N6 - Galway outer bypass: Is it needed?

Iwannahurl

churchview wrote: »

You interpreted my reference to zealots to be a reference solely to bypass "sceptics"

I take it that you are not attributing "BA**ARDS" to me?

What do you think?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055413202&page=19

?Cee?view

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What do you think?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055413202&page=19

That is a direct reference to the Green Party.

Iwannahurl

MYOB wrote: »

arguing as if people are looking for onr or the other

The only options are TDM or do nothing.

Personally I think many of those sitting in their cars every day and moaning -- without deliberate irony -- about traffic congestion would rather chew their own arm off than opt for TDM.

At least the do nothing option means not having to get out of the car

L1011

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The only options are TDM or do nothing.

Personally I think many of those sitting in their cars every day and moaning -- without deliberate irony -- about traffic congestion would rather chew their own arm off than opt for TDM.

At least the do nothing option means not having to get out of the car

Do it or do nothing, both in conjunction with the bypass. That is all that can work

KetchupKid

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The only options are TDM or do nothing.

Personally I think many of those sitting in their cars every day and moaning -- without deliberate irony -- about traffic congestion would rather chew their own arm off than opt for TDM.

At least the do nothing option means not having to get out of the car

Well Galway still doesn't have a TDM (Transportation Demand Management programme!) and probably never will and yes, if all the idiots took the bus (ourselves included), Galway wouldn't have any traffic issues, but just a bus issue. Currently there aren't enough buses, they don't service enough areas, many of the current stops, transfers and destinations are inconvenient for a lot of people and in some cases it's not cost effective. If we had a reasonably priced adequate public transportation system, with suitable park & ride locations, there wouldn't be any traffic problems in Galway, but unfortunately we have nothing, except grid lock. So talk all you want about not having TDM, because we have nothing and unless you're lucky enough to live in a convenient location where you can cycle and/or take a handy bus at various convenient times, you're stuck in the grid lock. Should something be done to fix the problem? Yes, we're certainly paying enough in taxes between Motor tax, VRT, petrol tax, etc and it has been promised to us by endless politicians, while other parts of the country with less traffic problems have seen multiple remedies.

Yes, maybe if there was a TDM and adequate PT we might not need a GCOB, but unfortunately we don't have anything but FUBAR!

Iwannahurl

MYOB wrote: »

Do it or do nothing, both in conjunction with the bypass. That is all that can work

If I understand that point correctly, the corollary is 'do nothing until a Bypass exists'.

If so, it's an essentially defeatist conclusion.

Mind you, it supports my view that many motorists would prefer to see nothing at all done that might upset the status quo.

Which in turn indicates that traffic congestion is not as intolerable as some bypass proponents would like to claim.

As usual, these Boards 'debates' just go round in circles (on non-existent ring roads)...

Iwannahurl

KetchupKid wrote: »

So talk all you want about not having TDM, because we have nothing

Talk all you want about a GCOB, because you won't get one for years (or possibly ever, if the NRA CEO is to be believed).

By the way, luck has less to do with the FUBAR situation than political, social and personal choices.

Though I feel lucky to do so, I live where I live and travel the way I travel because of choice, not luck.

The motorists speeding and blocking up the roads and footpaths as I do the school run are doing so out of choice also.

The local authority had choices when it decided to construct large cul-de-sac estates and pedestrian/cycle-hostile high-speed arterial routes.

And so on.

L1011

Iwannahurl wrote: »

If I understand that point correctly, the corollary is 'do nothing until a Bypass exists'.

If so, it's an essentially defeatist conclusion.

Mind you, it supports my view that many motorists would prefer to see nothing at all done that might upset the status quo.

Which in turn indicates that traffic congestion is not as intolerable as some bypass proponents would like to claim.

As usual, these Boards 'debates' just go round in circles (on non-existent ring roads)...

Constructing what.you want to argue against again I see.

markpb

MYOB wrote: »

Constructing what.you want to argue against again I see.

What he's saying is all I can read from your posts too. I'm a little lost about what your opinion is on the matter.

I understand that you believe Galway is different somehow and that traditional traffic management plans won't work there but I don't see what you think can or should be done. Apart from constructing a road that, for one reason or another, won't happen for a while.

L1011

I have no opposition to traffic management plans - as much as its useful to construct that.

I just see no evidence at all that they can negate the need for a bypass. And that is all this thread is about.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The alleged increased congestion has coincided with an increase in the proportion of children being driven to school in the inter-censal period 2006-2011. Funny that: more congestion prompts more people to drive Johnny and Mary to school..

Did you even read the post, I said that there has been no great reduction in traffic congestion and you somehow get "increased congestion".

I've long suspected you're being argumentative for the sake of it, this confirms it.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Did you even read the post, I said that there has been no great reduction in traffic congestion and you somehow get "increased congestion".

I've long suspected you're being argumentative for the sake of it, this confirms it.

Confirmation bias.

You wrote earlier:

antoobrien wrote: »

no great reduction in traffic congestion

In fact some of the measures that the council have introduced have made things worse rather than better e.g. the N6 corridor plan has put traffic on the R339 back to pre-motorway tailbacks every day with traffic regularly backing up at least 1 mile from the lights at parkmore.

It had been the case before these works that there was little or no traffic on this road.

The N6 outbound is still regularly backing up past the racecourse gates, often as far or further than the exit of the business park (sometimes even hogans). This is despite the extra lanes that has been provided.

I won't even get started with the utter mess that is moneenaghesha cross.

There's a name for that kind of fallacious rhetoric.

It may suit your purposes to claim that I'm being "argumentative for the sake of it" since this fits with the fantasy, and the received group-think, that the 20-year-old case for the bypass, emanating as it did from outdated car-dependent and traffic-generating policies, is unassailable and self-evident to all but but a few anti-car ideologues with an "agenda" who favour "oppressive measures taken to punish car users" blah blah etc.

I live in the real world, however, and my views on traffic and transportation policies are derived from my attitudes, experiences and reading of the evidence.

Boards-level 'debate' is not worth being "argumentative" about, whether purely for its own sake or for any other reason.

galwayrush

yer man! wrote: »

Summary: Get those who need to use a car out (on a bypass) those that don't need to use a car (on public transport/cycling on freed up city space)

So simple.:cool:

Iwannahurl

galwayrush wrote: »

So simple.:cool:

There is always a well-known solution to every human problem; neat, plausible, and wrong. ~ H. L. Mencken.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

I wonder how the proponents of these measures reconcile the fact that there has been a marked reduction (some estimates put it at 5%-10%) in traffic since ABP granted permission for the eastern section in 2008 but but no great reduction in traffic congestion?

In fact some of the measures that the council have introduced have made things worse rather than better e.g. the N6 corridor plan has put traffic on the R339 back to pre-motorway tailbacks every day with traffic regularly backing up at least 1 mile from the lights at parkmore. It had been the case before these works that there was little or no traffic on this road. The N6 outbound is still regularly backing up past the racecourse gates, often as far or further than the exit of the business park (sometimes even hogans). This is despite the extra lanes that has been provided.

I won't even get started with the utter mess that is moneenaghesha cross.

I think I see what's going on here now.

If there's already a name for this specious rhetoric, or if a name for it ought to be coined, it somehow needs to encompass the idea of having one's cake and eating with both sides of one's mouth.

One the one side, it's a claim that there has been "no great reduction in traffic congestion" despite a reported 5-10% decrease in traffic since 2008. This, it seems we are invited to conclude, apparently undermines the case for Traffic Demand Management or similar measures.

On the other side, it's a claim that recent and partly-implemented traffic management measures such as the N6 Multi-Modal Corridor Scheme and the conversion of the Moneenageisha (Ffrench) Roundabout to a signalised junction have actually "made things worse".

Why might a GCOB advocate (and vociferous opponent of roundabout removal) try to make both claims simultaneously?

Could the following be a explanation?

Claim 1: a 5-10% decrease in traffic volume leads to "no great reduction" in congestion.

Possible subtext: a reduction in congestion is not achievable with modest TDM-type reductions in traffic.

Claim 2: the N6 Multi-Modal Corridor Scheme has made things worse traffic-wise.

Possible subtext: measures aimed at better traffic management and facilitation of public transport, walking and cycling actually cause more congestion.

Foregone conclusion: the only proper solution is a bypass.

Plausible?

monument

Should we be focusing on relieving congestion or getting most people moving?

yer man!

monument

yer man! wrote: »

Whose argument?

SeanW

Iwannahurl wrote: »

All posted by me earlier, and ignored by you:

http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/

http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/ump/07%20SEATTLE%20Best%20Practices%20in%20Transportation%20Demand%20Management.pdf

http://www.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/7997_93169_GTZ_TDM_Armin_Wagner.pdf

http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/data/files/publications/fairness_car_dependant.pdf

http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/files/car_dependency_scorecard_2.pdf

I only read some of the material and by and large it's all the same: screw motorists. The UN report praises Singapore for making cars 2x or 3x more expensive than other countries (among probably other things.)

But on the VTPI site it was seriously messed up including this pile of total garbage that could only be believed by an anti-car leftist.
For example: http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm86.htm

Strategies that reduce traffic congestion tend to reduce the frequency of crashes but can increase the severity of those crashes that do occur. Strategies that shift automobile travel time, route or destination but do not reduce total vehicle travel probably do little to increase road safety or public health, and may increase injuries and fatalities.

:eek:

So all those motorways that Ireland built have worked to "reduced traffic congestion ... shift automobile travel time, route or destination but do not reduce total vehicle travel" in fact some might say it's increased vehicle travel.

So all those crashes should be more severe and increased travel means there should be more of them. I.E. if that site is correct, our new motorways should all be drenched in blood.

There's just one problem with that (thankfully) it's total bunk. Ireland moved massively to reroute traffic on faster, grade separated highways and all the while, road fatalities went down. The experience was positive for all concerned in most if not all cases. VTPI claims that deaths and serious injuries should be skyrocketing but it's just not happening.

There is no Bypass, and there may never be one.

The lack of same ensures that you can keep telling yourself how right you are as you sit in stalled traffic for the next ten years.

We know who to blame for this lack of a bypass (hopefully the decision will be overriden in court as a matter of extreme public interest which is allowed and has happened in similar cases).

monument wrote:

Should we be focusing on relieving congestion or getting most people moving?

Both. Starting with changes to Irish and if necessary European law to shove people Peter Sweetman and other nuisance litigators out of the way. Permanently.

SeanW

Iwannahurl wrote: »

the received group-think, that the 20-year-old case for the bypass

I live in the real world, however, and my views on traffic and transportation policies are derived from my attitudes, experiences and reading of the evidence.

Heres the thing, so do I. Or perhaps more likely, I live in the real world, and you live in a motorist bashing fantasy-land where everyone can ride bikes and it will all be sunflowers and rainbows.

Unfortunately in real life, a few things can be taken to the banks.

1. Anti-car boneheads think that just screwing motorists is the answer to all problems. Like the VTPI who claims that motorways kill. :eek: Which would be humourously infantile if it were not so bizarre and the authors not actually seriously expecting people to believe it.
2. Bypasses, i.e. high quality grade separated roads, are essential to keeping through traffic out of a city. I've seen first hand how a bypass can transform a traffic choked hellhole (which my local town was before the N5 bypass opened, with vast quantities of Dublin-Mayo/Roscommon traffic strangling the town and ugly HGVs being part of the towns furniture) to being a quiet, peaceful place to do business, where I actually think cycle lanes etc might be a good idea.

I'm likely not alone: pretty sure Moate, Loughrea etc have gone through the same transformations.


This is the sort of balanced approach that I favour:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6jFnOnjzrk

Note that when getting rid of what they call a "Stroad" (a hybrid of Street and Road), it is absolutely clear that handling the former stroads' long distance traffic with a high speed road is of equal importance to measures to make the former stroad a pleasant, living street.

It's been said earlier that Galway City Council has been adding lanes etc to its streets to help deal with the through traffic. That's clearly not the solution. Telling Peter Sweetman to go to Hell on the other hand and removing through traffic from the city centre, clearly is.

Con Logue

Interesting, I didn't know who Peter Sweetman was before now, but thanks to Boards and googling An Taisce I do now. Those who want more rural sprawl may well have dropped the ball without realising it. Pulling Ireland out of the ECJ so we can continue to build all over the Galway hinterland without regard to the consequences might be a bit extreme.

antoobrien

Con Logue wrote: »

Interesting, I didn't know who Peter Sweetman was before now, but thanks to Boards and googling An Taisce I do now. Those who want more rural sprawl may well have dropped the ball without realising it. Pulling Ireland out of the ECJ so we can continue to build all over the Galway hinterland without regard to the consequences might be a bit extreme.

Where do people get off with this crap, the problem isn't new housing or even housing that was built in the last 15 years.

The fact that Galway is the size of Meath & Kildare & Wicklow & Dublin City combined, seems to escape many of the people who are posting on here claiming that all it's bad recent planning. Let's all conveniently forget that Galway has always had a widely dispersed population and that jobs are being lost from the smaller town and farms, so people are finding that they now have to go to the bigger towns and City to get work.

Let's not forget that that an taisce report is about as skewed as it can come, if Galway Co Council had the same rate of one off developments as the 4 Dublin councils, there would have been 600% more one off houses built in Galway over the 10 year period in question. And people on here think that planning in Galway is f****d up.:eek:

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Plausible?

Nope, you just want to see that in peoples arguments.

I have at no point argued against the concept of traffic management systems, I just think that they are not enough and the outbound traffic on the 3 converted junctions every day proves that (the chokepoint "behind" them is already acting as a throttling mechanism).

No the point in all that is that there has been an accepted drop in traffic levels, but congestion apparently remains the same. The drop is in the order of a 100% increase of shares of PT cycling and walking (remember half the traffic comes from outside the city). Despite all your fancy graphics, it the drop hasn't helped.

The second point is that the changes to the junctions and the supposed increase of 500 vehicles per hour (that's 8 1/3 per minute), the fact that all the right turn accesses (except the on onto the N17) back up past their allotted filter space, show clearly that the junctions are overwhelmed and way under capacity.

I had a read of the tribune last night and I laugh that you like what he's saying because Galway City council have finally come out and admitted that they are anti car (not that you will seeor agree to that, so please spare us)

How many 5-10% drops is it going to take for you to accept the fact that your preferred solution might not be able to cope with Galway.

I always find it heartily funny that every example you post of a "poster child" town to show what Galway could be has an actual functioning bypass (the N6 could never be called that).

In the interests of seeing have you actually read any of those sites that you've posted links for, please find us an equivalent of Galway. The criteria are

1. No Bypass
2. River splitting the urban area
3. 2 cross town bridges (OBB & now SW are practically useless to that regard)
4. multiple main/major routes crossing each other along the main exit routes

antoobrien

monument wrote: »

Should we be focusing on relieving congestion or getting most people moving?

Both.

I'm fairly lucky in that, within 20 minutes walk of my home there are two bus routes, that does not mean that the bus is practical for all my travel needs. E.g. I could take two buses to work, but the journey would take over twice as long and be more expensive (even with the tax saver) than the car. I could possibly cycle, but the distance is way past the 6km-7km one way limit that I have found to be practical.

Reducing congestion is required to allow people the freedom to do whatever it is they wish to do: work, school or play.

Iwannahurl

monument wrote: »

Should we be focusing on relieving congestion or getting most people moving?

I have made the point repeatedly -- to no avail -- that the focus should be on moving people rather than cars.

Unfortunately, the 20-year-old We-Must-Have-A-Bypass perspective (which was already outdated when first mooted) is rooted in thinking that equates moving cars with moving people. Or which favours mobility over access, to put it another way. For example, a private car gives motorists lots of mobility even over large distances, whereas urban road design (eg high-speed arterial routes, large cul-de-sac estates, free-flow roundabouts, absence of pedestrian crossings etc) can restrict access even for pedestrians living within walking distance of shops, services and amenities.

An example of a major GCOB proponent that equates mobility for cars with access for people is the Galway Chamber of Commerce, imo.

Their CEO said in 2010 that, while he supported the city's Smarter Travel bid, there was a "delicate balance" to be struck between "anti-car" measures and facilitating “people who want, need, prefer or like to use the car”. A potential downside of Smarter Travel, he suggested, was "a fantastic ambiance and streetscape with a great atmosphere where people congregate in the city centre but do their shopping elsewhere."

Leaving aside the fact that a bypass would actually facilitate motorists to go elsewhere other than the city centre, the focus on car mobility misses the crucial point that it's people who spend money, and that if people have more time, space and opportunities to browse and linger (aka dwell time) they will spend more money as well as feel like coming back more often.

When it comes to promoting TDM solutions to traffic congestion, making modal shift the main objective without considering factors which induce travel may also fall into the trap of equating mobility with access. One way of avoiding unnecessary trips by any mode is simply to have what you need for daily living close to your own doorstep. If the mountain is on the other side of the city, or across a dual carriageway, or at the end of a distributor road peppered with roundabouts, or even just over a 2-metre wall, how is Mohammed going to get there?

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

When it comes to promoting TDM solutions to traffic congestion, making modal shift the main objective without considering factors which induce travel may also fall into the trap of equating mobility with access.

Will TDM meansures help morning like today where there was an accident on the western end of the QB which caused an extra 20-25 minutes to be added to all motor journeys because they had to go through Woodquay instead?

Galway is critically short of alternatives if anything minor happens (god help us if there is an accident where somebody is killed), which is why the TDM solutions are not enough.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Nope, you just want to see that in peoples arguments.

No the point in all that is that there has been an accepted drop in traffic levels, but congestion apparently remains the same.

You're still trying to play it both ways: traffic volume has decreased but congestion apparently "remains the same", yet junctions on the N6 Multi-Modal Scheme are "overwhelmed".

Seeking an "equivalent of Galway" is simply a red herring. We are where we are in terms of geography, and over the decades we made various political decisions that got us where we are in terms of "planning".

As it is currently envisaged the 20-year-old GCOB proposal is old-school "planning" and if the car-czars get their way we will inevitable have more of the same.

Meanwhile, 13 years into the 21st Century, we're still going round in circles here on a non-existent ring-road. Mind you, according to Galway County Council "the process of an IROPI application would involve many more environmental studies" which will provide plenty of real-life opportunities for real debate on real alternatives.

markpb

antoobrien wrote: »

Will TDM meansures help morning like today where there was an accident on the western end of the QB which caused an extra 20-25 minutes to be added to all motor journeys because they had to go through Woodquay instead?

This is a red herring. If there was sufficient spare capacity on all routes such that an event like that would not cause problems, more people would drive and people would drive further. This (and it's corollary) have been documented time and time again worldwide. If you're living in an urban area, you have to expect that these events will happen and they will cause you disruption. It's not limited to roads - an incident on any busy metro system will have the same effect.

antoobrien wrote: »

The fact that Galway is the size of Meath & Kildare & Wicklow & Dublin City combined, seems to escape many of the people who are posting on here claiming that all it's bad recent planning. Let's all conveniently forget that Galway has always had a widely dispersed population

This too is a red herring. The size of the county has absolutely no relevance when talking about dispersed communities, planning or traffic congestion - it's an arbitrary political divide. The border does not stop people commuting into Galway city from the other side of the border. Likewise, the fact that the border is, in places, a long way away does not encourage people inside the border to commute to Galway.

And if you're talking about people commuting from all across the county into Galway city, a bypass won't help with that because they're all driving into the same small area where roadspace is limited.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Will TDM meansures help morning like today where there was an accident on the western end of the QB which caused an extra 20-25 minutes to be added to all motor journeys because they had to go through Woodquay instead?

Galway is critically short of alternatives if anything minor happens (god help us if there is an accident where somebody is killed), which is why the TDM solutions are not enough.

Is Galway City's traffic congestion (a) generally worse, (b) generally the same, or (c) generally better, compared to the general situation in, say, 2006?

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

You're still trying to play it both ways: traffic volume has decreased but congestion apparently "remains the same", yet junctions on the N6 Multi-Modal Scheme are "overwhelmed".

It's not a mutually exclusive concept, no reduction in congestion despite lower traffic flows is possible when the reason for the congestion -the junctions - remain over capacity.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Seeking an "equivalent of Galway" is simply a red herring. We are where we are in terms of geography, and over the decades we made various political decisions that got us where we are in terms of "planning".

Liverpool/Birkenhead - go study!

Iwannahurl wrote: »

As it is currently envisaged the 20-year-old GCOB proposal is old-school "planning" and if the car-czars get their way we will inevitable have more of the same.

Where did you get 20 years out of, when a couple of years ago you seemeed to be unaware that it had been in planning since 2001?

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Meanwhile, 13 years into the 21st Century, we're still going round in circles here on a non-existent ring-road. Mind you, according to Galway County Council "the process of an IROPI application would involve many more environmental studies" which will provide plenty of real-life opportunities for real debate on real alternatives.

Good, we should start with an air and noise pollution study.

Galway traffic vs AT, sweets (I'll never forgive that raised junctions suggestion), former minster gormless and the galway anti car lobby. It'd be a close run thing to see which is causing more air and noise pollution.

L1011

I've read it all now - congestion making people buy things. Only runs contrary to all evidence

You can't give us any evidence of a tdm sorting issues anywhere like Galway, entirily because no similar city would waste money on it without a bypass first

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Is Galway City's traffic congestion (a) generally worse, (b) generally the same, or (c) generally better, compared to the general situation in, say, 2006?

Generally the same in my view, but then traffic figures indicate that the peak of traffic was later (08/09). You're just obsessed with '06 because there's census data. As snapshots go it's useful, but if we want meaningful information we need more than 1 survey every 5 years for things like this.

antoobrien

markpb wrote: »

This is a red herring. If there was sufficient spare capacity on all routes such that an event like that would not cause problems, more people would drive and people would drive further. This (and it's corollary) have been documented time and time again worldwide.

If this is true, then we will be seeing position papers soon.

markpb wrote: »

This too is a red herring. The size of the county has absolutely no relevance when talking about dispersed communities, planning or traffic congestion - it's an arbitrary political divide.

Of course the size of the area matters, especially when we get into qualitative wrangling like the AT report. Did you miss the point that the Dublin councils - which should be actively discouraging one off developments much more so than Galway - have a 600% higher one off approval rate than co Galway? How do Dublin provide for that, and the fact that their commuter area is about the size of the one that Galway have to deal with.

markpb wrote: »

And if you're talking about people commuting from all across the county into Galway city, a bypass won't help with that because they're all driving into the same small area where roadspace is limited.

And the M50 doesn't reduce traffic congestion on the NCR & SCR in Dublin. What would happen the M50 and port tunnel it didn't exist, where would all that traffic go?

I've seen delusions but that post takes the biscuit.

markpb

antoobrien wrote: »

If this is true, then we will be seeing position papers soon.

No problem, I'll dig them out when I get home. In the meantime, do you honestly disagree with what I said? Do you genuinely believe that having spare capacity in an urban area won't increase the numbers using those roads? Would you pick a busy road over a quiet road? Would you not look at the time a journey would take (rather than the distance covered) when deciding if a commute is realistic?

And the M50 doesn't reduce traffic congestion on the NCR & SCR in Dublin. What would happen the M50 and port tunnel it didn't exist, where would all that traffic go

The Port Tunnel is not a bypass. It takes traffic from a point very near the city centre and brings it out of the city. The actual numbers using it are very low (as a matter of policy). The main reason the tunnel was built was not to reduce traffic or congestion (would it be tolled so heavily if that was the case?) - it was to give HGVs a faster and more reliable route to and from the port. It's secondary aim was to remove HGVs from the city centre making it safer for pedestrians and cyclists (enforced by a ban - would the ban be necessary if the "bypass" was attractive?).

The M50 did initially reduce congestion on the inner circulars but, like Galway, it was was undermined by bad planning. Originally conceived a bypass for Dublin (i.e. not for people living in Dublin), it quickly became a de facto route around Dublin, encouraged by bad planning. The very existence of the M50 created traffic that would not be exist otherwise. People commute across the city because the M50 makes it (relatively) attractive. They drive past one shopping centre to get to another because the M50 makes it attractive. What's to say that a bypass built around Galway wouldn't fall into the same trap?

Let's not forget that the M50 was so oversubscribed that the project to rebuild some of the junctions, remove the toll and add an extra lane in some parts cost €1 billion. That's not exactly small change.

Lastly, my point still stands. You claim the bypass is needed because people commute from all across the county into Galway city. A bypass won't help them because Galway is a very small city. Suggesting that Galway should have an orbital route because Dublin has one (an orbital route, not a bypass) is missing the point - different (sized) cities need different solutions to their problems. Blindly copying what Dublin has and the mistakes that Dublin made won't get you anywhere.

L1011

The m50 was built below spec deliberately - what was built was not what was intended

markpb

MYOB wrote: »

The m50 was built below spec deliberately - what was built was not what was intended

I disagree and I think you'll find it hard to prove what you're saying.

The M50 was not built to be an orbital route, it was a bypass to link national routes.

monument

Everybody -- on both sides -- cut out the personal attacks, direct or indirect, and cut out the general emotive words.

L1011

markpb wrote: »

I disagree and I think you'll find it hard to prove what you're saying.

The M50 was not built to be an orbital route, it was a bypass to link national routes.

Go to the DCLA and look at the original proposal. D3M with freeflow junctions. Where did I say anything about orbital or bypass? You need to stop generating what you want to argue against

antoobrien

markpb wrote: »

No problem, I'll dig them out when I get home.

Thanks, but please next time say "I don't have the links right now and I'll get time later" because it looks like you have nothing to back up your hypothesis.

markpb wrote: »

In the meantime, do you honestly disagree with what I said? Do you genuinely believe that having spare capacity in an urban area won't increase the numbers using those roads? Would you pick a busy road over a quiet road? Would you not look at the time a journey would take (rather than the distance covered) when deciding if a commute is realistic?

Yes I believe that in Galway it will get people out of the city. I see traffic tailed back every day trying to get across the QB, if they have an alternative they'd take it. I know I would. Would I pick the busier road - yes, if it will get me there quicker. Bear in mind that the traffic will be moving much faster on a notional bypass than it currently can go. I have some old posts I'll dredge up to show my reasoning.

It's also worth noting that the QB has a series of "no right turns" that are sending traffic down residential roads in order to access the bridge and SQR and keep the western approaches to the bridge somewhat clear (e.g. going east from the University, West from Moycullen, North from the bridge) . I would hope that the traffic removed from this corridor by a bypass would allow these roads to return to local access use.

markpb wrote: »

The Port Tunnel is not a bypass. It takes traffic from a point very near the city centre and brings it out of the city. The actual numbers using it are very low (as a matter of policy). The main reason the tunnel was built was not to reduce traffic or congestion (would it be tolled so heavily if that was the case?) - it was to give HGVs a faster and more reliable route to and from the port. It's secondary aim was to remove HGVs from the city centre making it safer for pedestrians and cyclists (enforced by a ban - would the ban be necessary if the "bypass" was attractive?).

What you have described is infact a bypass -although as you have said by policy not for private traffic. The trucks caused havoc around wast wall road and any time the tunnel is closed, there is mayhem on the malahide rd.

markpb wrote: »

The M50 did initially reduce congestion on the inner circulars but, like Galway, it was was undermined by bad planning. Originally conceived a bypass for Dublin (i.e. not for people living in Dublin), it quickly became a de facto route around Dublin, encouraged by bad planning. The very existence of the M50 created traffic that would not be exist otherwise. People commute across the city because the M50 makes it (relatively) attractive. They drive past one shopping centre to get to another because the M50 makes it attractive. What's to say that a bypass built around Galway wouldn't fall into the same trap?

I'm not saying I disagree with planning restrictions, I'm saying that like the M50, it's needed for what's there now. For what it's worth, as I have stated before a few times I'd love to see a BART style rail line built to compliment the bypass, but there's no proposal for that.

Maybe with the proposed merger of the RPA and NRA such a plan might evolve.

markpb wrote: »

Let's not forget that the M50 was so oversubscribed that the project to rebuild some of the junctions, remove the toll and add an extra lane in some parts cost €1 billion. That's not exactly small change.

Part of the reason for the M50 problems is also the political decisions not to build fully freeflow junctions (something that has been fixed by ABP from the orgianl plans for GCOB) because it was cheaper. The fact that the people who planned the M50 took space for the upgrade should be commended, not conveniently overlooked because it doesn't suit the arguement.

markpb wrote: »

Lastly, my point still stands. You claim the bypass is needed because people commute from all across the county into Galway city. A bypass won't help them because Galway is a very small city.

Of course it will, it will take traffic off the QB, N6 corridor - both east and west of the river. Why doe people overlook that minor issue?

markpb wrote: »

Suggesting that Galway should have an orbital route because Dublin has one (an orbital route, not a bypass) is missing the point - different (sized) cities need different solutions to their problems. Blindly copying what Dublin has and the mistakes that Dublin made won't get you anywhere.

And that's the same trap that IWH is failing into it. Nobody is suggesting that it should be built because Dublin has one, rather we are looking at the before and after situations. I've seen claims that GCC think it is a silver bullet, but their money grab smarter travel plan directly contravenes this. The plan is predicated on increases in bus transport, the gluas (I kid you not) and the bypass combined with a 0% increase in road traffic (the last bit I find very very hard to swallow as the likelihood of population growth in the city without any growth in car use is about nil).

Anybody trying to claim that the Bypass or TDM are silver bullets on their own are not looking at all the facts (interestingly the only people I see claiming this are people that seem to come down on the anti side). Neither will solve the problems on their own, or even right away - as is being proved by the failure of the N6 scheme because of the fact that there are many traffic streams crossing each other (i.e. the situation on the Lucan bypass at Palmerstown repeated several times). My own belief is that the bypass is instrumental for implementing some of the plans that are suggested in the smarter travel plan e.g. changing College Rd, which is currently one of the main cross town traffic routes, to local & PT access only.

yer man!

markpb wrote: »

No problem, I'll dig them out when I get home. In the meantime, do you honestly disagree with what I said? Do you genuinely believe that having spare capacity in an urban area won't increase the numbers using those roads? Would you pick a busy road over a quiet road? Would you not look at the time a journey would take (rather than the distance covered) when deciding if a commute is realistic?



The Port Tunnel is not a bypass. It takes traffic from a point very near the city centre and brings it out of the city. The actual numbers using it are very low (as a matter of policy). The main reason the tunnel was built was not to reduce traffic or congestion (would it be tolled so heavily if that was the case?) - it was to give HGVs a faster and more reliable route to and from the port. It's secondary aim was to remove HGVs from the city centre making it safer for pedestrians and cyclists (enforced by a ban - would the ban be necessary if the "bypass" was attractive?).

The M50 did initially reduce congestion on the inner circulars but, like Galway, it was was undermined by bad planning. Originally conceived a bypass for Dublin (i.e. not for people living in Dublin), it quickly became a de facto route around Dublin, encouraged by bad planning. The very existence of the M50 created traffic that would not be exist otherwise. People commute across the city because the M50 makes it (relatively) attractive. They drive past one shopping centre to get to another because the M50 makes it attractive. What's to say that a bypass built around Galway wouldn't fall into the same trap?

Let's not forget that the M50 was so oversubscribed that the project to rebuild some of the junctions, remove the toll and add an extra lane in some parts cost €1 billion. That's not exactly small change.

Lastly, my point still stands. You claim the bypass is needed because people commute from all across the county into Galway city. A bypass won't help them because Galway is a very small city. Suggesting that Galway should have an orbital route because Dublin has one (an orbital route, not a bypass) is missing the point - different (sized) cities need different solutions to their problems. Blindly copying what Dublin has and the mistakes that Dublin made won't get you anywhere.

If Dublin didn't have the M50 things would be a lot lot worse.

markpb

antoobrien wrote: »

Yes I believe that in Galway it will get people out of the city. I see traffic tailed back every day trying to get across the QB, if they have an alternative they'd take it. I know I would. Would I pick the busier road - yes, if it will get me there quicker.

That's exactly the point I'm making. You'd pick the road that would get you there quickly. So would everyone else and then that road would become the congestion point. In general in urban areas, you can't solve congestion by building more roads - that just moves the problem somewhere else.

yer man! wrote: »

If Dublin didn't have the M50 things would be a lot lot worse.

I'm not saying I disagree with planning restrictions, I'm saying that like the M50, it's needed for what's there now.

This is where we fundamentally disagree. I believe what's there now is because of the M50. It facilitated journey growth and assisted bad planing. What happens in a few years when the economy grows and more people want to drive around Dublin, will we spend another €1 billion widening it again?

antoobrien

markpb wrote: »

That's exactly the point I'm making. You'd pick the road that would get you there quickly. So would everyone else and then that road would become the congestion point. In general in urban areas, you can't solve congestion by building more roads - that just moves the problem somewhere else.

And if that's all I was saying you'd have a point, that's where your arguemtn falls down.

markpb wrote: »

This is where we fundamentally disagree. I believe what's there now is because of the M50. It facilitated journey growth and assisted bad planing. What happens in a few years when the economy grows and more people want to drive around Dublin, will we spend another €1 billion widening it again?

Nah, it's there because of Charlie's a rising tide lifts all boats philosophy that centralised growth on the GDA for much of the 80s and early 90s, e.g. is there any good reason why Intel is based in Leixlip instead of either Cork, Limerick, Galway or Waterford? It's not as if they didn't have access to high quality engineers, especially at a time when DEC had a factory of 700 in Galway. It was when Dublin became too expensive that the sprawl started in earnest resulting in several new towns and places like Swords & Blanch/Castleknock exploding (let alone what happened as far away as portlaoise).

What I think is needed is 30 year unified development plan for Galway City & Co instead of the current plans spanning less than 10 years. And it will have to link into a wider western regional plan, because lets face it Galway is the economic center of a large area, just like the effect Dublin and Cork have, and as big if not bigger now than Limerick/Shannon/Ennis. Yes it's ambitious but it's not just important for Galway but the country, because as I see it Dublin has hit the point of diminishing returns on it's investments (plans are now in the billions for minor improvements) and it needs to hold its current level and let the rest of the country relieve the pressure on it, rather than just continuing to allow Dublin make its own problems worse.

yer man!

markpb wrote: »

This is where we fundamentally disagree. I believe what's there now is because of the M50. It facilitated journey growth and assisted bad planing. What happens in a few years when the economy grows and more people want to drive around Dublin, will we spend another €1 billion widening it again?

Sure why don't we just all walk everywhere, no congestion then.

Aidan1

is there any good reason why Intel is based in Leixlip instead of either Cork, Limerick, Galway or Waterford?

Yes, it's because thats where Intel wanted to build. The reasons for that are complex, but come down to a mix of infrastructure (particularly electrical, something only Cork could compete with now, but not then, and none of the other cites could provide even now) and skills.

As for Dublin 'topping' out, well, a little perspective might be useful - it's still only a 'small to middling' city in international terms, and is very far from a point where any form of law of diminishing returns has kicked in for capital investment (it's not Tokyo, in short). Dublin is also poorly planned (facilated by outright corruption, political messing around and the M50), but that is being redressed. The city is also by far the single most important economic centre in the State, precisely because of it's size, not despite it. It has long since achieved critical mass in a number of key industries, and can offer a range of services that other cities in the State cannot ever realistically hope to emulate. Galway (with less then 9% as many people employed in the city and suburbs by comparison with Dublin in 2011) has done very well jobs-wise in the last couple of years by concentrating on a few key sectors (software and medical devices in particular), which means that it can offer the labour pool and services that companies in these areas look for (along with a good quality of life). It's ability to 'take the pressure off Dublin', at 9% of the number of jobs, is always going to be small though. Even Cork, with over 90,000 jobs (more than double that of Galway) can only do so much, if such a thing were required (which it isn't).

I'm not suggesting that 'everything should be built in Dublin' either. As I've said repeatedly on here, I think projects like the GCOB and the Dunkettle Interchange/NRR should be built, and that the regional cities should be targeted for employment growth. In the case of Cork and Galway, it's clear that the IDA is pushing an open door in any case, and both are more pleasant places to live than Dublin, which helps a lot too.

In terms of regional spatial planning, it should go without saying that all of the cities in the State need proper LUTS, covering not just the city but the 'city region' (the city, the immediate suburbs, and the wider peri-urban region, regardless of how many county boundaries are crossed). However, a proper such plan wouldn't be an easy sell past the elected members of Galway county council for one, many of whom would have a real problem with the type of restrictions on zoning that would flow from such a strategy. The only reason it has worked in Cork (to the extent that it hasn't been undermined by national level decisions around one off rural housing), is because traffic reached crisis levels in the 1970s and had to be addressed. However, the city is still as car dependent as Galway (for now), but at least a large number of people are travelling in from a small number of larger towns which could theoretically be covered by public transport. Thats the gain from LUTS/CASP. The problem now is where people work in the city, with scattered development (like the airport business park) making it difficult to serve with public transport - lesson there for Galway and the GCOB. The POWCARS analysis for all of the cities should be fascinating whenever it appears.

dowlingm

antoobrien

I wouldn't use Intel as a guide - I suspect chip fabs have certain requirements in terms of air and water which means you can't just plonk one down anywhere. I don't recall fabrication going on at DEC but that was a while ago now. Something like call centres would be a different matter.

antoobrien

Aidan1 wrote: »

Yes, it's because thats where Intel wanted to build. The reasons for that are complex, but come down to a mix of infrastructure (particularly electrical, something only Cork could compete with now, but not then, and none of the other cites could provide even now) and skills.

Interestingly Cork had Motorolla and Apple, Galway had DEC around that time, but fair enough.

Aidan1 wrote: »

As for Dublin 'topping' out, well, a little perspective might be useful - it's still only a 'small to middling' city in international terms, and is very far from a point where any form of law of diminishing returns has kicked in for capital investment

When the smallest project they are talking about is in the billions, is that really opinion really jutified?

Aidan1 wrote: »

Dublin is also poorly planned (facilated by outright corruption, political messing around and the M50), but that is being redressed. The city is also by far the single most important economic centre in the State, precisely because of it's size, not despite it. It has long since achieved critical mass in a number of key industries, and can offer a range of services that other cities in the State cannot ever realistically hope to emulate. Galway (with less then 9% as many people employed in the city and suburbs by comparison with Dublin in 2011) has done very well jobs-wise in the last couple of years by concentrating on a few key sectors (software and medical devices in particular), which means that it can offer the labour pool and services that companies in these areas look for (along with a good quality of life). It's ability to 'take the pressure off Dublin', at 9% of the number of jobs, is always going to be small though. Even Cork, with over 90,000 jobs (more than double that of Galway) can only do so much, if such a thing were required (which it isn't).

I'm not suggesting that 'everything should be built in Dublin' either. As I've said repeatedly on here, I think projects like the GCOB and the Dunkettle Interchange/NRR should be built, and that the regional cities should be targeted for employment growth. In the case of Cork and Galway, it's clear that the IDA is pushing an open door in any case, and both are more pleasant places to live than Dublin, which helps a lot too.

In terms of regional spatial planning, it should go without saying that all of the cities in the State need proper LUTS, covering not just the city but the 'city region' (the city, the immediate suburbs, and the wider peri-urban region, regardless of how many county boundaries are crossed). However, a proper such plan wouldn't be an easy sell past the elected members of Galway county council for one, many of whom would have a real problem with the type of restrictions on zoning that would flow from such a strategy. The only reason it has worked in Cork (to the extent that it hasn't been undermined by national level decisions around one off rural housing), is because traffic reached crisis levels in the 1970s and had to be addressed. However, the city is still as car dependent as Galway (for now), but at least a large number of people are travelling in from a small number of larger towns which could theoretically be covered by public transport. Thats the gain from LUTS/CASP. The problem now is where people work in the city, with scattered development (like the airport business park) making it difficult to serve with public transport - lesson there for Galway and the GCOB. The POWCARS analysis for all of the cities should be fascinating whenever it appears.

I could easily read that as a denigration of Galway, but I'll point out that Galway City's population is 75k so comparisons of numbers of those employed are suspect - it'd be hard for Galway to have 90,000 jobs considering it'd mean almost every man woman and child in the "metro area" by the smarter travel area. then throw in the the historical industrial orientations of the cities concerned, Galway is showing remarkable growth and I see potential for what may be possible if we don't allow decisions like not building GCOB to stifle the future potential of the city.

markpb

antoobrien wrote: »

When the smallest project they are talking about is in the billions, is that really opinion really jutified?

Luas BXD is estimaged at €300m.

antoobrien

dowlingm wrote: »

antoobrien

I wouldn't use Intel as a guide - I suspect chip fabs have certain requirements in terms of air and water which means you can't just plonk one down anywhere. I don't recall fabrication going on at DEC but that was a while ago now. Something like call centres would be a different matter.

dowlingm - water & galway, please tell me you're joking. We have a like pond called lough corrib nearby (wouldn't DCC dearly love access to something that size). But in case it wasn't clear, the point was that other areas have had large electrical engineering industries in the area and if DEC could build mainframes, why not intel building chips?

It was only after DEC pulled the hardware out of Galway that the software center ramped up, it was about 20% of the workforce then. The office is back approaching the levels it was at when they laid off 700 jobs in the early 90s and they still have the H.P.C. section.

antoobrien

markpb wrote: »

Luas BXD is estimaged at €300m.

Yeah, so was luas mk1. Want to put a bet on that it'll be closer to the end price?

Aard

antoobrien wrote: »

Nah, it's there because of Charlie's a rising tide lifts all boats philosophy that centralised growth on the GDA for much of the 80s and early 90s, e.g. is there any good reason why Intel is based in Leixlip instead of either Cork, Limerick, Galway or Waterford?

Just on this point (and apologies for going off topic) because it's an interesting question that I recently came across. From having spoken with a planning consultant involved with that project, there were two main reasons for Intel locating in Leixlip. First is that Leixlip was one of only three places in the country where there was appropriate redundancy to ensure constant power (something that American cities cannot always ensure). Second was that Leixlip was in the centre of a 40-minute-commute labour pool, i.e. half of Intel's projected workforce lay 40 minutes to the east in Dublin, and half lay 40 minutes west deep into the midlands.

The issue of a talented workforce was not number one -- as you quite rightly pointed out, there is a talented workforce all over the country, not just in Dublin. Dublin, however, offers something purely by its agglomeration effect -- the requisite infrastructure and a more varied social life for a company's employees. But that's another topic altogether!