N6 - Galway outer bypass: Is it needed?

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Totally different economic circumstances - which are being totally ignored.

I'm not ignoring it, but it's a red herring in terms of the school traffic that I referred to by way of example.

According to the survey done as part of the mayoral initiative on traffic and transportation, 55% of drivers doing the school run do not go on to work.

The main economic change in this regard is increased car ownership, which in the Irish "planning" context inexorably led to greater car use and car dependence.

My neighbours are in similar economic circumstances to me. A bunch of them drive 800 metres to the local school, while my child cycles 3 km. Trends in employment have no bearing on that.

It's an example of where the notion of people being "forced" to use their cars is exposed as a myth, imo.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I'm not ignoring it, but it's a red herring in terms of the school traffic that I referred to by way of example.

The school traffic is the red herring. It causes a problem because it clashes with people trying to get to work for 9am (which is a majority of those working) not because of numbers. If you were serious about it you'd suggest that schools started at 8am.

antoobrien

monument wrote: »

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.

Funny but the only people I hear that from are anti-bypass protestors like yourself. Nobody on the pro-bypass side argues for bypass only or bypass first.

If anything I'd call the vast majority of the pro-bypass suggestions bypasss+

It's laughable that you think a "no bypass" future is sustainable for Galway and yet push a dutch model, which includes copious bypasses, but are in favour of demolishing buildings to make for mutli-stack junctions that are being rejected in other countries, for urban settings.

monument wrote: »

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

Save that straw, the farmers might need bedding again next year.

Aidan1

I don't propose to deal with all of the detail, but I think I can pull one comment out and work from there;

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.

I agree entirely with your comment that car ownership does not necessarily equate to use (or should not, or must not), but cars are and remain the most important mode of transport for a great many people in Galway, (a dependence that is increasing). This happens for a reason, even if you and a great number of others don't like or happen to agree with those reasons. There is a world of a difference from the belief that people don't actually need to use their cars all the time to actually getting them out of them though (and the plural of anecdote is not data). The issue with 'TDM first' is that it will, by design, increase traffic congestion and journey times in order to push people into modes that they are less than enthused about right now (or they would be using them already). Congestion is a cost to the economy, national and regional, and encouraging it withour providing real options is not a runner, politically or otherwise. It simply won't work, and if you try it, the political reaction would unseat any political entity.

If you are to facilitate and encourage modal shift, you need a gradual, cohesive and comprehensive approach. TDM first is 'all stick', and won't work because a lot of people will chose to sit in their cars on the grounds that they have no other option. And the thing is, a great many people do not, by dint of where they live and where they work. It's all very well to suggest that 'anyone can cycle 5km to work', but what about people with several children, or those who have much longer journeys or the great many people who commute in from all over the county? Or those who are too old, or are unable for another medical reason? It might work for you and for me, but for a lot of people it won't.

Moreover, there is relatively little than can be done in a great many cases to significantly facilitate other modes that won't cause severe disruption. Multi-level junctions, even if you can find room and funds, require significant civil engineering works - far more than the junction redesign now in process - this would dramatically increase journey times during construction.

Also, I'm not suggesting that 'nothing' should be done until the GCOB is built, only that very significant works have to be held until after that point. There is space for some further work on bus lanes, and for better cycle lanes, but given the scale of the issue, getting large volumes of traffic off the streets is the key step on the critical path. Until then, the key metric should be preserving journey times by facilitating as much of a shift to cycling, walking and public transport as is possible in the present funding environment, and by bringing forward a coherent spatial plan for the entire city region for the period post GCOB. Also, to be fair, I don't think the cycling infrastructure in Galway is that bad (I cycle to work in Dublin but run and drive around Galway regularly). It could be a lot better, but I'd have no difficulty cycling in the city.

Lastly, the only reason I'm engaging in the debate is that there is genuine progress to be made here, and that while the entrenched positions taken by both sides have an element of logic to them, there is a middle ground to be won. The question that we should be engaging with here (and elsewhere) is around what people think Galway should look like in 10 and 20 years time, on the basis of factual information and in a somewhat polite way. Not perpetuating a debate premised on all sides as 'tweedy hipster eco-mentalist cyclists' vs 'lard assed petrolheads'.

lucernarian

monument wrote: »

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

I'm most interested in this point. Could you elaborate on it some more? Taken at face value you mean that the bypass will change nothing else in the city at large? I presume you meant something different.

SeanW

monument wrote: »

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:

Thanks for that post - I have no doubt that the RABs you've shown here are indeed good for all users and inherently a good idea.

But that does not, as I see it, have much to do with the problems in Galway, or more specifically the problems that the bypass is meant to solve.

From where I see it, the bypass has two main benefits.

1. It facilitates East-West traffic not involving Galway City on a form of road appropriate for long distance, high speed traffic, the profile applicable to the traffic it is designed to serve. (e.g. Barna-Oranmore, Spiddal and suchlike points towards the East (Athlone, Clare, Dublin etc)
2. It would benefit the city's tourism trade by making Salthill (with its promenade, leisure complex and group of casinos) dramatically more accessible by providing tourists and daytrippers from the Midlands and West with a route less dependent on choked city streets such as this. I hope we all agree that this would be a win-win.

I consider yourself and Iwannahurl to be on the same page on the matter of the bypass, though to your credit you appear much more reasonable.

But it seems to me that the bypass will have one set of benefits, and the two of you - much more so in IWHs case - are trying to solve different problems.

There is no question that the RAB design in your video would be radically better for cyclists and indeed all those who have to use the current route. But between yourself and IWH there appears to be significant, fundamental disagreement as to the suitability of the existing road for long distance, high speed traffic. Like this part, while it only has a single access for a housing estate on a 1 mile or so stretch between major junctions, IWH seems to consider the whole thing a city street that should have slower traffic on that basis.

That means that either: that stretch is suitable for large volumes of high speed long distance traffic, in which case IWHs complaint can be ignored, OR it's more of a city street, not suitable for high volume, high speed, long distance traffic and traffic of this kind should be rerouted.

Additionally, on the topic of the bypass IWH appears to take the view that the answer is to take away road space from motor traffic, have an iron-fist clampdown on speeding, a reduction in speed limits, a reduction in parking and an iron-fist clampdown on illegal parking. Along with more charges, more taxes, more regulations on motorists etc which TBH is that posters stock answer to any problem regardless of circumstance or cause. Iwannahurl also appears to think that a "bypass first" approach, where the bypass is built first then the city is made more cycle and pedestrian friendly based on the traffic being gone, is deeply unreasonable because it's too motorist centric. Or something.

And I am struggling to see what any of what you or IWH has to say has to do with the bypass and the benefits it would bring. At best, you are dealing with problems that overlap somewhat. At worst, Iwannahurl just seems to be waffling and trying to present an extreme anti-car agenda as a replacement for the bypass. Which IMO it can never be.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

The school traffic is the red herring. It causes a problem because it clashes with people trying to get to work for 9am (which is a majority of those working) not because of numbers. If you were serious about it you'd suggest that schools started at 8am.

TDM measures aimed at schools is one possible approach among many.

http://www.mrsc.org/subjects/transpo/tdm.aspx
http://www.uctc.net/papers/086.pdf
http://depts.washington.edu/trac/bulkdisk/pdf/685.1.pdf

It's absurd to try to claim that a major source of traffic congestion within the city is a red herring.

The whole point is that in the summer months, when tourist influx is at its peak but when primary, secondary and tertiary students are off, traffic flows better both within and -- crucially -- through the city.

You have made the point repeatedly that all traffic must flow through a certain triangular area across the river.

I have countered by saying that the same bottlenecks/pinch points do not result in acute congestion when traffic volume is reduced at certain times of the year. It is a truism in traffic engineering that 90% of the existing roads network is uncongested 90% of the time, therefore acute congestion is not due to the roads network as is but to the extreme (and unmanaged) demands placed on it at peak times.

I have also referred to independent sources showing that relatively small reductions in traffic volume can result in significant shifts in Level of Service.

Do you accept those basic principles? If not, can you point to any independent sources that explain where they're wrong?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8G7ViTTuwno

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Funny but the only people I hear that from are anti-bypass protestors like yourself. Nobody on the pro-bypass side argues for bypass only or bypass first.

Is that true?

I've seen several posts on Boards where GCOB advocates have stated that only after a bypass has been built can serious attempts be made to introduce TDM measures, as exemplified by a higher LOS for public transport, walking and cycling.

Are these comments not in support of a bypass-first position?

Aidan1 wrote: »

The issue with 'TDM first' is that it will, by design, increase traffic congestion and journey times in order to push people into modes that they are less than enthused about right now (or they would be using them already). Congestion is a cost to the economy, national and regional, and encouraging it withour providing real options is not a runner, politically or otherwise. It simply won't work, and if you try it, the political reaction would unseat any political entity.

Aidan1 wrote: »

Right now, there simply isn't room to properly accomodate cyclists (and pedestrians) and still get traffic through the city.

MYOB wrote: »

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

SeanW

I don't know if I am still on your pathetic "Ignore" list but I'll give it a bash anyway.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It's absurd to try to claim that a major source of traffic congestion within the city is a red herring.

It is a red herring since the problems relate to traffic that have no business within the city, or at least not the parts of the city in question.

You have made the point repeatedly that all traffic must flow through a certain triangular area across the river.

Yes. And the logic for the bypass must clearly be that this traffic has no business in that triangular area across the river.

I have countered by saying that the same bottlenecks/pinch points do not result in acute congestion when traffic volume is reduced at certain times of the year.

Less volume = less congestion ... Wow, that a revelation :rolleyes:

Do you accept those basic principles? If not, can you point to any independent sources that explain where they're wrong?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8G7ViTTuwno

The video claims, with regard to the rice-through-a-funnel problem, that spacing demand would make the whole thing flow faster - though I know you don't like speed on city streets. But where it falls flat is on two points.

1. In Galways' case, it's reasonable to add a second "funnel" because the "rice" (cars) are heading for different "beakers" (destinations). I.E. Galway City East and Centre versus Galway City West and Western County.
2. Your solution is to put an obstruction on the existing "funnel" and expect all the "rice" (cars) to get through faster. That's not logical.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Is that true?

I've seen several posts on Boards where GCOB advocates have stated that only after a bypass has been built can serious attempts be made to introduce TDM measures, as exemplified by a higher LOS for public transport, walking and cycling.

Are these comments not in support of a bypass-first position?

The problem with your counter is that I believe that your position is guided by a "modal shift only" position, whereas on the other side, bypass advocates take a more reasonable position.

To be specific, I allege:

1. Your position is guided exclusively by motorist bashing.
2. You are - at best - trying to solve one problem (East-West traffic and tourist traffic not involving Eastern Galway city) by applying solutions to another problem that not only will not help the first, it will be actively counterproductive by design.
3. You appear to find reasonable comments disagreeable, such as:

   Right now, there simply isn't room to properly accomodate cyclists (and pedestrians) and still get traffic through the city.

   The OP was not saying "don't accomodate cyclists and pedestrians," instead he was saying that there is no room to do that and not cause traffic chaos in the process.
   If you disagree, you do so without apparent cause.
4. Being somewhat less generous for a moment, I specifically believe that you have no ideas for anything whatsoever that do not involve creating problems for motorists. And that this comes from an anti-motorist, extreme environmental-left position.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It's absurd to try to claim that a major source of traffic congestion within the city is a red herring.

The whole point is that in the summer months, when tourist influx is at its peak but when primary, secondary and tertiary students are off, traffic flows better both within and -- crucially -- through the city.

It's a red herring because if there was an ounce of truth to it the evening rush should be orders of magnitude lighter, seeing as how it starts after the school run finishes..

It's not, if anything the evening rush is longer and more severe than the morning rush, but hey lets ignore the fact that the schools have almost no effect on this.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

It's a red herring because if there was an ounce of truth to it the evening rush should be orders of magnitude lighter, seeing as how it starts after the school run finishes..

It's not, if anything the evening rush is longer and more severe than the morning rush, but hey lets ignore the fact that the schools have almost no effect on this.

It is widely recognised that during the summer, when tourist influx peaks, traffic flow both within and through Galway City, including that infernal triangle, is markedly improved. That's why major roadworks are done during the summer months, and it's also why there is gridlock when school-related traffic descends on the city in August, as parents and their kids scramble to buy uniforms and books.

http://www.galwaynews.ie/21133-city-council-denies-roadworks-sole-cause-traffic-chaos

Can you please address, with reference to independent sources, these two main points:

1. That even small reductions in traffic volume can bring about a significant improvement in traffic flow, viz. reducing traffic volume from 2,000 to 1,800 vehicles per hour (a 10% reduction) shifts a roadway from Level of Service E to LOS D. See visual depiction of LOS below.

2. That throughput can be maximised on the same roads network, or through the same bottleneck/pinchpoint, by rigorous traffic management, as per the Washington State Department of Transportation rice funnel analogy.

The fundamental principle is that the same infrastructure can become highly inefficient due to lack of active management or made highly efficient through TDM.

Is that principle valid or is it not? If not, can you point to authoritative sources to support such a conclusion? Links etc please.

what_traffic

1st step - We need to KILL car traffic in Galway. Traffic in itself is not a problem.
I agree with IWH - "Modal shift " is the first step in that process.
Pedestrians, Cyclists, Public Transport User's need to be accomodated(in that order) above Private Car Motorists. Car parking and road space in the city centre will need to re-allocated.
Many permability issue's for pedestrians and cyclists would have zero affect on motorists; but would create short cut's and car traffic free routes for Pedestrians and Cyclists.

SeanW

what_traffic wrote: »

1st step - We need to KILL car traffic in Galway. Traffic in itself is not a problem.
I agree with IWH - "Modal shift " is the first step in that process.
Pedestrians, Cyclists, Public Transport User's need to be accomodated(in that order) above Private Car Motorists. Car parking and road space in the city centre will need to re-allocated.

So you are advocating a "modal-shift only" solution.

Question: say I am from the Midlands and I want to get to Salthill. How will your strategy help?
Or say Joe Public lives in Spiddal and wants to go to Athlone. How will your strategy help - assuming for the sake of argument that the bypass is on the long finger.

galwaycyclist

SeanW wrote: »

So you are advocating a "modal-shift only" solution.

Question: say I am from the Midlands and I want to get to Salthill. How will your strategy help?
Or say Joe Public lives in Spiddal and wants to go to Athlone. How will your strategy help - assuming for the sake of argument that the bypass is on the long finger.

There will be substantially less city-generated short distance car travel. Therefore this frees up system capacity for other kinds of trips including other kinds of car trips.

SeanW

galwaycyclist wrote: »

There will be substantially less city-generated short distance car travel. Therefore this frees up system capacity for other kinds of trips including other kinds of car trips.

But remember that for any traffic removed (by "encouragement" more like force I might add) a corresponding amount of road space is taken away from motorists. That's the plan. So even if heaps of traffic are removed, there will be no net improvement in traffic speed. Additionally, IWH wants a dramatic clampdown on speeding - also to help motorists no doubt :rolleyes: - and reduced speed limits, having taken and clearly expressed the view that the current roads forming the N6 in Galway are not suitable for high speed long distance traffic.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It is widely recognised that during the summer, when tourist influx peaks, traffic flow both within and through Galway City, including that infernal triangle, is markedly improved. That's why major roadworks are done during the summer months, and it's also why there is gridlock when school-related traffic descends on the city in August, as parents and their kids scramble to buy uniforms and books.

Ah so things like people chaning their routines over June & July for holidays and different working hours have absolutely no effect.

Face it, if schools were the problem then there'd be no traffic jams at 6.45 on a Friday evening on SQR.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

http://www.galwaynews.ie/21133-city-council-denies-roadworks-sole-cause-traffic-chaos

You might have seen the same claims in the papers last week about last Tuesday night. In this case they'd have been right.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Can you please address, with reference to independent sources, these two main points:

1. That even small reductions in traffic volume can bring about a significant improvement in traffic flow, viz. reducing traffic volume from 2,000 to 1,800 vehicles per hour (a 10% reduction) shifts a roadway from Level of Service E to LOS D. See visual depiction of LOS below.

Can you show anywhere where this is actually true.

We are only guessing, based on national figures that there has been a 10% drop in traffic. You yourself have claimed that there is more traffic in Galway.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

2. That throughput can be maximised on the same roads network, or through the same bottleneck/pinchpoint, by rigorous traffic management, as per the Washington State Department of Transportation rice funnel analogy.

That rice funnel analogy is flawed because it's a single entry single route system. Show me a transport system in the work that works that way. The only reasons such rubbish appeals to you is that it suits your argument, not that it's in any way practical.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The fundamental principle is that the same infrastructure can become highly inefficient due to lack of active management or made highly efficient through TDM.

I'd love to see how TDM will solve the multiple crossing traffic flows we have - which is what causes the congestion.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Is that principle valid or is it not? If not, can you point to authoritative sources to support such a conclusion? Links etc please.

http://subregional.h-gac.com/images/Multimodal_level_of_service_1.jpg

Very shortsighted, so no not at all valid because it's looking at results not causes.



http://design.open.ac.uk/potter/documents/PotterpaperGCET.pdf

There is a tendency for TDM policies to focus only upon choice of travel mode, but this is
just one factor in the traffic/congestion generating mix. There are a group of factors that constitute transport demand. 1 . 
These factors include the total number of trips,  trip length, mode used and vehicle occupancy.  Policies for reducing congestion  also  require a consideration of the location and time of travel.

Your TDM strategy chooses to cherrypick perceived problems that are at best minor irritations in the scheme of things.

monument

A warning to all:

Here on C&T general name calling / putting tags on people (ie motorist bashing, protesters, etc) is not allowed. The level of debate should be kept above snipping, and should focus on the point not the poster.

Please read the charter.

-- Moderator

galwaycyclist

SeanW wrote: »

But remember that for any traffic removed (by "encouragement" more like force I might add) a corresponding amount of road space is taken away from motorists. That's the plan. So even if heaps of traffic are removed, there will be no net improvement in traffic speed. Additionally, IWH wants a dramatic clampdown on speeding - also to help motorists no doubt :rolleyes: - and reduced speed limits, having taken and clearly expressed the view that the current roads forming the N6 in Galway are not suitable for high speed long distance traffic.

Uh not necessarily so - the relocation of car parking does not necessarily remove any road space in terms of traffic lanes. Reducing speeds by motor cars immediately increases road capacity for motor cars by reducing the headway needed between cars.

Long distance does not have to mean high speed. Galway itself from Ballybrit to Barna woods is only about 8km across. How is it hardship to drive at a reasonable speed for 8km?

what_traffic

SeanW wrote: »

So you are advocating a "modal-shift only" solution.

Question: say I am from the Midlands and I want to get to Salthill. How will your strategy help?
Or say Joe Public lives in Spiddal and wants to go to Athlone. How will your strategy help - assuming for the sake of argument that the bypass is on the long finger.

Nope - its the first step.

We also need to bring in resident's parking. For example - the streets in; the Claddagh, Woodquay, the West, Lower Salthill. Should only be for residents ONLY - not Pay and Display. And FYI I do not live in any of the above area's; live further out in the suburbs

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Can you show anywhere where this is actually true.

We are only guessing, based on national figures that there has been a 10% drop in traffic. You yourself have claimed that there is more traffic in Galway.

That rice funnel analogy is flawed because it's a single entry single route system. Show me a transport system in the work that works that way. The only reasons such rubbish appeals to you is that it suits your argument, not that it's in any way practical.

I'd love to see how TDM will solve the multiple crossing traffic flows we have - which is what causes the congestion.

Very shortsighted, so no not at all valid because it's looking at results not causes.

http://design.open.ac.uk/potter/documents/PotterpaperGCET.pdf

Your TDM strategy chooses to cherrypick perceived problems that are at best minor irritations in the scheme of things.

You appear to be refusing to engage with evidence or recognised principle, in order to defend a fixed position regarding the GCOB.

It is generally accepted, on Boards and IRL, that traffic congestion is markedly reduced in Galway City during the summer. The LOS for vehicles generally is much improved, and it is self-evidently possible to travel both within and through the city with much greater ease than at other times.

Clearly the congestion is caused not merely by "multiple crossing traffic flows" but by the volumes of traffic involved.

The rice-funnel demonstration is just an analogy, an attempt to illustrate the basic principle that throughput can be improved with TDM even if the infrastructure of interest stays the same.

You yourself have stated that "the real problem with the situation in Galway is that all the traffic is being forced into one small area", which you have called the Galway Triangle. According to yourself, "simple logistics dictate that this will eventually become a choke point."

antoobrien wrote: »

The benefit [of the GCOB] will be removing cars, vans & lorrys from the Galway Triangle (I'm claiming copyright on this) of Moneenagesha to HRR (aka Bodkin RAB) to Ballinfoyle (Kirwin RAB) that don't need to be there.

I've added this diagram to illustrate the point. 99% of the cross town traffic comes through one of the 4 junctions in this area (there are a couple of back roads that can be taken if you can find them)



There are approx 37,000 trips (18,000k two way trips) happening on QB daily in 2009 ... [and] about 60,000 trips coming from the Galway Metropolitan Smarter Travel Area.

In the 2006 census there were approx 9,500 two way journeys to work or school of 5-9km out of just over 50,000 recorded trips.

I'd expect at least half these to use the Bypass. (meaning a reduction of up to 10k trips going through the Galway Triangle).

We need to also consider the effect of the current traffic layout. It comes to a standstill on entering Galway due to the crossing traffic streams. The effect of this will be reduced by traffic going to the Woodquay area using the Bypass to go to the Ballindooley junction etc.

antoobrien wrote: »

The real problem with the situation in Galway is that all the traffic is being forced into into one small area, the Galway Triangle (copyright me, 2011).

All roads from the East of Galway lead to one of the 4 junctions within this triangle. It is almost impossible to avoid them if you are attempting to get
a) into the center of town or b) across the river

Simple logistics dictate that this will eventually become a choke point.

I'm not cherrypicking anything. I'm saying that serious attempts should be tried, using multifaceted TDM strategies, to reduce the volume of traffic going through the Galway Triangle (©) chokepoint in order to achieve a summer-season Level of Service for motorised traffic.

Based on the numbers you quote above, are you saying TDM could not in any circumstances achieve a reduction in traffic that "doesn't need to be there" to an extent that would produce the desired LOS? If not, why not?

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

You appear to be refusing to engage with evidence or recognised principle, in order to defend a fixed position regarding the GCOB.

I'm going by the evidence that my own eyes provide me with day in day out. How much more evidence do you want?

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Clearly the congestion is caused not merely by "multiple crossing traffic flows" but by the volumes of traffic involved.

Okay then, what causes the traffic on the Tuam Rd to regularly back from the N17/N6 junction back past Liosban/Riverside and through cemetery cross in the evening and often well past Castlegar church going in the way? It couldn't be the fact that there's a crossing traffic stream, could it?

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The rice-funnel demonstration is just an analogy, an attempt to illustrate the basic principle that throughput can be improved with TDM even if the infrastructure of interest stays the same.

Have you ever read anything on on systems dynamics? If you had you'd realise why this oversimplification aimed at people who can't understand complex reasoning is insulting.

Using a single entry single exit funnel shows just how divorced from reality the concept you are trying to push is.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

You yourself have stated that "the real problem with the situation in Galway is that all the traffic is being forced into one small area", which you have called the Galway Triangle. According to yourself, "simple logistics dictate that this will eventually become a choke point."

I know this, I stated it. TDM won't change that fact because TDM will not change the physical layout, which is the major constraining factor on traffic in Galway.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I'm not cherrypicking anything.

Of course you are, how else are we still bogged on the notion that somehow think that bypass only is an option when nobody (pro-bypass) is saying that it its.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I'm saying that serious attempts should be tried, using multifaceted TDM strategies, to reduce the volume of traffic going through the Galway Triangle (©) chokepoint in order to achieve a summer-season Level of Service for motorised traffic.

Whose copyright is that, I've claimed it first and you've no permission to use it;)


In order to show that your strategy has any validity - and the fact that even in the "lighter" summer traffic that backs up from the N17/N6 through cemetery cross most evenings shows that the traffic is not aas light as perceived - you'll have to show an understanding of where the traffic is going. Then you can try controlling the demand. The use of the 4km bubble rubbish and the harping about P&R which is proven to be useless in Galway except as a way of helping shoppers not have to look for parking, shows that you have no understanding of where traffic is flowing in Galway.

Want TDM, you have to understand what the traffic is doing.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Based on the numbers you quote above, are you saying TDM could not in any circumstances achieve a reduction in traffic that "doesn't need to be there" to an extent that would produce the desired LOS? If not, why not?

It's quite simple really, your TDM solution is to reduce capacity across the board, roads & junctions e.g. the "solution" providing a bus lane on the QB without adding an extra road lane, which will halve the capacity of the road. Any such solution will cause extra delays on the very junctions we don't want the people in the target group to be using in the first place.

what_traffic

antoobrien wrote: »

I'm going by the evidence that my own eyes provide me with day in day out. How much more evidence do you want?



Okay then, what causes the traffic on the Tuam Rd to regularly back from the N17/N6 junction back past Liosban/Riverside and through cemetery cross in the evening and often well past Castlegar church going in the way? It couldn't be the fact that there's a crossing traffic stream, could it?

IWH - why don't you get it? its anecdotal evidence!

antoobrien wrote: »

In order to show that your strategy has any validity - and the fact that even in the "lighter" summer traffic that backs up from the N17/N6 throughcemetery cross most evenings shows that the traffic is not aas light as perceived - you'll have to show an understanding of where the traffic is going. Then you can try controlling the demand. The use of the 4km bubble rubbish and the harping about P&R which is proven to be useless in Galway except as a way of helping shoppers not have to look for parking, shows that you have no understanding of where traffic is flowing in Galway.

P&R is not rubbish - its the way it's being rolled out. Galway Chamber of Commerce are learning the hard lesson on this. They have a Park and Ride at the Old Airport - but it's not working as nobody is using it due to the huge availablilty of parking in the City Centre.

Map of Galway City:
http://www.galwaycity.ie/AllServices/RoadsandTraffic/ParkingintheCity/PublicCarParks/TheFile,1750,en.jpg
Look at the figures from the following links:
http://www.galwaycity.ie/AllServices/RoadsandTraffic/ParkingintheCity/Multi-StoreyCarParks/

Multi Story Car Parks
Location and Number of Spaces of Multi Storey Car Parks in Galway City

LocationNumber of Spaces
Jury's 348
Harbour 114
Eyre Square Centre 452
Radisson 260
Fairgreen House 400
Roches Stores 580
Hynes Yard 480

City Council Car PARKS (Galway City Council make a lot of money from Car Parking)
http://www.galwaycity.ie/AllServices/RoadsandTraffic/ParkingintheCity/PublicCarParks/

Gaol Rd/Cathedral 161 Long Term Car Park
Dyke Road 556 Long Term Car Park
College Road(Sportsground) 42 Long Term Car Park
Bowling Green/Newtownsmith 40 Short Stay Car Park
Mill St 82 Short Stay Car Park

Aard

It seems that everybody's colours are nailed fast to their respective masts, and that nobody is willing to budge. Perhaps a more fruitful discussion than whether or not a bypass is needed would be: if and when (at some point in the future) a bypass is needed, where should it go, where should the interchanges be, and how should demand for the future bypass be managed to ensure maximum throughput at peak hours.

These decisions will have to be made at some point and will have a huge impact on the future economy and spatial development of Galway. Improving bicycle infrastructure, for example, means nothing if the future bypass ends up encouraging mass greenfield development and the suburbanisation of retail activity. Non-drivers should be very interested in the design and location of urban roads, and not just in the sense of whether-or-not they go ahead. It's not an either-or in many cases, and sometimes non-drivers shoot themselves in the foot by refusing to engage with the design debate. A well-designed urban dual carriageway can have just as many knock-on benefits for non-drivers as it does for drivers. Perhaps a new full-on motorway isn't the solution - is there any scope to fully grade-separate the N6/R338? Would building a new motorway with interchanges on the outskirts create further suburbanisation and car-dependence? These are questions, among many others, that need to be explored by both sides.

SeanW

what_traffic wrote: »

Nope - its the first step.

I will admit some intellectual laziness here in that I am, to a certain extent, lumping you, monument and Iwannahurl in the same category of anti-bypass posters advocating at best a modal-shift first strategy.

That said, I simply don't believe you. Because you have given me no reason to believe you, and in the case of Iwannahurl, you are incapable of givng me a reason to believe you, given a clear and demonstrable history of being hostile to motorists. Iwannahurls aparent claim that his TDM etc strategies have the primary and intended effect of making things better for motorists as a key objective is something that I can prove to be absolutely, utterly, totally false by simply trawling his/her post history in particular interactions that I have had with him/her.

If you expect me to believe that your view is not more motorist bashing dressed up in a new package, to my mind you need to categorically and unreservedly condemn Peter Sweetman and any other serial-objectors to road projects. You would also gain credibility by distancing yourself from IWH, for reasons that I can provide in great detail if required. You should also clearly demonstrate how the bypass fits in with your plan, indeed is an important part of it.

We also need to bring in resident's parking. For example - the streets in; the Claddagh, Woodquay, the West, Lower Salthill. Should only be for residents ONLY - not Pay and Display.

Are you sure about that? Salthill by the Promenade, between the prom itself, the leisure complex and the casinos, is a major draw for tourists and daytrippers. Given that, I fail to see what would be accomplished by a ban on non-resident parking.

markpb

SeanW wrote: »

I will admit some intellectual laziness here in that I am, to a certain extent, lumping you, monument and Iwannahurl in the same category of anti-bypass posters advocating at best a modal-shift first strategy.

I wouldn't call it intellectual laziness, I'd call it an inability to debate the topic at hand. Your entire post picks on posters you disagree with and tries to sideline them. You say that someone must be wrong if they disagree with you. With the exception of the last two lines, all you did was tell the poster that they must agree with your opinion before you'll discuss it with them. If you don't want to listen to contrary opinions, why are you posting here?

what_traffic

Re intellectual laziness - there is nothing intellectual about it. It's just old fashioned laziness.

SeanW wrote: »

Are you sure about that? Salthill by the Promenade, between the prom itself, the leisure complex and the casinos, is a major draw for tourists and daytrippers.

I know your from Cork/Longford - but what you describe above is not Lower Salthill. I'm not taking about the village (which has surface car parks) and On Street Pay and Display. I am referring to Lower Salthill. Whitestrand Rd/Av, Salthill Road Lower; the residential parts of the village which are on the City side of the village. It's not banng non-resident parking - it's providing resident's with street parking and stops non resident car based traffic using residential streets as through roads to get to this parking.

SeanW

markpb wrote: »

I wouldn't call it intellectual laziness, I'd call it an inability to debate the topic at hand. Your entire post picks on posters you disagree with and tries to sideline them.

No, mainly one poster who I have very good reason to "pick on" if you examine their posting history.

You say that someone must be wrong if they disagree with you. With the exception of the last two lines, all you did was tell the poster that they must agree with your opinion before you'll discuss it with them. If you don't want to listen to contrary opinions, why are you posting here?

Here's the thing: I'm not a total 'petrolhead,' I also like things like public transport, cycling facilities, proper provisions for pedestrians etc. The problem that I have here is that some people are talking about what appears to be a modal-shift only plan, that barely makes any reference to the bypass at all, which is supposed to be the topic of the thread.

At best, it's talking about solutions to one problem when the bypass is to solve other problems. By all means have more buses, cycle tracks and better pedestrian facilities and the like, but this strikes me as a different problem to the fact that through traffic not needing to be there is being funneled through the above mentioned "Galway triangle."

So on the one hand, you have a bypass planned to get long distance traffic out of the "Galway triangle" that has no reason to be there and on the other, people talking about better provisions for cyclists and pedestrians. I agree with both, but consider them independent problems of equal importance. But if extreme measures like slowing down traffic even more and taking heaps of road space from motorists are part of the plan, then a "bypass first" or "bypass and other measures at the same time" approach begins to look a lot more reasonable.

I am referring to Lower Salthill. Whitestrand Rd/Av, Salthill Road Lower; the residential parts of the village which are on the City side of the village.

Fair cop

Iwannahurl

Aard wrote: »

It seems that everybody's colours are nailed fast to their respective masts, and that nobody is willing to budge. Perhaps a more fruitful discussion than whether or not a bypass is needed would be: if and when (at some point in the future) a bypass is needed, where should it go, where should the interchanges be, and how should demand for the future bypass be managed to ensure maximum throughput at peak hours.

These decisions will have to be made at some point and will have a huge impact on the future economy and spatial development of Galway. Improving bicycle infrastructure, for example, means nothing if the future bypass ends up encouraging mass greenfield development and the suburbanisation of retail activity. Non-drivers should be very interested in the design and location of urban roads, and not just in the sense of whether-or-not they go ahead. It's not an either-or in many cases, and sometimes non-drivers shoot themselves in the foot by refusing to engage with the design debate. A well-designed urban dual carriageway can have just as many knock-on benefits for non-drivers as it does for drivers. Perhaps a new full-on motorway isn't the solution - is there any scope to fully grade-separate the N6/R338? Would building a new motorway with interchanges on the outskirts create further suburbanisation and car-dependence? These are questions, among many others, that need to be explored by both sides.

With respect, I think in broad terms that is beggaring the question.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that the above assumes that a bypass is inevitable (eg no alternatives in the context of IROPI) and that the main issues to be debated are questions of design, LOS and effects on urban development.

I heartily agree that the last one needs debating, because I believe new roads generate traffic in the long run, but I do not accept that there are no alternatives to a bypass.

My colours are not nailed fast to any particular position on the proposed bypass itself. My basic contention is that a GCOB per se could potentially serve to facilitate increased car use around, through and within the city.

Many GCOB proponents see this as inherently A Good Thing, but that is not a perspective I share, whether as a motorist, cyclist, pedestrian, bus user or parent with children who would do better in a less car-dependent future.

I've already referred to the situation in Waterford, bypassed in 2009 iirc, where (as far as I can see from a quick check of the Census figures) 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%. I haven't looked at the travel to education figures for Waterford City.

I do not want this for my kids. I do not want them to have to go to school in a city where the streets -- and footpaths -- around their school continue to be choked with cars. I do not want them to have to continue to play in streets where the roadway and footpaths are choked with cars. I do not want them to have to cycle or walk to their friends' houses or to shops and amenities along roads where speeding is endemic and there are no pedestrian crossings.

A bypass will not make any of that go away.

If anything it could make it worse. At the moment traffic congestion is, ironically, the biggest deterrent to increased car use. It certainly deters me. At least on traffic-choked roundabouts, for example, it's possible to thread through all the stationary or slow-moving cars, whether as a pedestrian or cyclist. At least when the road is jammed with traffic most cars are slow-moving, and can only speed in one direction (ie on the uncongested side).

On the other hand, TDM seeks to address all those issues in a sustainable way and in a strategic manner that seeks to integrate with other more sustainable transportation and urban planning goals. See also http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056914997

If we assume that 2019 is the earliest that a bypass will materialise, then the status quo is not an option for the next six years or so, and in fact provides the motivation for making serious attempts at TDM.

That process is already under way, however piecemeal and uneven. The removal of roundabouts is an example of the way in which there is now an increased emphasis on traffic management rather than just catering (unsustainably) for cars. Such measures are far from perfect and are insufficient in my view, but it is also not coincidental that some of the main advocates of a bypass on here are also opponents of roundabout removal.

Both Galway City and County Councils are heavily reliant on a Bypass as part of their supposed strategy to develop more sustainable traffic and transportation policies. Making significant and effective attempts to do the latter prior to the construction of the former would be an excellent way for them to show that their intentions are both serious and honest. I'll believe it when I see a lot more of it.

SeanW

Iwannahurl wrote: »

new roads generate traffic (bad)
...
serve to facilitate car use (bad)

traffic congestion is ... the biggest deterrent to increased car use

sustainable

unsustainably

sustainable

See what I mean?

Iwannahurl wrote:

I do not want this for my kids
...
A bypass will not make any of that go away.

Thank you for proving my point so cogently yet again. The bypass will indeed not make any of that go away because it's not supposed to. It's designed to solve a different problem, partly independent of the ones you outlined.

galwaycyclist

SeanW wrote: »

See what I mean?

Thank you for proving my point so cogently yet again. The bypass will indeed not make any of that go away because it's not supposed to. It's designed to solve a different problem, partly independent of the ones you outlined.

I think you have arrived at the same point that the bypass sceptics here keep having to point out. The bypass will not fix various obvious problems with the management of the city that need fixing now.

In fact as others have pointed out, a by-pass if used in combination with existing roads management and policing practices, will likely make existing long-established problems worse.

For some reason for years various interests have tried to make a by-pass "the price to be paid" before we can have any "progress" in improving conditions in the city.

During the discussions regarding the 2004-2011 City Development Plan, Joe Tansey, the official who now heads the city transport unit, was trenchantly opposed to having bus lanes on the reconstructed Seamus Quirke Road. He insisted that it would not be appropriate to put in bus lanes unless a by-pass was built first. Our elected councillors faced him down and voted to put in bus lanes anyway.

Now we finally have the bus lanes and we finally have the beginnings of a decent bus service from Knocknacarra to the industrial zone in Ballybrit. There is a direct bus every 20 minutes during peak hours and people are starting to use it. There is still no bus service crossing the bridge but its a start.

The sky has not fallen, the earth has continued to move in its orbit.

Iwannahurl

galwaycyclist wrote: »

For some reason for years various interests have tried to make a by-pass "the price to be paid" before we can have any "progress" in improving conditions in the city.

During the discussions regarding the 2004-2011 City Development Plan, Joe Tansey, the official who now heads the city transport unit, was trenchantly opposed to having bus lanes on the reconstructed Seamus Quirke Road. He insisted that it would not be appropriate to put in bus lanes unless a by-pass was built first. Our elected councillors faced him down and voted to put in bus lanes anyway.

Well now, that's interesting. I knew that Galway City Council had originally sought a very different SQR (eg lots of roundabouts) and had to be forced to adopt a different approach. However, I was not aware, or perhaps had completely forgotten, that they tried to use the proposed bypass as a bargaining counter.

I strongly suspect that both local authorities in Galway have been perversely happy with the growing traffic chaos over years, as in their eyes it copperfastens the case for a bypass.

Likewise a bypass has often been proposed (on Boards anyway) as the solution to deficiencies such as lousy bus services, poor cycling facilities etc.

If I can borrow from The Onion, perhaps it's the case that 98% of bypass advocates favour public transport, cycling and walking for others.

Once a GCOB is constructed, the political imperative for better public transport, cycling infrastructure, TDM, speed management, parking controls etc would substantially diminish, imo.

If that's not a realistic assessment, are we supposed to believe that the thousands of motorists currently clamouring for a bypass as the answer to both traffic gridlock and inadequate public transport etc will, once the bypass is built, continue to put pressure on their local and national politicians for better bus services, more cycle lanes, pedestrian crossings etc?

SeanW

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Well now, that's interesting. I knew that Galway City Council had originally sought a very different SQR (eg lots of roundabouts) and had to be forced to adopt a different approach. However, I was not aware, or perhaps had completely forgotten, that they tried to use the proposed bypass as a bargaining counter.

Ok, so on the one hand you accuse Galway CC of using the bypass as a bargaining chip. Fair enough.

Were a bypass to be built, the political imperative for better public transport, cycling infrastructure, TDM, speed management, parking controls etc would substantially diminish, imo.

Now, the naked agenda pushing and blatant hypocrisy in here is just breathtaking. Even by your standards - and that's not easy!

Translation from IWHspeak to English wrote:

Not only am I clearly terrified that the bypass would do its job and be successful, but I'm also using it as a bargaining chip to force my agenda of "sustainability" to keep everyone stuck in traffic until I GET MY WAY because it appears I want people to suffer needlessly unless they knuckle under and admit that my solutions are the only ones.

And then with a straight face I accuse other people of using the bypass as a bargaining chip while doing it myself ...

You couldn't make it up.

SeanW

galwaycyclist wrote: »

In fact as others have pointed out, a by-pass if used in combination with existing roads management and policing practices, will likely make existing long-established problems worse.

So ... if a bypass takes traffic out of the city (which IS the objective) that could make things worse on the roads in the city itself? That's a bit claiming that the Dublin Port Tunnel was a bad idea because it could lead to worse problems on the Quays.

The sky has not fallen, the earth has continued to move in its orbit.

And people continue to waste time needlessly going through urban areas they don't need to be going through - to the detriment of all concerned - because of anti-road campaigners like Peter Sweetman, and other eco-leftist groups nationwide like Save Newgrange and what they're doing to the people of Slane.

galwaycyclist

SeanW wrote: »

So ... if a bypass takes traffic out of the city (which IS the objective) that could make things worse on the roads in the city itself? That's a bit claiming that the Dublin Port Tunnel was a bad idea because it could lead to worse problems on the Quays.

Yes the Dublin Port Tunnel could conceivably made things worse if it had not been accompanied by a very clear vision for what is to happen with traffic in Dublin City Centre. A case in point being that the Port Tunnel was accompanied by a HGV ban on the Quays. It is not the Port Tunnel that has had the transforming effect but the HGV ban. The tunnel was one way of enabling the HGV ban but there may have been others.

In Galway, at official level there has been a studious absence of the same level of engagement. In the discussions around the recently adopted Walking and Cycling Strategy there was an outright refusal to include a HGV management strategy - despite that being a key measure in the National Cycling Policy Framework - coming above infrastructural interventions. In Galway there is official refusal to engage with key issues that were addressed and dealt with in Dublin.

And people continue to waste time needlessly going through urban areas they don't need to be going through - to the detriment of all concerned - because of anti-road campaigners like Peter Sweetman, and other eco-leftist groups nationwide like Save Newgrange and what they're doing to the people of Slane.

No the primary reason people are wasting time going through urban areas they don't need to go through is incompetent planning, traffic management and policing. Throwing more roads at that mixture is like trying to put out a fire by pouring petrol on it.

antoobrien

what_traffic wrote: »

P&R is not rubbish - its the way it's being rolled out.

It is rubbish and won't help relieve the problem that the bypass is aimed at addressing and the list of carparks you've given proves it. Every last one of those car parks are in the city center, the bypass is not supposed to be interacting with traffic that has these destinations as their endpoint. To get to almost all of those locations (the dyke being the only realistic exception), one would more than likely be best off to ignore the bypass.

Another reason why your P&R argument is tosh is that the day rate for all those carparks is either the same or higher than the cost of the P&R, so the question is why isn't the P&R being used?

The coach station is at the fairgreen, so it's not like it's not targetting the audience you think they should be. It's not convenience or timing, peak usage was when it was most frequent.

The reason is the same reason as the Christmas one isn't used by workers - it's not going where the people really need to go.

P&R systems work when they are providing a service to locations that people want to go to. It's clear that the P&R system in Galway is being proposed by people that fundamentally do not understand the traffic dynamics involved - as the serial rejection of P&R by workers since the inception of the Christmas P&R shows.

If P&R is to replace a bypass, a system is needed that to make the N6 corridor & SQR to Salthill only for use by traffic whose intended destination is not within the city boundary. This goes against the intended design of the road, because like it or not, it brings the road through residential and industrial areas that existed before the QB & N6 routing was even dreamed up - making the misuse of the word bypass in the description of the existing road extremely disingenuous.

monument

EVERYBODY:

Cut the talk of rubbish, tosh, laziness etc etc.

Also cut out the translations.

No need for any of this.

what_traffic

antoobrien wrote: »

Another reason why your P&R argument is tosh is that the day rate for all those carparks is either the same or higher than the cost of the P&R, so the question is why isn't the P&R being used?

The coach station is at the fairgreen, so it's not like it's not targetting the audience you think they should be. It's not convenience or timing, peak usage was when it was most frequent.

Can you provide quotes from myself to back up some of these points you make here?

antoobrien

what_traffic wrote: »

Can you provide quotes from myself to back up some of these points you make here?

The one quoted, your contributions to this thread arguing for the removal of parking from a certain city centre location - your argument targets parking in general, the post in question is specifically about city centre parking.

The car parks you mentioned total about 3,500 spaces, if they were all used by workers (we know they are not) that's about 5% of the total commuting traffic.

Trips of 5km or greater in Galway indicate trips across the river, not to the city centre, that gives approx 13k. That's 3-4 times the capacity of parking spaces in the city centre area, indicating that the trips in Galway do not centre themselves around the city centre area. But then these aren't the targets of a P&R are they? It's people coming from a line east of the N18.

You're addressing a problem that has little/nothing to do with the reasons for/against the provision of a bypass aimed at taking the long distance traffic out of the roads that lead to the city centre.

what_traffic

antoobrien wrote: »

The one quoted, your contributions to this thread arguing for the removal of parking from a certain city centre location - your argument targets parking in general, the post in question is specifically about city centre parking.

Your trying to put word's in my mouth. So you cannot specifically point to any quotes that I have previously made?

All I said was: "P&R is not rubbish - its the way it's being rolled out." many of the points you make about the current P&R at Galway Airport I agree. These are the reason's it is failing.

You say

antoobrien wrote: »

The coach station is at the fairgreen, so it's not like it's not targetting the audience you think they should be.

Where do I discuss this "audience" ?

SeanW

galwaycyclist wrote: »

A case in point being that the Port Tunnel was accompanied by a HGV ban on the Quays. It is not the Port Tunnel that has had the transforming effect but the HGV ban. The tunnel was one way of enabling the HGV ban but there may have been others.

This is certainly true, but to say that it could have made things worse is a stretch. Not better, i.e. had there not been an HGV ban, certainly it might not have helped, but worse? Come on.

No the primary reason people are wasting time going through urban areas they don't need to go through is incompetent planning, traffic management and policing. Throwing more roads at that mixture is like trying to put out a fire by pouring petrol on it.

Huh? if people are wasting time going through urban areas they don't need to be going through, the only root cause of that is the layout of the existing infrastructure that forces traffic into those areas. I would have thought this was so obvious as to resemble a first principle, such as "the sky is blue."

antoobrien

what_traffic wrote: »

Your trying to put word's in my mouth. So you cannot specifically point to any quotes that I have previously made?

Oh great IWH Mark II - don't admit anything, despite what your posts say.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85336402&postcount=922

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=85331766

You started a thread about removing a car park from the city center (with a badly attempted justification)

This one though kinda takes the biscuit

what_traffic wrote: »

To many vested interests making money from car parking in the city for the park and ride to take off; City Council are included in those vested interests.

what_traffic wrote: »

These are the reason's it is failing.

It's failing because topographically Galway is seriously unsuited to it.

what_traffic wrote: »

Where do I discuss this "audience" ?

Every post you talk about too much parking being available in the city and any thread where you advocate the removal of spaces makes it quite clear that your target audience is people who drive into Galway city centre to park.

that has nothing to do with the provision of a bypass, which by definition is aimed at keeping traffic out of the city centre.

monument

antoobrien wrote: »

Oh great IWH Mark II - don't admit anything, despite what your posts say.

Very last warning: Cut the sniping out and deal with the points not the posters.

what_traffic

antoobrien wrote: »

It's failing because topographically Galway is seriously unsuited to it.

Galway City itself is not unsuited for P & R - it is just that the current conditions make it unsuitable for P & R to work.

antoobrien wrote: »

that has nothing to do with the provision of a bypass, which by definition is aimed at keeping traffic out of the city centre.

It does actually - if you take private motor vechicles off the current network with facilities such as P & R; it will free up capacity on the current network. Provision of a bypass can then be looked at if still required after this.

antoobrien

what_traffic wrote: »

It does actually - if you take private motor vechicles off the current network with facilities such as P & R; it will free up capacity on the current network. Provision of a bypass can then be looked at if still required after this.

Considering the traffic you are targeting and the traffic the bypass is targeting are two entirely different beasts, no it won't.

Here's what the ABP inspector had to say on the matter:

Absolutely nothing, city centre, commercial or industrial parking was not a even a minor issue. The only place parking did come up was for some residents of Tonabruckey who were worried about the effect of the changed access to the sporting facilities in Drum (Salthil Devon & Rahoon Newcastle) - a fair concern.

The inspector however did deal with alternatives to building a road, which is why I bring this up now as TDM, P&R and other solutions are being trumpeted as being more suitable than a bypass.

Put another way, any alternative considered should be orientated to achieving these aims and purposes. In addition, the consideration of alternatives should be incorporated into the selection process rather than added on after the selection of the project. Alternatives should also be practicable and reasonably capable of meeting the aims and purposes of the project.

What is the purpose of this project, according to the inspector:

This project has arisen from a specific aim to provide an outer bypass around Galway City to link the N6 National Primary Road, currently under construction, to the N59 and R336 roads, thereby providing a direct link into the Connemara area.

Since parking isn't mentioned, save for Drumm, we'll take on the relevant portions of text for rest of the proposals:

In the context of the transport needs of Galway, the case has been made that there should be investment in the public transport infrastructure of the city as an alternative to this project. That approach has merit in the context of sustainable transport facilities, but cannot reasonably be considered as an alternative given the specific aims and purposes of this road project. Nor should the road necessarily be seen as substituting for or precluding investment in public transport facilities. A relevant point in this regard is that the development of bus lanes on the Quincentennial Bridge and approaches would, in the absence of the bypass, reduce the capacity of the road system in the city to carry cross-city traffic.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

The [ABP] inspector however did deal with alternatives to building a road, which is why I bring this up now as TDM, P&R and other solutions are being trumpeted as being more suitable than a bypass.

Can you please quote the specific posts doing the 'trumpeting' as claimed above?


.

monument

antoobrien wrote: »

Considering the traffic you are targeting and the traffic the bypass is targeting are two entirely different beasts, no it won't.

Even if not one single cross-city trip could be transferred to a decent P&R system (which seems highly unlikely), local traffic on both sides of the crossing and city centre bound traffic (local and longer distance) has a profound affect on cross-city traffic.

There's loads of scope to transfer local traffic on both sides of the river crossing and, local and longer distance city bound traffic, onto public transport, their own two feet and onto two wheels.

This project has arisen from a specific aim to provide an outer bypass around Galway City to link the N6 National Primary Road, currently under construction, to the N59 and R336 roads, thereby providing a direct link into the Connemara area.

Well, with only around 20k people living west of the continuous urban area of the city, and most of them going nowhere near the river crossing daily, they'll have fun proving imperative reason of overriding public interest.

The reality is that the bypass will carry short to mid-distance city traffic, but if the city and county included that traffic in the project's main aims, the process would bring us back to alternatives and look at how that traffic can be transported by other modes.

A relevant point in this regard is that the development of bus lanes on the Quincentennial Bridge and approaches would, in the absence of the bypass, reduce the capacity of the road system in the city to carry cross-city traffic.

I'm not (yet, anyway) suggesting bus lanes on the QB, but that's a clear focus by the inspector of moving vehicles rather than looking at moving people -- bus lanes with a decently planned bus network can move more people using the same space.

The inspector sounds like a carbon copy of bus lane / cycle lane / tram lane / etc objectors who see moving cars more important than moving greater number of people.

SeanW

antoobrien wrote: »

You're addressing a problem that has little/nothing to do with the reasons for/against the provision of a bypass aimed at taking the long distance traffic out of the roads that lead to the city centre.

And that's the crux of the matter: at best the stuff about Park and Ride etc is all about a problem that has little or nothing to do with the problems intended to be solved by a bypass.

I really should thank Iwannahurl for letting the mask slip on the anti-bypass side - at least some of you are not afraid it would make promote bad development and make the traffic problem worse - you are actually terrified that it will make people's lives better, but do so in a way that facilitates those evil motorists and because people are no longer suffering unduly, will make it harder to promote a radical motorist-hating environmental-left agenda. (I should point out that this is only a small sampling of that posters extreme views).

The reason I am ironically grateful to IWH for this is that it explains very clearly not just opposition to the Galway bypass, but also certain inconsistencies in the hard environmental left on broader issues that until now I have not been able to explain or to reconcile. These are off-topic though so I will explore them in a more appropriate forum.

SeanW

I should also explain why I am particlularly interested in this matter: I've seen first hand very recently how a bypass can work wonders for everyone involved, I've watched my local town (Longford) transformed overnight from a glorified lorry park and general traffic hellhole to being much more pleasant to visit, shop and do business in - in addition to it being much easier to get to by car, maybe also by bus which we have a few of. Additionally also how much better it must be now for people driving through the area they no longer have to go through an urban are that they have no business being in.

That's why I regard people like Peter Sweetman and crazies like Save Newgrange etc with utter contempt that I simpy cannot hide.

monument

SeanW wrote: »

That's why I regard people like Peter Sweetman and crazies like Save Newgrange etc with utter contempt that I simpy cannot hide.

SeanW wrote: »

...for letting the mask slip on the anti-bypass side

SeanW wrote: »

... hard environmental left...

There's already a load of warning about this needless sniping -- cut it out!

- moderator

monument

SeanW wrote: »

I should also explain why I am particlularly interested in this matter: I've seen first hand very recently how a bypass can work wonders for everyone involved, I've watched my local town (Longford) transformed overnight from a glorified lorry park and general traffic hellhole to being much more pleasant to visit, shop and do business in - in addition to it being much easier to get to by car, maybe also by bus which we have a few of. Additionally also how much better it must be now for people driving through the area they no longer have to go through an urban are that they have no business being in.

There's a few key differences:

1. | Longford is in the centre of the country and was the town centre was the main route between the east at least something like 150,000+ people and a load of HGV movements | the N6 in Galway includes what can be classed as distributor roads or better and west of Galway City's continuous urban area there's only around 20,000 residents.
2. | While the cramped town centre was the most urban setting of the old route in Longford | This is the most urban space on the current Galway route -- distributor road type setting
3. | There was no space in Longford for decent segregation of cyclists and homes from HGVs and fast moving traffic | In Galway there is space and most of the needed space it is already allocated to cyclists (even if there are design flaws) and there's already a comparably high level of segregation between the homes and the traffic
4. | Most of the traffic clogging up Longford was long distance traffic | Most of the traffic clogging up Galway is local traffic -- short to mid-distance trips.