then during school travel times 8:30-9:30 and 15:00 to 17:00 you don't get to use it in a HGV.

Children walking or cycling to school are fulfilling a legal obligation placed on them by the state. They have absolutely no choice about when they travel.

Adults who need HGVs for some reason have loads of choices about when they travel and there is no net societal benefit that I can see from giving them unrestricted access to public roads.

antoobrien

galwaycyclist wrote: »

No I got it from this



Careful now Anto your straw men are starting to show.

IWH posted that the car in question had to be going at least twice the speed limit. Given the fact that the general speed limit is 50km/h (are there any 30km limits in the city?) that means a minimum of 100km/h, a speed I never hit even when driving on the N6 outside the racecourse (which is usually possible) yesterday at the tail end of rush hour.

The straw man is somehow getting your post from pointing out the factual flaws in IWH's "observation".

antoobrien

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I would have thought it was obvious. If a road is clearly a school route then during school travel times 8:30-9:30 and 15:00 to 17:00 you don't get to use it in a HGV.

So you're talking no access anywhere across the city to the any goods or passenger vehicle of 3,500kg laden weight between those times. Very good, carry on.

lucernarian

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Not counterintuitive at all. There is a reason why rural collisions are more likely to be fatal - it is because the impact energies are higher. That road deaths fall with congestion is a widely reported effect. I didnt say it was necessarily easier - but congested lower speed traffic is much less threatening than cars skimming by you at 60-70km/h.

In some cases it may be easier. I would argue that, for cyclists and pedestrians, a roundabout that is locked up with traffic is less of a challenge than one where cars and trucks are taking a "racing line" through the junction at 60km/h or more.

The Port Tunnel in Dublin had that effect because a decision was made to exclude HGVs from the city. The Shannon Tunnel in Limerick has not had anything like that effect because it is tolled and because there was no strategy for keeping inappropriate traffic out of the city.

In Galway, the city officials fought to keep a HGV management strategy out of the Walking and Cycling Strategy. At a recent meeting a city engineer indicated that sludge lorries from Mutton Island were being directed out Threadneedle Road (Where there are two secondary schools and two nearby primary schools) during school travel times. When challenged on this his reply was that it was no different to sending Roadstone lorries out the same route.

Do not judge the rest of the country by what happens in Dublin

It was merely my opinion that I found it counterintuitive. You saying otherwise doesn't change this. Let's not fool ourselves, the perception among the population is that congestion and high traffic volumes makes pedestrian and bicycle movement less safe. Vehicle speed and congestion are not the exact same issue even though they overlap and this is particularly true in the case of Galway and the current QB arrangement. A congested Seamus Quirke might be safer than one where traffic may speed whenever it's empty but is it safer than a Seamus Quirke road which has less traffic AND is subjected to stringent speed controls and prioritisation of cycling and pedestrian-friendly measures? I don't think so.

galwaycyclist

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

It was merely my opinion that I found it counterintuitive. You saying otherwise doesn't change this. Let's not fool ourselves, the perception among the population is that congestion and high traffic volumes makes pedestrian and bicycle movement less safe. Vehicle speed and congestion are not the exact same issue even though they overlap and this is particularly true in the case of Galway and the current QB arrangement. A congested Seamus Quirke might be safer than one where traffic may speed whenever it's empty but is it safer than a Seamus Quirke road which has less traffic AND is subjected to stringent speed controls and prioritisation of cycling and pedestrian-friendly measures? I don't think so.

With regret you have missed the point. Where are you getting this from?

"AND is subjected to stringent speed controls and prioritisation of cycling and pedestrian-friendly measures?"

As I made clear am talking about having less traffic in a situation where there is a general absence of speed controls and there is official opposition to having a speed management strategy - the result will inevitably be higher free speeds of traffic. Therefore the result is more danger.

As for prioritisation of cycling. I am appending pictures of new cycle lanes at traffic lights along the Seamus Quirke road. The lights work off detector loops in the road surface. These detect waiting traffic and change the lights. If you look closely you will see that the sensor loops have not been continued into the cycle lanes. Nor are there separate sensor loops for the cycle lanes*. It appears that it is the intent of the designers that the lights should not change for cyclists unless a car comes along to trigger the lights.

This is a design that, to work for cyclists, apparently relies on having consistently high levels of car traffic.

* Yes they can be tuned to detect most bikes -in fact they can be tuned to detect a safety boot.

galwaycyclist

antoobrien wrote: »

So you're talking no access anywhere across the city to the any goods or passenger vehicle of 3,500kg laden weight between those times. Very good, carry on.

Where did I say anywhere? Mind those strawmen Anto. There is already established precedent for closing certain roads in the city at certain times of the day. Shop street, Mainguard St, Abbeygate St, High St and Quay St are all closed to HGVs at certain times of the day. The sky hasnt fallen and the world hasnt stopped spinning.

Excluding HGVs from identified school routes for much shorter periods is merely a variation on the same thing.

antoobrien

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Where did I say anywhere? Mind those strawmen Anto

I can't think of too many ways of navigating town without crossing a school. It's a bit like Bloom's trek across Dublin or trying to get the solution to the wandering salesman.

Can you show me one?

TINA1984

antoobrien wrote: »

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.

Not sure what you're getting at here. You originally countered my point that there has been more growth in the hinterlands of urban area's then the urban area's themselves with polished stats to suggest otherwise in Galways case. Of course when you put your % through the ringer, the opposite was the case.

antoobrien wrote: »

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

Almost 2/3 of all residential planning permission granted by Galway Co.Co over the past decade or so has been for one off housing, the only other local authority in the state with a higher % is Mayo CC!

antoobrien wrote: »

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?

On development plans, 2 point spring to minds:

Firstly, development plans are aspirational documents generally ignored by Councillors at will.

Any local newspaper circa 2000 -2007 "Councillors have voted for a material contravention of the development plan...."

Secondly, Outside the GDA, only the Cork local authorities have made a concerted effort to implement an appropriate LUTS and stick to it.

antoobrien wrote: »

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.

I used the term 'metro' Galway loosely, hence the comma marks, as there doesn't appear to be a defined metro Galway area beyonds cursory mentions in your beloved development plan.

When the Galway councils get their arse in order and come up with an appropriate LUTS for the metro Galway area - which they actually intend to implement as opposed to paying lip service to- then perhaps we can start taking seriously the idea of a metro Galway and can fund appropriate road and public transport infrastructure.

As already mentioned Western politicians are adept at championing & securing infrastructure funding from the state, but not so great at putting in appropriate planning measures for best use of said infrastructure.

antoobrien wrote: »

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.

As pointed out, farmers and landowners can look forward to a bonanza as it'll be possible to build a one-off somewhere in deepest NW Co. Galway/Mayo and still commute in a reasonable time into Galway city & surrounds once the GCOB and M17/18 are built.

antoobrien wrote: »

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!

You could put a half hourly service for 20 hours a day on the WRC and it'll still have astonishingly poor loadings for the same reason it does now. Namely, not many people live in the bustling metropolis' of Gort, Craughwell etc.

antoobrien wrote: »

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.

Y'know county Meath has far, far more people living in it then in the area you've mentioned right? To take your example to an extreme, Co. Kerry is bigger then Meath, should we build some motorway there as well?

FYI businessess are being "lost" everywhere in Ireland right now.

antoobrien wrote: »

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

y'know an invisible county border doesn't automatically demarcate a boundary where people will stop commuting to a city or town?

antoobrien wrote: »

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.

Hmm lets see, 2/3 of all Co. Galway PP granted is for one-off housing. Do you really think these people living in all these new one-offs - remember Galway county population has expanded by 60k -are just locals who aren't commuting to the major employment centres? I think not.

Victor

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 it was the edge of the city when it was built.

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

The rest of the bridges seem quite unsuited for long-distance traffic

But perfectly good for local use.

But those are fair points concerning Waterford.

Oh, also, the bridge in Waterford was subject to occasional lifts to allow ships and barges by.

lucernarian

galwaycyclist wrote:

As I made clear am talking about having less traffic in a situation where there is a general absence of speed controls and there is official opposition to having a speed management strategy - the result will inevitably be higher free speeds of traffic. Therefore the result is more danger.

It wasn't that I missed the point, I just regard it as not being applicable to the merits of the GCOB scheme. The topic in this thread was the GCOB, not just the problems that exist with the Seamus Quirke road. You are claiming that congestion has a positive effect on cycling safety but I think this is a myopic view. I would argue it's much safer to have quiet roads where the speeds of other vehicles are successfully curtailed (as an example) than it is to have roads where they're only safe because most of the road space consists of idle cars and trucks.

And there is a certain question of safety arising if I have to weave between vehicles to get through traffic. Arguably it's just a matter of perception but I do hate it all the same.

antoobrien

Victor wrote: »

But it was the edge of the city when it was built.

Nope! The so called bypass was planned to go through and skirt by areas that were built long before the road was planned. E.g. the industrial areas in Mervue Ballybane date back to the 60 & 70s. Castlepark, which overlooks the raceoursce section of the DC, was built in the 70s before the road was even planned. The housing in mervue dates from the 50s. Newcastle, Tirellan etc all existed before the QB was built.

lucernarian

Victor wrote: »

But it was the edge of the city when it was built.

That doesn't change its appropriateness as a bypass especially when Galway was already regarded as a centre of commerce in the region and growth, properly planned or otherwise, was something to be anticipated. The road still lies about 1 km from Eyre Square. The substantial growth of Galway should have been accommodated more sustainably and with greater foresight to the consequences of spread-out housing estates but that does not serve as a justification for the particulars of the route.

galwaycyclist

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

I would argue it's much safer to have quiet roads where the speeds of other vehicles are successfully curtailed (as an example) than it is to have roads where they're only safe because most of the road space consists of idle cars and trucks.

I agree but the problem is in Galway is that those behind the bypass are not offering anybody any quiet roads where the speeds of other vehicles are curtailed.

Instead they are specifically opposed to implementing a speed management plan for the city.

Quiet roads and speed curtailment are not on the table. If they are not on the table then where does the balance of advantage lie regarding bypass vs no bypass?

There is a strong argument that the refusal by the state to adequately police traffic in the city favours the no bypass option.

antoobrien

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Where did I say anywhere?

Unless you're willing to be somewhat specific about what it is you are suggesting and one would have to assume that it is in fact a total ban you are talking about.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Mind those strawmen

Ah the strawman, the last refuge of th person who has no good argument so just creates a logical fallacy by claiming logical fallacy. Isn't that a logical fallacy?

I'll take that as checkmate thanks.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

There is already established precedent for closing certain roads in the city at certain times of the day. Shop street, Mainguard St, Abbeygate St, High St and Quay St are all closed to HGVs at certain times of the day. The sky hasnt fallen and the world hasnt stopped spinning.

Excluding HGVs from identified school routes for much shorter periods is merely a variation on the same thing.

Wait your proposal says nothing about exceptions. Let's hear about these exceptions.;)

I'm finding hard to find a route that one can use without directly passing a school entrance or a path beside a school where they might be walking. Th wandering salesman problem comes to mind.

antoobrien

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I agree but the problem is in Galway is that those behind the bypass are not offering anybody any quiet roads where the speeds of other vehicles are curtailed.

Why are you under the impression that the bypass is a city council project when it's not? They support the county councils project and the county council can not offer any quiet roads in the city, since they don't control them.

Victor

antoobrien wrote: »

Lets get realistic about the situation in Co Galway, it has always had a widely dispersed settlement pattern. Any kind of cursory glance of the historical records will show "sprawl" is nowhere near a recent phenomenon in Co Galway.

In 1956 there were 27 towns/villages in Co Galway that had populations of 200 or more - population 44791 including the (then) town of Galway. That leaves a "dispersed" or rural population of 110,762. That figure now stands at 135,578.

But in 1956, most households didn't have access to a car and therefore they worked at or close to home. Now people are commuting from several counties to Galway city. 5-10% of people enumerated in some Connemara EDs in the 2011 census worked in Dublin.

Additionally, while population has grown somewhat, household size has dropped substantially, resulting in many more households.

antoobrien wrote: »

So you're talking no access anywhere across the city to the any goods or passenger vehicle of 3,500kg laden weight between those times. Very good, carry on.

But Dublin only bans vehicles with 5 or more axles, which would be vehicles over about 20 tonnes.

galwaycyclist

antoobrien wrote: »

Unless you're willing to be somewhat specific about what it is you are suggesting and one would have to assume that it is in fact a total ban you are talking about.

Anto if you go back and check I raised the issue with reference to Threadneedle road, that and Taylors hill would be two obvious places to start.

Keep those strawmen coming.

galwaycyclist

antoobrien wrote: »

Why are you under the impression that the bypass is a city council project when it's not? They support the county councils project and the county council can not offer any quiet roads in the city, since they don't control them.

Why would I care who is building it? What is at issue is whether the GCOB would be a good thing or not. For the city, that question is determined by the behaviour of the city council and the Garda in the city.

antoobrien

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Anto if you go back and check I raised the issue with reference to Threadneedle road, that and Taylors hill would be two obvious places to start.

Keep those strawmen coming.

Ah so you're only interested in the safety of school children using two schools, not all of the school children in Galway.

So we should ignore your previous complaints about cars and trucks using the roads outside Renmore, Menlo & Castlegar schools then?

galwaycyclist

antoobrien wrote: »

Ah so you're only interested in the safety of school children using two schools, not all of the school children in Galway.

So we should ignore your previous complaints about cars and trucks using the roads outside Renmore, Menlo & Castlegar schools then?

No I said that might be a good place to start. If you prefer to start with other schools then we can do that.

Renmore is rat running by cars trying to avoid the Dublin road at rush hour. That could be fixed by reclosing Murrough Avenue and maybe putting in a road closure outside Renmore school itself. I suspect though that there aren't that many HGVs using Renmore so we might be getting into more strawmannery.

Likewise with Menlo - restore the old narrow roads - make it so cars can't pass each other and put in formal passing places. A few speed tables and ramps at the junctions. The roads in Menlo should only be for traffic orginating in Menlo. Closing off the Dyke Rd to motor traffic would also solve much of the rat running through Menlo - but the Dyke Rd is not accessible to HGVs either so perhaps we are into more strawmannery?

Castlegar School? There are very obvious back routes to Castlgar School via Botharnachoiste etc that are currently being used as rat runs by commuter traffic. This could very easily be stopped by sticking in a bollard with a key and giving the people who live on the road copies of the key. That said we are talking about a very narrow windy little boreen - so its not an obvious HGV route. There is the road in front of Castlegar School itself which is probably not easy to get in or out of with a HGV. Would it be any great hardship to put in a HGV ban a couple of hours a day? Again if HGVs aren't using it we are into more strawmannery.

galwaycyclist

Of course the solution to a place like Menlo is to limit access by car to residents only or people with bona fide business in the area. I am involved in a separate stream of activity looking for exactly this type of traffic legislation.

?Cee?view

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Of course the solution to a place like Menlo is to limit access by car to residents only or people with bona fide business in the area.

There is a lot of harebrained stuff being spouted by anti-car zealots here, but this one really takes the biscuit!

galwaycyclist

churchview wrote: »

There is a lot of harebrained stuff being spouted by anti-car zealots here, but this one really takes the biscuit!

No its standard practice in Germany and France including on residential streets in city centres. It immediatly creates networks of low traffic routes available for walking and cycling. It also stops outsiders in cars from cruising up and down looking for somewhere to park - because if they park and they don't live there they get fined and towed. Welcome to the 20th 21st century.

Iwannahurl

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

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.

Thanks for the info re the Waterford bypass.

I haven't changed my views on the alleged need for (and potential effects of) a bypass. The ECJ ruling made no difference to me in that regard.

If Galway City's traffic problems are as bad and as intractable as claimed, and if a wait of several years for a bypass is inevitable, then there is no choice but to implement a serious multi-agency Transportation Demand Management strategy in the interim.

With regard to the potential effect size in terms of traffic reduction, I would have higher expectations than yours perhaps.

A question: would you agree that in general traffic eases considerably when schools are off, as per the following comments (gleaned from various sources including Boards)?

Malice wrote: »

That is something I've often wondered about. It's the same in the evenings, when the schools are off the Headford Road roundabout is often a lot less clogged with cars way after the schools have finished.

Howitzer wrote: »

Now that schools are off 90% of my morning traffic is not there.

Why can't it be like this all the time?

Surely there can't be that many people away on holiday at the moment?

What has to change and who do you lobby to make that change?

[this type of thread probably rears it's head every half-term...]

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Everybody knows that commuter traffic drops big time when schools etc are off; buses, Luas and car traffic are no different.

manufanu wrote: »

This work should be done between the hours of 8pm to 6am like most road projects. Drove by this morning at 7am and not a worker in sight, do the council have monkeys in the offices making decisions for them? They should also have done it during the summer when the schools are off and the traffic is lighter.

Hi all,

Okay, so we all know that the morning rush-hour traffic is better when schools are off. Makes sense.

However, I'm on the roads just after 7am each morning! So why is this still the case? Why are school kids being driven around this early? School starts at 9am in most cases!

It just strikes me as odd that at 7am there's still less traffic when the schools are off!

Anyone know? Or have we got any culprits here?

Its mainly because the schools are off and kids are not being dropped the 200 yards to school by car. Its the same during the summer.

AA: "the commuter routes go quiet as the schools are off"

Minister for Transport Noel Dempsey, 2003: "There is a noticeable decrease in the traffic when schools are off."

A spokesperson for the Council told Galway Bay Fm News that the works were scheduled for today because schools are off.

1 hour 15 minutes to travel 1 mile nearly every morning when the schools are back.

TripAdvisor comment re Galway, 31 August 2007: "schools are back this week - which means there are twice as many vehicles on the road."

patrickc wrote: »

you'd well know the schools are all back properly, and a bit of rain we all slow down again, traffic backed up from newlands cross to almost rathcoole this morning..

roll on the school holidays.

?Cee?view

galwaycyclist wrote: »

No its standard practice in Germany and France including on residential streets in city centres.

Menlo?

lucernarian

Iwannahurl wrote:

Thanks for the info re the Waterford bypass.

I haven't changed my views on the alleged need for (and potential effects of) a bypass. The ECJ ruling made no difference to me in that regard.

If Galway City's traffic problems are as bad and as intractable as claimed, and if a wait of several years for a bypass is inevitable, then there is no choice but to implement a serious multi-agency Transportation Demand Management strategy in the interim.

With regard to the potential effect size in terms of traffic reduction, I would have higher expectations than yours perhaps.

A question: would you agree that in general traffic eases considerably when schools are off, as per the following comments (gleaned from various sources including Boards)?

A traffic management strategy for all road users ought to be implemented immediately in the case of Galway whether the bypass was opening next year or next decade, with further implementations upon opening of the GCOB. So I'd more or less agree on that aspect. It's whether this can offset the need for the GCOB. I certainly doubt it. It's substantially because of the legacy of poor planning that has led to the traffic problems found in Galway today. Though not enough recognition is being given to the rapid development of the city and its impact on infrastructure with even dilligent and farsighted planning involved to cater for it. The poor planning of the past is precisely why I feel that the GCOB is needed to remedy the traffic situation, on top of implementing the hypothetical strategies we've referred to. The inappropriate development of the city and car-centric policies that has happened (and is still happening it seems) will not in any way be cured by delaying or opposing the construction of the GCOB.

The incompetent officials would use such action like delaying its construction as nothing more than an excuse to show their inactivity on Galway's congestion problems and as the issue plays out in local media, the locals will vote accordingly for politicians who side with these officials blaming all traffic problems for the lack of the GCOB and so the problems continue.

I really don't think the citizens of Galway will be done a service by the further delay of this bypass.

To answer your question, I won't make an answer based solely on the comments made below. I would rather trust in my own observations. In the case of Dublin, the impact of schools is substantial in the likes of Rathmines but not so much further east or along North Wall Quay for instance. In the case of Drogheda for example, the impact of schools seems to be less than is the case in Dublin in general. The more residential areas suffer badly though. So for the most part, I think that term times coincide with a significant deterioration in congestion. What's relevant to this thread is Galway though, and my limited experience of the city, all outside term time, is that congestion seems to be a regular feature even when schools are closed.

galwaycyclist

churchview wrote: »

Menlo?

Yes Menlo. What is there in Menlo that justifies letting the world and his brother drive through it trying to skip traffic jams on the Headford road?

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

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.

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 style is typically to attack the poster. For example, I recall you when you used to try to claim that I was neither from Galway nor living here, in an attempt to undermine what I was saying rather than construct a mature rebuttal.

Aaanyway, you put this in double quotes: "chose to be car dependent". Are you saying they're my words? If so, original verbatim quote please.

As for my recent stupid decision to drive rather than cycle, sitting in stalled traffic that day felt like the height of stupidity. I've been cycling since I was a child. I know what the wind can be like, and that day was by no means stormy.

antoobrien wrote: »

Smells of hypocrisy.

Wow, more personal attack in place of rational argument. You ignore (and often misquote and misinterpret) what I actually say, yet you make the claim without a shred of evidence that I "have chosen to live in an area with inadequate public transport coverage" making me "dependent on a car on short notice".

Ah, no actually. I chose to live in an area that was an easy cycle commute to work, city centre and various other locations and amenities. Our child did not get into the local primary school, which would have been a 10-15 minute walk, so we do the morning school run by bike 99.9% of the time. Ironically, and farcically, neighbours whose children did get into the nearest school drop the kids off by car every morning! There are even some who drive less than 500 metres to a local creche!!

As I said, choosing the car on that windy morning was a mistake that I very quickly regretted, but which served to illustrate the folly of doing the school run by car.

antoobrien wrote: »

IWH posted that the car in question had to be going at least twice the speed limit. Given the fact that the general speed limit is 50km/h (are there any 30km limits in the city?) that means a minimum of 100km/h, a speed I never hit even when driving on the N6 outside the racecourse (which is usually possible) yesterday at the tail end of rush hour.

... factual flaws in IWH's "observation".

With regard to the speeding car, what I said was that, by my conservative estimate (based on experience and observation) the driver was travelling at more than twice the posted speed limit. I know what I know and I saw what I saw. I was there, you weren't, so you know JS about it, as they say in the States.

The point, in any case, is that even with the conditions I had to face as a cyclist (speeding driver in one location, jammed-up roundabouts in another etc) my school run by bike was far faster, more efficient and more satisfying than by car. One of my greatest satisfactions when taking that trip by bike is whizzing past the long lines of stationary or slow-moving cars. Quite frankly I have no idea what motivates people to engage in such behaviour on a daily basis. It would drive me nuts very quickly. The irony is that many of them will undoubtedly claim that they have "no time" to travel by other means...

TINA1984

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Your style is typically to attack the poster. For example, I recall you when you used to try to claim that I was neither from Galway nor living here, in an attempt to undermine what I was saying rather than construct a mature rebuttal.

Aaanyway, you put this in double quotes: "chose to be car dependent". Are you saying they're my words? If so, original verbatim quote please.

As for my recent "stupid decision" to drive rather than cycle, sitting in stalled traffic that day felt like the height of stupidity. I've been cycling since I was a child. I know what the wind can be like, and that day was by no means stormy.





Wow, more personal attack in place of rational argument. You ignore (and often misquote and misinterpret) what I actually say, yet you make the claim without a shred of evidence that I "have chosen to live in an area with inadequate public transport coverage" making me "dependent on a car on short notice".

Ah, no actually. I chose to live in an area that was an easy cycle commute to work, city centre and various other locations and amenities. Our child did not get into the local primary school, which would have been a 10-15 minute walk, so we do the morning school run by bike 99.9% of the time. Ironically, and farcically, neighbours whose children did get into the nearest school drop the kids off by car every morning! There are even some who drive less than 500 metres to a local creche!!

As I said, choosing the car on that windy morning was a mistake that I very quickly regretted, but which served to illustrate the folly of doing the school run by car.

With regard to the speeding car, what I said was that, by my conservative estimate (based on experience and observation) the driver was travelling at more than twice the posted speed limit. I know what I know and I saw what I saw. I was there, you weren't, so you know JS about it, as they say in the States.

The point, in any case, is that even with the conditions I had to face as a cyclist (speeding driver in one location, jammed-up roundabouts in another etc) my school run by bike was far faster, more efficient and more satisfying than by car. One of my greatest satisfactions when taking that trip by bike is whizzing past the long lines of stationary or slow-moving cars. Quite frankly I have no idea what motivates people to engage in such behaviour on a daily basis. It would drive me nuts very quickly. The irony is that many of them will undoubtedly claim that they have "no time" to travel by other means...

SOURCE PLEASE?

Iwannahurl

galwaycyclist wrote: »

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)

Let's also bear in mind that the chronic speeding which is a feature of Galway, including and perhaps especially on collector and arterial 50 km/h roads in residential areas, is occurring in a city infamous for its traffic congestion.

If I recall correctly, several vociferous proponents of the GCOB, who are also against the removal of roundabouts, believe that higher speeds on the Quincentenary Bridge and adjacent links. This while simultaneously arguing that far too many cars are being funneled into the area...

Iwannahurl

Aidan1 wrote: »

generally referred to as urban generated rural housing. Or at least urban supported rural housing.

Galway County Council refers to it as "urban pressure", though that didn't rein in their own "Planners".

http://www.galway.ie/en/Services/Planning/SignificantFurtherInformation/GuidelinesArchive/Rural%20Housing%20Guidelines.pdf

L1011

I see the debate still hasn't got past "lets punish Galway for its planners!", then.

TINA1984

MYOB wrote: »

I see the debate still hasn't got past "lets punish Galway for its planners!", then.

As opposed to what? "let's continue giving Galway whatever it wants despite its local administration still being stuck in a 1970s mindset"?

L1011

TINA1984 wrote: »

As opposed to what? "let's continue giving Galway whatever it wants despite its local administration still being stuck in a 1970s mindset"?

You can fix the planning issues. That won't do a damn for the existing traffic though, hence the bypass is still required.

TINA1984

MYOB wrote: »

You can fix the planning issues. That won't do a damn for the existing traffic though, hence the bypass is still required.

Going off what's been posted here, methinks there's a perception that the only planning "issues" in Galway appear to be centred around people not being allowed to build whatever they want, wherever they want, and to hell with the consequences. I'm alright Jack.

it would be nice if some of the regional cities at least attempted to implement appropriate LUTS. Galway more then most appears like it needs one. is it unreasonable to expect for one to be implemented in exchange for the state pumping hundreds of millions into the GCOB & M17/18?

L1011

TINA1984 wrote: »

is it unreasonable to expect for one to be implemented in exchange for the state pumping hundreds of millions into the GCOB & M17/18?

No, but nothing they do is going to work without a bypass, or negate the need for a bypass.

Punishing Galway for its planning history is petty and vindictive.

TINA1984

MYOB wrote: »

No, but nothing they do is going to work without a bypass, or negate the need for a bypass.

Punishing Galway for its planning history is petty and vindictive.

The terminology you're using here is bang out of order. No one is being petty and vindictive, we're just looking for Galway local administration to get its house in order and implement a planning strategy that belongs in the 21st century. As things stand, beyond window-dressing in its development plan, Galway Co.Co hasn't really shown anything to suggest its capable of implementing land-use strategies of any substance. i wonder why that is? (rhetorical question)

By way of comparison Cork has been on top of things since the late 1970s. With a solid regularly updated LUTS in place, as well as a firm focus on the growth of Metro Cork area through the CASP.

That's why Cork has managed to stymie somewhat ridiculous levels of one-off housing in and around its metro area (not so much in the wilderness of West & NW Cork) and keep most of the jobs and industry within the metro area. Its also the basis on which its roads and railways have been built/re-built.

If Cork can do it in 1978, why can't Galway do it in 2013?

Con Logue

TINA1984 wrote: »

Going off what's been posted here, methinks there's a perception that the only planning "issues" in Galway appear to be centred around people not being allowed to build whatever they want, wherever they want, and to hell with the consequences. I'm alright Jack.

it would be nice if some of the regional cities at least attempted to implement appropriate LUTS. Galway more then most appears like it needs one. is it unreasonable to expect for one to be implemented in exchange for the state pumping hundreds of millions into the GCOB & M17/18?

Indeed. It is fascinating that there is so much straining of the gnat that is the WRC while the camel of the M17/18 is happily gobbled without so much as a by your leave. It would seem that rural sprawl is to be encouraged while even a token gesture towards a proper LUTS is impossible for so many to even think of. Of course, if the WRC had been accompanied by a determined effort to increase population densities in the towns served, that would have been a more coherent plan to follow in the first place.

But God help anyone perceived as standing in the way of the 4x4 and the Beemer in the drive of the McMansion in the middle of nowhere! Too many have too much to lose if any bit of the status quo is challenged.

L1011

TINA1984 wrote: »

The terminology you're using here is bang out of order

Because you can't accept its the case?

There are people who oppose the bypass for no other reason than 1980s planning decisions. That is petty and vindictive, whether you like it or not.

There are others who oppose it solely because they don't actually want traffic to get any better unless its bikes/walking/buses that make it better. That is also petty and vindictive.