N6 - Galway outer bypass: Is it needed?

SeanW

Thanks for that monument, your previous post explains the skeptics side much better and more clearly than had been suggested previously.


Whilst I appreciate there may be some differences between Longford and Galway, indeed perhaps quite a few, I still see some impassible issues with the bypass-skeptics case:

1. Galway may not be as nodal on the road network as Longford is/was but by definition a bypass can only be accurately so called if it is to deal with long distance traffic. If the GCOB is not intended to facilitate through long distance traffic over a road profile appropriate to that use, then it should have been more have been called a Relief Road or something.
2. The roads forming the current N6 may not be so densely urban, but it has still become what the American advocacy groups calls a "Stroad" that is, a hybrid combination of a "Street" and a "Road." that provides poor value for money and fails abjectly at both roles. I'll let Strong Towns explain what a Stroad is far better than I could.
   
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6jFnOnjzrk
   
   If you can't watch the video, Strong Towns says that a "Street" must be designed for small volumes of low speed traffic, but focus on quality of the urban space, while a "Road" must focus on facilitating large volumes of high speed longer distance motorised traffic. Both, on their own, are great value in every respect, but what they identify as a "Stroad" or a hybrid Street and Road, is invariable a very poor choice from the perspective of all concerned.
   
   Problem is, the current N6 and the route from its end towards the West is a textbook Stroad. Heck, if this does not qualify as a Stroad, I don't know what does. And I don't think its fixable unless an alternative is found for the long distance through traffic.
   
   I think we would all like to get rid of Stroads along the N6 (or indeed anywhere they arise), but that would require the understanding that having Roads designed to facilitate fast long distance traffic are as good value for money as streets and equally important.
3. See Point 2
4. See Point 1

Iwannahurl

monument wrote: »

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.

Moving cars rather than people was the sine qua non of Irish transportation and spatial "planning" for decades, and ABP has not particularly distinguished itself in that regard. The existence of ABP did little or nothing to prevent, for example, the developer-led free-for-all during the Celtic Casino years, a large proportion of which produced huge swathes of car-dependent sprawl around the country, including what has been termed "urban pressure" on rural areas of County Galway (aka "measles development").

Bus lanes on the Quincentenary Bridge were actually proposed in the 2007 Galway Strategic Bus Study, albeit under the rubric of an "orbital corridor" dependent on a bypass being built (envisioned at the time as opening in 2010). The GSBS also included proposals for a number of other bus priority corridors, which by extension would have benefited pedestrians and cyclists and which were not dependent on the GCOB according to the report.

Again, non-bypass-dependent bus-priority measures recommended by the GSBS such as bus lanes, removal or modification of roundabouts, provision of pedestrian crossings etc, have been vehemently opposed by more than a few GCOB enthusiasts, for entirely predictable reasons.

Since a bypass will not be built before 2019 at the earliest, we're told, I would argue that, of necessity, much more of what the GSBS proposed should be implemented in the interim. Some of that is already under way, e.g. bye-bye Bodkin. That project involves the NRA, another statutory agency whose policies over many years have promoted car use and car dependence. For example, to the best of my knowledge it is the NRA that is clinging on to the obnoxious roundabouts guarding both ends of the Seamus Quirke Road scheme, both of which are hostile to pedestrians and cyclists.

monument wrote: »

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.

Correct, imo. That is the basic point I have been making. Incidentally, according to the ABP inspector's report PL07.ER2056, citing the 2002 Galway Transportation and Planning Study, 87% of all cross-town traffic is commuter traffic. The ABP inspector also concluded (emphasis added by me):

"At the local level, it is reasonable to conclude that the development of the transport network, including both the private and public transport systems, has not kept pace with the growth of the city and that the consequences of shortfalls in the development of this network are the levels of congestion and delay suffered on the city’s main road network. The proposed road development [GCOB] would draw through traffic and certain volumes of local traffic out from the city and enable traffic conditions in the city to be significantly improved, with improvements also in public transport services."

In my opinion, far more could be done, between now and 2019, to make PT 'keep pace' and to eliminate local traffic.


.

antoobrien

monument wrote: »

Well, with only around 20k people living west of the continuous urban area of the city

This is why I openly laugh at the misinformation pedalled in by opponents of GCOB and the misguided polices that are based on outright lies such as this.

http://www.cso.ie/en/census/census2011reports/census2011populationclassifiedbyareaformerlyvolumeone/ - table CD118.

For those of you too lazy to click on the link the actual number of permanent residents west of the city boundary is 39,238, which naturally does not include the transient residents, such as holiday homes & tourists - which is being slowly squeeze out because of lack of access. Lets not forget the industry west of the corrib, which can not develop because goods can't get out, meaning that connemara residents have to look to the city for work - further increasing strain on the city infrastructure.

Nah the parking and other such trivia is much more relevant because of the ridiculous notion that a minor change is all that's needed, rather than actually looking at what's affecting the system.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

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


.

Here are some links, from this thread alone:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85456984&postcount=358
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85460650&postcount=362
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85460700&postcount=363
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85462555&postcount=369

None of these arguments deal with why we should or should not provide a bypass to take cross town traffic out of the centre of town. They deal with topics that are totally irrelevent to cross town traffic, which is what the bypass is targeting.

Nothing that has been posted gives any vaguely reaonsable argument against it.

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.

antoobrien wrote: »

Here are some links, from this thread alone:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85456984&postcount=358
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85460650&postcount=362
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85460700&postcount=363
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85462555&postcount=369

None of these arguments deal with why we should or should not provide a bypass to take cross town traffic out of the centre of town. They deal with topics that are totally irrelevent to cross town traffic, which is what the bypass is targeting.

Nothing that has been posted gives any vaguely reaonsable argument against it.

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

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

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

All of it.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

All of it.

Cop out.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Cop out.

May I remind you waht you asked:

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

I did, I have an objection with those posts. Not little pieces of them.

There is nothing in those posts that gives me any faith that a plan based on these notions can provide a feasible, practical alternative to a bypass of the city centre.

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.

antoobrien wrote: »

May I remind you waht you asked:

I did, I have an objection with those posts. Not little pieces of them.

There is nothing in those posts that gives me any faith that a plan based on these notions can provide a feasible, practical alternative to a bypass of the city centre.

What I am asking you to do is quote the actual text doing the particular 'trumpeting' that you specifically allege.

Either that text can be quoted to support your specific contention or it can't.

It's a favourite -- and in my view intellectually lazy -- ploy on Boards to attack a caricature or a misrepresentation of other posters' position. That's so much simpler than responding to what has actually been written though, isn't it?

Why bother addressing what has actually been said when it's so easy to attack what I like to think has been said.

Incidentally, I'm looking for specific quotes of what I wrote. Other posters can answer for themselves.


.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What I am asking you to do is quote the actual text doing the particular 'trumpeting' that you specifically allege.

What part of ALL OF IT, do you not get?

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It's a favourite -- and in my view intellectually lazy -- ploy on Boards to attack a caricature or a misrepresentation of other posters' position. That's so much simpler than responding to what has actually been written though, isn't it?

The only intellectually lazy bit here is your refusal to accept plain English. It not a misrepresentation to state that these posts are, both individually & collectively, trumpeting "alternatives" to the bypass, they discuss nothing but the supposed "alternatives".

The only ploy here is not dealing with the charge put forth, but starting the standard strawman defence in order to deflect form the fact that these posts do nothing but push "alternatives", while at the same time do nothing to put forth how these "alternatives" can provide an alternative for the traffic that the bypass is aimed at - cross city traffic.

what_traffic

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Since a bypass will not be built before 2019 at the earliest, we're told, I would argue that, of necessity, much more of what the GSBS proposed should be implemented in the interim. Some of that is already under way, e.g. bye-bye Bodkin. That project involves the NRA, another statutory agency whose policies over many years have promoted car use and car dependence. For example, to the best of my knowledge it is the NRA that is clinging on to the obnoxious roundabouts guarding both ends of the Seamus Quirke Road scheme, both of which are hostile to pedestrians and cyclists.

This is not 100% correct - NRA have responsibility for the Browne. N6 terminates/begins here and as the N59 terminates/begins here they also have responsibility. This Roundabout is to be converted - but still requires a change to the Local Area Plan(Same as the Kirwin). The Deane Roundabout is responsibility of City Council - no current plans to change.

what_traffic

antoobrien wrote: »

It not a misrepresentation to state that these posts are, both individually & collectively, trumpeting "alternatives" to the bypass, they discuss nothing but the supposed "alternatives".

This is not true - what is being stated is that alternatives should also be looked at as a solution rather than a: "Only the GCOB is a solution to Galway's Car traffic woes". I cannot find one post where it was stated that ONLY the alternatives provide a solution?

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

TDM, P&R and other solutions are being trumpeted as being more suitable than a bypass.

antoobrien wrote: »

What part of ALL OF IT, do you not get?

It not a misrepresentation to state that these posts are, both individually & collectively, trumpeting "alternatives" to the bypass, they discuss nothing but the supposed "alternatives".

So the text below, for example, is "trumpeting", specifically as you describe above?

Iwannahurl wrote: »

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.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

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.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

n 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 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.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

mall 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.

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.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

So the text below, for example, is "trumpeting", specifically as you describe above?

Yep

antoobrien

what_traffic wrote: »

This is not true - what is being stated is that alternatives should also be looked at as a solution rather than a: "Only the GCOB is a solution to Galway's Car traffic woes". I cannot find one post where it was stated that ONLY the alternatives provide a solution?

Okay, explain this:

what_traffic wrote: »

Provision of a bypass can then be looked at if still required after this.

That is explicit exclusion of a bypass in favour of other "alternatives". The approach is classic long-fingerism, hope that the problem will go away somehow.

Now let me be clear about this, I don't think that the bypass is the only solution, but I do believe it's integral to enabling the kind of "alternatives" that you want to see.

Every example of cities with various initiatives given thus far prove it because they have one common piece of innfrascture - a bypass. Find us a city that has no bypass, one that doesn't mix approach traffic with cross city traffic and then we can discuss just how realistic the "alternatives" are for Galway.

what_traffic

antoobrien wrote: »

That is explicit exclusion of a bypass in favour of other "alternatives".

No it's not - I am not saying that ONLY the alternatives provide a solution. I am not excluding the concept of the GCOB. I am saying we should look at reducing the traffic as a starting point.

antoobrien wrote: »

Now let me be clear about this, I don't think that the bypass is the only solution, but I do believe it's integral to enabling the kind of "alternatives" that you want to see.
Every example of cities with various initiatives given thus far prove it because they have one common piece of innfrascture - a bypass. Find us a city that has no bypass, one that doesn't mix approach traffic with cross city traffic and then we can discuss just how realistic the "alternatives" are for Galway.

I am more interested in knowing what "alternatives" you propose?
Or is this simply predicated on building the GCOB first and then coming up with proposals? i.e waiting a minimum 6 /7 years before attempting to reduce Car traffic in the mean time?

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Yep

Congratulations. You win the internet.

SeanW

what_traffic wrote: »

This is not true - what is being stated is that alternatives should also be looked at as a solution rather than a: "Only the GCOB is a solution to Galway's Car traffic woes". I cannot find one post where it was stated that ONLY the alternatives provide a solution?

Huh?

Either the bypass is part of the solution or it's not. There's no in-between. If you support the bypass explicity or have some other plan to facilitate through motorists (as, to be fair, monument does), great: otherwise indeed, "ONLY the alternatives provide a solution." And your position by failing to be clear on that point, forced us to make inferences based on what you post and emphasise.

But with the exception of monument who has explicity stated that he feels many parts of the existing N6 could rehabilitated to serve all road users to a very high standard, none of ye on the bypass skeptic side have given any reason to believe that your solution is not "modal-shift only." And within that, one in particular is not capable of giving a reason to belive it.

antoobrien

what_traffic wrote: »

No it's not - I am not saying that ONLY the alternatives provide a solution. I am not excluding the concept of the GCOB. I am saying we should look at reducing the traffic as a starting point.

Not really, not when you examine what proposals you actually make, it's fairly clear that you have no belief that any kind of bypass may be required. You argue against it so much, delving off into irrelevancies like city centre parking, that saying that it might be required and you're not against it is an attempted sop that everyone but your own anti bypass peers sees straight through.

what_traffic wrote: »

I am more interested in knowing what "alternatives" you propose?

Most of the same ones you are, bus lanes cycle lanes etc (and a few that I won't mention because of the ad hominem attacks that are so popular, I am particularly insulted when I'm called a property developer - which is the height of trolling imo).

However I am acutely aware of how a bad patch job will make the issue worse not better, which is why I give absolutely no credence to the reduce first model being proposed, it won't, indeed can't, work in Galway (as has been proved over the past couple of years).

The classic argument is the proposal to cut traffic on the QB, which would be congestion suicide. It'd cut in half the capacity main cross city route, which would require a 300% increase in the modal shares of both cycling and buses to keep us at status quo ante - and require a massive reconfiguration of the existing public transport network as it'd take up somewhere between 30% and 70% of the current resources (based on bus capacities of 50 including both BE & CD busees, and taking into account the fact that we don't have many double deckers).

There are other proposals like bus lanes and cycle lanes through choke points - there are many spots where there is barely space to provide for 2 traffic lanes & narrow paths. How will we crowbar these facilities in? The results in some areas will be be to remove left and right turn filters, which will increase the traffic queues, which means that we'd need a significant switch to other transport on those routes - which is not realistic imo as shown by the traffic coming out of Doughiska - where probably the best route in town is located.

The most laughable one of all has to be the multi level junctions that momumnet is so fond of. I'll rule it out on cost grounds, by there are other issues like the impact it would have on a potential light rail system (just as long as it's not gluas, that like P&R is serving the wrong masters).

The Nx/M11 project has been tendered at approx €240m. The M11 is approx approx 16km, making the cost of that portion of the project (based on €10m/km twice the boom rate), approx €160m. That leaves Nx costing up to €90m, which is horrifically horrifically expensive for a single junction (which I hope to god includes any land acquisition costs) and monument wants to build how many? Even at 1/4th of the cost that is a prohibitively expensive solution that is being abandoned across the world.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Congratulations. You win the internet.

Well it's better than not looking at factors that contribute to traffic drops. You want to blame the drop in by usage s & cycling on the provision of a bypass but there is no evidence to support that, especially when looks at the traffic counters indicating that total traffic (i.e old N25 and new) is holding steady*.

How about you take a look at the job losses in Waterford over the period. Thle closures of Waterford crystal & Talk Talk alone would account for the drops you ascribe to a bypass being present.


* This conforms to a phenomenon I have noted before, where the combined totals of traffic on both the old and new roads at bypassed towns bucks the national trend of downward traffic counts. this indicate a pattern change in that people are moving away from using smaller, less safe roads, to get to a destination in preference of safer bigger roads - one of the aims of these bypasses.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

... an attempted sop that everyone but your own anti bypass peers sees straight through.

You seem determined to polarise the debate by labelling people you don't agree with as "anti bypass". That's a strategy adopted by others on here and in other forums/threads, who prefer to attack a misrepresented or fabricated version of what some posters are saying. It's a close relative of the "anti-car and nothing else" straw man. Sample: "... you consistently stated in this and the other thread that we don't need a bypass, therefore PT is enough. I know you never said it directly but the inference [sic] is plain as your ignorance on the causes of the traffic problems in Galway."


Speaking just for myself, I insist that you either substantiate with verbatim quotes your apparent claim that I am solely "anti bypass" or withdraw it and accept that a more nuanced or multifaceted position is possible. If you refuse to do so, I will make a formal complaint to a Mod, because I regard such debating tactics as essentially dishonest.

antoobrien wrote: »

Most of the same ones you are, bus lanes cycle lanes etc (and a few that I won't mention because of the ad hominem attacks that are so popular, I am particularly insulted when I'm called a property developer - which is the height of trolling imo).

I find the first half of that sentence incomprehensible, but I'm curious about the supposed "property developer" accusation. Link/quote?

antoobrien wrote: »

The classic argument is the proposal to cut traffic on the QB, which would be congestion suicide. It'd cut in half the capacity main cross city route, which would require a 300% increase in the modal shares of both cycling and buses to keep us at status quo ante

It would require "a 300% increase in the modal shares of both cycling and buses" to achieve what exactly?

As I mentioned already, a bus lane over the QB is proposed in the 2007 Galway Strategic Bus Study (GSBS), but is specifically stated to be dependent on a bypass being built. There are, however, a number of other bus corridors identified in the GSBS that are not dependent on the GCOB, and my view is that these recommendations should be acted on prior to any bypass being built, and in fact should have been done years ago. According to the GSBS, the areas suitable for non-bypass-dependent bus corridors are Salthill, Taylor's Hill and Clybaun/Rahoon.

Excerpt from the GSBS:

The existing road network in Galway presents great challenges to the introduction of priority measures for buses. ... Lack of space for a bus lane does not necessarily preclude a corridor from becoming a Quality Bus Corridor, however. It is still possible to improve conditions by addressing traffic management, parking problems, bus frequency and the pedestrian environment.

Conversely, having sufficient road width for a bus lane is not sufficient reason to designate the road as a Quality Bus Corridor. Sufficient bus services, whether existing or in the future, are needed to justify the provision of bus lanes and other priority measures.

Observations suggest that the traffic management system in Galway has great scope for improvement. There are two main issues:

Firstly, the level of compliance with existing parking restrictions is poor, so that illegal parking is one of the main sources of delay for buses in the central area. The City Council needs to invest in enforcement of the restrictions at all times of the day, including late at night when parking at bus stops is a particular problem.

Secondly, the current system of roundabouts has many disadvantages for buses, pedestrians and cyclists. It also provides insufficient control over the road network. Where signals are provided, they are not linked. A better arrangement would be to signalise all important junctions and link them through an urban traffic control system (UTC). This would allow better control, benefiting all road uses, including buses, and helping to avoid the gridlock conditions which sometimes occur, and are more likely to occur in future.

I get the impression that, regardless of what the GSBS might have concluded, you seem to regard strict parking controls as irrelevant in the context of traffic management policy. For example, elsewhere on Boards you have suggested that illegal parking, including on footpaths, is not much of a problem in Galway City and, perhaps, that it might just be a notion in the minds of "whiney, grouchy, complaining" people.

You have also gone on the record repeatedly in various threads/forums to oppose, for example, the removal of roundabouts as part of the N6 multimodal scheme and associated UTC, which you described as "this insanity project".

It therefore appears that you do not want even officially recommended non-bypass-dependent measures, such as those described in the GSBS. If so, is that an appropriate and justifiable position to take if ones genuine objective is the advancement of sustainable traffic and transportation policies in Galway?

antoobrien wrote: »

There are other proposals like bus lanes and cycle lanes through choke points - there are many spots where there is barely space to provide for 2 traffic lanes & narrow paths. How will we crowbar these facilities in?

See GSBS, referred to above. Where is it written that those "many spots" and "choke points" in Galway City must have bus lanes and cycle lanes "crowbarred in"?

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

You seem determined to polarise the debate by labelling people you don't agree with as "anti bypass".

More vaporware, keep it up.

serfboard

Iwannahurl wrote: »

There are, however, a number of other bus corridors identified in the GSBS that are not dependent on the GCOB, and my view is that these recommendations should be acted on prior to any bypass being built, and in fact should have been done years ago.

According to the GSBS, the areas suitable for non-bypass-dependent bus corridors are Salthill, Taylor's Hill and Clybaun/Rahoon.

[snip]

... strict parking controls ... the removal of roundabouts as part of the N6 multimodal scheme and associated UTC

I am 100% in favour of the bypass. However, until it is built, I think these are very sensible ideas which should be (and, in the case of the roundabouts, are being) acted on.

They won't, IMO, remove the need for a bypass though.

Iwannahurl

They are, however, measures which ought to be implemented, and imo greatly augmented, in the meantime. Much more could be done -- must be done -- to prioritise public transport, walking and cycling in the interim.

Thing is, it's far from coincidental that some vociferous bypass advocates have also vehemently opposed measures such as bus lanes, conversion of roundabouts to signals, an AUTC etc.

Part of the pro-bypass rhetoric is that it would make more space available for public transport, walking and cycling but the political reality is that what's primarily driving the project is demand for the facilitation of private cars.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Part of the pro-bypass rhetoric is that it would make more space available for public transport, walking and cycling but the political reality is that what's primarily driving the project is demand for the facilitation of private cars.

Simple facts are not rhetoric, regardless of whether or not you choose to accept them (which seems to be the point of this thread. There are a lot of people that can not indeed will not accept the simple fact that there is extremely limited road space and all I am seeing is ways of reducing that - which will create more not less congestion.

As for the farce of the new "intellignet" traffic lights - how is it quicker to go from Briarhill along the Monivea & Tuam Rods to get to Bodkin than it is to take the N6 - the answer is the traffic light controlled RAB at Terryland.

Traffic lights are a knee jerk reaction, especially in places like bodkin & parkmore (where the lights on the monviea Rd caused traffic to back up the dual carriageway) - where the lights are proven to be the problem with traffic flow. There are other solutions, like pedestrian bridges, that are more appropriate & cheaper that which give a best of all worlds solution - except that doesn't make life harder for motorists, so it's not a good thing.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Simple facts are not rhetoric, regardless of whether or not you choose to accept them (which seems to be the point of this thread. There are a lot of people that can not indeed will not accept the simple fact that there is extremely limited road space and all I am seeing is ways of reducing that - which will create more not less congestion.

Where has it been denied that road space is finite and constricted in Galway City? Quotes please.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Where has it been denied that road space is finite and constricted in Galway City? Quotes please.

In response to:

antoobrien wrote: »

Do you realise that there are standards that have to be applied in order to provide for cycle lanes & road traffic lanes?

The basic fact of the matter that you refuse to accept is that there is insufficient room at various choke points to provide cycle facilities (at least 4 feet each) and adequate footpaths (6 feet each) and road way (9 feet each). That's 19-20 feet per side of the road to provide adequate (let alone proper) facilities for everyone on a two lane road.

You wrote:

Iwannahurl wrote: »

If there's room for cars and car-parking then there's room for other travel modes.

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

Put plain and simple, your plan is take space off general traffic regardless of the cars of the consequences..

You chose to ignore the fact that policies such has this - the removal of a traffic lane from the QB will have a massive detrimental effect on traffic flow - because it appears that that is what you want.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Speaking just for myself, I insist that you either substantiate with verbatim quotes your apparent claim that I am solely "anti bypass" or withdraw it and accept that a more nuanced or multifaceted position is possible. If you refuse to do so, I will make a formal complaint to a Mod, because I regard such debating tactics as essentially dishonest.

If it's true that you thing that a bypass of Galway may (ignoring all the other items you clearly think needs to be done first), please post a single post where you state this. After a quick search I can't find any such post and when I search for the words "also need" & "also require" I can find no point where you actually admit that a bypass may be necessary, but rather argue for provision of other items.

As has been commented on before, you go out of your way to claim that you are not anti bypass, however your posting record states the exact opposite (e.g starting this general anti bypass thread).


So go ahead because if, as you claim, you are not anti bypass, however anybody that has read your posts for a while will know that this claim is directly at odds with your posts.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Put plain and simple, your plan is take space off general traffic regardless of the cars of the consequences..

If it's true that you thing that a bypass of Galway may (ignoring all the other items you clearly think needs to be done first), please post a single post where you state this. After a quick search I can't find any such post and when I search for the words "also need" & "also require" I can find no point where you actually admit that a bypass may be necessary, but rather argue for provision of other items.

No comprendo the bit in red. You can search my posting history for whatever you like. I've said what I've said, repeating myself as necessary, and afaiac I have been consistent in my position.

What you wrote earlier was:

antoobrien wrote: »

There are a lot of people that can not indeed will not accept the simple fact that there is extremely limited road space

I have never claimed that road space is not finite, and ttbomk nobody else has either. Quite the opposite in fact: since road space is necessarily limited it ought to be high priority to make much more efficient use of it. That means moving people not cars: how many times have I stated as much, and illustrated that fundamental point with the likes of this:



The "consequences" are obvious: more efficient use of the finite space available. How can that not be clear?

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

No comprendo the bit in red. You can search my posting history for whatever you like. I've said what I've said, repeating myself as necessary, and afaiac I have been consistent in my position.

Answer the question, do you think that it may be possible that a bypass may be necessary in Galway?

what_traffic

http://www.galwaybayfm.ie/component/k2/item/1934-local-authorities-lose-supreme-court-case-on-city-bypass

monument

nd the sniping and name calling of posters etc.

Read the charter and take note of the warnings already given.

Iwannahurl

what_traffic wrote: »

http://www.galwaybayfm.ie/component/k2/item/1934-local-authorities-lose-supreme-court-case-on-city-bypass

Thanks. I wasn't aware that the Supreme Court judgment was so imminent.

I guess it would have been a big surprise if the SC went against the ECJ.

what_traffic

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Thanks. I wasn't aware that the Supreme Court judgment was so imminent.

I guess it would have been a big surprise if the SC went against the ECJ.

Me neither. True not a surprise. When ECJ ruling was announced the local politicians in press releases were talking about the IROPI process being the next step.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Answer the question, do you think that it may be possible that a bypass may be necessary in Galway?

As the ECJ and now the Irish Supreme Court have made abundantly clear, the GCOB is not so necessary that it justifies contravention of EU law. I won't second-guess them on that question.

The official question then becomes "is the GCOB necessary under IROPI"?

It may actually be possible that the IROPI process will conclude that a bypass is necessary.

However, given that a bypass will not materialise before 2019*, or so we're told, then in my view it is necessary -- for imperative reasons of overriding public interest -- to introduce rigorous and comprehensive measures to tackle traffic congestion in the intervening period. Such measures would include, but should not be limited to, proposals such as those described in the 2007 Galway Strategic Bus Study, for example.






* I'm just quoting another poster. Is 2019 a realistic estimate for the earliest possible date that a bypass might be opened?

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

As the ECJ and now the Irish Supreme Court have made abundantly clear, the GCOB is not so necessary that it justifies contravention of EU law.

That is not in question here. Your refusal to answer a direct question is.

I put it to you again, do you think that Galway may require an outer bypass?

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I won't second-guess them on that question.

Will you second guess them if they agree with a future IORPI request that states that a bypass is justified in Galway?

what_traffic

So has the IROPI process being used before in Eire?

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Answer the question, do you think that it may be possible that a bypass may be necessary in Galway?

antoobrien wrote: »

That is not in question here. Your refusal to answer a direct question is.

I put it to you again, do you think that Galway may require an outer bypass?

Will you second guess them if they agree with a future IORPI request that states that a bypass is justified in Galway?

The key words are "may be possible" and "necessary".

Is there an objective standard that defines "necessary" in this context?

If the IROPI process, using such an objective standard, concludes that a bypass is necessary, then yes, I think a bypass may be required.

However, assuming that the IROPI process is a consultative one, then I would be making the same submissions as I have repeatedly on Boards, e.g. that there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest to greatly improve provision for public transport, walking and cycling before a bypass is built in order to (a) ensure that the relevant local authorities do not abuse the proposed infrastructure and (b) prevent the generation of new traffic if and when overall road capacity is increased.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The key words are "may be possible" and "necessary".

Is there an objective standard that defines "necessary" in this context?

If the IROPI process, using such an objective standard, concludes that a bypass is necessary, then yes, I think a bypass may be required.

However, assuming that the IROPI process is a consultative one, then I would be making the same submissions as I have repeatedly on Boards, e.g. that there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest to greatly improve provision for public transport, walking and cycling before a bypass is built in order to (a) ensure that the relevant local authorities do not abuse the proposed infrastructure and (b) prevent the generation of new traffic if and when overall road capacity is increased.

So the answer is yes if (and only if) the EU rules that way but until then no?

antoobrien

what_traffic wrote: »

So has the IROPI process being used before in Eire?

To my knowledge no, but it has been used in Europe. From the ECJ opinion:

66. Whilst the requirements laid down under Article 6(4) are intentionally rigorous, it is important to point out that they are not insuperable obstacles to authorisation. The Commission indicated at the hearing that, of the 15 to 20 requests so far made to it for delivery of an opinion under that provision, only one has received a negative response.

And from the judgement

34 Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive provides that if, in spite of a negative assessment carried out in accordance with the first sentence of Article 6(3) of the directive, a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, and there are no alternative solutions, the Member State is to take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected (see Case C‑304/05 Commission v Italy [2007] ECR I‑7495, paragraph 81, and Solvay and Others, paragraph 72).

35 As an exception to the authorisation criterion laid down in the second sentence of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, Article 6(4) can apply only after the implications of a plan or project have been analysed in accordance with Article 6(3) (see Solvay and Others, paragraphs 73 and 74).

36 It follows that Article 6(2) to (4) of the Habitats Directive impose upon the Member States a series of specific obligations and procedures designed, as is clear from Article 2(2) of the directive, to maintain, or as the case may be restore, at a favourable conservation status natural habitats and, in particular, special areas of conservation.

There have been more tenuous cases than GCOB granted permission under the precautionary principle mentioned, so on the face of it there's no reason to believe that IORPI will be rejected offhand.

what_traffic

Iwannahurl wrote: »

However, given that a bypass will not materialise before 2019*, or so we're told, then in my view it is necessary -- for imperative reasons of overriding public interest -- to introduce rigorous and comprehensive measures to tackle traffic congestion in the intervening period. Such measures would include, but should not be limited to, proposals such as those described in the 2007 Galway Strategic Bus Study, for example.

Good point - 6 year's might even be too optimistic . As far as I am aware Galway City Council is in the process of appointing consultants once again to carry out a bus and cycle network assessment of Galway City and environs.

what_traffic

antoobrien wrote: »

To my knowledge no, but it has been used in Europe.

Presume it's use in Europe has been minimal then if not been used once in Eire?

antoobrien

what_traffic wrote: »

Presume it's use in Europe has been minimal then if not been used once in Eire?

Something like 20 cases brought to the commission.

Edit: Actually it mightn't be the first Galway project. There is another project that will use it, the only question is which one will get submitted first.

what_traffic

antoobrien wrote: »

Edit: Actually it mightn't be the first Galway project. There is another project that will use it, the only question is which one will get submitted first.

True it has been mentioned in the local Galway media- probably best left for another thread.

antoobrien

what_traffic wrote: »

True it has been mentioned in the local Galway media- probably best left for another thread.

Very subtle

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

So the answer is yes if (and only if) the EU rules that way but until then no?

Even if the GCOB was a dead cert, the proposal still has to go through IROPI.

There is no alternative to IROPI at this stage, so all other options are moot at best.

So yes, in the present context a bypass is not required until it is deemed necessary according to an objective standard of same (imo).

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Even if the GCOB was a dead cert, the proposal still has to go through IROPI.

There is no alternative to IROPI at this stage, so all other options are moot at best.

So yes, in the present context a bypass is not required until it is deemed necessary according to an objective standard of same (imo).

Thanks for finally admitting your position.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

a bypass is not required[/B] until it is deemed necessary according to an objective standard of same (imo).

There's something disturbing about this statement. It reads like the ECJ & SC have rejected the project on the basis of it being unnecessary - which is blatantly untrue of the ECJ ruling (I'll wait to see what the SC say, if they publish the ruling).

The ECJ have ruled that because the planners did not follow the rules (which up to this point had not been clarified, the legal equivalent of moving the goalposts after the ball has been hit), therefore the project can not go ahead under the current plans.

The SC case revolved around this, not the question of the necessity of the road (which the SC would not likely rule on, their remit being the legality of a project).

Anybody who thinks that the bypass is not necessary should not take this ruling as a vindication that it is not necessary as that has not been stated anywhere, except by certain parties that are against the project.

Interestingly, there are several rulings that have been passed down by the ECJ stating the same thing: plans that are subject to 6(4) can go ahead if the appropriate compensation measures take place.

We shall just have to wait and see what GCC, GCoCo & the NRA decide to do.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Thanks for finally admitting your position.

I had a feeling that you were going to misrepresent, misquote or distort my position.

To repeat what I said, in full and in context:

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Even if the GCOB was a dead cert, the proposal still has to go through IROPI.

There is no alternative to IROPI at this stage, so all other options are moot at best.

So yes, in the present context a bypass is not required until it is deemed necessary according to an objective standard of same (imo).

That's self-evident: a bypass is "necessary" (or "required") if an objective assessment deems it to be so. The corollary is that a bypass cannot be regarded as "necessary" until an objective assessment concludes otherwise.

It remains to be seen what the IROPI process concludes in that regard, and what are regarded as "imperative reasons" etc. It's not a done deal.

Presumably the IROPI process itself will be contested, but if in the end the decision is in favour of a bypass then that is the end of the line as far as any construction-related debate is concerned. There is a lot to be worked out in the intervening period (between now and, say, 2019-2022), and indeed in a possible post-bypass future, as the increased modal share for cars in bypassed Waterford ought to make clear.

antoobrien wrote: »

There's something disturbing about this statement. It reads like the ECJ & SC have rejected the project on the basis of it being unnecessary - which is blatantly untrue of the ECJ ruling (I'll wait to see what the SC say, if they publish the ruling).

The ECJ ruling was clearly about matters relating to interpretation of EU law, and I have not suggested otherwise. The issue of whether the GCOB proposal is "necessary" now relates to IROPI. Is it not the case that IROPI is the final official test of whether the bypass as proposed is "necessary"?

.

SeanW

Iwannahurl wrote: »

the proposal still has to go through IROPI.

There is no alternative to IROPI at this stage, so all other options are moot at best.

And how are you hoping the IROPI process goes? Are you hoping it will succeed, so that it may form some part of a plan? Or are you hoping it fails, and leaves the people stuck with "sustainable" modal-shift only plans?

Could somoene please quote these questions? Because I'd like IWH to answer it but he has me on his pathetic "Ignore" list. :rolleyes:

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I had a feeling that you were going to misrepresent, misquote or distort my position.

The ECJ ruling was clearly about matters relating to interpretation of EU law, and I have not suggested otherwise.

You're not fooling anyone except yourself.

what_traffic

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The ECJ ruling was clearly about matters relating to interpretation of EU law, and I have not suggested otherwise. The issue of whether the GCOB proposal is "necessary" now relates to IROPI. Is it not the case that IROPI is the final official test of whether the bypass as proposed is "necessary"?

So will it be An Bord Plenala that decide's this "IROPI" once the County/City Council submit the new plans?