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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Do city bypasses deliver the goods, and if so what's the evidence?

13

Comments

  • #102
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Aidan1 wrote: »
    ei.sdraob - relax - no one mentioned global warming, or anything 'green', so your kneekerk association of anything even slightly environ'mental' with an implicit conspiracy to control global population, while informative as to your position, kind of misses the point.

    Even if you are to completely absent global warming and the finite nature of hydrocarbon resources from the argument, there are still compelling economic reasons for planning urban regions properly. Simply put, trying to guess what car based commuters 'need', and providing it free of charge (or at least at very low marginal cost), seldom works (absent blatent over provision or exogenous shocks) as Iwannahurl pointed out, because demand will generally rise to soak up any excess capacity, and you end up back where you were, spending an hour and a half sitting in traffic on a slightly better road than where you used to spend an hour and a half sitting in traffic.

    Green politics are all about control and modifying behaviours often based on questionable evidence. The Greens here in power up to not so long ago are a testament to this authoritarian tilt.

    If a company for example decides to provide parking space on own land for customers/employees, why should it be charged for this?
    Especially if this company already pays extortionate rates to he council for the provision/maintenance of local infrastructure and all sorts of taxes to the government as well as jobs for people.


  • #103
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Aidan1 wrote: »
    Simply put, trying to guess what car based commuters 'need', and providing it free of charge (or at least at very low marginal cost), seldom works (absent blatent over provision or exogenous shocks) as Iwannahurl pointed out, because demand will generally rise to soak up any excess capacity,

    I'm sick of hearing artsy type analysis of why we shouldn't do any more than barely enough - which is what's left us where we are. The M50 is a perfect example of this, built to the current requirements not to the future requirements. It's been a roaring success since the removal of the toll bridge (even before large sections of it had gone to 3 lanes). If it had been built fully freeflow it'd probably be considered a waste of money (it was considered a waste as a car park as well).

    By the way the government still extracts over €3b from motorists through vat, excise duty & motortax on an ongoing basis (as well as VRT & other once off costs). I wouldn't describe the pact that 57% of the price of petrol is tax as a "low marginal cost".
    Aidan1 wrote: »
    Your figures are just for the city itself, I was clearly referring to the ED's relatively proximate to the city. Have a look at the same figure for the proportion of the population of the Co living withing (say) 15-20km of the city over the same period (and particularly since 1991).

    I'm not going through about a dozen pdfs, if you want to go ahead, but populations of the areas in question are historically small and from what patterns I've seen not changing a lot. If you want to take the "smarter travel" area there's about an extra 10k onto the city population (roughly brearna to claregalway to oranmore).


  • #104
    Aidan1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 624 ✭✭✭Aidan1


    Green politics are all about control and modifying behaviours often based on questionable evidence

    Strawman (otherwise known as the 'scratch a green and you'll find a red' argument).

    Green politics are fairly diverse, and often entirely woolly, but the means proposed to bring about the ends are generally no different from any other interventionist form of policy. In any case, you are the only one making this an argument about 'green' politics. Very interesting, but hardly germane. These issues were around long before the Green party ever came to power in Ireland, and will persist long after they have left.
    If a company for example decides to provide parking space on own land for customers/employees, why should it be charged for this?

    Who said anything about charging a company for providing car parking spaces, we were talking about by passes and public transport in Ireland, and specifically Galway? Now, if you were asking why LAs in Ireland (and a great number of other states in the developed world, regardless of whether they have a pernicious Green seeking to subvert the State and limit private liberty) seek to limit car parking spaces in urban based commercial properties, well, that would be because of the negative externalities associated with congestion and the over use of public roads. Do you have an issue with that as well?
    If you want to take the "smarter travel" area there's about an extra 10k onto the city population (roughly brearna to claregalway to oranmore).

    Just taking the 14 EDs closest to the city (I'm certainly omitting some less than 20km), I get just over 28,000 on the 2011 census (as follows)

    Bearna 3725
    Na Forbacha 1313
    An Spideal 1445
    Maigh Cullen 2006
    Talaigh 1990
    Eanach Dhuin 1856
    Baile Chlar 2008
    Ceathrú 905
    Baile an Teampaill 1460
    Oranmore 4321
    Clarinbridge 3271
    An Carn Mor 2604
    Lisananaun 1415

    This excludes Craughwell (another 1634), Oughterard (another 2,605) etc. You can see my point, Galway is clearly the focal point. Going by the commuting traffic leaving Tuam every morning, it should clearly be regarded as a dormitory town for the city also (as POWCARS also shows).

    Btw, I'm not against the bypass, I think it should have been provided years ago, but in the absence of other measures (restrictions on re-zoning etc), it'll be swamped in very short order. It isn't the solution in and of itself, it's merely part of the solution. On that basis, the city would be as well gettings its act together in other ways for the moment, because capital funds for a project like this (and resolving the planning issues) will take several years.


  • #105
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    antoobrien wrote: »
    I'm not going through about a dozen pdfs, if you want to go ahead, but populations of the areas in question are historically small and from what patterns I've seen not changing a lot. If you want to take the "smarter travel" area there's about an extra 10k onto the city population (roughly brearna to claregalway to oranmore).

    Regardless, as I've already posted:
    • Galway City with a massive 85.62% of commutes between 1-9km.
    • And even Galway County has 45.53% of commutes between 1-9km.


  • #106
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    monument wrote: »
    Regardless, as I've already posted:
    • Galway City with a massive 85.62% of commutes between 1-9km.
    • And even Galway County has 45.53% of commutes between 1-9km.



    This is getting rather specific to Galway, which was not my original intention.

    However, it is relevant in terms of the numbers of cars that a bypass is expected to take out of the city.

    Personally I think using 9km as the commuting radius is too large if you're focusing on cycling, and especially walking. PT has the biggest potential for modal shift for the 85% of commutes you mention*.

    I used to commute 12 km one way by bike, but even I would not suggest that this is a realistic target for most potential cycle commuters. 4-5km is a doddle though, IMO. You'd hardly be breaking a sweat at an easy pace. Perhaps longer distances would be more feasible with better infrastructure (and better workplace facilities for commuters).

    Monument, you seem to have a good grasp of the figures. Can you estimate how many cars would be taken out for different (escalating) levels of modal shift to bus, walking and cycling in, say the 0-4 km bracket, which I think is what the CSO typically report.

    How might that compare to the reduction predicted as a benefit of the GCOB (assuming no induced traffic within the city, which is what typically occurs)?







    *EDIT: And btw I doubt that the 45% of rural commutes <=9km would have much relevance to a bypass, but I take your point.


  • #107
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    antoobrien wrote: »
    And there are those who think we should keep Galway in the 1950s for the next 400 years, which is where we're heading back to if we don't get a bypass.

    Personally I don't give a rats ass if a developer can see business potential in development land, since that appears to be your bugbear. Since you haven't noticed, Galway has been steadily expanding since the 50s, from residential areas like Old Mervue, New Mervue & Castlepark (both 70s) on the east to Corrib Pk and Knocknacara in the west to business Parks like Dangan and Park more (both 80s iirc).

    Throw in the fact that the jobs are being concentrated on Galway City faster than the population is, jobs are drying up across the region forcing people to look to the city for employment, and no alternative form of transport what the hell do you expect - people will drive in order to make a living.



    1. Hysteria and hyperbole.

    2. People (aka voters) not giving a rat's ass about such matters is what helped to give us our car-dependent sprawl, not to mention the crazy economic policies that have bankrupted us. Were it not for such sustained and unsustainable folly we might be able to afford some untolled bypasses and some decent PT to boot. Eroding the traffic reduction benefits of a bypass by adding more traffic generating development does not represent good value for money, IMO.

    3. While the population has been growing, the % modal share for 'active commuting' has also dropped. There is no direct causal relationship between population growth and such changes in behaviour. You've seen the data for commuting distances, eg 85% <=9km in Galway City. Many people will drive these days because they'd rather chew their own arm off than leave the car. In many cases they are well capable of both making a living and not driving. They complain about congestion and demand more roads to fix it, but in many cases such motorists prefer the congestion to almost any other feasible alternative currently available to them. That's not a good business case for any bypass, IMO.


  • #108
    tharlear
    Registered Users Posts: 130 ✭✭tharlear


    Galway city population has increase by almost 50% in the last 20 years and the county’s population (ex-city) by approx 35%.

    From the Irish times birth rates the population is still growing
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0923/1224304577245.html

    With immigration and the Celtic tiger bubble bursting, I would not expect to see the same increase over the next 20 years, but from 1981 to 1991 the city population grew by almost 17%, county by about 1% and that was with the country in an ever bigger mess than it is now, (no financial sector and no American corporations based in Ireland). If you think it bad now compare the tax rates to what PAYE workers were paying in the 1980's

    So it is logical to assume that the city population will continue to increase.
    Even if we build cycle routes and bus lanes there will still be a need to connect the west of the county to the east and the west of the city to the east. Or is it a to "hell or to Connemara" attitude

    I don't think it crazy for my brother to want to be able to visit his parents in Salthill in less time that it takes him to drive to the in-laws in Dublin.

    It would be possible to upgrade the existing bypass at great expense. But the outer by pass will be needed in the future even more than today. It's not just roads get filled up once there are built. It’s also the population increase and people taking advantage of the economic opportunities that new connections bring.

    The issue of the city center traffic and commuting will need to be resovled either way. The bypass may not help the city center if planners do nothing. But the population will grow and the traffic will increase just as it did after the quincentenary bridge was built, and after the wolf tone bridge was built. If they are smart the bridge will be future proofed so we are no in the same mess 20 years from now.

    But if I were to suggest that the bridge be build as a D2 which could be expanded to D3 for a future polulation of 125K city and county of another 250K I'm sure I would be hounded just as the people who said rounabouts on the m50 were a bad idea were. "we don't have the money","we dont need huge super motorway in ireland, were only a small country."

    One idea for the city center which slows down traffic are those of Hans Monderman. see link below, but some cyclist don't like gaving to give way to pedestrians and object. Of course they blame the motorists

    http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/traffic.html

    Bypass deliver in that, They allow people from point A get to point B avoiding point C where they don't want to go. People at point D who wonder what all the mad fuss is about and why everone is in such a rush (could not find the exact quote) should drink their pint and keep out of it.


  • #109
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    TBH, I don't want to get, ahem, bogged down with the GCOB specifically in this thread. There is a separate thread in this forum for debating whether the GCOB is "necessary".

    The question really is whether bypasses in the Irish context can meet their intended objectives, both for the bypassed city/town and the wider catchment area. Potential for modal split is relevant, in that if congestion could be reduced by other means, or if a bypass does not lead to a sustainable reduction in traffic congestion, then can it be said that such infrastructure delivers on its intended objectives.

    BTW, I know about the late Hans Monderman, and I don't think Irish motorists are ready to embrace his ideas or anything similar.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72713559&postcount=145


  • #110
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    tharlear wrote: »
    Bypass deliver in that, They allow people from point A get to point B avoiding point C where they don't want to go. People at point D who wonder what all the mad fuss is about and why everone is in such a rush (could not find the exact quote) should drink their pint and keep out of it.


    In order to assess whether a bypass is going to provide sustainable benefits for points A, B and C, I think some questions need to be considered.

    Just a few off the top of my head:

    1. What proportion of motorised traffic from A to B is strictly necessary?
    2. What proportion of motorised traffic within C is strictly necessary?
    3. Could a bypass induce new motorised traffic between A & B?
    4. Could a bypass induce new motorised traffic within C?
    5. What could be done, absent a bypass, about unnecessary traffic within C that might help necessary traffic get from A to B without experiencing extreme congestion?


  • #111
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Personally I think using 9km as the commuting radius is too large if you're focusing on cycling, and especially walking. PT has the biggest potential for modal shift for the 85% of commutes you mention

    Started a new thread:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=74564776#post74564776

    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Monument, you seem to have a good grasp of the figures. Can you estimate how many cars would be taken out for different (escalating) levels of modal shift to bus, walking and cycling in, say the 0-4 km bracket, which I think is what the CSO typically report.

    No, sorry, I can do little more than look look up stats, I'll leave the estimates up to those who can do them somewhat accurately.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    monument wrote: »
    Regardless, as I've already posted:
    • Galway City with a massive 85.62% of commutes between 1-9km.
    • And even Galway County has 45.53% of commutes between 1-9km.

    On your first point Galway city is about 15 - 20km end to end by road. 85% sounds about right for between 1-9km. Don't forget when people think about how long a trip is they thing about how far they travel not straight line distances.

    On your second point where did you get those figure?
    How many of those trips are related to the city (if the data is anything like the city councils figures it'll be impossible to tell).

    A parting thought - According to the smarter travel plan the traffic coming into the city from the county (c. 53k trips) is greater than the number of trips generated in the city (c. 50k), with only 20% of the trips coming from the electoral areas included in the Galway metropolitan area (9k). That means that more than 40k trips are being made into the city from the county area.

    The problem with towns and cities is rarely the internal traffic, it's usually from the externally generated traffic.


  • #113
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    The question really is whether bypasses in the Irish context can meet their intended objectives, both for the bypassed city/town and the wider catchment area. Potential for modal split is relevant, in that if congestion could be reduced by other means, or if a bypass does not lead to a sustainable reduction in traffic congestion, then can it be said that such infrastructure delivers on its intended objectives.

    Calculated AADTs available on the NRA website:
    Rochfortbridge - before M6: 11601, after: 2756
    Abbeyleix - before M8: 14591, after: 4661 (overnight drop of 8k on mid year opening)
    Portlaoise - before M7/8: - 17065, after: 6,202 (overnight drop of 7k on mid year opening)

    Having directly used these roads I can answer yes to the questions above


  • #114
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    antoobrien wrote: »
    On your first point Galway city is about 15 - 20km end to end by road. 85% sounds about right for between 1-9km. Don't forget when people think about how long a trip is they thing about how far they travel not straight line distances.

    From one edge of the continuous urban area to the other -- Dunghiska to what Google Maps has marked as Silverstrand, it's 11km.

    antoobrien wrote: »
    On your second point where did you get those figure?
    How many of those trips are related to the city (if the data is anything like the city councils figures it'll be impossible to tell).

    The CSO census interactive tables -- using the 2006 data.

    The CSO have can look at how many trips are to and from exact areas, but you can do some good guess work even without exact data -- for example, where 1-9km trips accounts for 85% of all commutes started within the city and the city is around 11km or so wide, you fairly safely say that the bulk of them are trips to others parts of the city or areas very close to the city.

    antoobrien wrote: »
    A parting thought - According to the smarter travel plan the traffic coming into the city from the county (c. 53k trips) is greater than the number of trips generated in the city (c. 50k), with only 20% of the trips coming from the electoral areas included in the Galway metropolitan area (9k). That means that more than 40k trips are being made into the city from the county area.

    The problem with towns and cities is rarely the internal traffic, it's usually from the externally generated traffic.

    That's shockingly not true, it's a mix. There's a large amount of people doing very short and fairly short trips by car -- many of these people could use other means.

    Of the people who stated a distance in 2006 (quite a few did not!):
    • Of all commutes with all modes, 1-9km = 60% of all commutes.

    And of those who drove or who were driven:
    • 436,982 used a car to get 1-9km, while 572,321 use one to get 10km and over.

    I can't cross tabulated much on the CSO's site, but the NTA has an interesting map on this for the Greater Dublin Area. Most of the commuter trips within the city centre (ie between the canals in this case) were generated from within the M50 (ie at very most around 7-11km from the city centre, with the bulk under that).

    SMALL-Travel-patterns.jpg

    Map which defines those areas.


  • #115
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Calculated AADTs available on the NRA website:
    Rochfortbridge - before M6: 11601, after: 2756
    Abbeyleix - before M8: 14591, after: 4661 (overnight drop of 8k on mid year opening)
    Portlaoise - before M7/8: - 17065, after: 6,202 (overnight drop of 7k on mid year opening)

    Having directly used these roads I can answer yes to the questions above



    Ah yes, Portlaoise. Part of Dublin's commuterland. I believe the stress of commuting has considerably eased with better road and rail access, but it's clear that Irish-style car-dependent development has been a feature of the town for quite some time.
    The periphery of Portlaoise has been colonised by commuter-belt housing estates, resulting in a 41 per cent increase in population between 1996 and 2002 while the town itself recorded a marginal decrease - a classic example of the "doughnut effect" in planning. Outside the council's headquarters, the fruits of misguided planning in the past are all too visible; urban renewal tax incentives were perversely used to undermine the town's main street and replace it with an ill-located shopping centre on the inner relief road.
    Of course such developments are not the "intended" effects of the bypasses, so some might regard such outcomes as irrelevant. It remains to be seen whether the M7/8 will facilitate more of the same in future.



    Here's an example of Ireland's and Portlaoise's incorrigible car dependence in action, something that building more roads, including bypasses, won't solve and most likely exacerbates.

    This housing development in Portlaoise and is based on the Essex Design concept, which tries to make streets more pedestrian and child friendly. One of the ways this is done is to minimise on-street parking and place it instead between and behind houses.

    The first photo shows a "parking court" typically seen in the Essex Design. There seems to be only one car parked in it. The second photo (of the street immediately adjacent) shows what some people think of the concept, of parking laws and of pedestrian friendly notions.

    Because these car owners could not or would not park in the designated spaces and walk a few metres to their homes, preferring instead to take over the footpaths and narrow streets right outside their front doors, Laois County Council had to introduce a one-way system in an attempt to alleviate ensuing traffic problems.


    EDI-Ireland1.jpg


    EDI-Ireland2.jpg


  • #116
    veryangryman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,600 ✭✭✭veryangryman


    Iwannahurl wrote: »



    Here's an example of Ireland's and Portlaoise's incorrigible car dependence in action, something that building more roads, including bypasses, won't solve and most likely exacerbates.

    This housing development in Portlaoise and is based on the Essex Design concept, which tries to make streets more pedestrian and child friendly. One of the ways this is done is to minimise on-street parking and place it instead between and behind houses.

    The first photo shows a "parking court" typically seen in the Essex Design. There seems to be only one car parked in it. The second photo (of the street immediately adjacent) shows what some people think of the concept, of parking laws and of pedestrian friendly notions.

    Because these car owners could not or would not park in the designated spaces and walk a few metres to their homes, preferring instead to take over the footpaths and narrow streets right outside their front doors, Laois County Council had to introduce a one-way system in an attempt to alleviate ensuing traffic problems.


    EDI-Ireland1.jpg


    EDI-Ireland2.jpg

    I believe thats more a show of human laziness. Even gym goers park as physically close to the entrance as possible, save that they might get a bit of warmup exercise on the way in.

    Anyway, i hardly thiink that the presence or lack of a bypass makes a difference to such behaviours.


  • #117
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,868 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    In order to assess whether a bypass is going to provide sustainable benefits for points A, B and C, I think some questions need to be considered.

    Just a few off the top of my head:

    1. What proportion of motorised traffic from A to B is strictly necessary?
    2. What proportion of motorised traffic within C is strictly necessary?
    3. Could a bypass induce new motorised traffic between A & B?
    4. Could a bypass induce new motorised traffic within C?
    5. What could be done, absent a bypass, about unnecessary traffic within C that might help necessary traffic get from A to B without experiencing extreme congestion?
    I think the questions are much simpler.
    1. Is A-B an unavoidably heavily traffic route? e.g. National Primary Road?
    2. Where C is a point between A and B, is C suffering the effects of heavy traffic while the presence of the route through it slowing down A-B traffic?
    3. Can a bypass be built at reasonable cost? (e.g. no heavy tunneling except in extreme cases, e.g. Jack Lynch or Port Tunnels).
    If the answer to these questions is Yes, your questions, particularly number 5 are largely irrelevant where an intermediate point simply isn't capable of dealing with lots of through traffic in any efficient way.

    Nobody (I hope) is claiming that any of the bypasses, e.g. Portlaoise, Moate, Athlone, Cork etc shouldn't have been built because they "facilitated unsustainable development" or "encouraged car dependence" or anything like that.

    I'm just going to nail my colours to the mast here and say that I favour large scale investment in roads, railways and things like off-road cycle tracks. Much like Continental Europe, Netherlands, France, Germany etc all have extensive motorway networks (and presumably small scale bypasses on their equivalent of National Secondary and Regional roads) but also top class public transportation systems. Then of course there's the Netherlands where Amsterdam facilitates lots of bike transport.

    Each have a place and each serve a valuable purpose.


  • #118
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    veryangryman wrote: »
    I believe thats more a show of human laziness. Even gym goers park as physically close to the entrance as possible, save that they might get a bit of warmup exercise on the way in.

    Anyway, i hardly thiink that the presence or lack of a bypass makes a difference to such behaviours.




    Human laziness or Irish laziness? We exhibit such behaviours on a very large scale in this country, and I believe it has already been shown in this thread and elsewhere that car use and car dependence is much higher in Ireland than it is in some other European countries, including those with significantly higher rates of car ownership.

    If the presence or absence of bypasses and other roads infrastructure does not make a difference to such behaviours, what can we conclude with regard to the planning of such infrastructure as it relates to traffic, transportation and land use patterns?


  • #119
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    SeanW wrote: »
    I think the questions are much simpler.
    1. Is A-B an unavoidably heavily traffic route? e.g. National Primary Road?
    2. Where C is a point between A and B, is C suffering the effects of heavy traffic while the presence of the route through it slowing down A-B traffic?
    3. Can a bypass be built at reasonable cost? (e.g. no heavy tunneling except in extreme cases, e.g. Jack Lynch or Port Tunnels).
    If the answer to these questions is Yes, your questions, particularly number 5 are largely irrelevant where an intermediate point simply isn't capable of dealing with lots of through traffic in any efficient way.

    Nobody (I hope) is claiming that any of the bypasses, e.g. Portlaoise, Moate, Athlone, Cork etc shouldn't have been built because they "facilitated unsustainable development" or "encouraged car dependence" or anything like that.

    I'm just going to nail my colours to the mast here and say that I favour large scale investment in roads, railways and things like off-road cycle tracks. Much like Continental Europe, Netherlands, France, Germany etc all have extensive motorway networks (and presumably small scale bypasses on their equivalent of National Secondary and Regional roads) but also top class public transportation systems. Then of course there's the Netherlands where Amsterdam facilitates lots of bike transport.

    Each have a place and each serve a valuable purpose.



    Assuming such traffic is always unavoidable is begging the question to some degree, IMO. For example, in Galway the N6 is effectively a local road, where residential and commercial development has been allowed to occur, eroding its original purpose as a "ring road", according to the NRA. While a bypass may be needed in Galway "as a bypass", to quote a poster in another thread, it is indisputably the case that much of the traffic, given its local origins, is not 'national primary' traffic as it were.

    Your Q2 equates to what I was asking.

    I wouldn't disagree with you about costs. I also wouldn't disagree with you about the need for any country to develop its transport insfrastructure. It's a question of balance, though. I've aready cited the example of Copenhagen where a major new bypass is being contstructed. However, if the City of Copenhagen says its main purpose is to take traffic out of the city centre then that's what they wil deliver. The 'vacuum' will not be filled with new car traffic within a few years, and perhaps it never will.

    (By the way, I wouldn't cite Amsterdam as the best example in the Netherlands, but that's an aside.)

    Why can we not question whether bypasses might facilitate unsustainable development or encourage car dependence?

    This is at the heart of what I am asking. Do we build bypasses as permanent solutions to traffic congestion? Or do we build them as short-term fixes for acute problems, but with no intention of sustaining their usefulness in terms of reduction in local traffic within the bypassed urban centre?


  • #120
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,868 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Assuming such traffic is always unavoidable is begging the question to some degree
    For the most part, it is not: especially where there's lots of long distance traffic involved. E.g. Portlaoise, Moate and other intermediate points.
    Why can we not question whether bypasses might facilitate unsustainable development or encourage car dependence?
    For two reasons:
    1. Because taken to an extreme level, the question could be used to dismiss any road project, i.e. any road could theoretically "encourage car dependence" by making long distance car/truck travel quicker, more dependable and less stressful. At an extreme level, it could be argued that a traffic mess in a little hamlet makes the train more competitive etc and thus that it should be left as-is.
    2. Because it's asking two partially related questions in 1: i.e. "should the bypass be built?" and "What measures can be taken to reduce car dependency in the town/city in question?"
    Re: point 2, you mention Copenhagen and its an example of what I'm agreeing is best practice - they remove traffic from the city centre and presumably up the focus on public transport within the city. This is the best case scenario.

    But in Ireland this hasn't been the case for a number of reasons.
    1. Many small towns have little use for public transport, and the road space is sufficient for a little "vacuum" in any case, e.g. Moate, where I think it was mentioned earlier in thread that local merchants found that more people came into the town to shop (presumably by car) because it was no longer such a hellhole.
    2. Rising affluence and car ownership, e.g. Celtic Tiger and cultural changes in the entire Western world where children are considered to need to be "babied" more, e.g. most kids now have mobile phones to call Mammy whenever the need arises and are driven to school whereas in the past, children took the bus or walked to school and had to be resourceful if something came up.

      E.g. I have a distant cousin in the U.S. who took the New York Subway to school as a little kid - a long time ago - do you see something like that happening today anywhere in the West?
    3. Bad planning - as you rightly point out.
    4. Reluctance to properly invest in public transport - thanks Fianna Fail :mad:

    But in as much as the bypass does achieve its stated aims of allowing long distance traffic to avoid the town/city and giving the local streets back to the people (whatever they choose to do with it being a different question) then I think the bypass was worthwhile.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,868 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    This housing development in Portlaoise
    Meh, I have no idea what they were trying to accomplish with this: most people who own cars like to keep them as near hand as possible. I don't know what was expected to happen with this discordant, haphazard array of parking spaces that seem to be rather far from some peoples houses.
    The houses should have been further back from the street.


  • #122
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    SeanW wrote: »
    Meh, I have no idea what they were trying to accomplish with this: most people who own cars like to keep them as near hand as possible. I don't know what was expected to happen with this discordant, haphazard array of parking spaces that seem to be rather far from some peoples houses.
    The houses should have been further back from the street.
    I think it was a half hearted attempt to break the "love affair with the car".
    In this situation, they (the council or the builders) should have installed bollards to prevent such parking and notified potential residents that they can't park on their front doors.
    It would have been better to have had parking at the back of the houses with a laneway to allow acces to the rear for residents and common parking areas for visitors and no vehicular access to the front of the houses. Whether people would have bought them is another issue.


  • #123
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,868 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Whatever they were trying to accomplish, its obviously failed and/or had the opposite effect. That failure, to mind, is not the residents fault (they have to live with the consequences) but the failure of the designers to design the bloody thing to anticipate/meet the requirements of the people who were supposed to live there.
    I'm going to have to file this one under "What did you think was gonna happen?"

    And FWIW there is already more than enough legacy buildings (e.g. from the 1800s etc) in Ireland built facing out onto narrow streets with inadequate/nonexistent parking. There was no need for any more IMO.

    Furthermore I once lived in Drumcondra where I was lucky enough to have a place to park my car but also be close to the N1 bus corridor and train station. I did a lot of walking and a lot of public transport use, didn't use my car much, and it never crossed my mind that "oh gee, this place would be so much more pedestrian friendly if these cars (like my own) weren't ON THE ROAD. The only problem I had was walking through parts of Dorset Street where it's built much the same as that silly housing estate, no parking for the residents so they park on the footpath.


  • #124
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    SeanW wrote: »
    Meh, I have no idea what they were trying to accomplish with this: most people who own cars like to keep them as near hand as possible. I don't know what was expected to happen with this discordant, haphazard array of parking spaces that seem to be rather far from some peoples houses.

    The houses should have been further back from the street.



    "Meh"?

    No they shouldn't. The design is what it is, and and what you call a "discordant haphazard array of parking spaces" is an inherent part of the concept.

    It works well in the UK, I believe. A not dissimilar concept in the Netherlands, woonerfen or home zones, also works well there.

    In the Dutch woonerf, cars are often physically excluded from the living spaces. We stayed in one a few years ago, and we had to walk a few metres around the corner to a communal car park. It seems that's state oppression in this country, where apparently it is every motorist's right to drive door to door, including on public footpaths.


  • #125
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    SeanW wrote: »
    Whatever they were trying to accomplish, its obviously failed and/or had the opposite effect. That failure, to mind, is not the residents fault (they have to live with the consequences) but the failure of the designers to design the bloody thing to anticipate/meet the requirements of the people who were supposed to live there.
    I'm going to have to file this one under "What did you think was gonna happen?"




    The potential residents knew what the design was before they moved there. They saw the design, they saw the parking spaces, they saw the Rules of the Road. They chose to break the law, discommode pedestrians and other motorists, and ignore the planners' intentions.

    That kind of thing doesn't happen in certain other countries, the ones I have in mind being, for example, Sweden and Denmark.

    What are we supposed to conclude? That if an urban design and the legal framework it exists in expect people to walk and park responsibly then we blame the design and the law for people's behaviour? If so, our post-colonial adolescence is worse than I thought.


  • #126
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,868 ✭✭✭SeanW


    We can argue about what happened in Portlaoise until the cows come home. You see scofflaw motorists imposing their selfishness on everyone else, I see a failed experiment, a highly questionable design that doesn't meet the needs of the residents and cannot now be corrected. Obviously we're not going to agree on this.

    But for a thread on bypasses this is somewhat OT, so would you care to deal with the points I raised in Post 120?


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,538 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    From what I can see, IWH has spent pages now arguing about planning and Irish drivers attitudes to parking, none of which has ANYTHING to do with city bypasses.

    Thread lock time?


  • #128
    Irish and Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭Irish and Proud


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    "Meh"?

    No they shouldn't. The design is what it is, and and what you call a "discordant haphazard array of parking spaces" is an inherent part of the concept.

    It works well in the UK, I believe. A not dissimilar concept in the Netherlands, woonerfen or home zones, also works well there.

    In the Dutch woonerf, cars are often physically excluded from the living spaces. We stayed in one a few years ago, and we had to walk a few metres around the corner to a communal car park. It seems that's state oppression in this country, where apparently it is every motorist's right to drive door to door, including on public footpaths.

    What on earth is all this anti-car obsession.

    Now, I'm 38 and only have my full driving license since January. I've tried everything else like walking, cycling, trains, buses etc. Now, admittedly, I do live in the country, but acquiring a car has been a life changing development for me. Cycling was just too difficult, especially with the wind. With my modest Micra, I can go anywhere I want now. However, I still walk and I still get the train. The fact is that people use cars and cars are here to stay - even if oil peaks, there are alternative technologies in development.

    About Co2, let's quit built in obsolescence in manufacturing first - I reckon that with the reduction in product demand, co2 output and oil usage would probably be cut in half. I can not accept more demands being placed on ordinary people in terms of environmental responsibility while big business behaves in such an atrocious manner in terms of wanton waste. Let's also target the gas guzzlers before targeting ordinary people who have ordinary cars like myself.

    Just fed up!


  • #129
    veryangryman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,600 ✭✭✭veryangryman


    MYOB wrote: »
    From what I can see, IWH has spent pages now arguing about planning and Irish drivers attitudes to parking, none of which has ANYTHING to do with city bypasses.

    Thread lock time?

    +1

    This "grass is greener" notion simply wont fly. Comparing Portlaoise (where you are looking at residential areas) with Stockholm (where you are looking at main streets) borders on the ludicrious. You obviously wont be able to park that way towards Dublin city centre for instance.

    Do me a favour please to get this thread back to borderling relevance. Find a small city in Sweden (Linkoping/Norkoping is probably a decent example) and a similar housing layout. Im sure you will find just as many inappropriately parked cars.

    This behaviour isn't "an irish thing". Its a human thing. Countries where there are any differing perspectives are that way because of different logistics. E.g Better public transport, heavier enforcement of clamping etc.


  • #130
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    MYOB wrote: »
    From what I can see, IWH has spent pages now arguing about planning and Irish drivers attitudes to parking, none of which has ANYTHING to do with city bypasses.

    Thread lock time?

    veryangryman wrote: »
    +1



    The (space)wagons being circled?

    My original point on this particular topic was an aside, in a post referring to the putative traffic-reducing effects of bypassing Portlaoise, and I subsequently responded to specific posts focusing on the side issue. Yes it's OT, but I didn't notice you objecting to other posters' comments previously.


  • #131
    Aidan1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 624 ✭✭✭Aidan1


    Countries where there are any differing perspectives are that way because of different logistics

    True, but only half the point - the reverse is also the case, perspectives drive logistics through the political process or by the manner in which infrastructure is used. Its recursive.

    Portlaoise is a great example. Partly due to the M7/8 Motorway which bypassed the town (helloooo relevance!) and other obstacles between it and Dublin and partly due to some fairly mental zoning decisions by the LA, the town and county has seen some of the fastest growth in the country in the last intercensal period. This was concentrated on Portlaoise (the population of the rural ED grew by 32% in 5 years), but was seen all over the county to a lesser extent. The provision of high quality road infrastructure coupled with weak planning (I'm being polite), a housing boom, and the relative proximity to Dublin meant that you had an explosion of car dependent residential property building. The net result of this is that you have (a) far more traffic than expected when the road was built, (b) locked in several thousand people to an entirely car based society (and to a point where they will politically defend their 'right' to drive).

    Logistics drove Perspectives (ah sure we can drive anywhere we want now), drove logistics (build build build!, and all over the place too), drove perspectives (ah sure you'd have to have a car to get around). And the traffic is TERRIBLE. Who could have predicted that?

    Now, I'm not for a second suggesting that the M7 or M8 shouldn't have been built, of course they should have. Even just the Portlaoise bypass itself had massive positive effects on the town and its inhabitants. But the manifest failing of the LA (and mainly the elected officials) has been to oversee the development of a large car based sprawl of suburban housing, with no public transport links (not even to the railway station). The moral of the story being that providing infrastructure is critical, but so is how it used, and how local government adapts to it. Most people already own a car, and in general will take advantage of any opportunity to use it. Unfortunately, there simply isn't room for them to do so.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    SeanW wrote: »
    For the most part, it is not: especially where there's lots of long distance traffic involved. E.g. Portlaoise, Moate and other intermediate points.

    For two reasons:
    1. Because taken to an extreme level, the question could be used to dismiss any road project, i.e. any road could theoretically "encourage car dependence" by making long distance car/truck travel quicker, more dependable and less stressful. At an extreme level, it could be argued that a traffic mess in a little hamlet makes the train more competitive etc and thus that it should be left as-is.
    2. Because it's asking two partially related questions in 1: i.e. "should the bypass be built?" and "What measures can be taken to reduce car dependency in the town/city in question?"
    Re: point 2, you mention Copenhagen and its an example of what I'm agreeing is best practice - they remove traffic from the city centre and presumably up the focus on public transport within the city. This is the best case scenario.

    But in Ireland this hasn't been the case for a number of reasons.
    1. Many small towns have little use for public transport, and the road space is sufficient for a little "vacuum" in any case, e.g. Moate, where I think it was mentioned earlier in thread that local merchants found that more people came into the town to shop (presumably by car) because it was no longer such a hellhole.
    2. Rising affluence and car ownership, e.g. Celtic Tiger and cultural changes in the entire Western world where children are considered to need to be "babied" more, e.g. most kids now have mobile phones to call Mammy whenever the need arises and are driven to school whereas in the past, children took the bus or walked to school and had to be resourceful if something came up.

      E.g. I have a distant cousin in the U.S. who took the New York Subway to school as a little kid - a long time ago - do you see something like that happening today anywhere in the West?
    3. Bad planning - as you rightly point out.
    4. Reluctance to properly invest in public transport - thanks Fianna Fail :mad:
    But in as much as the bypass does achieve its stated aims of allowing long distance traffic to avoid the town/city and giving the local streets back to the people (whatever they choose to do with it being a different question) then I think the bypass was worthwhile.



    Taken to an extreme level, pretty much anything can be used to argue anything else. I'm not arguing extremes -- I'm critiquing the case made for bypassing particular Irish towns and cities in the context of Irish land use and transportation policies and practices.

    We certainly have had rising car ownership in Ireland, though I would seriously question whether we are (or were) "affluent" or prosperous in any solid sense of the word. Rolling in money for a while, sure, or so we thought, and certainly well clear of the levels of poverty experienced in former times. However, other European countries are much better off according to a range of metrics, and some have significantly higher car ownership rates, yet their level of car use and dependence is much lower. And yes, they have excellent road networks and super bypasses. As for transport policies, I'm not going to get overtly political here, but it's self-evident that the populace voted repeatedly for FF over many years.

    Given the way national roads passed through small towns like Moate, it was inevitable that any increase in longer-distance traffic would cause them serious problems. I don't know when those colossal tailbacks became a constant occurrence outside Moate, but clearly the town should have been bypassed a long time previously.

    Not every bypassed town or city is like Moate, though. With regard to "stated aims", I've already asked whether we build bypasses as permanent solutions to traffic congestion, for example, or whether we build them as short-term fixes for acute problems, but with no intention of sustaining their usefulness in terms of reduction in local traffic within the bypassed urban centre.

    There is also the question of induced traffic. Portlaoise, mentioned by an earlier poster, was bypassed in 1997. As we have seen, there was a 41 per cent increase in population between 1996 and 2002 while the town itself recorded a marginal decrease. As is well known, Portlaoise became a commuter town for people working (and formerly living) in Dublin. The rail service was part of that, of course.

    Can such outcomes be regarded as 'breathing new life' into either Portlaoise or Dublin? Is there a coherent and sustainable purpose in "giving the local streets" back to "the people" or are local post-bypass outcomes just left to the vagaries of local politics?


  • #133
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Aidan1 wrote: »
    True, but only half the point - the reverse is also the case, perspectives drive logistics through the political process or by the manner in which infrastructure is used. Its recursive.

    [...]

    Now, I'm not for a second suggesting that the M7 or M8 shouldn't have been built, of course they should have. Even just the Portlaoise bypass itself had massive positive effects on the town and its inhabitants. But the manifest failing of the LA (and mainly the elected officials) has been to oversee the development of a large car based sprawl of suburban housing, with no public transport links (not even to the railway station). The moral of the story being that providing infrastructure is critical, but so is how it used, and how local government adapts to it. Most people already own a car, and in general will take advantage of any opportunity to use it. Unfortunately, there simply isn't room for them to do so.


    Well put.

    I wasn't specifically aware that PT links to Portlaoise railway station were very poor or non-existent, but it doesn't surprise me in the least.

    Here's a quote from the "good" old days of the Celtic You-Know-What. It's from the Commuting & Transport Forum, in a thread titled "How far is too far for Dublin commute", dated October 2005:

    laoisfan wrote: »
    i commute from south laois (coming from donaghmore, laois) everyday to eastpoint business park, dublin 3 (on your way out to fairview).

    i leave my house at 6am. drive into portlaoise (30mins away) arriving at the train station at 6:30am. hop on the train. the train leaves at 6:45am arriving into heuston station dublin at 7:55am. i then hop the luas and go as far a bus aras. from there i walk around the corner and grab on the many buses which head out to annessly bridge (forgive my spelling). i walk the last 10 mins into work in eastpoint business park. i am usually at my desk from 8:30am.

    reverse journey in much the same. my employer gives me an hour for lunch. so i have arranged with them to only take 30 mins. this means i can leave early because i do not take all of my allocated time for lunch and plus i am in early in the morning.

    commute is crap, i know. but i am not the only one doing it. plenty of people commute from portlaoise, carlow, tullamore etc etc everyday.

    --laoisfan


  • #134
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Well put.

    I wasn't specifically aware that PT links to Portlaoise railway station were very poor or non-existent, but it doesn't surprise me in the least.

    Here's a quote from the "good" old days of the Celtic You-Know-What. It's from the Commuting & Transport Forum, in a thread titled "How far is too far for Dublin commute", dated October 2005:

    That post sounds to me like a good reason to build roads - not to facilitate commuters but to break the economics centralization of the island on Dublin.

    Why are people working in Dublin - services & access.

    What does the rest of the country lack - services & access.


  • #135
    dubhthach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    Tbh I'm failing to see what urban-planning/urban-design or the lack of in Portlaoise has to with City bypasses

    More an issue of the fact that "joint up thinking" isn't a strong point of Irish local authorities.


  • #136
    Aidan1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 624 ✭✭✭Aidan1


    Why are people working in Dublin - services & access.

    What does the rest of the country lack - services & access.

    Leaving aside the fact that your post is, in and of itself, Dublin centric, you implicitly make an interesting point.

    Firstly, while Dublin is by far the largest city in the country, there are 4 other cities, each with at least some public transport infrastructure and, quite often, reasonably good road networks. So the argument is clear, if development was focussed on the cities it would be at least theoretically possibly to encourage even more investment in public transport (yes, and roads) in those cities due to the greater critical mass of economic activity.

    Secondly, by dispersing population and economic activity out to to the environs of small towns, you actively weaken the ability of the State to create jobs in locations other than Dublin. Simples.

    To get back to the topic at hand then, yes, bypasses are a great idea, but they are not a panacea. You still need integrated land use and transport planning, and public transport. Not much point getting all of the transit traffic out of a town, only to have it fill up with locally generated traffic in a few short years.


  • #137
    invinciblePRSTV
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,017 ✭✭✭invinciblePRSTV


    antoobrien wrote: »
    That attitude is the cause of the problems in Galway - we want people to work in Galway City, but not provide the infrastructure to get there.

    Providing a comprehensive PT service to tiny sparsely populated settlements is cost prohibitive, as are white elephant motorways whose primary function is to service a huge rural commuter hinterland, it's not 'attitude' it's real life, suck it up.
    antoobrien wrote: »
    Followed and dismissed as private car bashing.

    Only ignoramuses would consider it as such.
    antoobrien wrote: »
    And for the love of god, loike, stop talking loike a d4 head loike.

    I'll call these gombeens who you've elected what I like.

    antoobrien wrote: »
    You couldn't prove that by my, what with the attempt to "upgrade" Galway's roundabouts in support of a "PT friednly" traffic control system. Something that the mayor has apparently been told is unnecessary and the only reason for proceeding with it is the loss of 6m in funding.

    Yeah that's just a rant against Galway city council, my point about PT not being a priority for central and local government is still valid.
    antoobrien wrote: »
    That post sounds to me like a good reason to build roads - not to facilitate commuters but to break the economics centralization of the island on Dublin.

    Now there's a shock, the largest urban centre on the island is the main economic and population centre? I'm outraged!

    A revealing insight into your mentality though, infrastructure should be built to combat the economic strength of Dublin? It's the same old story from the wesht is best crowd, build it and they will come:rolleyes:.


  • #138
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Aidan1 wrote: »
    there are 4 other cities, each with at least some public transport infrastructure and, quite often, reasonably good road networks. .

    Now please do tell which of these 4 don't have a bypass...


  • #139
    veryangryman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,600 ✭✭✭veryangryman


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Now please do tell which of these 4 don't have a bypass...

    "Oh..oh...teacher teacher!!! Galway!"

    Teacher: Correct son. It does not have a bypass. You may now enter high infants.


  • #140
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    antoobrien wrote: »
    That post sounds to me like a good reason to build roads - not to facilitate commuters but to break the economics centralization of the island on Dublin.

    Why are people working in Dublin - services & access.

    What does the rest of the country lack - services & access.

    Dublin pays out around 50% of the overall tax take, Co Dublin has 30% of the population and the GDA another 10%, giving the GDA 40% of the population. Dublin is a net contributor to the State, it already subsidies other counties.


  • #141
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Aidan1 wrote: »
    Leaving aside the fact that your post is, in and of itself, Dublin centric, you implicitly make an interesting point.

    Firstly, while Dublin is by far the largest city in the country, there are 4 other cities, each with at least some public transport infrastructure and, quite often, reasonably good road networks. So the argument is clear, if development was focussed on the cities it would be at least theoretically possibly to encourage even more investment in public transport (yes, and roads) in those cities due to the greater critical mass of economic activity.


    Secondly, by dispersing population and economic activity out to to the environs of small towns, you actively weaken the ability of the State to create jobs in locations other than Dublin. Simples.

    Interesting that you have somehow read that I support dispersing the population to the environs of small towns, when the point I've been trying to make is that these towns (which once were economically viable due to farming) are facing significant employment challenges due to the centralization of services.

    In that regard we have two choices - move the jobs closer (i.e. not Dublin) to the people by creating regional centers (I think we need to go beyond the 5 cities on this, but not necessarily as par as the NSS) or facilitate the movement of people to the jobs. Part of this must be roads because we can't put rail everywhere. And we can't continue funneling traffic (public or private) into towns when it doesn't need to be there - so at least some bypasses will be required.

    There is a third option, forcing people to leave their homes, but that'd just create Darndale mark II. (interesting sidebar I heard a committed socialist argue against using ghost estates for social house because it'd end up creating situations like Darndale).

    Now there are other things that can be done, such as making places like Athenry or Oranmore train transport hubs, which might help to take traffic out of Galway, but I don't believe these are practical because people don't like multi modal trips (the train line is useless unless you're going to Eyre Square).

    Personally I don't think investment in PT is anything but a waste of money at the moment if it's CIE backed project because an awful of the money goes into wage packets not into the services themselves.

    Public transport laso has the problem of having to earn the peoples trust (not back because they never had it in the first place imo). Im my case, due to the predilection of BE in Galway to strike (I was left on buses in Ceannt station and on Eyre Sq on several occasions in the 90s when the sods wouldn't walk over the the bus to tell us they'd gone on strike) I don't trust them to deliver a service.
    Aidan1 wrote: »
    To get back to the topic at hand then, yes, bypasses are a great idea, but they are not a panacea. You still need integrated land use and transport planning, and public transport. Not much point getting all of the transit traffic out of a town, only to have it fill up with locally generated traffic in a few short years.

    I agree with you on this point (I don't think GCOB is the be all and end all of the issue for Galway), however it's not a particularly easy balance to strike (not saying we shouldn't try).


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    dubhthach wrote: »
    Tbh I'm failing to see what urban-planning/urban-design or the lack of in Portlaoise has to with City bypasses

    More an issue of the fact that "joint up thinking" isn't a strong point of Irish local authorities.




    The OP referred to cities and large towns, though the thread title only mentions cities.

    So, getting back to the OP, is there any example so far in Ireland where a bypass, quality urban planning/design and joined-up thinking have all worked together?


  • #143
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    monument wrote: »
    Dublin pays out around 50% of the overall tax take, Co Dublin has 30% of the population and the GDA another 10%, giving the GDA 40% of the population. Dublin is a net contributor to the State, it already subsidies other counties.

    I keep hearing these figures about the tax take, but nobody ever posts evidence of it.

    But assuming that they are true, would you lie that situation to continue or would you like, say Laois to start to become a net contributor as well?

    Dublin, in case you haven't noticed has hit a point of diminishing returns on investment - having to pour increasingly large amounts of money to get no noticeable return.


  • #144
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    monument wrote: »
    Dublin pays out around 50% of the overall tax take, Co Dublin has 30% of the population and the GDA another 10%, giving the GDA 40% of the population. Dublin is a net contributor to the State, it already subsidies other counties.

    Now close the port tunnel and the m50 and then ask

    "do city bypasses deliver the goods, and if so what is the evidence?"


  • #145
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    So, getting back to the OP, is there any example so far in Ireland where a bypass, quality urban planning/design and joined-up thinking have all worked together?

    Really that's the point of this thread?

    Your OP doesn't mention "quality urban planning/design and joined-up thinking" at all.
    Bypasses of cities and large towns are often regarded as top priority infrastructure, although this is not necessarily reflected in the time it takes to bring them to fruition (eg the 40-year wait for a Waterford Bypass).

    Bypasses are expected to give rise to economic growth and rejuvenation locally and regionally, partly due to the relieving of traffic congestion within the bypassed urban area and partly because of improved access in the region.

    For example, according to the NRA the Waterford Byass, which opened in 2009, was expected to remove 10,000 to 12,000 vehicles per day from the city quays, which would have the added benefit of "allowing us to rejuvenate our city along the quays to the maximum commercial advantage". This would "breathe new life into the City residents and the Region as a whole, allowing business and industry to operate more efficiently [and] city dwellers, visitors and tourists [to] enjoy a more pleasant, healthier and safer environment."

    What other cities and large towns have been bypassed in a similar way and with similar anticipated results? Are there reliable data available demonstrating the effects on traffic and transportation, the economy and residents' quality of life? What major changes have occurred and how have these been quantified?

    I would imagine that the recession/national receivership crisis might be a major confounding factor, so earlier data might be more indicative of real effects.


  • #146
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Really that's the point of this thread?

    Your OP doesn't mention "quality urban planning/design and joined-up thinking" at all.



    Hmmm, might that be an example of the way joined-up thinking is so sorely lacking in this country?

    "For example, according to the NRA the Waterford Byass, which opened in 2009, was expected to remove 10,000 to 12,000 vehicles per day from the city quays, which would have the added benefit of "allowing us to rejuvenate our city along the quays to the maximum commercial advantage". This would "breathe new life into the City residents and the Region as a whole, allowing business and industry to operate more efficiently [and] city dwellers, visitors and tourists [to] enjoy a more pleasant, healthier and safer environment."


  • #147
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Now close the port tunnel and the m50 and then ask

    "do city bypasses deliver the goods, and if so what is the evidence?"




    The M50 has worked better after serious remedial works, made necessary by poor planning of various kinds, including erosion of its supposed purpose by traffic-generating development around it.

    The removal of HGVs out of Dublin city centre was a great move, IMO, as was the introduction of a 30 km/h zone, bus priority measures etc.

    Joined-up thinking in Dublin City, then, albeit belated and slowly evolving?


  • #148
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Hmmm, might that be an example of the way joined-up thinking is so sorely lacking in this country?

    "For example, according to the NRA the Waterford Byass, which opened in 2009, was expected to remove 10,000 to 12,000 vehicles per day from the city quays, which would have the added benefit of "allowing us to rejuvenate our city along the quays to the maximum commercial advantage". This would "breathe new life into the City residents and the Region as a whole, allowing business and industry to operate more efficiently [and] city dwellers, visitors and tourists [to] enjoy a more pleasant, healthier and safer environment."

    That's your evidence justification for the thread being about joined up thinking - very weak. Especially considering the blast into how PT & pedestrian facilities are lacking (roads are for both). You had long enough to edit your OP to include these, now you're trying to bring the tread away from an implicit criticism of road building.


  • #149
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    as was the introduction of a 30 km/h zone, bus priority measures etc.

    Oh dear oh dear oh dear - it's not working because everybody, especially the taxis, ignore it when possible and at rush hour 30kmph is often an aspiration in the center of Dublin. In fact several city councilors are in fear of their seats over that hopelessly silly idea in the next council election.


  • #150
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    The M50 has worked better after serious remedial works, made necessary by poor planning of various kinds, including erosion of its supposed purpose by traffic-generating development around it.

    The removal of HGVs out of Dublin city centre was a great move, IMO, as was the introduction of a 30 km/h zone, bus priority measures etc.

    Joined-up thinking in Dublin City, then, albeit belated and slowly evolving?

    Yet Galway is different :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Oh dear oh dear oh dear - it's not working because everybody, especially the taxis, ignore it when possible and at rush hour 30kmph is often an aspiration in the center of Dublin. In fact several city councilors are in fear of their seats over that hopelessly silly idea in the next council election.

    They don't have that much to worry about -- most of the more heated opposition was from people who drive into the city centre from outside the Dublin City Council area.

    In the Dublin City Council area 77,300 households (out of 190,000) don't even have cars and lots of the others use buses, trains and walk or cycle into the city centre. The whole 30km/h limit was just a non-issue for so many people.


Advertisement