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.

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

Options
12467

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Aidan1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 624 ✭✭✭Aidan1


    ignoring the fact that Galway county is far more rural than urban.

    I'm not sure what you're suggesting. If its that there are regional variances, well yes, of course there are. If its that the population is scattered in an arbitary and random way, then no, not at all. Lastly, if is that we should stop trying or arguing for more coherent settlement patterns easier served by public transport (or better yet, by walking or cycling) because the 'horse has bolted', then absolutely not.

    In any case, there is a fairly clear spatial pattern to settlement patterns in Co Galway, and to changes therein. As soon as I figure out how to export jpegs from AIRO and drop them in here, I'll show you, but I'm looking at a population density map of Co Galway (2011 census) right now. Essentially, even in the County, the population is focussed on the city - those EDs close to the city are far more densely populated than others. Moreover, this trend has intensified - the changes from 2002-2006, and 2002-2011 show the same pattern, increased densification of these EDs from urban generated rural housing (sometimes in villages and towns, sometimes one off rural houses). While none of this means that we should quit trying to improve things though, it also clearly shows that the city remains the focus of population, and of population growth in the region (there are maps of the POWCARS data floating around that show this very clearly). In turn, this means that greater urbanisation of the population is actually relatively easy to achieve, with integrated landuse and transport planning. It actually is that simple.


    In any case, using Galway as a basis for a general argument against public transport or better spatial planning is a bit like using Somalia as an argument against policing. Just because it hasn't been tried there recently doesn't mean it is a bad idea or doesn't work.


  • Options
    #93
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Aidan1 wrote: »
    In any case, using Galway as a basis for a general argument against public transport or better spatial planning
    I'm not, I'm merely attempting to point out that the rather simplistic arguments being put up for PT are not entirely in touch with reality.
    Aidan1 wrote: »
    it also clearly shows that the city is becoming the focus of population

    Fixed that for you

    The city historically is a small portion of the population that has only started increasing since the 50s, as can be seen in this summary for the census records between 1956 & 2011.

    175592.png


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


    antoobrien wrote: »
    What the hell has that to do with car ownership figures?


    >>>>>>

    monument wrote: »
    Let's try again: The link between car usage and ownership is not as strong in many richer countries.

    Ie people own cars but don't use them as much.


  • Options
    #95
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Examples of making driving more difficult and expensive without improving any of the alternatives, like the proposed tax of €200 per parking space provided by employers, or the limits on parking applied to new office developments in Dublin.

    The first is irritating, but a very small fraction of the annual running cost of a car, so wouldn't put people off driving, but that's clearly what it's supposed to do: artificially drive up the cost of driving to force people to use less popular methods.

    The second is really feckin' annoying: impose planning limits on new developments so that they cannot include enough parking for all the people who will want to park there. Companies moving in will have to ration spaces, and people who have a perfectly good car depreciating on their driveway won't be able to use it to commute.



    The more parking spaces you provide, the more cars will come to fill them. It is like feeding pigeons.




  • Options
    #96
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    The more parking spaces you provide, the more cars will come to fill them.It is like feeding pigeons

    The more food is available the more the world population grows, the larger the carbon footprint becomes the more resources are extracted from the planet.
    Global warming is bad hence we need to starve people? Sure its for the good of the planet :rolleyes:
    "Green/Environmentalism" as a political ideology is rather "grisly" when taken to its logical unspoken conclusion.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    antoobrien wrote: »
    I do love a nice simplistic argument, but you're basing the solution to the problem on town & ignoring the fact that Galway county is far more rural than urban. In 2006 the population of the city area & 5 biggest towns (including rural suburbs of all 6) was 96,696, 41.73% of county population of 231,670.

    Nothing is ever as simple as people would like to make it out.




    It is simplistic to describe Co. Galway as merely "far more rural" in this context.

    In national and local policies much of Co. Galway is regarded as a "rural area under strong urban influences".

    There are those who want a bypass not only to service this car dependent sprawl but also to help add more to it.


  • Options
    #98
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    The more food is available the more the world population grows, the larger the carbon footprint becomes the more resources are extracted from the planet.
    Global warming is bad hence we need to starve people? Sure its for the good of the planet :rolleyes:
    "Green/Environmentalism" as a political ideology is rather "grisly" when taken to its logical unspoken conclusion.




    Your straw man conclusion, more like.


  • Options
    #99
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Look at it this way, when you remove the people who did not state a distance in the last census and the small amount who travel no distance, you have:
    • Galway City with a massive 85.62% of commutes between 1-9km.
    • And even Galway County has 45.53% of commutes between 1-9km.

    Before public transport is put in the mix, not all but massive amounts of those trips could be done if walking and cycling was made more attractive. And there's scope for a small percentage of longer journeys between 10-20km by bike.

    Even at a slow enough average cycling speed or 15km:

    2km = 8mins
    3km = 12mins
    5km = 20mins
    7km = 27mins
    8km = 32mins
    15km = 1hour

    I can't find average traffic speeds in peak times for Galway, but I'm guessing 15km fares well compared to the overall average speeds?

    The idea that most people in Galway are driving because of long distances is noting more than fiction.

    Even even 10-15% of commuters use bikes instead of cars there would be knock on benefits for them and other commuters who would have to suffer less congestion.


  • Options
    #100
    Aidan1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 624 ✭✭✭Aidan1


    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.
    Fixed that for you
    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).


  • Options
    #101
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    There are those who want a bypass not only to service this car dependent sprawl but also to help add more to it.

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #103
    antoobrien
    Registered Users 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).


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #105
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 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.


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #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


  • Options
    #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?


  • Options
    #111
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 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
  • Options
    #112
    antoobrien
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #113
    antoobrien
    Registered Users 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


  • Options
    #114
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 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.


  • Options
    #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


  • Options
    #116
    veryangryman
    Registered Users Posts: 5,531 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #117
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,740 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #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?


  • Options
    #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?


  • Options
    #120
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,740 ✭✭✭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
  • Options
    #121
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,740 ✭✭✭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.


Advertisement