Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Outer City Bypass

Options
1…1112141617…35

Comments

  • Options
    #392
    TerrorFirmer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,930 ✭✭✭✭TerrorFirmer


    I didn't say anything on that. I asked were we seriously considering Dunnes and a Kingfisher gym on equal social standing within Galway?

    Hardly a conspiracy theory that local media have given the issue extensive coverage given it's massive significance to Galway and national/international status. Any opinion to the contrary is baffling, really.

    If Dunnes/NUIG decided to kick up a stink and issue press releases in the manner the racecourse did, that would also make news in GBFM/Trib/Advertise/Independent/etc.

    I'm not commenting on the actual proposed routes, how they do, don't, could, affect the racecourse. Just on the strange attitude displayed on this thread that there's some strange motive behind the media coverage.


  • Options
    #393
    dubhthach
    Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    It's quite simple, instead of actually doing some investigative reporting the media resort to FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt -- as we say in IT business) due to a couple of well chosen words by some "media darlings".

    If the Racecourse is some sorta "sacred ground" that the road can't go near (either under or skirting) the result is
    1. Mass demolition (eg. urban highway)
    2. Considerable higher expense
    3. Mass disruption as "Red Route" would basically re-use chunk of current "bypass" that would need to be rebuilt


  • Options
    #394
    Zzippy
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,166 Mod ✭✭✭✭Zzippy


    All this debate over bored/cut-and-cover just shows how badly the information has been presented, that people are still confused over what is proposed. This "public consultation" is a joke. FWIW I asked at the public info meeting and was told by an Arup engineer that the racecourse tunnel would be cut-and-cover, that the only bored tunnel on the blue route would be under the quarry.


  • Options
    #395
    WallyGUFC
    Registered Users Posts: 2,052 ✭✭✭WallyGUFC


    Zzippy wrote: »
    All this debate over bored/cut-and-cover just shows how badly the information has been presented, that people are still confused over what is proposed. This "public consultation" is a joke. FWIW I asked at the public info meeting and was told by an Arup engineer that the racecourse tunnel would be cut-and-cover, that the only bored tunnel on the blue route would be under the quarry.
    This. It's a mess. I read in the paper that any tunnel under the course would be cut-and-cover too so of course that would cause massive disruption, drainage being the main worry.


  • Options
    #396
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users Posts: 25,808 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    galah wrote: »
    Maybe i'm a bit naive, but would they really, really demolish buildings such as the nuig gym and dunnes for this new road? Like, really?

    I wonder what the design lifetime of Dunnes Headford Rd is? It's hardly a building with any architectural merit and I understand it's built on a bog which a JCB sank into during the construction.

    The Uni gym would be more of a loss - but they've lots of land, it wouldn't be too hard to rebuild elsewhere.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #397
    nuac
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,769 Mod ✭✭✭✭nuac


    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    I wonder what the design lifetime of Dunnes Headford Rd is? It's hardly a building with any architectural merit and I understand it's built on a bog which a JCB sank into during the construction.

    The Uni gym would be more of a loss - but they've lots of land, it wouldn't be too hard to rebuild elsewhere.

    I didn't hear about the JCB, but the builder who worked on Dunne's told me several piles sank without trace.


  • Options
    #398
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    The Chief Executive of Galway County Council was on Galway Bay FM this morning. If I understood him correctly, he said they have already concluded that
    a new road/route must be part of the ultimate solution.

    On what basis, I wonder. Has anyone here seen the studies?

    This conclusion seems to have been made already, before the public consultation has concluded or even properly begun. In which case, what is the "consultation" process for?


  • Options
    #399
    Zzippy
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,166 Mod ✭✭✭✭Zzippy


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    The Chief Executive of Galway County Council was on Galway Bay FM this morning. If I understood him correctly, he said they have already concluded that
    a new road/route must be part of the ultimate solution.

    On what basis, I wonder. Has anyone here seen the studies?

    This conclusion seems to have been made already, before the public consultation has concluded or even properly begun. In which case, what is the "consultation" process for?

    Ticking a box. That appears to be all they are doing...


  • Options
    #400
    Unrealistic
    Registered Users Posts: 1,259 ✭✭✭Unrealistic


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    The Chief Executive of Galway County Council was on Galway Bay FM this morning. If I understood him correctly, he said they have already concluded that
    a new road/route must be part of the ultimate solution.

    On what basis, I wonder. Has anyone here seen the studies?

    This conclusion seems to have been made already, before the public consultation has concluded or even properly begun. In which case, what is the "consultation" process for?
    I think this was based on a 1997 study and sure haven't both Galway and transportation theory in general stood completely still for the last 18 years so it must be still valid. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #401
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    Unrealistic wrote: »
    I think this was based on a 1997 study and sure haven't both Galway and transportation theory in general stood completely still for the last 18 years so it must be still valid. :rolleyes:

    Ah yes this question came up at the meeting on Thursday night. The point was made that the 1997 Land Use and Transportation proposals (and associated bypass) were based on an assumed annual 4% population growth for the city.

    This level of population growth never happened and is not happening now. Either in city or county. I don't have the actual growth rates to hand - they would need to be worked out from the census data. I think what was mentioned on Thursday was 1% but that it may have been less in some periods. (or even periods of decline for the county?)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #402
    what_traffic
    Registered Users Posts: 4,913 ✭✭✭what_traffic


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Ah yes this question came up at the meeting on Thursday night. The point was made that the 1997 Land Use and Transportation proposals (and associated bypass) were based on an assumed annual 4% population growth for the city.

    This level of population growth never happened and is not happening now. Either in city or county. I don't have the actual growth rates to hand - they would need to be worked out from the census data. I think what was mentioned on Thursday was 1% but that it may have been less in some periods. (or even periods of decline for the county?)


    Based on CSO stats it does show population growth in both the City and County for the last 4 census as expected. Would need to break down the County (and the City)further to see exactly were the growth is occurring though

    Year City County
    1996 57241 131613
    2002 65832 143245
    2006 72414 159256
    2011 75529 175124

    From 1996 to 2011 the County's population increased by 33%
    and for the City increased by 32%. So year on year growth is about 2.1% / 2.2%

    But one can see the growth in the City has slowed since 2006 -> 2011 it's less that 1% year on year

    This is a crude calculation as depopulation is occurring in certain districts in the County and even within the City


  • Options
    #403
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    It has to be about much more than demographics though. There may be something of value in those old studies, but the policy agenda has moved way beyond what was envisaged in the late 90s, and the issue of climate change is much more urgent.
    [T]he transport system is not sustainable. Looking 40 years ahead, it is clear that transport cannot develop along the same path. If we stick to the ‘business as usual’ approach, the oil dependence of transport might still be little below 90%, with renewable energy sources only marginally exceeding the 10% target set for 2020. CO2 emissions from transport would remain one third higher than their 1990 level by 2050. Congestion costs will increase by about 50% by 2050. The accessibility gap between central and peripheral areas will widen. The social costs of accidents and noise would continue to increase.

    EU Commission, 2011: White Paper on transport


  • Options
    #404
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    This level of population growth never happened and is not happening now. Either in city or county. I don't have the actual growth rates to hand - they would need to be worked out from the census data. I think what was mentioned on Thursday was 1% but that it may have been less in some periods. (or even periods of decline for the county?)

    I suppose really it depends on what reference year one uses. I tend to start with the 50s because that's when the then corporation started building estates in ares like Mervue & Shantalla, which has essentially given rise to the shape of modern Galway.

    So if we take the period 1956 to 2011, when the population of the city grew from 21,219 to 75,529, there was an average annual increase of ~987 people. If we were to use the 1956 figure as the reference population, the average would be 4.65%, where the average using a 2011 reference would be 1.3%.

    Here are the figures, sourced from the various reports published on the CSO website (up to 1991 are PDFs, the rest are available as web pages).

    Year | Pop | +/- | % change | Annual average%
    1956 | 21,219 | | |
    1961 | 22,028 | 809 | 3.81% | 0.76%
    1966 | 24,597 | 2,569 | 11.66% | 2.33%
    1971 | 27,726 | 3,129 | 12.72% | 2.54%
    1979 | 36,917 | 9,191 | 33.15% | 4.14%
    1981 | 43,210 | 6,293 | 17.05% | 8.52%
    1986 | 47,104 | 3,894 | 9.01% | 1.80%
    1991 | 50,853 | 3,749 | 7.96% | 1.59%
    1996 | 57,241 | 6,388 | 12.56% | 2.51%
    2002 | 65,832 | 8,591 | 15.01% | 2.50%
    2006 | 72,414 | 6,582 | 10.00% | 2.50%
    2011 | 75,529 | 3,115 | 4.30% | 0.86%


    Historically, I'd be worried about the growth to come, as the last time we saw growth figures as low for a census period was the 50's.

    With regards to the 1997 study mentioned earlier, does anybody know what time period the estimates were based off (I'm guessing a 30 year period from 1966-1996)?


  • Options
    #405
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Our starting point should be 2050, and what kind of city (and world) we want to be living in.

    I for one have no desire to plan for a car-dependent future, most especially private cars powered by fossil fuels.


  • Options
    #406
    galah
    Registered Users Posts: 2,215 ✭✭✭galah


    Just playing devil's advocate, but has anyone actually looked at the feasibility of some sort of bridge across the bay, say from Salthill/Rusheen to Roscam? :pac:


  • Options
    #407
    galah
    Registered Users Posts: 2,215 ✭✭✭galah


    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    I wonder what the design lifetime of Dunnes Headford Rd is? It's hardly a building with any architectural merit and I understand it's built on a bog which a JCB sank into during the construction.

    The Uni gym would be more of a loss - but they've lots of land, it wouldn't be too hard to rebuild elsewhere.

    True, it's not like they're pretty buildings, but i dont think the bridge or the Headford road are the bottlenecks - it's the roads that they feed into. I still cant believe that the planners didnt have the foresight to make Westside a 4 lane road (well, 6 lanes with the bus lanes). I honestly think with a properly timed traffic light sequence and slightly changed access routes (i.e. Change the poxy Taylor's hill/Threadneedle junction) that this would alleviate most of the problems.


  • Options
    #408
    Unrealistic
    Registered Users Posts: 1,259 ✭✭✭Unrealistic


    galah wrote: »
    Just playing devil's advocate, but has anyone actually looked at the feasibility of some sort of bridge across the bay, say from Salthill/Rusheen to Roscam? :pac:

    Yes. I saw it mentioned somewhere (Arup?) that it had been ruled out at an early stage as not feasible.


  • Options
    #409
    snubbleste
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 31,117 ✭✭✭✭snubbleste


    galah wrote: »
    Just playing devil's advocate, but has anyone actually looked at the feasibility of some sort of bridge across the bay, say from Salthill/Rusheen to Roscam? :pac:
    Yes http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94011951&postcount=211


  • Options
    #410
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Our starting point should be 2050, and what kind of city (and world) we want to be living in.

    I for one have no desire to plan for a car-dependent future, most especially private cars powered by fossil fuels.

    Whereas the majority of people do want to plan with private cars in mind for the future as public transport will never be seen as a viable option for most people who want the freedom to transport themselves where they want, when they want, and on the route they want or have the option to live where they want and and be able to get to work in the easiest and most comfortable way possible.


  • Options
    #411
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    I hope they all have a/c in their cars, because we are already committed to a global average temperature rise of 2.4°C (range 1.4 to 4.3°C) and if we continue on the present trajectory of GHG emissions we have little hope of containing an increase significantly higher than that.
    Even the most aggressive CO2 mitigation steps as envisioned now can only limit further additions to the committed warming, but not reduce the already committed GHGs warming of 2.4°C.

    Whatever about the "majority of people" wanting "the freedom to transport themselves" as they please, the reality is that policy imperatives are going to change, or will have to change. The shift will have to come at EU level, since we seem politically incapable of changing ourselves.
    [T]he transport system is not sustainable. Looking 40 years ahead, it is clear that transport cannot develop along the same path. If we stick to the ‘business as usual’ approach, the oil dependence of transport might still be little below 90%, with renewable energy sources only marginally exceeding the 10% target set for 2020. CO2 emissions from transport would remain one third higher than their 1990 level by 2050. Congestion costs will increase by about 50% by 2050. The accessibility gap between central and peripheral areas will widen. The social costs of accidents and noise would continue to increase.

    EU Commission, 2011: White Paper on Transport


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #412
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    I don't think 2.4 degrees is going to make much difference to having a/c or not.

    The car will always be king in Ireland as many people don't want to live in a city (I am one of them) and don't want their lives dictated by the timetable of a bus.


  • Options
    #413
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users Posts: 25,808 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    Jazmin Green Straightjacket wrote: »
    Whereas the majority of people do want to plan with private cars in mind for the future as public transport will never be seen as a viable option for most people who want the freedom to transport themselves where they want, when they want, and on the route they want or have the option to live where they want and and be able to get to work in the easiest and most comfortable way possible.

    I can still remember the time in 2003-ish when my car got stolen. Very tedious at the time - had to wait four weeks before the insurance would pay out, and in week 3.5 it was found stripped down to parts, so took another 2.5 weeks to get it put back together again.

    The first week was bad. But after that I noticed how much less-stressed I was: not having to drive or find parking actually made life a lot nicer. And if I wanted to go somewhere, there were these amazing vehicles called "taxis" - I could just summon one and it would take me where I wanted to go.


  • Options
    #414
    Redhairedguy
    Registered Users Posts: 3,711 ✭✭✭Redhairedguy


    Let's not stray off-topic. If you want to discuss the larger picture of climate change and global warming, please keep it to the relevant forum.


  • Options
    #415
    what_traffic
    Registered Users Posts: 4,913 ✭✭✭what_traffic


    antoobrien wrote: »

    Here are the figures, sourced from the various reports published on the CSO website (up to 1991 are PDFs, the rest are available as web pages).

    Year | Pop | +/- | % change | Annual average%
    1956 | 21,219 | | |
    1961 | 22,028 | 809 | 3.81% | 0.76%
    1966 | 24,597 | 2,569 | 11.66% | 2.33%
    1971 | 27,726 | 3,129 | 12.72% | 2.54%
    1979 | 36,917 | 9,191 | 33.15% | 4.14%
    1981 | 43,210 | 6,293 | 17.05% | 8.52%
    1986 | 47,104 | 3,894 | 9.01% | 1.80%
    1991 | 50,853 | 3,749 | 7.96% | 1.59%
    1996 | 57,241 | 6,388 | 12.56% | 2.51%
    2002 | 65,832 | 8,591 | 15.01% | 2.50%
    2006 | 72,414 | 6,582 | 10.00% | 2.50%
    2011 | 75,529 | 3,115 | 4.30% | 0.86%


    Historically, I'd be worried about the growth to come, as the last time we saw growth figures as low for a census period was the 50's.

    With regards to the 1997 study mentioned earlier, does anybody know what time period the estimates were based off (I'm guessing a 30 year period from 1966-1996)?

    It would be useful to have a population density index in that table antoobrien. I would say from the 70's onwards would show a downward trend

    In Roddy Mannions book "Galway - A Sense of Place"
    http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/53996/roddy-mannions-book-does-the-city-some-service

    I don't have the book to hand - but in that he show's that even as the population has increased 3 fold in the last 60 years the density has roughly halved. Easy to explain why this has occurred but it is interesting that Galway has followed this model.
    Re growth - it all depends on were it occurs.


  • Options
    #416
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,472 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    There's a tiny bit of light industrial in Dangan business park. But apart from that, the planners seem to have intended that virtually everyone on the West would have to cross the river to get to work.

    That's how things have panned out but you've got to look at the reasons why the major industrial estates are on the eastside of the city (going back a long number of years) and the main residential areas started on the West side)
    I suspect the expansion size, greenfield sites, power and easy transport links to the rest of the country is why, at the time, the east side of the city developed a lot of industrial space. Indeed over the years it is much easier servicing these areas if they are close together.
    The college would probably have driven a lot of residential in the West side over the years as would workers working in the city.
    I suppose the smarter move, as has happened in the past decade or so, is to build more residential eastside.

    I think if you really have an issue with traffic on a daily basis, you try move closer to work or change jobs.

    That being said, I can appreciate that people have roots etc but I dont think you can blame any one particular group of planners for the issues, although you can blame planning in general over a number of decades for them.


  • Options
    #417
    what_traffic
    Registered Users Posts: 4,913 ✭✭✭what_traffic


    kippy wrote: »
    That's how things have panned out but you've got to look at the reasons why the major industrial estates are on the eastside of the city (going back a long number of years) and the main residential areas started on the West side)
    The other major fact is that a huge % of the car traffic is from outside the city.
    kippy wrote: »
    That being said, I can appreciate that people have roots etc but I dont think you can blame any one particular group of planners for the issues, although you can blame planning in general over a number of decades for them.

    Well you can blame planners - you can also blame politicians for zoning/rezoning


  • Options
    #418
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,472 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    what_traffic wrote: »
    The other major fact is that a huge % of the car traffic is from outside the city.



    Well you can blame planners - you can also blame politicians for zoning/rezoning

    Thats very true, a large portion of traffic is from outside the city (more likely from the east of the city than the west of it)

    Yep, agree.


  • Options
    #419
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users Posts: 25,808 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    what_traffic wrote: »
    The other major fact is that a huge % of the car traffic is from outside the city.

    Yeah - but the traffic that is going to work will stop on the east side estates and not use a bypass.


  • Options
    #420
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    I hope they all have a/c in their cars, because we are already committed to a global average temperature rise of 2.4°C (range 1.4 to 4.3°C) and if we continue on the present trajectory of GHG emissions we have little hope of containing an increase significantly higher than that.
    From what I remember Ireland will just get wetter not necessarily hotter. This of course means things like walking and cycling are just going to get less desirable in the future. We can think it would be nice to have cities and towns that didn't rely on the car but the reality is the car is king and will remain king for the foreseeable future so we need to build infrastructure for it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #421
    Zzippy
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,166 Mod ✭✭✭✭Zzippy


    ScumLord wrote: »
    From what I remember Ireland will just get wetter not necessarily hotter. This of course means things like walking and cycling are just going to get less desirable in the future. We can think it would be nice to have cities and towns that didn't rely on the car but the reality is the car is king and will remain king for the foreseeable future so we need to build infrastructure for it.

    With rising petrol prices etc many people simply won't be able to afford cars, or commuting long distances by car, in the future - we should be planning for that now and putting in place infrastructure and systems that get people out of cars and onto more efficient forms of transport. The foreseeable future is a few decades - the car may only be king for a small part of that. And I say that as someone who drives to work every day and relies on a car all the time.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement