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

M6 - is the Galway Bypass necessary? (thread split)

Options
1…5681011

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    Sponge Bob wrote: »


    2. The city council did not 'prioritise' cars,
    .

    Sorry but with regret thats just silly. The council have spent 20 years prioritising cars at yhe expense of all other considerations. Why do you think you are stuck in traffic?


  • Options
    #213
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    MYOB wrote: »

    Good to see you've finally admitted your sole purpose on this is to further cycling by impeding motorised vehicle usage, though. Just take in to account the massive damage this does to the economy as a whole - trucks and vans can't go by bike.

    Sorry but you've completely missed the point. What is obstructing the commercial traffic, the trucks and the vans, is the same thing thats obstructing bikes, walkers and public transport: unrestricted car usage.

    If you try to facilitate unrestricted car use for all journeys, regardless of purpose, then the number of cars will simply grow to occupy the system capacity provided.

    If you want the roads available as a resource for commerce then you need to make a hard decision on commuter car traffic.


  • Options
    #214
    wiseguy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 370 ✭✭wiseguy


    Great days to be cycling,
    horizontal rain, hurricane winds...

    No wonder galwaycyclist is in such great form :P


  • Options
    #215
    what_traffic
    Registered Users Posts: 4,890 ✭✭✭what_traffic


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Sorry but with regret thats just silly. The council have spent 20 years prioritising cars at yhe expense of all other considerations. Why do you think you are stuck in traffic?

    Excellent point


  • Options
    #216
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,913 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Sorry but you've completely missed the point. What is obstructing the commercial traffic, the trucks and the vans, is the same thing thats obstructing bikes, walkers and public transport: unrestricted car usage.

    If you try to facilitate unrestricted car use for all journeys, regardless of purpose, then the number of cars will simply grow to occupy the system capacity provided.

    If you want the roads available as a resource for commerce then you need to make a hard decision on commuter car traffic.

    You repeatedly fail to realise that there is absolutely no way to get traffic off the existing 'ring road' without the bypass.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    what_traffic wrote: »
    Excellent point
    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Sorry but with regret thats just silly. The council have spent 20 years prioritising cars at yhe expense of all other considerations.

    What utter rubbish.

    The following things have been inflicted on motorists over the past 20 years in Galway:
    The excessive application of traffic lights (which are supposed to be friendlier to cyclists & pedestrians) and pedestrian crossings - they're usually badly placed so that pedestrians will still prefer to cross 20, 50 or 100 yards away
    The "upgrade" of Eyre Square
    The shambolic setup of the pedestrian lights at the the junction with Forster St & Eyre Sq
    The pedestrianization of the Shop St area (totally cutting off O'Briens bridge to all but local traffic)
    The closing of roads, turnoffs and creation of one way systems
    Generally counter intuitive junction design
    Creating bus lanes on roads where there is not space for 3/4 lanes of traffic
    The slip from from the new Quincentenary Bridge to the Headford Road that requires traffic to stop (wtf is up with that - may as well have left that traffic at the lights)
    Moneenageesha (I was sitting in a bus on college rd for more than 5 minutes on Saturday waiting for lights to turn, so much for the supposedly PT friendly smart lights)

    I can go on, but the obvious is totally lost on you.


  • Options
    #218
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Below is what Galway was like when it was "car friendly" ....note how pedestrian friendly it was at the time and how all transport modes seem to get along. Population around 22 or 23 thousand.

    Back then there was no regional tech, the uni had about 1000-1500 on campus including staff, the big employers in Galway were spread around the county not all in town, and the hospital was both much smaller and had a nurses home onsite.

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


  • Options
    #219
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    antoobrien wrote: »
    What utter rubbish.

    The following things have been inflicted on motorists over the past 20 years in Galway:
    The excessive application of traffic lights (which are supposed to be friendlier to cyclists & pedestrians) and pedestrian crossings - they're usually badly placed so that pedestrians will still prefer to cross 20, 50 or 100 yards away
    The "upgrade" of Eyre Square
    The shambolic setup of the pedestrian lights at the the junction with Forster St & Eyre Sq
    The pedestrianization of the Shop St area (totally cutting off O'Briens bridge to all but local traffic)
    The closing of roads, turnoffs and creation of one way systems
    Generally counter intuitive junction design
    Creating bus lanes on roads where there is not space for 3/4 lanes of traffic
    The slip from from the new Quincentenary Bridge to the Headford Road that requires traffic to stop (wtf is up with that - may as well have left that traffic at the lights)
    Moneenageesha (I was sitting in a bus on college rd for more than 5 minutes on Saturday waiting for lights to turn, so much for the supposedly PT friendly smart lights)

    I can go on, but the obvious is totally lost on you.



    If these are "obvious" barriers to motoring then it would appear that it is you who's missing the point, IMHO.


    The excessive application of traffic lights (which are supposed to be friendlier to cyclists & pedestrians) and pedestrian crossings - they're usually badly placed so that pedestrians will still prefer to cross 20, 50 or 100 yards away
    "Excessive" according to whom? If lights are badly placed and are removed from pedestrians' preferred crossing points then it is clear that they were not sited to maximise pedestrian convenience. Often the Council will reluctantly install lights but will do so in a manner biased towards traffic flow rather than pedestrian convenience. Here's a post illustrating this in action. One of the Council's main failings, IMO, is that they try in a piecemeal fashion to keep different stakeholders a little bit happy, when what they really should be doing is developing and implementing a grand vision with sustainable transportation as its fundamental aim.


    The "upgrade" of Eyre Square
    I don't like the new Square, but IIRC there were more pedestrian priority crossings there once upon a time. AFAIK bus facilities have also been improved.


    The shambolic setup of the pedestrian lights at the the junction with Forster St & Eyre Sq
    Very bad for pedestrians in my experience. Walking from Forster Street to the Meyrick Hotel across these two roads without the benefit of a pedestrian crossing is not pleasant with children in tow, so I imagine it would be even more difficult for disabled people and senior citizens who can't move quickly enough to dodge the buses, taxis and cars. There's nowhere for pedestrians to cross two lanes of one-way traffic here on Forster Street either.

    The complicated one-way system around Eyre Square and adjacent streets is itself a prime example of cycle-hostile traffic management primarily aimed at keeping motorised traffic moving, albeit with a few compromise pedestrian crossings in the mix. Cycling around here is a joke because so many direct and natural cycle routes are blocked off by one-way restrictions.

    Furthermore, control of illegal parking around Forster Street and environs is a farce. Another example of City Council bias towards motorists, IMO.


    The pedestrianization of the Shop St area (totally cutting off O'Briens bridge to all but local traffic)
    Another barrier for cyclists. Galway City Council knew this was cutting off a prime cycling route but they went ahead and did it anyway. I remember Shop Street when it was two-way and had buses on it! Closing it off to traffic was never a difficulty for me as a driver, but it's a real nuisance as a cyclist.


    The closing of roads, turnoffs and creation of one way systems
    One-way systems are specifically implemented to improve traffic flow. Traffic moves faster on average on one-way streets than on the same thoroughfares with two-way traffic. One-way systems are inherently anti-cyclist. I've asked this question already but got no answer: can you identify a single solitary one-way street in all of Galway City that exempts cyclists?


    Generally counter intuitive junction design
    Frequently bad junction design. Who do you think are the biggest potential losers: motorists in the metal cocoons with seat-belts, air-bags, crumple zones etc, or vulnerable road users such ad pedestrians, cyclists, disabled people, senior citizens who may need support to walk?


    Creating bus lanes on roads where there is not space for 3/4 lanes of traffic
    Buses are high value traffic, moving far greater numbers of people than private cars per metre width of road. It is right and proper, and totally in keeping with national policy, to give them more room. My guess would be that the real problem is that bus lanes are too narrow, especially where cyclists are expected to share them.


    The slip from from the new Quincentenary Bridge to the Headford Road that requires traffic to stop (wtf is up with that - may as well have left that traffic at the lights)
    That slip road is a serious hazard for pedestrians. Vehicles come flying down there at speed (from the Quincentenary Bridge where the vast majority of traffic is grossly exceeding the speed limit). Motorists driving down the slip road are often looking to their right to anticipate what traffic they may encounter at the junction. This roundabout generally is a nightmare for cyclists and pedestrians. If you can't sprint, tough luck. In general such slip roads are also very hazardous for cyclists, since those wishing to go straight ahead may find themselves positioned inside fast-moving left-turn traffic.


    Moneenageesha (I was sitting in a bus on college rd for more than 5 minutes on Saturday waiting for lights to turn, so much for the supposedly PT friendly smart lights)
    Moneenageisha, though still a challenging junction, is better than the roundabout for cyclists and pedestrians. If buses are being held up there it's because there are too many private cars. It is absurd having buses stuck in car traffic -- defeats the purpose entirely, and removes all the advantages that PT should be given as a matter of policy. The solution is more bus priority measures, not less.


  • Options
    #220
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,913 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    ...its amazing how you manage to write so much without actually challenging even one of anto's points properly

    He provides a detailed, accurate list of things which show that the City Council does not, as asserted by the two cyclists on here, bend over backwards for car traffic and we get a long reply of wibble and complaints that said measures are not harsh enough - when you were pretending there weren't any a few posts ago.

    You've been demolished on everything, caught trying to represent both sides of the same argument when it suits you and are reduced to going on about planners of a different authority as to why you oppose the bypass.


  • Options
    #221
    what_traffic
    Registered Users Posts: 4,890 ✭✭✭what_traffic


    How so? Many of your points dont make sense. Have answered in bold to some of your statements.
    antoobrien wrote: »
    The following things have been inflicted on motorists over the past 20 years in Galway:
    The excessive application of traffic lights (which are supposed to be friendlier to cyclists & pedestrians) and pedestrian crossings - they're usually badly placed so that pedestrians will still prefer to cross 20, 50 or 100 yards away.
    Yes so this does not facilitate pedestrians at all as they dont use the lights. Crossing at AIB in Eyre Square is a classic example of pedestrians lights been installed so that pedestrians wont use them
    antoobrien wrote: »
    The "upgrade" of Eyre Square
    Zebra crossings gave pedestrians greater priority - Eyre Square now has given greater priority to road users over pedestrians
    antoobrien wrote: »
    The shambolic setup of the pedestrian lights at the the junction with Forster St & Eyre Sq
    As stated already - the zebra crossings where of greater benefit to pedestrians - Eyre Square now has given greater priority to road users over pedestrians
    antoobrien wrote: »
    The pedestrianization of the Shop St area (totally cutting off O'Briens bridge to all but local traffic)
    Yes good for pedestrians but this has inconvienced cyclists greatly - its not legal to cycle in a pedestrian zone.
    antoobrien wrote: »
    The closing of roads, turnoffs and creation of one way systems
    This does not help cyclists at all. Also one way systems generally increase traffic speeds so they are not of benefit to pedestrians either.
    antoobrien wrote: »
    Generally counter intuitive junction design
    Dont know what you mean here?
    antoobrien wrote: »
    Creating bus lanes on roads where there is not space for 3/4 lanes of traffic
    This is also of very little benfit to cyclists on the opposite side of the road (hence the Dublin Road lane outbound had to be widened after the inbound bus lane was installed)
    antoobrien wrote: »
    The slip from from the new Quincentenary Bridge to the Headford Road that requires traffic to stop (wtf is up with that - may as well have left that traffic at the lights)

    Agree with you here - but how does this create an infliction on motorists? This was installed to create greater capacity for motorists. This inconviences pedestrians as they have to cross an additional road- does not help cyclists either as it places them inside left ony turning traffic.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    MYOB wrote: »
    He provides a detailed, accurate list of things which show that the City Council does not, as asserted by the two cyclists on here, bend over backwards for car traffic and we get a long reply of wibble and complaints that said measures are not harsh enough - when you were pretending there weren't any a few posts ago.

    You've been demolished on everything, caught trying to represent both sides of the same argument when it suits you and are reduced to going on about planners of a different authority as to why you oppose the bypass.


    antoobrien wrote: »
    What utter rubbish.




    Several people divided by a common language, it would appear.

    antoobrien wrote: »
    The following things have been inflicted on motorists over the past 20 years in Galway:



    That's my point: these are not motorist afflictions. Motorists in Galway City have little to complain about, IMO, beyond the fact that they are clogging up the streets and getting in each other's way. Or worse, getting in the way of sustainable transport modes that do not cause any congestion at all.

    If motorists are complaining about one-way streets being anti-car, for example, then they are either seriously deluded or else plain greedy (eg wanting even more opportunities to drive directly door-to-door).

    I'm very familiar with Galway City's notorious traffic congestion and chaotic streets, but when I add to the traffic mayhem unecessarily (as many do) I forfeit my right to complain about it, IMO.

    I used to see many of these things, like dumb traffic lights etc, as obstacles to my motoring convenience. Then I reverted to cycling, walking and using the bus whenever and wherever possible, and have not experienced such irrational emotions since.

    I remember one incident from several years ago that helped to cure me of excessive car use. I was clamped in Mill Street car park for being ten minutes over the time on my ticket. It enraged me at the time, but I didn't go back for more.

    Now when I see the footpaths and roads obstructed by illegally parked cars as I walk or cycle by, knowing that around half the Council's parking control effort is targeted at Motor Tax and expired P&D tickets, I can see clearly that the Council is pursuing a policy that is de facto biased towards car use.

    One of the main problems with debate over issues like roundabouts, for example, is that much of the comment comes from people who have no perspective other than the view from behind the steering wheel of a car. Or a van.


    Misc-Obnoxious.jpg

    About-to-pounce.jpg

    COPs1.jpg

    07-D-62332.jpg

    01-LK-5095.jpg

    05-D-19087.jpg

    00-LM-1214.jpg


  • Options
    #223
    what_traffic
    Registered Users Posts: 4,890 ✭✭✭what_traffic


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    Below is what Galway was like when it was "car friendly" ....note how pedestrian friendly it was at the time and how all transport modes seem to get along. Population around 22 or 23 thousand.
    Good video. I agree back then that it was easier for everybody to get along in Galway but the one big difference was that car ownership figures where far lower back then.


  • Options
    #224
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    what_traffic wrote: »
    How so? Many of your points dont make sense. Have answered in bold to some of your statements.

    Yes so this does not facilitate pedestrians at all as they dont use the lights. Crossing at AIB in Eyre Square is a classic example of pedestrians lights been installed so that pedestrians wont use them

    Zebra crossings gave pedestrians greater priority - Eyre Square now has given greater priority to road users over pedestrians

    As stated already - the zebra crossings where of greater benefit to pedestrians - Eyre Square now has given greater priority to road users over pedestrians

    Yes good for pedestrians but this has inconvienced cyclists greatly - its not legal to cycle in a pedestrian zone.


    This does not help cyclists at all. Also one way systems generally increase traffic speeds so they are not of benefit to pedestrians either.


    Dont know what you mean here?

    This is also of very little benfit to cyclists on the opposite side of the road (hence the Dublin Road lane outbound had to be widened after the inbound bus lane was installed)



    Agree with you here - but how does this create an infliction on motorists? This was installed to create greater capacity for motorists. This inconviences pedestrians as they have to cross an additional road- does not help cyclists either as it places them inside left ony turning traffic.


    Bizarre, isn't it? Like trying to speak Swahili to an Inuit.

    I like your phrasing in the red bit above. Are you just being a bit cynical, or do you genuinely see such dubious engineering actually being done deliberately?


  • Options
    #225
    what_traffic
    Registered Users Posts: 4,890 ✭✭✭what_traffic


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Are you just being a bit cynical, or do you genuinely see such dubious engineering actually being done deliberately?
    No - I actually believe this was done on purpose by the Design Engineers.:mad: Spend 10-20 minutes down there at any time of the day and the majority of pedestrians crossing - cross from the bus layby outside AIB to the "pedestrian" zone on the far side.


  • Options
    #226
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    Below is what Galway was like when it was "car friendly" ....note how pedestrian friendly it was at the time and how all transport modes seem to get along. Population around 22 or 23 thousand.

    Back then there was no regional tech, the uni had about 1000-1500 on campus including staff, the big employers in Galway were spread around the county not all in town, and the hospital was both much smaller and had a nurses home onsite.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjIigedsaXA


    I've seen that clip before. Ah, the old IM and ZM regs...

    EDIT: Just spotted the traffic cop on duty, junction of William Street and Eglinton Street. He appears left of frame around 01:08 as ?Wolseley turns left. It seems it was a special occasion, the official opening of the Cathedral, so traffic may have been unusually heavy.

    I cycled and walked to school most of the time. No whiny bullsh:t in those days about weather and cycle lanes. I wouldn't be overly nostalgic though: the 1970s in particular were lethal times for road safety generally.

    There was still a cycling culture, and that was the key difference. Then the cyclists were squeezed off the streets and the city gradually given over to cars.

    ANOTHER EDIT: Interesting exhibition of old cycling photos in the Library on Augustine Street currently. Well worth a look. Cycling used to be so normal.

    I can't remember when Shop Street was pedestrianised. Before that it was not pleasant when the traffic was heavy -- you often had to step out on the road in front of buses and HGVs because there was no room on the path. Noisy and full of fumes also. There may have been a period when Shop Street was one-way but I don't recall that.

    But closing it off to cyclists was a mistake. As for one-way streets, a study by UCG a long time ago recommended that cyclists be exempted. The year? 1979! The Corporation/Borough Council/City Council have been closing down cyclists' options for decades...


  • Options
    #227
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Shop street should be open to all forms of transport until 11am Mon-Fri to my mind including cars of course, 20kph limit applied to all.

    I'll wager most arrests for speeding would be cyclists. :)

    But for now we can do very little about the city until the Bypass is built so that we County folks no longer have to involuntarily cross the city for every stupid little thing.


  • Options
    #228
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    James Nix paper attached.

    Attachment not found.

    Since you quote from this document as if it were a scientific piece of work, I decided to put some careful consideration and research into this document. So I have examined it as if I was reviewing a document intended for internal company publication by one of my colleagues (a peer review, common practice in the software industry where I work).

    From a scientific point of view this is a poor attempt at a document intended for public consumption. The bibliography is woefully inadequate and many of his points are entirely unverifiable, fails to reference his citations (so one knows where to follow a point) and references blogs that do not cite their sources making their findings, and by extension the findings of this document, highly suspect.

    The only point that makes reference to figures I was able to find a vague confirmation of was the cost of road maintenance in 2010. even then it's not an exact match, just that the figures are within 10% of the ones I was able to find. I find it interesting that he had full year figures for 2010 when presenting to a conference in April 2010 (at no point was it pointed out that the figures are budgets - which seems like nitpicking but is important as documents like this are often read out of the intended context - like me reading it now). His analysis is self serving, rather than a scientific appraisal of the figures. He ignores things that don't suit his argument, such as the sheer physical size and historical population trends of the counties where he's critical of the road allocations (Cork Co is the biggest county in the country, it is natural that the local authority gets a significant roads budget - it has a large number percentage of the approx 90,000 km or roads in the country).

    The figures for one off housing beggars belief. I find it highly suspect that the vacancy figures in all 10 counties that he provides numbers for match exactly the figures for one off housing completions in 2009, when the vacancy rate was significantly higher in 2006 than any of these figures. When comparing the figures in the tables provided on pages 13 & 14, the highest incidence of vacant properties was in Donegal at 1,076. In 2006 this figure was 19,043, with a total new build rate of 11,324 in the period of 2006-2009.

    Frankly the comparison of Dublin buses €84m subvention to the overall cost of providing a nationwide school transport network is laughable seeing as Dublin Bus does not provide a school transport system, but a (subsidised) commuter system covering an area of approx 1,200 sq km. The national figure is for the other approx 69,000 sq km.

    I don't know how he came up with the figure of 5% of contributions for the rural network either. The cost for 2010 was €300 per pupil (capped at €600 per family). That gives a return for the 135,000 pupils he states uses the system of up to €40.5m. Are there really 33,000 families (the amount of families it would take to generate only 10m for 2010) sending 3 or more children to school out there on our rural school bus network? Given the age distributions of my neighbour's children I don't think this is a realistic figure.


    Conclusions

    I wouldn't let this document past an internal peer review, let alone be published to a conference or other publication. Since this document was presented at a conference, it should have been peer reviewed prior to the presentation of the document - if it has been it makes the organisers of this conference look rather silly in my eyes since a lot of its conclusions are based on faulty analysis. If it hasn't it's even worse.

    In summary, it's clear to me that Mr Nix's methodologies in this document are not up to scratch and this document does not qualify as a valid document to base policies on.


  • Options
    #229
    galwayrush
    Registered Users Posts: 12,815 ✭✭✭✭galwayrush


    Traffic seems to be getting worse by the week, it's obvious that the by pass would remove an enormous amount of vehicles from the clogged inner arteries of the city. Getting pathetic now. Some days it can take an hour to go 2 miles,other says it's way worse than that. The bypass would obviously free up more city centre streets for an upgraded bus service. Win win.


  • Options
    #230
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    People in Galway park badly, so no to a bypass?

    You've given up even trying to make sense.


  • Options
    #231
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    People in Galway park badly, so no to a bypass?

    You've given up even trying to make sense.




    Read the post, and the others related to it. Then come back with a rational argument.


    exposestraw.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Then come back with a rational argument.
    You explain exactly when the Ceannt station development will be built, seeing as you introduced that argument to this thread.


  • Options
    #233
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Since you quote from this document as if it were a scientific piece of work, I decided to put some careful consideration and research into this document. So I have examined it as if I was reviewing a document intended for internal company publication by one of my colleagues (a peer review, common practice in the software industry where I work).

    [...]

    In summary, it's clear to me that Mr Nix's methodologies in this document are not up to scratch and this document does not qualify as a valid document to base policies on.



    Er, no. I didn't call it "scientific" and I didn't suggest that this single paper delivered to a single conference should be used as the basis for public policy.

    Congratulations. You have demolished two arguments I didn't make. You win a year's supply of straw.

    I used Nix's paper simply to support my assertions that (a) there is a large amount of one-off housing and very low density development in rural County Galway and environs, (b) such sporadic and uncoordinated development strongly favours private car use rather than public transport.

    Of course, any right-thinking GCOB proponent will tell you that James Nix is just one "blithering idiot" in an "axis of weasels" which includes "those sociopathic greens in an taisce".

    So let's see what other, hopefully non-blithering, sources have to say.

    Speaking of a "valid document to base policies on", the problematic relationship between low density development and provision of public transport has been highlighted in publications issued by the two Galway local authorities themselves, for example in the Galway Transportation and Planning Study (which incidentally factors in the GCOB). In relation to Galway City, the GTPS refers to "low density commercial, industrial and residential development around the edges of the City Centre and along the Galway Eastern Approach Road, which has reinforced car dependency and is difficult to serve with public transport."

    The Galway County Development Plan 2009-2015 states:
    A considerable amount of the development pressure has arisen from demand for high numbers of single dwellings, particularly within the commuting zone around the City. This zone extends beyond the County boundary in places, but is most concentrated within 25 kilometres of the City. The towns and villages within this commuter zone have also demonstrated strong growth through the plan period.

    Continued development of rural housing at current levels, cannot be maintained due to increased service costs, lack of transport provision and negative impacts on the environment especially to water resource quality, habitats and visual amenity.
    The Co. Dev. Plan (which also mentions the Bypass) is not just a "valid document to base policies on" it is policy. Not that such policies in the past had much effect on Galway Co Co's predilection for the sporadic and uncoordinated rural development that they themselves described as unsustainable.

    As for other commentators that are possibly not "blithering idiots", TCD economics professor Eleanor Denny recently wrote the following regarding Ireland's energy security and economic sustainability, particularly in the context of infrastructure planning:
    Compared with other EU countries, Ireland has a historical trend of low-density housing resulting in urban sprawl around major cities and large numbers of one-off housing in rural areas. In 2009, just 3 per cent of Ireland’s population lived in apartments, which is the lowest in the EU27, where the average is 42 per cent. This planning legacy has dramatic knock-on implications for energy usage in all sectors.

    The most obvious implication is for the transport sector; when people live closer to their workplace, commuting distances are lower and a transport system can be optimised to meet the needs of the population more efficiently.
    If low density around the city is difficult to serve with public transport, what of much lower density development in rural areas? I would say that, logically, such rural areas are very difficult to serve with PT.

    Yet, you may recall, you placed the blame for this situation not on the planners but on Bus/Iarnrod Eireann "who fail to put in place any PT alternatives".

    Are you claiming that rural transport, including school buses, can be operated with the same cost efficiencies as the urban equivalent? Are you claiming that there is little or no car-dependent sporadic and uncoordinated development, especially in the form of "one-off" houses, in County Galway?

    If so, please support your contention with appropriate documentation. From sources that meets your stringent peer-review standards, of course. I would expect nothing less.


  • Options
    #234
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    You explain exactly when the Ceannt station development will be built, seeing as you introduced that argument to this thread.



    My argument in relation to Ceannt Station and the Port Redevelopment is not about when they will be built, but what effect they would have in terms of traffic generation.

    The potential traffic impacts of these proposals are acknowledged by people who are supporters of both the developments themselves and the GCOB. They have made the link explicit, which supports a belief I have long held.

    It is evident to me that both developments would potentially be major traffic generators, given the nature and extent of what is envisaged.

    The fundamental point is that there is reasonable doubt regarding one major argument being made for the GCOB: that it will remove a substantial amount of traffic from the city's streets with the primary purpose of freeing up road space for non car based modes of travel and ushering in a new era for public transport, walking and cycling.

    If the bypass is being sought to make major new developments possible at some time in the future (say 10-15 years, just for argument's sake), and if such developments have significant traffic-generating potential, and if Galway City Council has no real intention of transforming the city's traffic and transportation environment in such a way as to dramatically decrease car use, then IMO traffic congestion will not be eliminated permanently, which is the only sustainable outcome.

    For the record, I am not against redevelopment of Ceannt Station if its primary objective is to give Galway a major new public transport hub and civic space, rather than massive commercial and residential development. I am not against the Port Redevelopment if it greatly enhances Galway City as a world-class waterfront city, providing it is developed in a sustainable manner with the benefit of the city as a whole in mind, not just that of a well-connected elite. And as I've stated already, I'm not against the proposed GCOB if its true purpose is to permanently eliminate unnecessary car use in the city and further car dependence in the county.


  • Options
    #235
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Er, no. I didn't call it "scientific" and I didn't suggest that this single paper delivered to a single conference should be used as the basis for public policy.

    Congratulations. You have demolished two arguments I didn't make. You win a year's supply of straw.

    Do you agree you used the paper in question as a basis of proof of argument? This is a scientific use.

    I can't describe my work here as a critical analysis, because you'd immediately argue that I set out to debunk he conclusions, so I have to use clear and unambiguous terms like scientific. A scientific analysis means that I looked at the figures to see if they held up, and to be polite I find them suspect. So let me ask a question, does a maximum vacancy rate for the country of 9,376 dwellings in 2009 strike you as an accurate figure? Is it coincidence that the 10 values listed correspond exactly to one off completions?

    Check the calculation, the top 10 vacancy rates are listed for a total of 5,488 dwellings. The lowest mentioned is Co Longford with 162 dwellings. There are 24 areas that have no figures, so by extrapolation and using Longfords figure of 162 for each area authority we get a maximum vacancy rate of 3,888 dwellings.

    The paper reads like a justification for implementing a site valuation tax, instead of a property value based tax or other such property taxation methods (of which I know little).

    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    I used Nix's paper simply to support my assertions

    That would be yes to my first question then.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    that (a) there is a large amount of one-off housing and very low density development in rural County Galway and environs, (b) such sporadic and uncoordinated development strongly favors private car use rather than public transport.

    I don't dispute your use of his assertions to support your point, I dispute the veracity and verifiability of his assertions. My analysis concludes that he has made basic factual errors, which undermines the validity of the points that are based on it (hence your argument).

    For the record I have not problem with the concept that you are trying to put forward, just how you go about trying to justify it.

    Seriously, if you're going to come on here stating your preferred public policy based on a document, hence implying that it at least in part should be used in public policy, pick a document that is not so easy to find factual & analytical errors in.
    Of course, any right-thinking GCOB proponent will tell you that James Nix is just one "blithering idiot"

    You will notice that I stay away from drawing such conclusions as it brings more emotion into an area where logic is sorely missing. I draw no conclusions about the man at all, merely the work.

    Since you have asked others what their vested interest is in getting a bypass I have none, neither my family nor I own land that will be impacted or have development potential created.

    The common interest I share with you and every other Galwegian it to make life in Galway city a bit better and more viable economically, something I don't think it's possible to do without the bypass.


  • Options
    #236
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    antoobrien wrote: »
    I don't dispute your use of his assertions to support your point, I dispute the veracity and verifiability of his assertions. My analysis concludes that he has made basic factual errors, which undermines the validity of the points that are based on it (hence your argument).

    For the record I have not problem with the concept that you are trying to put forward, just how you go about trying to justify it.

    Seriously, if you're going to come on here stating your preferred public policy based on a document, hence implying that it at least in part should be used in public policy, pick a document that is not so easy to find factual & analytical errors in.

    The common interest I share with you and every other Galwegian it to make life in Galway city a bit better and more viable economically, something I don't think it's possible to do without the bypass.


    Fair enough, let's forget about the semantics and the limitations of a single paper that I don't (need to) rely on either.

    You haven't mentioned the GTPS, Galway Co Co strategy or the TCD economics prof. I'll bet there's a lot more where that came from but I'll have to search for it when I have time.

    Galway may have painted itself into an economic corner by relying on a non-existent bypass since 1999 or even longer.

    However, there are severe traffic congestion problems right now. The bypass is 5-10 years away, I would reckon.

    Are you by any chance of the view that it's also impossible to deal with the traffic and transportation problems without a bypass?




    EDIT: Incidentally, IMO for many people, especially those who commute daily by car even over short distances, 'making life a bit better' in Galway also means optimising conditions for private car use. That's where I would part company with a lot of people who see the GCOB as a panacea. Five to ten years is a long time to wait for medicine, even strong medicine!


  • Options
    #237
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Are you by any chance of the view that it's also impossible to deal with the traffic and transportation problems without a bypass?
    I am. But you know that.


  • Options
    #238
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Fair enough, let's forget about the semantics and the limitations of a single paper that I don't (need to) rely on either.

    You haven't mentioned the GTPS, Galway Co Co strategy or the TCD economics prof. I'll bet there's a lot more where that came from but I'll have to search for it when I have time.

    Nix is the question you originally raised, when you asked me specifically had I read the document. I'd like to see you defend figures from it I find curious, so stop dodging or admit defeat on the admissibility of the paper.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Galway may have painted itself into an economic corner by relying on a non-existent bypass since 1999 or even longer.

    Very simplistic, ignoring the vast changes in population, demographics and employment in the Co Galway & beyond over the past 20 years (or more). Galway is now the economic hub for a the populations of Mayo, parts of Clare & Roscommon. The commuter map I suppled, which you laughed at, shows that many people from the surrounding counties now have to travel to Galway for employment. This was not the case in the 80s and mid 90s, and yet the planning for the bypass started in 1999. Could it be some forward planning perhaps?

    For historical reasons there are poor PT links in the areas mentioned - how will you deal with those? What do you propose to do for the commuters in this area to help remove them from their cars?
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    However, there are severe traffic congestion problems right now. The bypass is 5-10 years away, I would reckon.
    Depressingly yes, I agree with you, it doesn't lessen the need for it i.m.o.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Are you by any chance of the view that it's also impossible to deal with the traffic and transportation problems without a bypass?

    In a word yes, based on the road layout in the city and where the traffic is coming from.

    Many people claimed the M50 couldn't be fixed and started calling for planning to start for Leinster Orbital Route (I've seen reference to the M120, I don't know how far along it got).

    Removing the choke points - poorly designed junctions & the toll bridge (especially this) - has made the M50 actually fit for purpose - getting traffic that does not belong in Dublin city center out of it.

    Yes there have been mistakes made around the M50 (quarry vale, not listening to the original engineers etc), I don't want to see this happen with Galway. But I can see the parallels between Galway & Dublin wrt trarffic - large commuter area and large cross town traffic due to the placement of employment vs where people can afford to live.

    IMO Dublin proves that PT is insufficient, despite provision of bus lanes, dart & luas and concentrating the working population around Dublin is starting to become counter productive - water shortages, long commutes, and a fully managed traffic management system such as the one that's currently proposed for Galway (they monitor the lights and change sequences to make parts move faster, usually to the detriment of other routes).


  • Options
    #239
    tharlear
    Registered Users Posts: 130 ✭✭tharlear


    QUOTE] Galway may have painted itself into an economic corner by relying on a non-existent bypass since 1999 or even longer.

    However, there are severe traffic congestion problems right now. The bypass is 5-10 years away, I would reckon.

    Are you by any chance of the view that it's also impossible to deal with the traffic and transportation problems without a bypass?

    [/QUOTE]

    Are you suggesting the GOBP is not needed , and if so how would you propose solving the existing traffic issue, and the extra traffic that will accompany a still (if barely)growing city.

    http://ncg.nuim.ie/content/projects/famine/maps/pop/Galway/
    Population of Galway city
    1926 14,858
    1951 22 035
    1971 23 686 Irelands still an Ag county
    1981 41 116 Ireland begins transition away from Ag (3 bridges in Galway) city boundary changes around this time
    1991 47284 transition continues
    2002 56750 Irelands no longer an Ag county
    2011 75414 2011 census

    These numbers do not include Barna Furbagh, spiddle, Oranmore, etc.

    Planning for the next 20 years what do you suggest, besides PT “CIE" (cycling is easier, an old joke but never more true).
    Do you really believe that you can force all the people of Galway out of their cars into the rain on their bikes? I agree it would have all sorts of side benefits, such as reduce obesity better health etc.

    Given as you put it "the corner we painted ourselves into" with one off etc, which everyone is to blame for including the greens (politicians, GCountyC, GCityC and all of us who elected them). They insisted, with the developers smiling, on increased housing density. It was cheaper to build a large one off 10km to 20km out of town than it was to buy a small box of a house in the outer Galway suburbs.

    What your suggested solution.

    One other observation

    The Fourth Bridge was built in the early eighties; we all thought it was great to have this massive bridge around the town. It was designed and built when the county was more broke than we are today, because the town was being "choked by traffic". During race week I remember traffic being backed up past "Pavilion stores" which was opposite where Joyce’s in knocknacarra is now. (Remember back then most of middle street, Augustine street and merchants road were roofless building used by a local merchants to store pallets of fertilser or car parks. There were 3 public and 1 private car parks between middle and Augustine Street. The numbers of apartment in the city center was tiny compared to today) and all 3 bridges were useable for cross town traffic, unlike today. Car ownership was way less than today. (Does anybody know what the % was and is?)

    Today with the "quincentenary" over 25 years old it backs up past Joyce’s on a daily bases. The cities population has doubled in that time (approx) and as cited before by others barna etc have doubled. It would be interesting if someone could post the projected traffic for the quincentenary bridge that were used back when it was being designed.

    I would guess its already carrying more traffic than projected, all be it at much slower speeds. Also Seamus quirk and the western dist were never widened (is this now ongoing?)


  • Options
    #240
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Nix is the question you originally raised, when you asked me specifically had I read the document. I'd like to see you defend figures from it I find curious, so stop dodging or admit defeat on the admissibility of the paper.

    Very simplistic, ignoring the vast changes in population, demographics and employment in the Co Galway & beyond over the past 20 years (or more). Galway is now the economic hub for a the populations of Mayo, parts of Clare & Roscommon. The commuter map I suppled, which you laughed at, shows that many people from the surrounding counties now have to travel to Galway for employment. This was not the case in the 80s and mid 90s, and yet the planning for the bypass started in 1999. Could it be some forward planning perhaps?

    For historical reasons there are poor PT links in the areas mentioned - how will you deal with those? What do you propose to do for the commuters in this area to help remove them from their cars?

    Depressingly yes, I agree with you, it doesn't lessen the need for it i.m.o.

    In a word yes, based on the road layout in the city and where the traffic is coming from.

    Many people claimed the M50 couldn't be fixed and started calling for planning to start for Leinster Orbital Route (I've seen reference to the M120, I don't know how far along it got).

    Removing the choke points - poorly designed junctions & the toll bridge (especially this) - has made the M50 actually fit for purpose - getting traffic that does not belong in Dublin city center out of it.

    Yes there have been mistakes made around the M50 (quarry vale, not listening to the original engineers etc), I don't want to see this happen with Galway. But I can see the parallels between Galway & Dublin wrt trarffic - large commuter area and large cross town traffic due to the placement of employment vs where people can afford to live.

    IMO Dublin proves that PT is insufficient, despite provision of bus lanes, dart & luas and concentrating the working population around Dublin is starting to become counter productive - water shortages, long commutes, and a fully managed traffic management system such as the one that's currently proposed for Galway (they monitor the lights and change sequences to make parts move faster, usually to the detriment of other routes).


    1. I didn't raise any question about Nix, AFAIK. Nix is not the issue, the non-viability of PT in One-Off Land is.

    2. You have stated that the Bypass is needed for economic development. My point is that the development of Galway City should not be/have been predicated on a non-existent bypass. It seems the Irish way is to build first and cobble together infrastructure after. Or build all those motorways and then destroy the economy. Or allow urban sprawl and ribbon development to occur and then complain about all the traffic congestion. The fact that the sporadic and uncoordinated development (Galway Co Co's own term) occurred in the absence of the bypass is clear evidence that there was no forward planning, IMO.

    3. Please don't make stuff up. I didn't laugh at that commuter map, I believe it clearly illustrates the reality that Co. Galway is One-Off Territory par excellence.

    4. The lack of PT is not due to history but to bad "planning", IMO. History doesn't happen, it is made.

    5. One-Off Land may have been locked permanently into car dependence. Maybe peak oil will force a resolution to that seemingly unique Irish insanity.

    6. I haven't studied Dublin City PT but I believe that it is well used. There is a thread somewhere on Boards about the current review, but I haven't looked at it. Due to Celtic Casino bankruptcy funding for Dublin Bus has been cut, IIRC. With better funding PT in Dublin might have a bigger modal share. What's the % of Dublin commuters living within 4-5 km of work or education? What's the modal split? My guess is that the answer to the former is 'lots' and to the second 'far fewer cyclists and bus users than in Denmark or the Netherlands'.

    7. I believe Galway City councillors recently visited the Dublin AUTC and were impressed by what they saw.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    tharlear wrote: »
    Are you suggesting the GOBP is not needed , and if so how would you propose solving the existing traffic issue, and the extra traffic that will accompany a still (if barely)growing city.

    http://ncg.nuim.ie/content/projects/famine/maps/pop/Galway/
    Population of Galway city
    1926 14,858
    1951 22 035
    1971 23 686 Irelands still an Ag county
    1981 41 116 Ireland begins transition away from Ag (3 bridges in Galway) city boundary changes around this time
    1991 47284 transition continues
    2002 56750 Irelands no longer an Ag county
    2011 75414 2011 census

    These numbers do not include Barna Furbagh, spiddle, Oranmore, etc.

    Planning for the next 20 years what do you suggest, besides PT “CIE" (cycling is easier, an old joke but never more true).
    Do you really believe that you can force all the people of Galway out of their cars into the rain on their bikes? I agree it would have all sorts of side benefits, such as reduce obesity better health etc.

    Given as you put it "the corner we painted ourselves into" with one off etc, which everyone is to blame for including the greens (politicians, GCountyC, GCityC and all of us who elected them). They insisted, with the developers smiling, on increased housing density. It was cheaper to build a large one off 10km to 20km out of town than it was to buy a small box of a house in the outer Galway suburbs.

    What your suggested solution.

    One other observation

    The Fourth Bridge was built in the early eighties; we all thought it was great to have this massive bridge around the town. It was designed and built when the county was more broke than we are today, because the town was being "choked by traffic". During race week I remember traffic being backed up past "Pavilion stores" which was opposite where Joyce’s in knocknacarra is now. (Remember back then most of middle street, Augustine street and merchants road were roofless building used by a local merchants to store pallets of fertilser or car parks. There were 3 public and 1 private car parks between middle and Augustine Street. The numbers of apartment in the city center was tiny compared to today) and all 3 bridges were useable for cross town traffic, unlike today. Car ownership was way less than today. (Does anybody know what the % was and is?)

    Today with the "quincentenary" over 25 years old it backs up past Joyce’s on a daily bases. The cities population has doubled in that time (approx) and as cited before by others barna etc have doubled. It would be interesting if someone could post the projected traffic for the quincentenary bridge that were used back when it was being designed.

    I would guess its already carrying more traffic than projected, all be it at much slower speeds. Also Seamus quirk and the western dist were never widened (is this now ongoing?)



    Lots to think about there. I have addressed some of those points already in this thread and elsewhere on Boards. Will dig them up in case you can't find.

    Quick response re "It was cheaper to build a large one off 10km to 20km out of town than it was to buy a small box of a house in the outer Galway suburbs."

    Now you're talking.

    I live in such a small box. We chose the "small box" because we didn't want to be car dependent. Mind you, neighbours residing in identical small boxes locally are driving as little as 800 metres in their tin boxes to drop the kids to school! In the sunshine, too, I might add.

    If a bypass is needed partly to relieve commuters who live in "large one off" houses 10 to 20 km out of the city, is it appropriate to spend (borrow) a third of a billion Euro in public money to help those people deal with the car dependence consequences of their lifestyle choice (to quote Galway Co Co)?


Advertisement