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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

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

12467…11

Comments

  • #92
    dubhthach
    Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    It'd be very close to the Western side of the new bridge, where the bypass and the old railway are almost parallel, maybe where the railway alignment crosses onto that Glenlo pitch and putt golf course.

    The proposed bridge is 457metres wide. The river span is 150metres, plan would be to have two "land spans" on either bank of ~150metres so as to reduce affect on river banks (ecology etc.), the greenway could be routed under the west span. However I would think the best option would be just put in a service "tunnel" at this point through the road embankment.

    Personally I think the Greenway will be great, of course one could argue that the stretch of the railway in NUIG campus is already a greenway from new Engineering Building <-> Dangan. There have been several proposals over the years to put a pedestrian bridge on the "railway pillars" I would think it provide extra options for both pedestrians and cyclists to get across the river.


  • #93
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    dubhthach wrote: »
    The proposed bridge is 457metres wide. The river span is 150metres, plan would be to have two "land spans" on either bank of ~150metres so as to reduce affect on river banks (ecology etc.), the greenway could be routed under the west span. However I would think the best option would be just put in a service "tunnel" at this point through the road embankment.

    Personally I think the Greenway will be great, of course one could argue that the stretch of the railway in NUIG campus is already a greenway from new Engineering Building <-> Dangan. There have been several proposals over the years to put a pedestrian bridge on the "railway pillars" I would think it provide extra options for both pedestrians and cyclists to get across the river.



    Full page feature in the City Tribune on the greenway in Mayo. By all accounts it is super popular. Tribune article also stated that planning applications will be submitted very soon for the Galway-Clifden greenway, which is to be developed in stages starting from the Clifden end.

    No reason why such infrastructure can't co-exist with motorways and bypasses. However, its primary function will be leisure (although it does offer a cycle commuting option to city workers living in the Moyciullen area) and no meaningful and sustainable solution to Galway City's traffic problems can be achieved without significant modal shift away from daily car use.


  • #94
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    antoobrien wrote: »
    All that is available in the city based study I highlighted earlier. It's interesting to note that motorists (i.e. people that claim to drive themselves or others) are outnumbered by the people who claim not to use cars (i.e. pedestrians, cyclists, bus, train & other). The use of train (especially as they're going to at least athenry) 0.2% and 0.5% motorbike are so small as to be statistically irrelevant.

    Edit
    With a little digging through the 2006 census there are about 5,500 school children & college students in this figure (see tables 39, 40 & 41).
    With a little digging through the 2006 census there are about 5,500 school children & college students counted in the 7,877 car passengers. See tables 39, 40 & 41).

    It's also worth considering the maps in appendix 1 of the Smarter Travel submission GCC made to the government.

    The first is the commuter areas (page 9) from which people travel to Galway city. As you can see it's quite large.
    6034073

    For some reason I can't attach the second screenshot, so take a look at page 19 for a map of the Average Annual Daily Trips along each route showing the trips by all vehicles (not just cars). Unlike the study and NRA figures I referenced before (which aggregate trips in both directions) this shows the splits as to what is traveling along each road on average every day across the year. The cross town routes show significant traffic flow. Case for a bypass - i think so.


    In a word: distribution.


    I'm on a little netbook again so I can't physically see the Smarter Travel Appendix 1 maps.

    With regard to cross town routes, any potential traffic improvements for the city are nearly entirely unconnected to the bypass.

    As for car traffic coming from the rural hinterland outside the GMSTA, this map shows clearly that car users are travelling from widely dispersed settlements, most likely from huge numbers of one-off houses in County Galway mainly, but also Mayo, Roscommon and Clare.

    So, the lead authority for the GCOB is Galway Co Co, and they have consciously locked the citizenry into long-term car dependence. They want the Bypass to alleviate traffic problems they helped to create!

    Here's another aspect where I believe scepticism is justified: sporadic, uncoordinated, car-dependent and unsustainable development (as acknowledged by both local authorities in Galway) has led to severe traffic congestion.

    We build a bypass, at a cost to the taxpayer of c. €300 million, partly to accommodate all the rural* car dependants.

    Once the GCOB is in place, and in the context of Ireland's and especially County Galway's "planning" record, what is the risk of future sporadic, uncoordinated, car-dependent and unsustainable development -- and associated traffic generation -- given that the GCOB is meant to make such rural commuting easier?








    *I mean rural dwelling, of course.


  • #95
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    I'm on a little netbook again so I can't physically see the Smarter Travel Appendix 1 maps.

    Conveniently the file is a pdf (you should know this because you like referring to the set of same documents) - Acrobat Reader does have a zoom function for quite a while now.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    With regard to cross town routes, any potential traffic improvements for the city are nearly entirely unconnected to the bypass.

    So you don't believe that if motorists have the option of not going through the center of a city and traveling at slower speeds, costing them more money they won't take it?
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    So, the lead authority for the GCOB is Galway Co Co, and they have consciously locked the citizenry into long-term car dependence. They want the Bypass to alleviate traffic problems they helped to create!

    Not really, that would be BE & IR, who fail to put in place any PT alternatives.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    We build a bypass, at a cost to the taxpayer of c. €300 million, partly to accommodate all the rural* car dependants.

    Ah, so the head is out of the sand, you acknowledge that the city traffic problems are not all due to the 40% of trips of 0-4 km distances - when you consider that 26% of people walk (I know 1 person in Galway & Dublin that will walk more than 4km to work/school - me) that always seemed rather like grasping at straws.

    Oh by the way, the lack of planning in the city is more than partially responsible for the mess - why not run and try to sort it out?


  • #96
    kiwipower
    Registered Users Posts: 802 ✭✭✭kiwipower


    @Iwwanahul.
    Do you have a specific solution in mind that would suit all members of the community? As an Individual (like many) I am sometimes a motorist who drives, sometimes a motorist as a passenger, sometimes a cyclist, sometimes a pedestrian and sometimes a user of public transport. Therefore I would be interested in any solution you can see that facilitates all forms of transportation.

    Though I will admit since I moved to Limerick I have been mainly a sole motorist on my journeys to work on the grounds of the UHG.

    I have tried the Train, it is expensive, the times are inconvenient and it take nearly twice as long, and only get me as far as Eyre Square, I cant bring my bike so I cant get to work on time. Even when I drove to Ennis to catch it, I was leaving home to early under to much pressure.

    There is no bus available at a suitable time for me.

    I cant car-pool as I am not regularly in Galway, could be there 1 day this week, 5 the next.

    I do not know of somewhere suitable on the east-side of Galway I could leave my car and Safely cycle or take public transport (at suitable times) in and out of the UHG.

    I say safely cycle as I missed over 6 weeks of work once when I was knocked of my cycle by a car passing me coming up to a Red Light at Cooks Corner on Marys Road trying to get to work one morning when staying in Salthill.

    At present I can only see that the benefit out ways the cost of the development of the Bypass/outer ring road. As it would facilitate taking a lot of the cross city traffic away from the built up areas. (I say this as a regular user of the Limerick Tunnel.) Then proper pedestrian, cycle and bus lanes can be included both in the city, and maybe attached to the bypass, great location for a GLUS!

    As for roundabouts in the city, maybe the inclusion of Pedestrian&Cycle Crossings (using a combination of lights, zebra crossings, Over or Under passes) about 100-200 meters from each junction around roundabouts would be of use?


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Tribune article also stated that planning applications will be submitted very soon for the Galway-Clifden greenway, which is to be developed in stages starting from the Clifden end.

    I've come across the railway alignment in a few places: near Maam Cross, behind the main street in Oughterard, In the woods at Rosscahill. Looking at Google maps, the vast majority of the alignment seems to be still clear, although it closed in the 1930s.

    It's really only in Galway city that it has been lost.


  • #98
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,599 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    I'm on a little netbook again so I can't physically see the Smarter Travel Appendix 1 maps

    Adobe has scroll bars. I do much of my posting on a 1024x600 netbook.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    So, the lead authority for the GCOB is Galway Co Co, and they have consciously locked the citizenry into long-term car dependence. They want the Bypass to alleviate traffic problems they helped to create!

    Connemara etc need a safe and speed-reliable route to beyond Galway (be it Dublin or indeed anywhere), probably better to state they need a safe and speed reliable route to east of the Corrib.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    We build a bypass, at a cost to the taxpayer of c. €300 million, partly to accommodate all the rural* car dependants.

    *I mean rural dwelling, of course.
    [/QUOTE]

    Knocknacarra isn't rural. Barna is a substantial enough town, as is Spiddal. Oughterard and Moycullen are bigger again and there is a fair amount of specialised industry in these areas - ranging from biochem, to fire engine manufacture, to radiators.

    These areas are not car dependent in and of themselves but due to there being extremely poor public transport - something made worse by how poor the roads are - they are.

    Those in one-off houses can get lost, but there are more than enough actually sustainable towns and villages/communities beyond those. This isn't required because of bungalow blight but because of actual places with groups of people, industries, tourism etc.


  • #99
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Conveniently the file is a pdf (you should know this because you like referring to the set of same documents) - Acrobat Reader does have a zoom function for quite a while now.
    MYOB wrote: »
    Adobe has scroll bars. I do much of my posting on a 1024x600 netbook.


    Dear oh dear. Such peevish and pedantic point-scoring and nitpicking about extraneous details.

    Are you psychically able to draw conclusions about the state of my eyesight?

    I was merely making the point that I was finding it difficult on the netbook to see the more detailed Smarter Travel maps. I could of course zoom in to the relevant sections, IF I could see where to click!

    In any case, IIRC the other map -- the legend for which I could just about see -- illustrated a similar point regarding the origins of traffic entering the city from the rural hinterland.

    I'll look at the Smarter Travel data on my PC later. I don't recall having seen the Appendix 1 previously.


  • #100
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,599 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Dear oh dear. Such peevish and pedantic point-scoring and nitpicking about extraneous details.

    Just pointing out that there was nothing preventing you from getting to said content on a netbook. Seeing as its rather important content in showing you things you need to be shown.


  • #101
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    With regard to cross town routes, any potential traffic improvements for the city are nearly entirely unconnected to the bypass.

    antoobrien wrote: »
    So you don't believe that if motorists have the option of not going through the center of a city and traveling at slower speeds, costing them more money they won't take it?




    Perhaps the person who made the comment originally might care to answer that question.

    MYOB wrote: »

    [...]

    Any traffic improvements for the city are nearly entirely unconnected to the bypass.

    [...]

    The bypass is needed as a bypass. Not a relief road for the city, it already has that, except its expected to carry masses of traffic around the city.



    I was being slightly mischievous of course, but now that this point has been raised I'd be interested to hear what the GCOB proponents have to say about it.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,599 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Perhaps the person who made the comment originally might care to answer that question.






    I was being slightly mischievous of course, but now that this point has been raised I'd be interested to hear what the GCOB proponents have to say about it.

    So you'll complain people are being "pedantic" when legitimately trying to help you when it appears you're having IT problems, yet are willing to misrepresent yourself to try and cause argument amongst those against you?

    Have you considered politics?


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


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Dear oh dear. Such peevish and pedantic point-scoring and nitpicking about extraneous details.
    Coming from you that's more than a bit rich.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Are you psychically able to draw conclusions about the state of my eyesight?
    I find it convenient that suddenly when questioned you can't open the a document you reference figures from regularly (the 2006 city traffic study).
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Perhaps the person who made the comment originally might care to answer that question.

    You are aware of the concept of a rhetorical question right? Silly question, obviously not.

    Given a choice, and absent a reason to go into town, motorists will choose to use a relief road, bypass or ring road.

    See the Athlone DC and M50 for examples of people avoiding a town center.

    See Waterford as an example of what not to do in Galway (put a toll on a bypass).


  • #104
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    MYOB wrote: »
    So you'll complain people are being "pedantic" when legitimately trying to help you when it appears you're having IT problems, yet are willing to misrepresent yourself to try and cause argument amongst those against you?

    Have you considered politics?



    Misunderstanding, it seems. I misread what you wrote and lumped it in with the previous comment.

    Can we now drop the side-talk about PDFs, zooming, scroll bars and my less than 20/20 vision? Please?

    I was not misrepresenting anything. It was a naughty move, I'll admit, but it made a point: even strong proponents of the GCOB do not seem to be in complete agreement as to what it's for and who it's supposed to serve.

    But never mind that, I'll try to address the points recently raised, now that I'm on a PC.


  • #105
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,599 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    I was not misrepresenting anything. It was a naughty move, I'll admit, but it made a point: even strong proponents of the GCOB do not seem to be in complete agreement as to what it's for and who it's supposed to serve.

    I'd be rather worried if everyone supporting or opposing something had identical viewpoints, in all honesty. I don't see how its an issue.


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


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    So, the lead authority for the GCOB is Galway Co Co, and they have consciously locked the citizenry into long-term car dependence. They want the Bypass to alleviate traffic problems they helped to create!

    antoobrien wrote: »
    Not really, that would be BE & IR, who fail to put in place any PT alternatives.

    Ah, so the head is out of the sand, you acknowledge that the city traffic problems are not all due to the 40% of trips of 0-4 km distances - when you consider that 26% of people walk (I know 1 person in Galway & Dublin that will walk more than 4km to work/school - me) that always seemed rather like grasping at straws.

    Oh by the way, the lack of planning in the city is more than partially responsible for the mess - why not run and try to sort it out?



    Are you serious? Really really serious? You post a link to this map and then you lay the blame for the non-provision of public transport with Bus Eireann and Iarnrod Eireann? And then you go on to suggest that MY head is in the sand!!! Laugh? I nearly dropped my little netbook...

    One-off housing (an oxymoronic term, now that I think of it) made up 80% of Co. Galway completions in 2009. This was due to a massive fall-off in apartment construction, rather than an upsurge in bungalow blitz. There were c. 1000 one-off completions in Co. Galway in 2009, half the annual peak output of about 2000 one-offs during the Celtic Casino years. (Source: paper by James Nix on the Irish Planning Institute website)

    The costs of providing all services, such as electricity, road repair, post and bin collection are much higher in rural areas, according to the above report. School transport in rural areas, for example, costs about five times as much as in urban areas:
    The school transport scheme costs approx €200m a year. Of the 135,000 pupils carried annually, about 8,000 are students with special needs, and 30% of the cost is attributable to these pupils. Contributions make up 5% of the overall cost. Therefore, around €130 million a year is attributable to mainstream primary and secondary pupils. The annual subsidy per pupil works out at €1,025 per year, which equates to around €2.80 per journey for each student.

    Subsidies for rural school transport are far higher than urban bus subsidies. The operating subvention for Dublin Bus was €86m in 2008, but because urban buses are more intensively used, with around 410,000 trips a day in the case of Dublin Bus, the average subsidy per journey is around 57 cent.
    So is this what the neo rural dwellers expect? Higher subsidies for public transport so they can have buses on the boreens and trains near the cart tracks?

    Either that or a shiny new bypass at taxpayers' expense to make their (often self imposed) car dependence less time-consuming?

    Galway County Council has been strongly condemned for its highly questionable approach to "planning" and is one of a number of local authorities whose practices in this regard were targeted by government for an independent review last year. IIRC Galway City Council was not similarly criticised, though they still have a lot of other things to answer for.

    Scepticism and "head in the sand" are not synonymous. I have always acknowledged that stupid "planning" in the city and county have directly led to traffic congestion. The unsustainably large volume of traffic entering or crossing the city is a direct result of the "planners" folly, of this country's populist politics and of the cumulative decisions of thousands of citizens who build "one-off" houses in the country for whatever reason.

    I am sceptical of the GCOB proposal because (a) those same "planners" haven't gone away you know, and (b) I don't think either our populist 'leaders' or our compliant insouciant car-dependent citizenry should be rewarded with a bypass for this mass muppetry.


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


    MYOB wrote: »
    Connemara etc need a safe and speed-reliable route to beyond Galway (be it Dublin or indeed anywhere), probably better to state they need a safe and speed reliable route to east of the Corrib.

    Knocknacarra isn't rural. Barna is a substantial enough town, as is Spiddal. Oughterard and Moycullen are bigger again and there is a fair amount of specialised industry in these areas - ranging from biochem, to fire engine manufacture, to radiators.

    These areas are not car dependent in and of themselves but due to there being extremely poor public transport - something made worse by how poor the roads are - they are.

    Those in one-off houses can get lost, but there are more than enough actually sustainable towns and villages/communities beyond those. This isn't required because of bungalow blight but because of actual places with groups of people, industries, tourism etc.



    For various reasons -- social, economic and cultural -- I am willing to support the principle that Connemara needs to be aided with infrastructural development. Tourism is hugely important, now more than ever, and Galway City should be a gateway not a barrier.

    However, is there a coherent regional strategy, including a transportation plan, for such development? Or is it a case of stick in a bypass and hope for the best?

    I've already referred to the public transport and road maintenance issue. The externalised costs of our sporadic and uncoordinated development has an awful lot to do with these deficiencies.

    "Those in one-off houses can get lost". It is you who say it! There's an awful lot of them, though. And where are they going to get lost, now that there's hardly a boreen without a bungalow?


  • #108
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,599 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    You don't appear to be aware that the GCOB was designed by the Galway RDO on direction of the NRA, not the planning department.

    The GCOB would be required had there been zero one off houses or twice the current number. There are villages, towns, and industries west of the Corrib which need a road that doesn't go through Galway to get anywhere east of the Corrib.

    That you're combining replies to separate issues as if they were part of the same reply to suit your answer doesn't reflect well either.


  • #109
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,599 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    However, is there a coherent regional strategy, including a transportation plan, for such development? Or is it a case of stick in a bypass and hope for the best?

    As I said in my previous reply, the bypass planning was done at the direction of the NRA who plan on a national basis.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    "Those in one-off houses can get lost". It is you who say it! There's an awful lot of them, though. And where are they going to get lost, now that there's hardly a boreen without a bungalow?

    I meant in terms of service/transport provision. They chose to live in an entirely unsustainable manner, whereas those who live in towns and villages have a right to expect proper services - be that broadband, sewerage or safe roads that can actually get them places in a reasonable period of time


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


    MYOB wrote: »
    You don't appear to be aware that the GCOB was designed by the Galway RDO on direction of the NRA, not the planning department.

    The GCOB would be required had there been zero one off houses or twice the current number. There are villages, towns, and industries west of the Corrib which need a road that doesn't go through Galway to get anywhere east of the Corrib.

    That you're combining replies to separate issues as if they were part of the same reply to suit your answer doesn't reflect well either.


    When I refer to "planning" I am talking about the consequences of accumulated, though often uncoordinated, decisions of the various authorities and others that have given rise to vociferous demands for a bypass.

    The current "ring road" as referred to by the NRA was supposed to serve such purposes, was it not?


  • #111
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    MYOB wrote: »
    As I said in my previous reply, the bypass planning was done at the direction of the NRA who plan on a national basis.

    I meant in terms of service/transport provision. They chose to live in an entirely unsustainable manner, whereas those who live in towns and villages have a right to expect proper services - be that broadband, sewerage or safe roads that can actually get them places in a reasonable period of time



    1. Indeed. And now that we are where we are the NRA is shifting the focus from construction of a bypass to traffic management. Hence the new regime of ripping out roundabouts etc?

    2. I know. Towns and villages haven't been sustainably developed either, though. You may recall that the proximal cause of Galway City's notorious cryptosporidium outbreak in 2007 was Oughterard sewage.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,599 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    When I refer to "planning" I am talking about the consequences of accumulated, though often uncoordinated, decisions of the various authorities and others that have given rise to vociferous demands for a bypass.

    The demands would exist either way, as has been said repeatedly.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    The current "ring road" as referred to by the NRA was supposed to serve such purposes, was it not?

    The current ring road was assembled out of a number of separate projects in the 1990s to provide temporary relief. Suggesting that it ever had a designated purpose is stretching it. The fact that it goes from being relatively high quality (bar the roundabouts) in to east to being single carriageway and veering back in towards the city to use a 1980s bridge before ending up on what was until recently a two lane road (and is being slowly widened to add some bus lanes) shows that it was never a coherent project.

    If you want to give it a designated purpose, it was to give Galway five more years to build a proper bypass. We're approaching 20.

    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    1. Indeed. And now that we are where we are the NRA is shifting the focus from construction of a bypass to traffic management. Hence the new regime with ripping out roundabouts etc?

    The traffic lights instead of roundabouts is Galway City Council not the NRA. The NRA only holds operational control on motorways (for the moment) with the rest falling to the county or borough authority.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    2. I know. Towns and villages haven't been sustainably developed either, though. You may recall that the proximal cause of Galway City's notorious cryptosporidium outbreak in 2007 was Oughterard sewage.

    Sewerage - right forum, wrong thread. All the towns and villages have grown massively giving rise to more transport requirements which is what this thread is dealing with.


  • #113
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    MYOB wrote: »
    The demands would exist either way, as has been said repeatedly.

    The current ring road was assembled out of a number of separate projects in the 1990s to provide temporary relief. Suggesting that it ever had a designated purpose is stretching it. The fact that it goes from being relatively high quality (bar the roundabouts) in to east to being single carriageway and veering back in towards the city to use a 1980s bridge before ending up on what was until recently a two lane road (and is being slowly widened to add some bus lanes) shows that it was never a coherent project.

    If you want to give it a designated purpose, it was to give Galway five more years to build a proper bypass. We're approaching 20.

    The traffic lights instead of roundabouts is Galway City Council not the NRA. The NRA only holds operational control on motorways (for the moment) with the rest falling to the county or borough authority.

    Sewerage - right forum, wrong thread. All the towns and villages have grown massively giving rise to more transport requirements which is what this thread is dealing with.



    Popular demand also, as in the hoo-ha stirred up by Frank Fahey et al.

    The N6 upgrade, including the conversion of roundabouts to signalised junctions along with the implementation of an AUTC, is at the very least of strategic interest to the NRA.

    Excerpts from the NRA's National Roads Traffic Management Study:
    In Galway the strategic road network is still under development, and the existing Bóthar na dTreabh (N6) provides the function of a city bypass, but also has been subject to development of significant volumes of retail activity which hamper the ability of that road to achieve its primary function. There is therefore significant need to restore an appropriate level of safety and efficiency of the national road network in that area pending delivery of the Outer Bypass.

    In the absence of the GCOB, the Galway Ring Road continues to provide connectivity between the major radial routes. Nevertheless, although constructed as a City Bypass, the existing Ring Road (Bóthar na dTreabh) has supported significant growth in retail and low-density employment uses which have been displaced from the City Centre by this infrastructure. This has led to significant erosion in the level of service provided by the ring road, leading to an inability to achieve its originally desired function.

    The Traffic Management Study objectives set out a clear hierarchy of road users and required functions of a National Primary Route. In the case of the Galway Ring Road, it is evident that significant interventions are necessary in order to provide for the needs of the road, whilst considering the range of existing users along that corridor.

    The ring road comprises a mixture of single and dual carriageway connecting the N6 with the N59. Whilst the at-grade roundabouts represent a key capacity constraint, it is noted that these roundabouts also provide access to numerous retail and commercial developments along the corridor, and as such any capacity increase would require such access to be considered. Whilst subject to more detailed design studies, a Traffic Management Study for Galway is therefore likely to include a number of initiatives which may include:

    • Major enhancements at up to six existing at-grade junctions to improve traffic flow, provide for pedestrian/cycle movement and improve traffic safety;
    • Removal of direct accesses where possible to protect traffic flow;
    • Provision of new link roads to improve access to new grade separated junctions;
    • Provision for high-value road users (Freight/Public Transport etc); and
    • Significant investment in Smarter Travel policies and infrastructure to reduce car demand.

    It is envisaged that a Traffic Management Study could deliver significant benefit to Galway City as an interim measure pending construction of the GCOB. The existing layout of the Galway Ring Road lends itself to significant scope for improvement, although the appropriate management of development clusters will be a significant requirement to ensure that the benefits of such a strategy can be fully captured.
    Traffic management is where it's at currently, it would appear. Those who yearn for the GCOB to solve a range of problems will have much to ponder as they sit in their cars for the next few years.


  • #114
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,599 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    "Bother na dTreabh" is the DC/part of the S4 section (N18 to N84) of the existing route only, IWH. Its about half of the entire ring road, nothing more.

    The NRA and indeed everyone except you it appears recognise the rest (N84 to R336) is unsalvagable. This includes the Corrib crossing which is the entire need for the outer bypass!


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


    MYOB wrote: »
    "Bother na dTreabh" is the DC/part of the S4 section (N18 to N84) of the existing route only, IWH. Its about half of the entire ring road, nothing more.

    The NRA and indeed everyone except you it appears recognise the rest (N84 to R336) is unsalvagable. This includes the Corrib crossing which is the entire need for the outer bypass!




    N84 to R336? Sorry, I find that a bit confusing. According to the Google map I'm looking at, the N84 is the Headford Road and the R336, in the relevant part of the city, is called the Tuam Road locally (closer to town, well before it becomes the N17).

    Is the Quincentenary Bridge not the N6, which is also Bothar na dTreabh?

    Anyway, perhaps my confusion is due to Google Maps mis-labelling.

    The key word in your post above, IMO, is unsalvageable. In the absence of a GCOB this is recognised and that is why the immediate focus is on traffic management.

    This is a good thing, IMO, because it forces Galway City, at last, to look seriously at transportation policies other than facilitating motorised traffic.

    The N6 upgrade (removal of roundabouts etc) is intended to improve motorised traffic flow, but it is also linked to measures aimed at facilitating bus users, cyclists and pedestrians.

    But the word unsalvageable refers back to my original point: the Bypass should not be about temporarily rescuing us from policies and practices that led to massive car dependence and traffic congestion in the first place.

    If Galway City were granted a bypass without any serious and enforceable measures to ensure that it is not used to facilitate more developer-led "planning" that will generate yet more car traffic, then it will eventually become unsalvageable too. We can't go on building more and more roads that just give rise to more and more car-dependent and traffic-generating development. It is simply not sustainable.

    Those who regard the GCOB as essential infrastructure, a car driver's dream or a developer's gold-mine may take heart from the headline in the latest issue of the Galway Advertiser: "City outer bypass to be included in new national development plan".

    So far so good for the GCOB proponents, though they will still have to wait a while for a decision from the European Court of Justice, before the matter possibly goes back to the Supreme Court in Ireland.

    So, we have some GCOB proponents arguing that "any traffic improvements for the city are nearly entirely unconnected to the bypass" and others arguing that its purpose is to remove traffic from the city centre so that public transport, cycling and walking may prosper.

    And then there are the sceptics, of which I'm one, who are disgusted by what passes for "planning" in this country and who are concerned about the influence of 'developers' behind projects touted as essential infrastructure.

    I have already argued that one of the main drivers for the bypass in Galway is the fact that current levels of traffic congestion are holding up new developments such as the Ceannt Station/Galway Harbour plans, which if they come to fruition will make many millions for a small but powerful elite.

    The Ceannt Station proposal includes 2055 car parking spaces, 75% of them for commercial and residential use smack bang in the city centre. Bumper to bumper that number of cars would stretch from Eyre Square to Clarenbridge. Of course a Bypass is needed to facilitate such developer-led "planning"!

    Am I wrong? No, because if I was, new FG TD Brian Walsh, no slouch when it comes to lucrative property development, wouldn't be agreeing with me in today's Galway Advertiser:
    "The bypass is not only critical from the point of view of alleviating traffic congestion but it is also integral to facilitating the redevelopment of Galway Harbour, because access is going to be a major consideration in deciding whether planning is granted in respect of that project."
    So there you have it: a key aim of the GCOB is to remove traffic from Galway City to make room for the traffic that will be generated by the new city centre development that will be facilitated by the GCOB!

    In the case of the Quincentenary Bridge, orginally touted as the cure for Galway's traffic congestion, it was about ten years before traffic-generating development around the "ring road" started to cause congestion.

    How long will it take for GCOB-related induced traffic to become unsalvageable, I wonder?


  • #116
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Are you serious? Really really serious? You post a link to this map and then you lay the blame for the non-provision of public transport with Bus Eireann and Iarnrod Eireann? And then you go on to suggest that MY head is in the sand!!! Laugh? I nearly dropped my little netbook...

    Consider the fact that PT along the n17/18 is piss poor, non existant west of the Corrib and it would seem that there is no bus route serving the N63 either. Galway county has a population of 250,000 - 2/3 of which does not live in the Galway smarter travel area (I refuse to refer to it as the metropolitan area like they do in the document). Consider the fact that at least half the population lives in towns & villages (take a look at the 2006 census).

    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    (Source: paper by James Nix on the Irish Planning Institute website)

    Please fix the link.

    Also since you seem to be able to find such trivia, would you care to find the number of one offs in counties Louth, Carlow, Dublin, Longford & Letrim for the same timeframe. When you combine these 5 counties their combined (6,620 sq km) area is 471 sq km greater than county Galway (6,149 sq km), so I'd expect to see only 1,200 one offs.

    Remember one thing, when the bypass planning started in 1999, they were working off the 1996 cencus figures which put the total population of Co Galway at 188,854 (57,241 + 133,613). It's now 250,541 (75,414 + 175,127).

    Now consider the population of the commuter areas in that map has increased, while local employment has fallen and they're having to travel to Galway.

    GCOB has about as much to do with one off housing as the M50 or Athlone DC have.


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    N84 to R336? Sorry, I find that a bit confusing. According to the Google map I'm looking at, the N84 is the Headford Road and the R336, in the relevant part of the city, is called the Tuam Road locally (closer to town, well before it becomes the N17).

    Is the Quincentenary Bridge not the N6, which is also Bothar na dTreabh?

    Anyway, perhaps my confusion is due to Google Maps mis-labelling.
    I don't trust google maps for placenames - the Monivea Rd is labeled Ballybrit until Carnmore cross, when Ballybrit ends at Ballybrit Rd (often referred to as Parkmore Rd).

    The confusion here is caused by the re-designation of the Quincentenary Bridge to the N6 (not sure when it happened). I believe BNT was originally the name for the section between the Headford Road (N84) and the Monivea rd @ Ballybane (R339), I'm not aware of a seperate name for the stretch between the Tuam Rd and Ballybane. Ah well, I'll just have to buy a map at the weekend.


  • #117
    kiwipower
    Registered Users Posts: 802 ✭✭✭kiwipower


    I still see lots of arguments from you.
    But as I asked in an earlier post, what are your proposed solutions to Galways' traffic problems? Solutions that support ALL members of the community? Not just those that are fully mobile, live in a bus shelter, on their cycles, in Galway City and don't have to travel more than 4km?


  • #118
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,599 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    N84 to R336? Sorry, I find that a bit confusing. According to the Google map I'm looking at, the N84 is the Headford Road and the R336, in the relevant part of the city, is called the Tuam Road locally (closer to town, well before it becomes the N17).

    Is the Quincentenary Bridge not the N6, which is also Bothar na dTreabh?

    The R336 at the locaiton I'm referring to is the road to Connemara. If you know the 'ring road' you'll know exactly what I mean. More insight that you don't actually know Galway at all.

    The road named Bothar na dTreabh gets nowhere near the Quincentennial Bridge.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    How long will it take for GCOB-related induced traffic to become unsalvageable, I wonder?

    Seeing as its nowhere near the city and hence not going to induce traffic in it, never.

    What is your purpose in arguing against this? You came on here as some form of road safety campaigner and now you're arguing against a road which will make travelling safer for thousands daily.


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


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Consider the fact that PT along the n17/18 is piss poor, non existant west of the Corrib and it would seem that there is no bus route serving the N63 either. Galway county has a population of 250,000 - 2/3 of which does not live in the Galway smarter travel area (I refuse to refer to it as the metropolitan area like they do in the document). Consider the fact that at least half the population lives in towns & villages (take a look at the 2006 census).

    Please fix the link.

    Also since you seem to be able to find such trivia, would you care to find the number of one offs in counties Louth, Carlow, Dublin, Longford & Letrim for the same timeframe. When you combine these 5 counties their combined (6,620 sq km) area is 471 sq km greater than county Galway (6,149 sq km), so I'd expect to see only 1,200 one offs.

    Remember one thing, when the bypass planning started in 1999, they were working off the 1996 cencus figures which put the total population of Co Galway at 188,854 (57,241 + 133,613). It's now 250,541 (75,414 + 175,127).

    Now consider the population of the commuter areas in that map has increased, while local employment has fallen and they're having to travel to Galway.

    GCOB has about as much to do with one off housing as the M50 or Athlone DC have.

    I don't trust google maps for placenames - the Monivea Rd is labeled Ballybrit until Carnmore cross, when Ballybrit ends at Ballybrit Rd (often referred to as Parkmore Rd).

    The confusion here is caused by the re-designation of the Quincentenary Bridge to the N6 (not sure when it happened). I believe BNT was originally the name for the section between the Headford Road (N84) and the Monivea rd @ Ballybane (R339), I'm not aware of a seperate name for the stretch between the Tuam Rd and Ballybane. Ah well, I'll just have to buy a map at the weekend.


    James Nix paper attached.

    James Nix paper to Irish Planning Institute 2010.pdf


    I wouldn't argue that Bus Eireann and Iarnrod Eireann have no room for improvement.

    There is no disputing that we have what one Boards member euphemistically and with unintended humour described as a "distributed society".

    Is there sufficient population in these areas to make public transport viable? In some cases I very much doubt that, and in others BE may be at fault or may not have the resources.

    Do you disagree with Nix's analysis that, for example, rural school transport costs on average five times more than in urban areas?

    Galway's traffic congestion has an awful lot to do with sporadic and uncoordinated development in rural areas, and that congestion is routinely used as an argument for the GCOB. Galway City and County Councils have officially been of that view for years (eg as in the GTPS published in 2002) though you wouldn't think that with the way their "planners" behave.

    You will notice that the GCOB route includes a link to the Western Distributor Road.

    Do you think the current residents of that side of Galway, some in Knocknatallaght and many other in "one-off" houses built in bogs and up cart tracks aren't delighted at the thought of a bypass on their doorstep?

    Do you think that there isn't latent demand for building more rustic haciendas that will be unleashed by a bypass?

    Do you think that good old Irish gombeenism and the GCOB won't ever find common (boggy) ground?

    Why do you suppose Frank "Forty Gaffs" Fahey was putting up illegal signs touting the bypass in that part of the constituency a while back? By the way, his pro-GCOB stunt, http://www.isupportthebypass.com, seems to have bitten the dust along with his seat. Aw shucks.







    EDIT: A thought occurs. If planning for a bypass started in 1999, fifteen years after the new bridge opened, may this is an indicator that the "ring road" had already been swallowed up with traffic generating development and that they already knew what they were doing "planning" wise was not going to be salvageable.


  • #120
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    kiwipower wrote: »
    I still see lots of arguments from you.
    But as I asked in an earlier post, what are your proposed solutions to Galways' traffic problems? Solutions that support ALL members of the community? Not just those that are fully mobile, live in a bus shelter, on their cycles, in Galway City and don't have to travel more than 4km?



    I hadn't forgotten.

    The "Smarter Travel" plan, for a start.

    Personally I'd love to see congestion charging in the longer term. If feasible that could be used to fund more PT and P&R, I would imagine.

    Removal of on-street parking on some city routes, along with a rigorous parking management strategy that includes 'performance pricing' to reduce parking-related congestion and put money back into making the city more conducive for shopping etc. Also a 'parking route' like they have in some European cities where cars are routed away from a central zone and there is sufficient parking on the route where people can leave their cars.

    Overhaul of the school transport system to make it much more user-friendly for city dwellers.

    30 kph zone in the city.

    A larger car-free zone in the city.

    Opening up of one-way streets to bicycles.

    They're just some ideas off the top of my head, in no particular order. The overall priority, as I would see it, is to first deal with all the excuses people have for preferring to chew their own arm off rather than leave their car. Having offered a large bunch of sweet carrots, then wield the economic stick. Or maybe you need to do both simultaneously.

    For the record, I do not support ANY members of the community who merely "like" using their car in the city, as per Galway Chamber of Commerce. Any traffic and transportation plan for Galway City must prioritise sustainability and the greater good, not the mere desires of car owners.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    MYOB wrote: »
    The R336 at the locaiton I'm referring to is the road to Connemara. If you know the 'ring road' you'll know exactly what I mean. More insight that you don't actually know Galway at all.

    The road named Bothar na dTreabh gets nowhere near the Quincentennial Bridge.

    Seeing as its nowhere near the city and hence not going to induce traffic in it, never.

    What is your purpose in arguing against this? You came on here as some form of road safety campaigner and now you're arguing against a road which will make travelling safer for thousands daily.


    1. Link to the R336 location on Google Maps please.

    2. Your insight is unreliable.

    3. It's the Quincentenary Bridge, officially.

    4. "The road named Bothar na dTreabh gets nowhere near the Quincentennial Bridge." Really? According to Google Maps, approx 750 metres from the Pillo Hotel at the roundabout opposite the Menlo Park Hotel (beginning of Bothar na dTreabh) to the Galway Shopping Centre (at the magic roundabout just before Quincentenary Bridge).

    5. I have already posted a link to a newspaper article in which a Galway TD emphatically states that the GCOB is also needed to take traffic out of the city in order to facilitate new development in the harbour area. The Ceannt Station element of that plan on its own includes 2055 car parking spaces. How will that not induce traffic?

    6. Road safety campaigning and GCOB scepticism are not mutually exclusive. As someone else has argued in this thread, I think, removing traffic with a bypass could make the city streets more dangerous for vulnerable road users if it led to higher free speeds on average.


Advertisement