N6 - Galway outer bypass: Is it needed?

Aidan1

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

To quote someone or other, I reject the premise of the question. The reason the smallest project you might hear about is in the billions is solely because the city is big enough to require such capital projects. The Luas system, as presently constructed, cost about €770m for example. But there are always smaller capital projects in train that just don't make the national news.

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

Apparently you did read it as a denigration; it's not, merely a statement of fact as a means of supporting a rebuttal of your argument that the other cities can or, indeed, need to take growth from Dublin. The other cities need to stand on their own merits, and compete on the basis of their own strengths. Galway does this very well for the most part, but it has a major traffic problem.

Similarly, the facts presented show the dangers associated with the belief that if we just build roads, fire together a spatial plan, and continue to allow people live all over the place, that every thing will be grand. It won't. In order to ensure that capital investment like the GCOB isn't wasted by becoming packed with commuters zipping in from all over the countryside, some difficult decisions need to be made around where people live. At present (well, 2011) the facts are fairly clear, County Galway has about 22-23% of it's population living in rural areas. County Cork, thanks in no small part to LUTS (and to the farcical city boundary admittedly) is around 50/50, despite it's nearly 20% larger size. Cork has 4 large towns (bigger than 12,000 people) in it's commuter zone, three of which have a commuter rail service, all thanks to good planning. Connaught, as a whole, only has 3 towns over 10,000 (including Sligo at 19,452), none of which have commuter rail.

I'll spell it out for you. Bad planning has it's consequences, consequences that will limit the growth of the city of Galway in the future if we are not very careful. Building the GCOB is far from a panacea. Unless it is accompanyed by proper spatial planning that has an actual effect on where people can live, and traffic demand management within Galway, and investment in Public Transport, it will be a waste of money because it will be clogged up in short order. And we'll all be back here again in 10 years, arguing about whether the chicken (GCOOB) or the egg (TDM, public transport investment and spatial planning) should come first.

Aidan1

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?

This has been partly covered already, but there are real practical reasons for it. DEC was essentially an assembley set up - they didn't have a huge power draw. Intel is completely different, they run far larger plant and equipment on site. It's one of the largest single site customers for electricity in the State (their connection is to the transmission grid, not the distribution grid!). That location was the only place in the country at that time that could safely meet that power draw. Right now, there are a couple of places in the Cork harbour region that could probably do the same (and I stress probably), but very few others. Galway has never had that level of connectivity.

But, in many ways, it owes its present good fortune to this and to the timing of the DEC pull out. It forced the city and the IDA to look for other industries, ones that didn't have a huge power draw (unlike the pharma plants that went to Cork). They settled on software and medical devices, and now you have Boston Scientific et al based there. Perversely, Limerick lost out because Dell stayed there so long.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

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.

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?

So are you in fact claiming that the alleged 5-10% reduction in traffic volume would have led to a reduction in congestion if it wasn't for the removal of those delightful roundabouts?

Eamon O Cuiv said the bypass has been in "planning" for around 20 years: http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/60344/eu-ruling-allows-way-for-outer-bypass-to-be-built

antoobrien wrote: »

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.

Obsessed? Really? How often have I mentioned 2006 in this thread?

So you're saying the level of traffic congestion has been generally the same, taking into account the point you made re "not mutually exclusive" etc?

monument

Could this be a model for the current N6 roundabouts?

http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/multi-level-roundabout-the-safest-solution-for-a-junction/

Iwannahurl

MYOB wrote: »

congestion making people buy things.

Cough medicine, one supposes.

antoobrien

Aidan1 wrote: »

Apparently you did read it as a denigration; it's not,

No, I said I could and pointed out where some of your comparisons were slightly misleading. I then went on to say that I viewed it as where Galway could be in the future, if the correct decisions are made.

Aidan1 wrote: »

Similarly, the facts presented

What facts? There have been nothing but innuendos from all sides and an argument that boils down to x happened in Dublin after y was built, so we can't do do x in Galway. That's not facts, that's presenting opinions as facts.

Any time facts are brought in they are ignored or thrown under the bus by posters that don't want to look at all the facts. We have the hysterically funny complaints that we should ignore co galways size and economic circumstances and that we should not learn form Dublin's mistakes i.e. the good and bad about the M50, instead of just concentrating on the bad.

Aidan1 wrote: »

But, in many ways, it owes its present good fortune to this and to the timing of the DEC pull out. It forced the city and the IDA to look for other industries, ones that didn't have a huge power draw (unlike the pharma plants that went to Cork). They settled on software and medical devices, and now you have Boston Scientific et al based there. Perversely, Limerick lost out because Dell stayed there so long.

Indeed, and it couldn't support the industries that have large power draws in any case. On the Dell issue, as it turns out hardware was going out of DEC in Galway within 5 years no matter what happened, as the plant that production was moved to closed a few years later because the line of PCs it had failed.

The reason for the pullout of DEC being a phoenix from the ashes for Galway is that DEC had no real competition for jobs and there was a suddenly available pool of talent, which attracted the likes of Boston (CR Baird now Medtronic were already there), Nellcor (multiple takeovers, now part of Covidien). It also allowed a lot of people start companies - Creganna is one of dozens of companies that started from the redundancy packages.

galwaycyclist

Aidan1 wrote: »

This has been partly covered already, but there are real practical reasons for it. DEC was essentially an assembley set up - they didn't have a huge power draw. Intel is completely different, they run far larger plant and equipment on site. It's one of the largest single site customers for electricity in the State (their connection is to the transmission grid, not the distribution grid!). That location was the only place in the country at that time that could safely meet that power draw. Right now, there are a couple of places in the Cork harbour region that could probably do the same (and I stress probably), but very few others. Galway has never had that level of connectivity.

But, in many ways, it owes its present good fortune to this and to the timing of the DEC pull out. It forced the city and the IDA to look for other industries, ones that didn't have a huge power draw (unlike the pharma plants that went to Cork). They settled on software and medical devices, and now you have Boston Scientific et al based there. Perversely, Limerick lost out because Dell stayed there so long.

In Galway, DEC (or Digital Equipment Corporation) gave way to Compaq which gave way to Hewlett Packard. There is still a HP operation on the site and they have decided that they now need a new office. They are in planning for a new building on the same site. Now heres the thing if we are serious about solving, rather than catering for, traffic then everything should be on the table.

HP has almost no manufacturing left - its almost all knowledge work - in that case would it not make sense to analyse the origins of all cars arriving in HP every morning? If most of them are coming from the West would it not make sense to find some way to encourage HP to relocate over by Zenimax for instance? There is already a concentration of IT companies in Dangan, again on the West but that site is likely too small for HP.

It may be that the analysis would argue for a location on the East - maybe even further east like Oranmore. We don't know.

If significant public investment is being asked for the bypass as a "strategic link" then land use issues have to be solved anyway. Otherwise it becomes misused for commuter traffic.

Aidan1

What facts? There have been nothing but innuendos from all sides and an argument that boils down to x happened in Dublin after y was built, so we can't do do x in Galway. That's not facts, that's presenting opinions as facts.

I'm not getting caught up in previous arguments - people clearly have entrenched positions, that's fair enough. All I'm doing is picking up on a couple of points that you have made around the geographical specificities of Galway, and using examples from elsewhere in the State to illustrate my point ---> that Galway's traffic problems right now are at least partially due to poor planning at a city and regional level, issues that building the GCOB will do little or nothing to deal with in and of themselves.

If significant public investment is being asked for the bypass as a "strategic link" then land use issues have to be solved anyway. Otherwise it becomes misused for commuter traffic.

Exactly.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

So are you in fact claiming that the alleged 5-10% reduction in traffic volume would have led to a reduction in congestion if it wasn't for the removal of those delightful roundabouts?

Now where have I stated such a thing and how do you manage to creatively misinterpret things in such as way as to ignore the point that despite the reduction in traffic, there has been no great effect on congestion in Galway.

The drop in traffic is roughly equivalent to a 100% increase in the use of other modes, which kinda debunks the theory that Galway will be fine with PT & cycling.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Eamon O Cuiv said the bypass has been in "planning" for around 20 years: http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/60344/eu-ruling-allows-way-for-outer-bypass-to-be-built

That's grand, I've had to explain to you a few times that planning started in the 90s, I wasn't aware that it started before the current N6 was completed ti Doughiska.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Obsessed? Really? How often have I mentioned 2006 in this thread?

How often have you referred acorss varius threads to the mythical 4km journey - as if a radius on a map was relevant in terms of distance travelled. That appeared in the 2006 report.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

So you're saying the level of traffic congestion has been generally the same, taking into account the point you made re "not mutually exclusive" etc?

I'm saying that I haven't seen the evidence of the great reductions in travel times. For example, the 5 minute wait at peak time to get through briarhill - I ahven't done it in less than ten minutes - same time as it was taking me in 2007 the few times I did it- if I don't get to it before 5pm.

Iwannahurl

galwaycyclist wrote: »

If significant public investment is being asked for the bypass as a "strategic link" then land use issues have to be solved anyway. Otherwise it becomes misused for commuter traffic.

You can be certain the GCOB would/will be used for commuter traffic, current and future.

I'm not sure how many will be employed at ZeniMax once it's fully up and running, but at the moment Aviva and adjacent business are drawing plenty of traffic, if the number of cars parked on the road as well as in the car-park is anything to go by. I'd be interested to know where the workers are coming from and what their modes of travel are.

Iwannahurl

monument wrote: »

Could this be a model for the current N6 roundabouts?

http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/multi-level-roundabout-the-safest-solution-for-a-junction/

Utrecht is cycle heaven, according to a Dutch friend (who gave up cycling in Galway).

antoobrien

galwaycyclist wrote: »

There is already a concentration of IT companies in Dangan, again on the West but that site is likely too small for HP.

I work in Dangan, definitely not enough capacity.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

It may be that the analysis would argue for a location on the East - maybe even further east like Oranmore.

But doesn't that fly in the face of PT & cycling arguments.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

If significant public investment is being asked for the bypass as a "strategic link" then land use issues have to be solved anyway. Otherwise it becomes misused for commuter traffic.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

If most of them are coming from the West would it not make sense to find some way to encourage HP to relocate over by Zenimax for instance?

Slight flip side of that. If they were well dispersed and not mainly from one side or the other, would Zenimax or say the former crown factory (currently a hole in the ground supposed to be a shopping center) in in Mervue be a suitable location?

markpb

antoobrien wrote: »

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

If we're polishing off our magic 8 balls, couldn't the same be said about whatever price was predicted for the GCOB? Maybe it'll be so expensive that it won't be worth it and a bypass should be built for Belmullet instead to relieve the congestion in the Galway region.

I've no problem with anyone wanting their region or city to grow and be the best it can but in Ireland it seems to be constantly the opposite - they want their region to get more than Dublin because of some misguided idea that Dublin is "full".

antoobrien wrote: »

We have the hysterically funny complaints that we should ignore co galways size and economic circumstances and that we should not learn form Dublin's mistakes i.e. the good and bad about the M50, instead of just concentrating on the bad.

Since Galway hasn't done any work on a proper planning or land use process, I don't see why you're so confident that they won't make the same mistakes that Dublin made. Instead of dealing with this, you constantly choose to denigrate anyone who disagrees with you, calling their posts hysterically funny, full of innuendo, delusional, claiming they have nothing to back up their posts (which is funny considering you've provided nothing but your own experience), asking "Where do people get off with this crap" or saying "I've long suspected you're being argumentative for the sake of it". Perhaps if you toned down your posting style a little, debated things properly instead of insulting people constantly you might pick up less infractions.

galwaycyclist

antoobrien wrote: »

But doesn't that fly in the face of PT & cycling arguments.

No not if it turned out that the majority of workers live in Oranmore.

SeanW

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.

Interesting. If you're referring to me, it seems you didn't actually read my post or have chosen to deliberately misrepresent it to build a strawman argument.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

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

I thought people used cars to move?

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.

Great, so if thinking that "we need a bypass" was outmoded 20 years ago, then the M50, the M6 (with all its attendant bypasses) the N5 bypasses e.g. Longford, the N40, should all be torn up because moving cars =/= moving people?

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."

Gee, the Chamber of Commerce. I.E. representatives of city traders. Funny thing is that these trade representatives think they know what's going to make their business better ... how strange is that?

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.

Which is exactly my experience with car parking charges ... when I have to pay them, it's a case of get in, do what has to be done, and get the hell back out as fast as absolutely possible. When I lived in Cork I sometimes (not very often) drove into the city centre and parked in a multi-story as opposed to walking (which I did more often). On one occasion I dawdled a few minutes more than absolutely necessary, had to pay €3 extra for the turn of the hour as a result. I didn't make that mistake again.

No doubt Galway Chamber of Commerce knows that people who must drive to shop likely feel the same way. Again, to be sure I'm not suggesting that motorists be put at the centre of planning in the city (rather a more balanced approach) but I put it to you that the Chamber of Commerce knows a little bit more about how to attract customers to their shops than you do. I will go further: Their interest is in bringing customers to their shops, your interest appears to be in bashing motorists.

yer man!

If I'm not mistaken but didn't the IDA build a business park in Oranmore on the site of the old airfield for a Johnson and Johnson manufacturing facility (fell through for internal reason I think). One of the reasons stated for it's location was the M6, M17, M18 road connection, the fact that product could easily get to market and the fact that the facility would be easily accessible by road from most of the country, quickly. Something that the West of the city cannot reasonably compete with. This was also one of the reasons why the govt are pushing for the bypass so much, sending freight into the city to make it to the other side is not very efficient and puts many employers which need a lot of freight off.

galwaycyclist

antoobrien wrote: »

Now where have I stated such a thing and how do you manage to creatively misinterpret things in such as way as to ignore the point that despite the reduction in traffic, there has been no great effect on congestion in Galway.

The drop in traffic is roughly equivalent to a 100% increase in the use of other modes, which kinda debunks the theory that Galway will be fine with PT & cycling.

The problem with this theory is that among key cohorts there has been a shift towards increased car use in the city.

Five kilometers is often taken as a ball park range within which cycling works best. Its about a 20-25 minute cycle

Source Census 2006

Galway City distance to work or education

---

• Proportion of Workers living under 5km from work 44.67%
• Proportion of Secondary Students living under 5km from school 56.30%
• Proportion of Primary Students living under 5km from school 60.5% (22.8% under 2km)

Travel patterns 2006 2011

---

• For Galway City workers walking and cycling combined fell from 24.10% to 20.69% between census 2006 and 2011 (For PT, Walk, Cycle combined fell from 30.56% to 26.22%). Car use as a driver grew from 52.4% to 57.87%. Cycling use grew fractionally within that 4.44% to 4.63%
• For Galway City Secondary Students walking and cycling stayed pretty much static from 26.44% to 26.65% between census 2006 and 2011 (For PT, Walk, Cycle combined fell slightly from 53.43% to 52.73%). Car use as a passenger grew from 42.4% to 43%. Cycling use grew fractionally within that 3.42% to 3.61%
• For Galway City Primary schoolchildren walking and cycling combined fell from 22.57% to 21.02% between census 2006 and 2011 (For PT, Walk, Cycle combined fell from 30.9% to 27.35%). Car use as a passenger grew from 62.48% to 67.33%%. Cycling use grew within that from 0.56% to 1.64%

The numbers clearly show that in Galway city there is theoretically a large potential to get more people walking or cycling.

Although we are being told that less traffic will create a more attractive walking and cycling environment there is little real sign of it in these numbers.

We have just gone through a prolonged economic crisis, with cutbacks, high unemployment and a sustained period of record fuel prices. These are all pressures that in other cities might be expected to encourage a strong shift away from car use to other modes. Instead in Galway city the opposite has been happening there is increased car-dependancy at a time when the costs of driving are increasing and real incomes are falling.

Why? What has gone so wrong in Galway city that normal economic pressures no longer apply?

Iwannahurl

galwaycyclist wrote: »

there has been a shift towards increased car use in the city.

Source Census 2006

Galway City distance to work or education

---

• Proportion of Workers living under 5km from work 44.67%
• Proportion of Secondary Students living under 5km from school 56.30%
• Proportion of Primary Students living under 5km from school 60.5% (22.8% under 2km)

Travel patterns 2006 2011

---

• For Galway City workers walking and cycling combined fell from 24.10% to 20.69% between census 2006 and 2011 (For PT, Walk, Cycle combined fell from 30.56% to 26.22%). Car use as a driver grew from 52.4% to 57.87%. Cycling use grew fractionally within that 4.44% to 4.63%
• For Galway City Secondary Students walking and cycling stayed pretty much static from 26.44% to 26.65% between census 2006 and 2011 (For PT, Walk, Cycle combined fell slightly from 53.43% to 52.73%). Car use as a passenger grew from 42.4% to 43%. Cycling use grew fractionally within that 3.42% to 3.61%
• For Galway City Primary schoolchildren walking and cycling combined fell from 22.57% to 21.02% between census 2006 and 2011 (For PT, Walk, Cycle combined fell from 30.9% to 27.35%). Car use as a passenger grew from 62.48% to 67.33%. Cycling use grew within that from 0.56% to 1.64%

The numbers clearly show that in Galway city there is theoretically a large potential to get more people walking or cycling.

Although we are being told that less traffic will create a more attractive walking and cycling environment there is little real sign of it in these numbers.

These are the sort of stats I had in mind (but not to hand) when asking earlier whether traffic congestion had increased, decreased or stayed the same.

Whatever the real answer is on that score, car use in Galway City increased by five percentage points among workers and parents of primary school children during the intercensal period 2006-2011.

Why might that be the case, in the context of an alleged 5-10% decrease in traffic volume overall?

Fewer children now walking to school in Galway City

December 18, 2012

Seven out of ten primary school kids are being brought by car

The number of primary school pupils who walk to school in Galway has continued to decline as increasing numbers of parents opt to drive their children to the school gates.

Analysis of the Census 2011 figures released this week reveal that the car is by far the most popular means of travelling to primary school in Galway City and County for children aged between five and 12 years.

The Census shows that more than seven out of ten children (72.4%) in Galway travel to school in a car, which is way above the national average (61%); and much greater than five years ago when just 65% of Galway national school children were driven by car to school.

Secondary school students in Galway were far more likely to use alternatives to the car to get to school: 13% (2,193 students) walked, 46.5% travelled to school by car, while 38.6% travelled by bus and 1.3% cycled.

A total of 66,543 persons, representing 75.7 per cent of commuters in County Galway, either drove to work or were a passenger in a car in 2011. This compared to 69 per cent of commuters in the State overall.

Meanwhile, 3.3% used public transport (bus or train), 2.2% cycled and 9.4% walked to work. One in thirteen commuters residing in County Galway had travel times of an hour or longer to work, while 2.1% (1,821 persons) spent 90 minutes or more commuting. 28.5% of workers had travel times of 15 minutes or less.

antoobrien

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Five kilometers is often taken as a ball park range within which cycling works best. Its about a 20-25 minute cycle

That use of "ball park range" underlines the fact that the arguments are based on speculation not real facts and as such pure and utter rubbish!

antoobrien

galwaycyclist wrote: »

No not if it turned out that the majority of workers live in Oranmore.

Do you seriously believe that? It might have been true with DEC that the majority of workers lived in and around mervue, ballybane and ballybrit but those days are long gone. I worked in several factories while in college, the amount of people that had lost jobs/found in the county or better paying ones in the city and could not move (for various and sundry reasons) were large.

Another point to consider is the social mobility of the people we are talking about. For better or worse people live where they live and many people will not be able to move for 5-10-15 years (if ever) until the value of the dwelling gets back above the outstanding mortgage amount (including penalties for breaking fixed loans) - e.g. people in knockncara who bought vastly overpriced houses. I'm sure there are a few that would dearly love to swap with some of the houses that are available in Mervue/Ballybane but they can't.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

That use of "ball park range" underlines the fact that the arguments are based on speculation not real facts and as such pure and utter rubbish!

From Cycling -- the way ahead for towns and cities, European Commission, 1999

Technical improvements have made modern bicycles efficient and convenient to use. There is no pollution from bicycles, they are silent, economical, discreet, accessible to all members of the family and, above all, a bike is faster than a car over short urban distances (5 km and even more in the case of traffic jams).

More than 30 % of trips made in cars in Europe cover distances of less than 3 km and 50 % are less than 5 km. For such journeys alone, bicycles could easily replace cars, thus satisfying a large proportion of the demand and contributing directly to cutting down traffic jams.

We cannot afford to ignore the potential of cycling, whether for daily trips to school or to the workplace (which account for 40 % of all journeys made) or for other reasons (60 % of journeys made are to do with shopping, services, leisure pursuits, social activities, etc.)

Even if the bicycle is not the only solution to traffic and environmental problems in towns, it represents a solution which fits perfectly into any general policy which seeks to re-enhance the urban environment and improve the quality of a town and it mobilises comparatively few
financial resources.

Minister of State, Alan Kelly, speaking at the European Green Transport Conference, 2011:

"If people think that the possibilities of making a switch to active travel modes are limited, let me put this in the context of current travel patterns in Dublin City. Some 40% of daily journeys into the city centre are less than 5 kilometres. This sort of distance is eminently suited to travel by bike or, for many, on foot."

From UK Cycling Embassy: http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/wiki/cycling-not-practical-most-peoples-transportation-or-commuting-needs

Many of the journeys which people currently make by car [in the UK] are distances easily covered on a cycle:

22% of journeys in the UK are under 1 mile (1.5 km), 21% of these are made by car (a distance easily cycled in 5 minutes or less)
19% of journeys in the UK are between 1-2 miles (1.5-3 km), 60% of these are made by car (a distance easily cycled in 10 minutes or less)
28% of journeys in the UK are between 2-5 miles (3-8 km), 80% of these are made by car (a distance easily cycled in 20 minutes or less)
This gives a cumulative total of 69% of journeys made in the UK being under 5 miles (8 km), a distance easily cycled by the vast majority of people.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

These are the sort of stats I had in mind (but not to hand) when asking earlier whether traffic congestion had increased, decreased or stayed the same.

If you could get stats that reflect the traffic into Galway city that'd actually be useful because those are for the entore county (not that I'd expect anything less form the skullhead journos we have) - i.e. you are confusing Galway City traffic with traffic going to Ballinasloe, Loughrea, Athenry, Moycullen......

The actual figures for the city in 2006 were 1,190 5-12 year olds walking, this is now 1,209.

So much for

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Fewer children now walking to school in Galway City

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The number of primary school pupils who walk to school in Galway has continued to decline

markpb

antoobrien wrote: »

That use of "ball park range" underlines the fact that the arguments are based on speculation not real facts and as such pure and utter rubbish!

Ignoring the fact that you've already been shown where the figure came from, you realise that there's no hard facts when it comes to saying what people will be comfortable with. If you expect to see a paper showing that exactly 5.235km suits all people as cycling distance, it's no wonder you dismiss other posts are pure and utter rubbish.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

If you could get stats that reflect the traffic into Galway city that'd actually be useful because those are for the entore county (not that I'd expect anything less form the skullhead journos we have) - i.e. you are confusing Galway City traffic with traffic going to Ballinasloe, Loughrea, Athenry, Moycullen......

The actual figures for the city in 2006 were 1,190 5-12 year olds walking, this is now 1,209.

So much for

Thanks for the clarification. I had meant to add the caveat that the Galway News report (also in the Sentinel, iirc) did not distinguish between City and County.

Good to know, then, that 19 more children walked to Galway City primary schools in 2011 than in 2006. It might have been 20 had our child been eligible for the local school a year earlier, but the upside is that we will boost the bike stats by a similar number next time round.

Good to see also that unbypassed Galway City managed to have ten times as many primary school cyclists as did bypassed* Waterford City in both 2006 and 2011.






* Opened 2009, lest anyone quibble.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification. I had meant to add the caveat that the Galway News report (also in the Sentinel, iirc) did not distinguish between City and County.

Ah so when the figures prove you wrong they still prove you right, well done!:rolleyes:

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Good to know, then, that 19 more children walked to Galway City primary schools in 2011 than in 2006. It might have been 20 had our child been eligible for the local school a year earlier, but the upside is that we will boost the bike stats by a similar number next time round.

And when that child grows out of the statistic (e.g. hits 13 or 19), the effect could be to reduce the numbers of children cycling. Will you blame any such drop on "choices of parents" again?

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Good to see also that unbypassed Galway City managed to have ten times as many primary school cyclists as did bypassed* Waterford City in both 2006 and 2011.

How many of those kids go to school in Kilkenny?

antoobrien

markpb wrote: »

Ignoring the fact that you've already been shown where the figure came from, you realise that there's no hard facts when it comes to saying what people will be comfortable with. If you expect to see a paper showing that exactly 5.235km suits all people as cycling distance, it's no wonder you dismiss other posts are pure and utter rubbish.

You're wrong that it has been shown that they are exactly blah blah because the census figures referred to works by radius. To give you an example, anyone living in Tirellan, working in Danagan is less than 1.5-2.5km away. The trip however gate to gate is 4km. Kinda makes the 5km radius argument null and void in Galway.

If we want to get figures that we everyone can be comfortable with, we need to do far more regular and detailed examinations than the census, which is a scratching of the surface once every 5 years.

One of the reasons I distrust the census data and prefer actual traffic studies (e.g. traffic counters, bus & train passenger numbers where available) is because of the time lapse between them. The census capture snapshots at a particular time but they do not get useful continuing data. To give you an idea of what I'm talking about, here are what has been recorded for me in the last 3 censuses.

Census|Mode
2002 | Cycle
2006 | Walk
2011 | Cycle


In the intra census period 2002-2006 I appear as a cycling statistic, when I would have spent months either getting buses, being a passenger for someone going that way, walking, using PT or driving. But the census just sees a cyclist until 2006 who started walking (funny it's always assumed when we look at figrues that they are lost to cars if there is an increase in that figure). Between 2006 & 2011 I again did everything except drive to work. Right now I'm down as a cyclist again for the next 5 years, despite the fact that I was a PT passenger for most of the period and now drive.

Aidan1

You have to consider both data sources - travel figures do little to capture changing demographics, and are therefore of very little use in forecasting future demand. As an example, people have been quoting figures for walking to school within the city. That;'s just the figure over the line - what about the figure below (the total number of children in that age bracket attending school). Without that, you don't know if the percentage actually rose or fell, which is materially very important.

Also, you can't compare cities if you just use the raw numbers very easily, and so wouldn't be able to determine that Galway City and suburbs have 19% of their primary school age children walking to school, whereas the figure is 29% for Cork, 35% for Limerick and 42% for Dublin. All of which tells a very different story from the simple 'the raw number rose slightly so it's all hunky dory' line.

Figures from Table 12 on Page 49 of this;

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

antoobrien

Aidan1 wrote: »

You have to consider both data sources - travel figures do little to capture changing demographics, and are therefore of very little use in forecasting future demand. As an example, people have been quoting figures for walking to school within the city. That;'s just the figure over the line - what about the figure below (the total number of children in that age bracket attending school). Without that, you don't know if the percentage actually rose or fell, which is materially very important.

I'm aware of that, the figures though claimed a real numbers drop in the city - which is clearly untrue.

Aidan1 wrote: »

Also, you can't compare cities if you just use the raw numbers very easily, and so wouldn't be able to determine that Galway City and suburbs have 19% of their primary school age children walking to school, whereas the figure is 29% for Cork, 35% for Limerick and 42% for Dublin. All of which tells a very different story from the simple 'the raw number rose slightly so it's all hunky dory' line.

Who said hunky dory? I merely stated that IWH needs to check facts. Besides which there are at least 2 rural schools in Galway city that have no footpaths leading up to them. How will that affect the figures?

There's more than one layer to the figures, let's discuss all of them shall we and not just concentrate on the ones that suit the anti bypass arguments.

Aidan1

Actually, these figures don't suit the anti bypass argument. Patently there is something about Galway that makes it particularly poor in terms of car dependence, one of them being traffic in the city, and that can only really be dealt with by taking East-West traffic out of the city (and off the QB in particular). It also makes clear that you absolutely have to do something about planning the urban space better, not just in terms of slapping down the odd footpath, but in terms of making sure that schools and housing are better located. And you also have to engage and deal with the sprawl into rural areas. I'm a supporter of the bypass, but I would go so far as to suggest that the city shows good faith in terms of dealing with these issues, the GCOB should be held up.

antoobrien

Aidan1 wrote: »

Actually, these figures don't suit the anti bypass argument.

Oh, tell that to the people who tell give us the impression that if we can just fix the schools we won't need a bypass.

Aidan1 wrote: »

Patently there is something about Galway that makes it particularly poor in terms of car dependence, one of them being traffic in the city, and that can only really be dealt with by taking East-West traffic out of the city (and off the QB in particular).

Agreed.

Aidan1 wrote: »

It also makes clear that you absolutely have to do something about planning the urban space better, not just in terms of slapping down the odd footpath, but in terms of making sure that schools and housing are better located.

This is a big problem in Galway. Most of the secondary schools are west of the river - as shown by the much higher numbers getting buses to school for the 13-18 age group than the 5-12 age group.

Aidan1 wrote: »

And you also have to engage and deal with the sprawl into rural areas.
I'm a supporter of the bypass, but I would go so far as to suggest that the city shows good faith in terms of dealing with these issues, the GCOB should be held up.

And this is where things get interesting and side tracked into talks of a bungalow blitz which in reality has less to do with city traffic than the fact that a large number of farmers & people that had jobs in the county are having to look increasingly to the city for work (a phenomenon that started in the 80s).

So where do we develop. Do we finish, Doughiska, develop Ballintemple & Ardaun - right beside the East of the city which have PT plans as part of the proposals or do we develop Oranmore, Athenry Claregalway etc as dormitory towns with P&Rs and run frequent buses along the DCs to Galway.

Aidan1

And this is where things get interesting and side tracked into talks of a bungalow blitz which in reality has less to do with city traffic than the fact that a large number of farmers & people that had jobs in the county are having to look increasingly to the city for work (a phenomenon that started in the 80s).

Regardless of the origins (and it's true, pluriactivity on farms has become a characteristic of Irish farming since the 1970s, particularly west of the Shannon), the problem is that it is very much a factor when it comes to city traffic. As the figures show, County Galway is far more rural in nature than other comparable Irish counties (Cork and Limerick in particular), with fewer and far smaller urban centres (something that drives non work related trips to Galway also). Also, very many of those rural houses have practically nothing to do with farming - they are and were urban generated in the first place. Unless you can stop that spread, everything else is a waste of time (a lot has already been done, but not nearly enough).

In terms of what to do - well, a lot of what needs to be done has to depend on a fairly rigorous analysis of the POWCARS and demographic data (where people live, where they work, and the likely trends over time). From that also will flow a lot of data around future infrastructural requirements, not just transport but schools, healthcare, electricity, telecoms, water, waste water etc. Only then can you start looking at options properly. Given the basic population and industrial geography of the city already however, it looks a candidate for a kind of multi-polar model (mainly due to the constrained nature of the city centre and the small size and relative distance of the potential dormitory towns), with dense and properly planned small centres arrayed around the existing suburbs, including new residential zoning on the Eastern fringe and limited further industrial zoning on the western fringe, all premised on good public transport links (bus lanes post GCOB in this case).

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Ah so when the figures prove you wrong they still prove you right, well done!

I'm not sure I follow. Can you elaborate?

antoobrien wrote: »

I'm aware of that, the figures though claimed a real numbers drop in the city - which is clearly untrue.

EDIT: Now I see it. It's the copy-and-paste headline on the Galway News report -- Fewer children now walking to school in Galway City. Clearly incorrect, the number in the city being higher by a total of 19 children. The headline should just say Galway, although obviously the city and county situation should not be conflated, so fair point re the misleading impression given by the piece. To clarify, however, my own comments in that post were directed at the change in car use, as evidenced by the bolded parts of galwaycyclist's quoted post: "car use in Galway City increased by five percentage points among workers and parents of primary school children during the intercensal period 2006-2011". I didn't notice the error in the headline, but if I had I certainly wouldn't have used the piece. You can't be too careful around here...

antoobrien wrote: »

Oh, tell that to the people who tell give us the impression that if we can just fix the schools we won't need a bypass.

Quote/link please.

monument

antoobrien wrote: »

If we want to get figures that we everyone can be comfortable with, we need to do far more regular and detailed examinations than the census, which is a scratching of the surface once every 5 years.

While more regular data, and local traffic counts are very useful to back up the census where needed, no other data will come close to the census in getting the fullest possable picture.

The best possable fix would be for the cencus to ask if people used different modes and how often.

antoobrien wrote: »

One of the reasons I distrust the census data and prefer actual traffic studies (e.g. traffic counters, bus & train passenger numbers where available) is because of the time lapse between them. The census capture snapshots at a particular time but they do not get useful continuing data. To give you an idea of what I'm talking about, here are what has been recorded for me in the last 3 censuses.

Census|Mode
2002 | Cycle
2006 | Walk
2011 | Cycle


In the intra census period 2002-2006 I appear as a cycling statistic, when I would have spent months either getting buses, being a passenger for someone going that way, walking, using PT or driving. But the census just sees a cyclist until 2006 who started walking (funny it's always assumed when we look at figrues that they are lost to cars if there is an increase in that figure). Between 2006 & 2011 I again did everything except drive to work. Right now I'm down as a cyclist again for the next 5 years, despite the fact that I was a PT passenger for most of the period and now drive.

In this respect you're adnormal. You're at the fridges. Most people stick to one mode most of the time.

Traffic counts etc fill in gaps but they do not override the census data.

Iwannahurl

Aidan1 wrote: »

people have been quoting figures for walking to school within the city. That;'s just the figure over the line - what about the figure below (the total number of children in that age bracket attending school). Without that, you don't know if the percentage actually rose or fell, which is materially very important.

Debates/arguments on Boards can be tedious or pointless in the extreme, but what I find useful, from time to time, about the process is that it prompts you to refine your arguments, justify your position, test your assumptions and check your facts.

With regard to that headline in Galway News, it turns out that they were correct in the sense that matters in the present context, ie proportion, although they did not provide the relevant figures in the report.*

Galway City: children aged 5-12, mode of travel to school

2006
TOTAL 5405
On foot 1190 (22%)
Bike 30 (1%)
Bus 450 (8%)
Car 3377 (62%)

2011
TOTAL 6080
On foot 1209 (20%)
Bike 100 (2%)
Bus 388 (6%)
Car 4123 (68%)

The proportion of children aged 5-12 walking to school in Galway City therefore declined by two percentage points in the intercensal period 2006-11, whereas the percentage travelling by car increased by three times that rate, ie by six percentage points. The proportion travelling by bus dropped by two percentage points, though on the plus side the numbers cycling grew more than threefold (30 in 2006 versus 100 in 2011).*

In terms of absolute numbers, about 750 more children aged 5-12 were driven to school in Galway City in 2011 compared to 2006. Just for the sake of argument (:)) if we assume one child and 5 metres of carriageway length per car, that amounts to a line of bumper-to-bumper traffic stretching 3.75 km, and that's just for the extra numbers being driven just to primary school in Galway City, spiritual home of intolerable traffic congestion...








*Disclaimer: unless I have read the Census figures wrong. I'm using a wee netbook thingy, and I can barely see the effing text on the screen. If someone spots an error, I'm sure I'll be told about it PDQ.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

In terms of absolute numbers, about 750 more children aged 5-12 were driven to school in Galway City in 2011 compared to 2006. Just for the sake of argument (:)) if we assume one child and 5 metres of carriageway length per car, that amounts to a line of bumper-to-bumper traffic stretching 3.75 km, and that's just for the extra numbers being driven just to primary school in Galway City, spiritual home of intolerable traffic congestion...

This kind of analysis - purposely taking the worst case scenario despite no corroborating evidence - highlights what the census data is severely lacking: information on how many child occupants (and adults for that matter) per car there are and where does the driver go from there. I'm sure some of the parents here will immediately and strenuously disagree but I know of a at least half a dozen families with 2 or more children that are dropped off on the way to work. These are the cars that will show up later as "single occupant" cars in studies that look at cars on the road to be further abused by statistics.

There's also the question of how many bus routes are in usable locations for the children to use them on their way to school, forgetting the approximate €10 per day it will cost a working parent to use the bus while bringing little johnny or mary to school.

I like the straw IWH, I know a few farmers that need fodder:D Now can you get them to self animate so that they can walk to the farmers and I don't have charge delivery

galwaycyclist

antoobrien wrote: »

This kind of analysis - purposely taking the worst case scenario despite no corroborating evidence - highlights what the census data is severely lacking: information on how many child occupants (and adults for that matter) per car there are and where does the driver go from there. I'm sure some of the parents here will immediately and strenuously disagree but I know of a at least half a dozen families with 2 or more children that are dropped off on the way to work. These are the cars that will show up later as "single occupant" cars in studies that look at cars on the road to be further abused by statistics.

There's also the question of how many bus routes are in usable locations for the children to use them on their way to school, forgetting the approximate €10 per day it will cost a working parent to use the bus while bringing little johnny or mary to school.

Sure let us assume this is correct. But if so then this is one car effectively making two extra trips in the city at peak hours.

1. The trip to school
2. The trip to work

There will may be very comparitively few cases where the school is directly on the route to work. In the evening the situation will be reversed.

3. The trip to school
4. The trip home

In many cases the trip to school will involve creating large queues at key, and restricted, junctions. Kingston Cross as one example.

So even if all the parents still bring the car to work (which I don't accept) getting more kids walking and cycling to school still removes a significant burden from the city's road capacity.

?Cee?view

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Sure let us assume this is correct. But if so then this is one car effectively making two extra trips in the city at peak hours.

1. The trip to school
2. The trip to work

There will be very few cases where the school is directly on the route to work. In the evening the situation will be reversed.

3. The trip to school
4. The trip home

In many cases the trip to school will involve creating large queues at key, and restricted, junctions. Kingston Cross as one example.

So even if all the parents still bring the car to work (which I don't accept) getting more kids walking and cycling to school still removes a significant burden from the city's road capacity.

As a child I used this route to cycle to school. Now, my child will be using this same route in a few short years, but I'm loathe to consider allowing her to cycle.

Can the totality of solutions not be examined on this thread i.e. a significant volume of vehicular traffic being "moved" to a bypass, freeing up road space on Kingston Road, Taylor's Hill etc. for more cycling? To me these roads would be ideally suited for some sort of orbital arrangement whereby cars would go "in" Taylor's Hill and "out" Salthill, or somesuch. A significant portion of the road could be given to cycling etc.

However, absent the bypass, and the resultant reduction in congestion, I couldn't conceive of letting my little one onto those roads on a bike.

I meant to say: does anyone remember the DEC staff bus? This collected staff from Knocknacarra and hinterlands and allowed children make their own way wherever they were going. Do any of the companies based on the East side of the river do this now?

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

This kind of analysis - purposely taking the worst case scenario despite no corroborating evidence - highlights what the census data is severely lacking: information on how many child occupants (and adults for that matter) per car there are and where does the driver go from there. I'm sure some of the parents here will immediately and strenuously disagree but I know of a at least half a dozen families with 2 or more children that are dropped off on the way to work. These are the cars that will show up later as "single occupant" cars in studies that look at cars on the road to be further abused by statistics.

There's also the question of how many bus routes are in usable locations for the children to use them on their way to school, forgetting the approximate €10 per day it will cost a working parent to use the bus while bringing little johnny or mary to school.

I like the straw IWH, I know a few farmers that need fodder:D Now can you get them to self animate so that they can walk to the farmers and I don't have charge delivery

antoobrien wrote: »

Ah so when the figures prove you wrong they still prove you right, well done!

So, no acknowledgement of what the comparative Census stats actually show then?

As for the "worst case scenario" -- the hypothetical situation in which all 750 extra children (since 2006) are taken to school on a one child per car occupancy rate -- it leaves out the obvious reality that the number 750 refers only to the increase in the number of children being driven to primary school 2006-2011.

The total number travelling by car is actually 4123. So let's see, purely for the crack, how the figures stack up.

According to the CSO the average number of children per family in 2011 was 1.4.

Taking that statistic purely for the purposes of illustration, we will assume that the 4123 children would be transported to primary school in 2945 cars (4123/1.4).

Assuming 5 metres of carriageway per vehicle (car length plus headway), that amounts to a hypothetical line of bumper-to-bumper traffic nearly 15 km long.

Again, someone who's better at sums than I am please correct me if those calculations are wrong.

By way of further illustration, a 15 km line of cars bumper-to-bumper would equate to, say, a tailback stretching from the junction of Kingston Road-Taylor's Hill all the way to Spiddal.

That's a hypothetical platoon of nearly 3000 cars around 15 km long traversing Galway City every day during term time, just to get to primary school.

I haven't even started on the secondary school and Third Level figures yet, but maybe I'll wait until somebody points out the mistakes in my calculations first...

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

how many child occupants (and adults for that matter) per car there are and where does the driver go from there. I'm sure some of the parents here will immediately and strenuously disagree but I know of a at least half a dozen families with 2 or more children that are dropped off on the way to work. These are the cars that will show up later as "single occupant" cars in studies that look at cars on the road to be further abused by statistics.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

So even if all the parents still bring the car to work (which I don't accept) getting more kids walking and cycling to school still removes a significant burden from the city's road capacity.

From the Irish Heart Foundation's 2010 report, Building Young Hearts:

Findings from the 2006 Census echo the reduction in active travel modes to school. Between 1991 and 2006 walking and cycling decreased while travel by car increased. 25% travel less than 1km, 36% travel between 2-4km and 60% of parents who drop off by car don’t go to work.*

*I haven't cross-checked those figures, but that's what the IHF said anyway.

Iwannahurl

Aidan1 wrote: »

Actually, these figures don't suit the anti bypass argument. Patently there is something about Galway that makes it particularly poor in terms of car dependence, one of them being traffic in the city

Can you clarify?

If I'm understanding you correctly, are you saying that traffic (or traffic congestion) is a direct cause of car dependence in Galway City?

Aidan1

are you saying that traffic (or traffic congestion) is a direct cause of car dependence in Galway City?

That wasn't what I meant, but to a certain degree it happens to be true. What I was trying to say (badly) is that car dependence is higher in Galway than in other Irish cities, and the underlying reasons for this needed to be examined. Essentially it's down to the fact that Galway was a county town that grew massively, in a poorly planned way from the 1960s onwards, and infrastructure has never managed to keep up. So the core is too small and narrow to allow traffic to flow through it, and the more recent road network has too many blockages and pinch points to deal with the volume of traffic (particularly that crossing the city). Before you do anything else, you have to take these cars off the streets - the only way of doing that in a practical sense is push them onto a orbital or ring road. However if you only do that, and don't make the city more habitable, don't invest in public transport, or don't plan land use and transport in the entire city region (50km+ around the city) properly, then you merely commit to another generation of car dependency.

But as it happens, car dependency does tend to breed car dependency, because (a) the more people are forced into their cars by a lack of plausible alternatives, the more services and retail becomes car oriented, and (b) the more hostile the urban environment is to other transport means. Essentially, I'm suggesting that the GCOB should be seized upon as a means of making Galway more pedestrian and bike friendly, and re-orienting the city towards far more sustainable transport by controlling demand on the GCOB by using the planning system effectively.

monument

Aidan1 wrote: »

Before you do anything else, you have to take these cars off the streets - the only way of doing that in a practical sense is push them onto a orbital or ring road.

No, it's not the only way. There's loads of things that can be done in Galway before thinking for removing any or much traffic. There's a long list of things you could do before thinking of removing much in the way of current traffic lanes / current car capacity.

The provision for cycling and walking in Galway is lacking or of very low quality -- often where there's some or lots of space.

Many of the things you could do -- like Dutch-style fully segregated roundabouts -- would be good for all road users:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFTd8kuVrHY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDN0anOVRRQ

Aidan1

The provision for cycling and walking in Galway is lacking or of very low quality -- often where there's some or lots of space.

The issue is not those areas where there is lots of space, but rather where there is very little - Galway is best by pinch points, some very old (like around the city centre), others much newer (modern road junctions). And while elevated junctions are great in a lot of locations, the distruption of even building them in Galway would shut the city down, even before you consider the fact that there really isn't room for that kind of thing in those areas in Galway. Vertical separation requires ramps to get traffic/people up and down, and for a lot of key junctions, that would require demolition too. More to the point though, these things are generally visually intrusive and out of character with a city - an urban motorway with elevated junctions was recommended in the BKS study for Cork in the late 1970s - it drove home to policy makers that a LUTS was required. They also distort the urban grain and the scale of development, and make the city less welcoming as a place to live. Again, it is by far a better option to push traffic out of town (while managing demand and car dependency), and restore the city as a place for people to live.

monument

Aidan1 wrote: »

The issue is not those areas where there is lots of space, but rather where there is very little - Galway is best by pinch points, some very old (like around the city centre), others much newer (modern road junctions). And while elevated junctions are great in a lot of locations, the distruption of even building them in Galway would shut the city down, even before you consider the fact that there really isn't room for that kind of thing in those areas in Galway. Vertical separation requires ramps to get traffic/people up and down, and for a lot of key junctions, that would require demolition too. More to the point though, these things are generally visually intrusive and out of character with a city - an urban motorway with elevated junctions was recommended in the BKS study for Cork in the late 1970s - it drove home to policy makers that a LUTS was required. They also distort the urban grain and the scale of development, and make the city less welcoming as a place to live. Again, it is by far a better option to push traffic out of town (while managing demand and car dependency), and restore the city as a place for people to live.

Loads of spaces on many of the N6 junctions and also at places like the old Dublin Road beside GMIT. In some cases if some demolition was justified, I can't see the problem.

Cork was looking at following Irish / UK designs which are far more intrusive and poorer for pedestrians and cyclists, including the disabled -- and Cork did follow this type of design in some places in the end! Dutch designs are far less intrusive and are better for pedestrians and cyclists.

The Dutch designs would bring the current N6 and other areas which are "out of character with a city" far more in character with a city. More importantly these designs would work best for all users.

Which Dutch example distorts the urban grain and the scale of development, and make the city less welcoming as a place to live? I can find more examples of this roundabout type if you want?

It's clear the design principal does the opposite. It allows major roads around the city to work for everybody. The idea that these roads will be downgraded when an outter bypass goes in is just not dealing with reality.

The recent city council N6 plans are far more out of touch with the urban grain and the scale of development -- just because these junctions are at one level does not make them right -- the scale is still massive and compared to Dutch designs the planned Galway ones harms mobility for those not in cars. It seems to go against Irish urban roads and cycling guidlines.

antoobrien

monument wrote: »

Loads of spaces on many of the N6 junctions and also at places like the old Dublin Road beside GMIT. In some cases if some demolition was justified, I can't see the problem.

There are two spots where the road won't support a bridge structure, there is one location where there is physical space to do something vaguely like the N4 Lucan floyover but the geometry is, well, wrong.

From the start of the N6 at the back of the hospital we have 2 straight-on junctions, the rest are either sharp left turns or sharp right turns and these are locations that we;re supposed to shoehorn in overpasses.

There is a proposal for a new Tesco in Westside, the estimated cost of a 100m-200m road (including demotions, moving services etc) is €3m. We can go much higher if a business is forced to relocate. Fortunately the city council know that this is a non-runner in any economic environment.

monument wrote: »

the scale is still massive

For all the council are getting grief about the conversion project (I think it's a farce and better facilities could be put in places using pedestrian bridges), if the junctions are overpowered then good, it's about time we got ahead of the curve on something.

monument wrote: »

the planned Galway ones harms mobility for those not in cars

I'm undecided as to whether they've made the situation worse for cyclists, I haven't heard anybody complain about the pedestrian lights at the new junctions.


As for the dutch examples, do any Dutch city have commuter radius like those seen in this country?

Aidan1

I might be very much mistaken, but pretty much every Dutch town of any scale I've been in has a full scale motorway by-pass or orbital route - urban roads just don't carry the same volume of vehicular traffic there as they do in Galway (and where they do, they have decades of investment in road infrastructure to deal with it - we don't. Again, you are suggesting a solution to a different problem, or at least in the wrong order. Even if you could find to space and funds to build fully segregated roundabouts in Galway, and could persuade people that the disruption was worth it, you would still have much the same traffic issues as you do now, stifling economic growth, making it more difficult and expensive to live and do business in Galway, and thus damaging the prospects of the entire city region. It would take a massive modal shift to make any dent in the traffic (and no increase in car use due to economic growth), and that simply isn't going to happen, partly because of the population geography of Galway, partly because of the disasterous spread of one off rural housing and partly because of the the fact that all of these things taken together have made the city increasingly car dependent. Trying to 'fix' these issues by making cycling easier and driving more difficult is not just as dumb as pushing a rope, it is also not going to get political traction in any meaningful sense. Never going to happen.

Frankly, "but the Netherlands" is not a valid argument in this case unless you consider the very different spatial, social and political contexts, a good start being the fact that Dutch cities and towns generally have had decades if not centuries of planning and investment in transport infrastucture. Up until 40 years ago, Galway was a poor town in the West of Ireland that saw it's last (and only) sustained investment in transport in the Victorian era. However, if you do what the Dutch actually did, which is bring long distance vehicular traffic off the streets of cities and towns, largely to preserve the urban realm for people, then I'm all in.

The reason Cork was looking at UK (and US) type designs was because those were the ones required to carry the volumes of traffic involved - the ultimate solution was to build the tunnel and the (very American) South Ring Road. The other element of the thing, spatial planning and investment in the public transport and the urban realm has been much slower (mainly due to a shortage of funding from central Govt), but it is happening. But again, the prescription was the same, move the traffic out and preserve the city. It merely happened a generation earlier in Cork because the problem was bigger due to the fact that it's bigger and has an even more constrained city centre.

Iwannahurl

Aidan1 wrote: »

That wasn't what I meant, but to a certain degree it happens to be true. What I was trying to say (badly) is that car dependence is higher in Galway than in other Irish cities, and the underlying reasons for this needed to be examined. Essentially it's down to the fact that Galway was a county town that grew massively, in a poorly planned way from the 1960s onwards, and infrastructure has never managed to keep up. So the core is too small and narrow to allow traffic to flow through it, and the more recent road network has too many blockages and pinch points to deal with the volume of
traffic (particularly that crossing the city).

Thanks for re-engaging with this debate.

First up, I think it's necessary to distinguish between car ownership, car use and car dependence.

I walked and cycled to school as a child. As the years went by more people bought cars and more people drove. Same infrastructure and roads environment, different number of cars.

Lots of people don't own a car these days. Last time I checked there were c. 28,000 cars registered in Galway City iirc -- I don't know what the figure is now. Regardless of that figure, it is self-evident that not everybody uses their car all the time. It is also a truism that well over 90 percent of our roads are uncongested for well over 90 percent of the time, which means that car ownership does not inevitably result in perpetual congestion.

Some people own a car, myself included, but choose to commute by other means. Others could travel by other means but tend to use the car more often than not. Another cohort cannot do without their car, for one reason or another.

As we know, Ireland has a level of car ownership below that of France, Norway, Austria, Finland, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, Sweden and the Netherlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita). Yet in all these countries, their higher level of car ownership apparently does not result in a higher level of car use than we have, as evidenced by, for example, their percentages of total trips by bike (http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/irresistible.pdf). In the EU, Denmark has both a lower level of car ownership and a much higher level of cycling than we do.

We can therefore regard car use & dependence as being on a spectrum, which might look something like this:

Doesn't own a car. Walks, cycles, takes the bus or car pools
Owns a car for occasional use, mostly long journeys
Chooses to use the car for some trips, including occasional short or medium distances
Uses the car for many trips, including regular journeys over short distances
Uses the car for the vast majority of trips, even for minor journeys of less than a few hundred metres
Unable to do without the car at all, even when direct and indirect costs are high.

My father-in-law is in Category 2, whereas I am in Category 3.

I know of many people who seem to be at an advanced stage of car dependence. My aforementioned father-in-law walks to mass every Sunday, while his equally able-bodied neighbours always drive to the same church. Neighbours of mine drive their kids to the local creche and primary school, while my kid now cycles over four times that distance to Junior Infants.

The cardinal signs of dependence include tolerance and withdrawal (http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/terminology/definition1/en/). Habitual car use seems to make a given distance eventually feel too far to walk or cycle. Maybe that's just an issue of time: if I can get to somewhere in the city more quickly by car than by walking or cycling, I adjust by leaving home that little bit later. On the other hand, if driving takes longer because of all that traffic (ie all the other drivers who think it takes too long to walk or cycle) then I can maximise the pleasure quotient by settling into the comfortable upholstery and turning the radio up a little. On the other hand, if I'm carless for any reason I'll end up like one of those sad sacks schlumping around in the rain or, god forbid, I'll have to sit beside some w*nker on the bus. I recall someone telling me that she'd rather chew her own arm off than leave her car. Ironically, she was working in Public Health!

To continue the substance use analogy, another key point to remember is that, rather like passive smoking, indiscriminate car use affects citizens who do not drive a car (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/mar/22/guardiansocietysupplement7).

We therefore have to deal with car use and dependence at societal level, taking cognisance of the fact that there are degrees of use and dependence. If it's the case that "infrastructure has never managed to keep up" then imo the policy response should be to prioritise infrastructure that facilitates a move away from driving as the primary mode of travel. Building roads does not encourage a reduction in car use and car dependence: the exact opposite is the case.

It is also self-evident that the current level of infrastructure across Galway City, which is the same for all of us, is (a) already used by pedestrians and cyclists etc and (b) not congested 100% of the time. It is not true to say that "that car dependence is higher in Galway than in other Irish cities." According to Census 2011 proportionally more commuters walked to work in Galway, with 17 per cent walking compared to 14.5 per cent in Dublin and Waterford.

There are therefore 'elasticities' in travel demand which deserve much greater attention and which could be managed in such a way as to significantly reduce traffic congestion on the existing network. I have already referred to the rice analogy: same 'bottleneck' but entirely different flow rates, depending on how the inputs are managed. If there are "too many blockages and pinch points to deal with the volume of traffic" then start with tackling the volume of traffic, since that is a variable, not a constant. And no, a bypass is not the automatic first step in that regard.

Before you do anything else, you have to take these cars off the streets - the only way of doing that in a practical sense is push them onto a orbital or ring road. However if you only do that, and don't make the city more habitable, don't invest in public transport, or don't plan land use and transport in the entire city region (50km+ around the city) properly, then you merely commit to another generation of car dependency.

For some reason this reminds me of Cold War political rhetoric! It used to be said that the likes of CND were just a communist front because they insisted on unilateral nuclear disarmament of the western democracies first. No government in the Western Bloc wanted to back down, and it was subversive to suggest that they should eliminate their nuclear weapons as a matter of principle.

The debate on this particular aspect of the GCOB proposal seems to be polarised. IMO, there are the Bypass First advocates ("we just want a bridge") and the TDM First advocates, myself included, who would argue that serious initiatives need to be put in place to tackle car use and car dependence in the short to medium term, as well as to ensure that over the long term a bypass will not, whether by accident or design, do exactly the opposite.

As you rightly point out, bypasses do not necessarily mean reduced car dependence. In Waterford City, for example, where a bypass was opened in 2009 iirc, the proportion of people walking to work decreased from 16% in 2006 to 15% in 2011. Bus use dropped from 4% to 3%, while the number of car passengers decreased from 9% to 8%. Meanwhile, the proportion of people driving to work increased by five percentage points, from 58% to 63%. And wasn't Waterford a successful bidder in the Smarter Travel programme three or four years ago?

It seems to be accepted that there will be no GCOB until 2019 at the earliest. Given that time constraint, and given the well-recognised phemonenon that new roads attract new traffic, what is the evidence-based justification for building a bypass "before you do anything else"? What policy-based reasons are there for us to sit in our cars and wait for six years until a bypass materialises? Note that I'm asking for a rationale based on evidence and policy. Arguments based on the premise that you can't expect people to own cars and not use them just do not cut the mustard, in my opinion.

But as it happens, car dependency does tend to breed car dependency, because (a) the more people are forced into their cars by a lack of plausible alternatives, the more services and retail becomes car oriented, and (b) the more hostile the urban environment is to other transport means. Essentially, I'm suggesting that the GCOB should be seized upon as a means of making Galway more pedestrian and bike friendly, and re-orienting the city towards far more sustainable transport by controlling demand on the GCOB by using the planning system effectively.

Galway City already has one of the highest levels of walking and cycling outside Dublin. Where's the implausibility there? That said, I accept that there's a bit of a Catch 22 for people who have become conditioned to car use: both current and potential walkers/cyclists/bus users often find the current environment unconducive (roundabouts, speed, lack of crosswalks etc), so the tendency is to stick with the car. That keeps more cars on the road, and so the vicious circle goes.

However, more walking and cycling also means safer walking and cycling. The presence of more pedestrians and cyclists on the road makes walking and cycling more normalised, creates greater visibility and acceptance of these modes of travel, and encourages "me too" reactions. More people walking and cycling also means fewer cars, which improves the roads environment further, in a virtuous circle.

Where the disagreement arises on this issue is bypass now or bypass later.

It is my contention that a large proportion of car use is not "forced" at all. Pre-bypass TDM would test that assumption PDQ. My gut feeling is that a good chunk of opposition to pre-bypass TDM is based, not on a defeatist belief that there are no plausible alternatives but on the socio-economic objection that you can't expect people who own cars not to use them. That's politics imo, and as Lasswell said, politics is about who gets what, when and how.

monument

Aidan1 wrote: »

Trying to 'fix' these issues by making cycling easier and driving more difficult is not just as dumb as pushing a rope, it is also not going to get political traction in any meaningful sense.

Where have a suggested this?

My point was that there was a long list of things you could do with little or no impact on current traffic, and my main suggestion of Dutch-style segratagated roundabouts makes driving easier.

Also a different planning system does not come close to stopping a junction design from being used -- lack of space does where that's an issue but as already said, it's not in many locations in Galway. There's even room for motor traffic lane segregation in some cases, but that's for people who want that to push.

Disruption would be offset by the benefits and disruption as an excuse is generally used when people are grasping as straws (Luas etc). My educated guess is lots of walkers and cyclists would support it on the bases of not having to cross such busy roundabouts in fear of their life, which motorists would be glad not to have to deal with such conflicts while driving around and many would support.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I walked and cycled to school as a child. As the years went by more people bought cars and more people drove. Same infrastructure and roads environment, different number of cars.

Totally different economic circumstances - which are being totally ignored. When I grew up in the 80s most of the employment in the county was not in Galway city. Since the 80s there has been a dramatic fall in the numbers of people working in the traditional rural industries, meaning that people are looking for manufacturing, services & professional jobs instead.

Galway has always been largely rural (still is) but now what we find are more and more places looking to ignore Tuam, Moycullen, Spiddal, Loughrea, Gort, Ballinasloe etc as viable bases and are looking increasingly to Galway City.

No matter what way we try to crunch numbers, the increase in jobs is going to keep drawing people from the county to jobs in the city, which will in turn more than outweigh and modal changes.

monument wrote: »

My point was that there was a long list of things you could do with little or no impact on current traffic, and my main suggestion of Dutch-style segratagated roundabouts makes driving easier.

One basic problem with that, the ROTR that make them viable in the Netherlands are not used here. Unless we change that we can forget about it and changing the ROTR to suit that is about as bad an idea as changing the side of the road we drive on, both are an invitation to disaster.

monument

I just have to repeat:

Regardless of the bypass going ahead or not, or being for or against it or not, the idea that nothing meaningful can be done for walking and cycling without a bypass is baseless. That kind of argument has me more interested in this debate than any reasoning for or against the bypass.

The idea that a bypass will allow for change elsewhere in the city also seems to be bassless.