N6 - Galway outer bypass: Is it needed?

antoobrien · 19-04-2013 11:32am

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Care to address the matter of the well-known reduction in traffic congestion when the schools are off?

Have done several pages ago. It's a phenomenon that's very interestingly not anywhere near as noticeable in the evening rush, as I can attest to over the Easter break. That's probably because schools are out before the evening rush gets into full swing.

It can be explained away by one/both parents not working for some period of time during the holiday period - my office here in Galway (and previously in Dublin) fairly emptied over the short breaks like Easter and first few weeks of July.

There's an initial drop during July, but I've noticed that as the peak holiday season starts to fade that traffic starts to go back up.

The pattern I see in that is that the drop can be attributed more to parents not working/working less hours over holiday periods. The holiday pattern is different in each factory here in Galway, the two weeks around the races/august bank holiday were the traditional shutdown period in many factories (some done close at all any more).

The evidence I see from this is that when parents stay at home to mind the kids for short periods of time or go on holidays, there is less traffic. It's caused by both the children not going to schoo and the parents changing their routines (i.e. different start/end hours or even not working at all).

Seeing it as "oh the children are off" and leaving that as the only cause, while not looking into what else happens while the children are off is another case of confirmation bias.

L1011 · 19-04-2013 1:18pm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Well now, that's an interesting perspective. Are you suggesting that if Galway's traffic can be improved by LUTS/TDM approaches which reduce car dependence and car use, somehow that is inherently an undesirable outcome?

Stop trying to twist my statements in to something you can argue against. There is absolutely nothing in that post to suggest your invention there.

galwaycyclist · 19-04-2013 1:43pm

antoobrien wrote: »

Have done several pages ago. It's a phenomenon that's very interestingly not anywhere near as noticeable in the evening rush, as I can attest to over the Easter break. That's probably because schools are out before the evening rush gets into full swing.

It can be explained away by one/both parents not working for some period of time during the holiday period - my office here in Galway (and previously in Dublin) fairly emptied over the short breaks like Easter and first few weeks of July.

There's an initial drop during July, but I've noticed that as the peak holiday season starts to fade that traffic starts to go back up.

The pattern I see in that is that the drop can be attributed more to parents not working/working less hours over holiday periods. The holiday pattern is different in each factory here in Galway, the two weeks around the races/august bank holiday were the traditional shutdown period in many factories (some done close at all any more).

The evidence I see from this is that when parents stay at home to mind the kids for short periods of time or go on holidays, there is less traffic. It's caused by both the children not going to schoo and the parents changing their routines (i.e. different start/end hours or even not working at all).

Seeing it as "oh the children are off" and leaving that as the only cause, while not looking into what else happens while the children are off is another case of confirmation bias.

Yes there is likely an aspect of this to the pattern of congestion. However it works both ways if Galway parents did not "have to" to bring the kids in the car then how many would walk or cycle themselves?

If the kids are able to walk, cycle or use public transport to school then that frees up their parents to walk, cycle or use public transport to get to work.

Edit: In fact that may be exactly what happens during the school holidays it is not just that parents are also off but many may still be at work but don't "have" to bring the car for that week.

antoobrien · 19-04-2013 1:53pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Yes there is likely an aspect of this to the pattern of congestion. However it works both ways if Galway parents did not "have to" to bring the kids in the car then how many would walk or cycle themselves?

I'd imagine that it's not as many as one would like to think, though both of us will find it hard to prove it wither way.

The only thing I can say is that the people who were inclined in my office to drive were not cycling, walking or getting the bus during holidays.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

If the kids are able to walk, cycle or use public transport to school then that frees up their parents to walk, cycle or use public transport to get to work.

Assuming of course that school isn't on the way to work several km away.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Edit: In fact that may be exactly what happens during the school holidays it is not just that parents are also off but many may still be at work but don't "have" to bring the car for that week.

Again that runs against what I have seen in the offices and factories I have worked in.

galwaycyclist · 19-04-2013 7:56pm

yer man! wrote: »

Even in the Netherlands (arguably the best place in the world to cycle and one of the higher ridership stats) most of the major cities are bypassed to get congestion out.

In the Netherlands the existence of a route around a town is only part of the picture. Nobody in officialdom is offering Galway a Dutch type traffic management plan. Indeed many of the people pushing for the bypass would be horrified by the idea of a Dutch type transport plan. It would not just involve a bypass but also stringent and active traffic reduction measures for the city.

There would be 30km/h zones in most residential areas. On top of this would be "play streets" or "recreation zones" where children get priority and a speed limit of walking speed applies.
Traffic would be prevented from entering residential areas other than for access although cyclists and pedestrians would retain a dense network of links not open to cars.
Car parking supply would be limited and expensive - it costs up to EU5 per hour to park in the middle of Amsterdam.
There would be active relocation of car parking to the outer edge and park and ride based public transport interchanges. (The relevant Dutch wiki article lists 16 cities with park and ride interchanges.
There would be active speed management - there are 1200 traffic enforcement cameras in the Netherlands not including speed detection equipment in Police cars.
Private cars would be blocked from crossing the city centre and the city would be divided up into traffic cells. Public transport, pedestrians and cyclists would be able to pass between the cells but not cars.
There would also be more than token bike parking provision in the city.

If Galway was Delft, all the inner bridges would be closed to private cars but open to public transport, pedestrians and cyclists. Cars that needed to cross town would be required to go out and travel around using the ring road. Minor rural roads would also be access only.

I attach a document setting out a Delft like vision for the Galway city.

Nobody behind the bypass is offering anything like this - in fact the opposite is the case. The city council is trying increase capacity for cars with talk of another bridge beside the Salmon Weir bridge and encouraging more traffic directly into the core of the city. There is talk of more one-way streets on the west to keep cars moving. Extra lanes are being added to a junction in Mervue. If the crash had not intervened, the CIE Ceannt Station redevelopment would have increased city centre parking stock.

With regret trying to compare the traffic plans in Galway with anything in the Netherlands invites derision.

Please note I haven't even started on the other LUTS/planning issues such as the Dutch 1901 Housing Act which introduced zoning, or the 1965 spatial planning legislation.

yer man! · 19-04-2013 8:55pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

In the Netherlands the existence of a route around a town is only part of the picture. Nobody in officialdom is offering Galway a Dutch type traffic management plan. Indeed many of the people pushing for the bypass would be horrified by the idea of a Dutch type transport plan. It would not just involve a bypass but also stringent and active traffic reduction measures for the city.
There would be 30km/h zones in most residential areas. On top of this would be "play streets" or "recreation zones" where children get priority and a speed limit of walking speed applies.

Traffic would be prevented from entering residential areas other than for access although cyclists and pedestrians would retain a dense network of links not open to cars.

Car parking supply would be limited and expensive - it costs up to EU5 per hour to park in the middle of Amsterdam.

There would be active relocation of car parking to the outer edge and park and ride based public transport interchanges. (The relevant Dutch wiki article lists 16 cities with park and ride interchanges.

There would be active speed management - there are 1200 traffic enforcement cameras in the Netherlands not including speed detection equipment in Police cars.

Private cars would be blocked from crossing the city centre and the city would be divided up into traffic cells. Public transport, pedestrians and cyclists would be able to pass between the cells but not cars.

There would also be more than token bike parking provision in the city.

If Galway was Delft, all the inner bridges would be closed to private cars but open to public transport, pedestrians and cyclists. Cars that needed to cross town would be required to go out and travel around using the ring road. Minor rural roads would also be access only.

I attach a document setting out a Delft like vision for the Galway city.

Nobody behind the bypass is offering anything like this - in fact the opposite is the case. The city council is trying increase capacity for cars with talk of another bridge beside the Salmon Weir bridge and encouraging more traffic directly into the core of the city. There is talk of more one-way streets on the west to keep cars moving. Extra lanes are being added to a junction in Mervue. If the crash had not intervened, the CIE Ceannt Station redevelopment would have increased city centre parking stock.

With regret trying to compare the traffic plans in Galway with anything in the Netherlands invites derision.

Please note I haven't even started on the other LUTS/planning issues such as the Dutch 1901 Housing Act which introduced zoning, or the 1965 spatial planning legislation.

That's a very fair point, but could some of the traffic initiatives in the works for Galway city roads be simply some short term solutions to help a dire situation as the bypass is some time away still. Without the bypass I'm under the assumption that the city council are desperate to try anything to improve traffic flow in the city. If the council were to introduce anything radical like a congestion charge or closing off of more streets Galway would be almost unliveable as there would be very little alternative for the many people who need to make there way through the city to do long distance travelling. If in the future a congestion charge or some of the measures you outlined above were brought in so the short distance travelling in the city would be kept to a minimum and the long distance travelling would use the bypass would that make sense?

FYI: I have to make my way to the west of the city every morning and I would do anything to avoid having to go anywhere near the city centre. I was passing bushy park today and was thinking how great it would be if I could turn left off the N59 and be back in Oranmore in under 10 minutes without a hint of congestion.

Victor · 20-04-2013 3:59am

Wow, I feel like the 6 year old child in the middle of an eight-way divorce.

Moderator

Iwannahurl · 20-04-2013 10:15am

MYOB wrote: »

Stop trying to twist my statements in to something you can argue against. There is absolutely nothing in that post to suggest your invention there.

My response to your post below was a question, not a statement. You appear to suggest that reducing traffic congestion by changing the emphasis away from facilitating car use to prioritising public transport, cycling and walking would be "petty and vindictive". If so, why?

MYOB wrote: »

There are people who oppose the bypass ... solely because they don't actually want traffic to get any better unless its bikes/walking/buses that make it better. That is also petty and vindictive.

It appears that the Mods are concerned that Baby Jesus will wake up and start wailing woefully.

At the heart of the GCOB debate is the question "do we build more roads because there are more people and more traffic, or does building those roads create traffic sooner or later?" The answer is that both are true, but the inherent political and social ramifications are what causes the arguments. How should we live and work, how should we travel, who pays for it and how much, what are the social and environmental effects, can our choices be truly justified and sustained?

To clarify, and give additional context for, a point or two made earlier:

Weather. Just a storm in a teacup. It's often used to argue against walking and cycling as having significant potential in modal switch away from car use. The negatives are exaggerated, imo, and experience from elsewhere, eg Copenhagen, shows us that it's quite possible to have inclement weather and to have significant numbers of people commuting on foot or by bike.

Schools. It is an undeniable fact that many people experience much lighter traffic when the schools are off, especially during the summer. There may be several reasons for the reduced traffic congestion, and there may even be daily variations that lessen the effect. But the facts remain: when the schools are off congestion noticeably decreases and when the schools are due back in September people brace themselves for the return of traffic jams. What this reveals is that traffic congestion is a not a permanent fixture in the absence of a (literally) concrete measure such as a bypass, and is clearly subject in a large degree to human behaviour. Traffic congestion is not a natural phenomenon.

If changed behaviour can alleviate traffic congestion when the schools are off, why can behaviour not be changed to the same degree during term time, in a way that leads to the same effect size in terms of traffic reduction?

At the core of this is the problem of induced travel. I would argue that in a substantially unchanged Irish "planning" and transportation policy context the GCOB will not modify behaviour in the direction of reduced car use. More than likely the opposite will be the case, both in the city where more room will encourage people to drive where previously they wouldn't have bothered, and also in the large catchment area around the city where people are currently reluctant to drive through or across the city because of delays.

This is not a fanciful notion, and it has been well documented and discussed for decades. At present congestion itself is the biggest deterrent to car use, as my personal experience and that of thousands of others shows clearly. Increase capacity on the network and latent demand for car use that had previously been suppressed by peak-time congestion will emerge as soon as soon as the traffic situation is improved. Induced travel is not slow to develop either: take the brakes off and people's behaviour in relation to car use changes rapidly. Crucially, it also works the other way: reallocate existing road space to high-occupancy travel modes and you can reduce traffic considerably.

The cyclical variability in Galway's traffic associated with schools ought to show us that significant improvements are already possible to achieve with existing roads infrastructure. The fact that a bypass is many years away and indeed "may never be built" according to CEO of the NRA, Fred Barry, ought to focus our minds on the potential for significant behaviour change within current physical restraints.

Arguments about absolute AADTs etc obscure another crucial point: the relationship between key variables is non-linear, so small changes can have big effects when it comes to traffic bottlenecks. For example, in certain situations a mere 5% reduction in traffic volume can significantly increase average speed and eliminate stop-go conditions.

Why can't we aim for a sustainable "schools are off" effect all year round?

L1011 · 21-04-2013 5:54pm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

My response to your post below was a question, not a statement. You appear to suggest that reducing traffic congestion by changing the emphasis away from facilitating car use to prioritising public transport, cycling and walking would be "petty and vindictive". If so, why?

No, I don't suggest that, and its clearly obvious from what you quoted that I don't. That is your twisting.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

For example, in certain situations a mere 5% reduction in traffic volume can significantly increase average speed and eliminate stop-go conditions.

Its pretty obvious that these situations do not apply in Galway, seeing as there has been more than 5% reduction in traffic volume without any appreciable change at all.

Iwannahurl · 21-04-2013 9:09pm

MYOB wrote: »

No, I don't suggest that, and its clearly obvious from what you quoted that I don't. That is your twisting.

Yet you don't attempt to clarify or expand, nor do you explain "petty and vindictive". It's just left there, as if it were a self-evident truth.

MYOB wrote: »

Its pretty obvious that these situations do not apply in Galway, seeing as there has been more than 5% reduction in traffic volume without any appreciable change at all.

The marked and well-recognised reduction in congestion when the schools are off is ample evidence that much of Galway City's traffic congestion is due to modifiable behavioural factors and not unavoidable structural deficits.

Since the GCOB is many years away, and may never be built according to the NRA, there is no good reason in the interim why we cannot achieve this kind of effect all year round:

MargeS wrote: »

I love the summer - no traffic jams to work.

L1011 · 21-04-2013 11:18pm

Removing the entirity of school, college, university, staff of those and a significant proportion of work traffic is removing a hell of a lot more than 5%, nor can you even pretend this is 'modifiable' behavior

You seem to have decided for yourself that I'm opposed to other traffic measures when I'm not. I just live in the real world where it's obvious they won't ever negate the need for a bypass - which is what this thread is about

markpb · 22-04-2013 9:26am

MYOB wrote: »

Removing the entirity of school, college, university, staff of those and a significant proportion of work traffic is removing a hell of a lot more than 5%, nor can you even pretend this is 'modifiable' behavior

Really - why would he have to pretend? The Mater Misericordiae hospital in Dublin started a mobility management plan to reduce the congestion and parking problems they were experiencing. It resulted in 30% less staff cars entering the campus and 16% less traffic overall.

That's a single company acting almost entirely on their own and without any changes to the surrounding public transport or road infrastructure.

L1011 · 22-04-2013 9:46am

markpb wrote: »

Really - why would he have to pretend? The Mater Misericordiae hospital in Dublin started a mobility management plan to reduce the congestion and parking problems they were experiencing. It resulted in 30% less staff cars entering the campus and 16% less traffic overall.

That's a single company acting almost entirely on their own and without any changes to the surrounding public transport or road infrastructure.

The fact that this isn't a single company is the bulk of why this is fantasy.

The Mater didn't have to do much to persuade people to not drive in, traffic in the area is still very poor unless you have either blue lights or Dublin Bus written on the side of your vehicle and parking was, at the time, near unobtainable.

I'd like to see if those figures still hold up now that parking is, while not abundant, significantly easier to get.

monument · 22-04-2013 10:16am

MYOB wrote: »

The fact that this isn't a single company is the bulk of why this is fantasy.

The Mater didn't have to do much to persuade people to not drive in, traffic in the area is still very poor unless you have either blue lights or Dublin Bus written on the side of your vehicle and parking was, at the time, near unobtainable.

I'd like to see if those figures still hold up now that parking is, while not abundant, significantly easier to get.

Don't have info on the Mater alone but... The genral trend in Dublin is increased use of cycling despite the downturn and less congestion.

Iwannahurl · 22-04-2013 12:18pm

MYOB wrote: »

Removing the entirity of school, college, university, staff of those and a significant proportion of work traffic is removing a hell of a lot more than 5%, nor can you even pretend this is 'modifiable' behavior

You seem to have decided for yourself that I'm opposed to other traffic measures when I'm not. I just live in the real world where it's obvious they won't ever negate the need for a bypass - which is what this thread is about

Earlier memo to self (re s**** m**) still in circulation.

Er, did I say anything about removing the "entirety" of school, college and university traffic?

The fact remains: Galway City traffic is noticeably lighter when the schools are off. And of course it's modifiable behaviour: people behave one way during term time and another when schools are off.

With regard to the 5% figure I quoted earlier, the point is that the non-linear relationship of traffic volume to congestion indicates that relatively small changes can have big effects.

I live in the real world where I am not dependent on the car for the school run, and in my real world I routinely pass long lines of stationary or slow-moving cars travelling the same distance as me to the same schools (as I did again this morning). Many of them won't be there come the summer, and the average speed on the same route will be noticeably higher.

I don't know what the actual reduction in traffic volume is when schools are off, but it is self-evident that the congestion-alleviating effect occurs due to behaviour change and not to fixed environmental factors.

There are many ways to modify behaviour around car use in the absence of a bypass, and were such measures introduced in a determined, integrated and strategic fashion, it may well be possible to achieve a 'schools-are-off' level of congestion relief all year round.

We should be doing it anyway, of course, since behaviour change around car use is compatible with a number of other objectives in the areas of, for example, environmental policy and public health.

I haven't decided for myself that you are opposed to measures that prioritise modes of travel other than the private car. However, I did request, and am still waiting for, some more insight into your use of the phrase "petty and vindictive" in that context.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CX_Krxq5eUI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Suugn-p5C1M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8G7ViTTuwno

L1011 · 22-04-2013 6:52pm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Earlier memo to self (re s**** m**) still in circulation.

You, having invented a different reading of a statement of mine which you still continue to argue against, really have to reevalulate yourself before you continue crying strawman. Because you appear to be the king of stuffing them.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Er, did I say anything about removing the "entirety" of school, college and university traffic?

Yes. You said that it was all this traffic was behaviour modifiable.

"The marked and well-recognised reduction in congestion when the schools are off is ample evidence that much of Galway City's traffic congestion is due to modifiable behavioural factors "

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The fact remains: Galway City traffic is noticeably lighter when the schools are off. And of course it's modifiable behaviour: people behave one way during term time and another when schools are off.

Well, yes, of course they behave differently - as they are not undertaking the trips they were previously taking at all for the most part. This is clearly not something that can be relied on to reduce traffic.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

With regard to the 5% figure I quoted earlier, the point is that the non-linear relationship of traffic volume to congestion indicates that relatively small changes can have big effects.

So do you now accept that "5%" has no relation to Galway seeing as we've already had more than of a reduction?

Iwannahurl wrote: »

However, I did request, and am still waiting for, some more insight into your use of the phrase "petty and vindictive" in that context.

If you read the post as written rather than trying to put a spin on it to argue against, you'll see what's meant.

Iwannahurl · 22-04-2013 10:01pm

To engage in 'debate' on Boards is often to enter some sort of nonsense world invented by a poor imitator of Lewis Carroll.

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't, till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,' " Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less."

MYOB wrote: »

You, having invented a different reading of a statement of mine which you still continue to argue against, really have to reevalulate yourself before you continue crying strawman. Because you appear to be the king of stuffing them.

My s**** m** can beat up your s**** m**.

MYOB wrote: »

You said that it was all this traffic was behaviour modifiable.

Compare the above with what I actually wrote, and which you even quoted above:

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The marked and well-recognised reduction in congestion when the schools are off is ample evidence that much of Galway City's traffic congestion is due to modifiable behavioural factors and not unavoidable structural deficits.

MYOB wrote: »

Well, yes, of course they behave differently - as they are not undertaking the trips they were previously taking at all for the most part. This is clearly not something that can be relied on to reduce traffic.

I don't want to risk drawing yet more belligerent and incestuous s**** m** into this 'debate', but this appears to be what the above is saying:

1. When schools are off traffic congestion is alleviated because a significant number of motorists are not undertaking trips they were previously taking during term time.

2. This is not something that can be relied on to reduce traffic.

MYOB wrote: »

So do you now accept that "5%" has no relation to Galway seeing as we've already had more than of a reduction?

No, the 5% figure was quoted in its context, with link provided.

MYOB wrote: »

If you read the post as written rather than trying to put a spin on it to argue against, you'll see what's meant.

I still don't know what you meant, But nor do I care any more at this stage.

L1011 · 22-04-2013 10:11pm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

To engage in 'debate' with certain posters on Boards is to enter some sort of nonsense world invented by a poor imitator of Lewis Carroll.

It certainly feels that way sometimes. A nonsense world inhabited by strawmen invented by a scarecrow manufacturer.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Compare the above with what I actually wrote, and which you even quoted above:

What that reads as is you saying that the school/uni/etc traffic was "much of" Galway's traffic problems, and that this was behaviour modifiable. Two separate statements.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I don't want to risk drawing yet more belligerent and incestuous s**** m** into this 'debate', but this appears to be what the above is saying:

1. When schools are off traffic congestion is alleviated because a significant number of motorists are not undertaking trips they were previously taking during term time.

2. This is not something that can be relied on to reduce traffic.

No, what it is saying is that you cannot expect to be able to alleviate traffic by entirely removing trips from the system, when those trips cannot be removed.

You can "behaviour modify" some people in to taking other modes of transport, but until we invent teleporters, you can't just delete the trips from existence.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

No, the 5% figure was quoted in its context, with link provided.

Despite the fact that its obvious that it doesn't apply to Galway and was hence utterly superfluous.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I still don't know what you meant, But nor do I care any more at this stage.

Its extremely obvious what I meant to someone who does not want to try and find a specific meaning in it.

Iwannahurl · 23-04-2013 12:10am

MYOB wrote: »

What that reads as is you saying that the school/uni/etc traffic was "much of" Galway's traffic problems, and that this was behaviour modifiable. Two separate statements.

No, what it is saying is that you cannot expect to be able to alleviate traffic by entirely removing trips from the system, when those trips cannot be removed.

You can "behaviour modify" some people in to taking other modes of transport, but until we invent teleporters, you can't just delete the trips from existence.

The reason I mentioned the well-recognised phenomenon of school-related traffic at all is that its absence, during the summer especially, even with the tourist influx, reveals that traffic congestion is cyclical and dependent on motorist behaviour, not on fixed environmental factors.

As the videos I posted earlier make clear, it is quite possible, through various means as applicable/appropriate/feasible, to modify motorist behaviour in order to achieve a reduction in traffic congestion on the same physical infrastructure (as illustrated by the rice-funnel analogy).

GCOB proponents argue that another 'funnel' is needed (a supply-side response), whereas alternative-solution advocates argue that, with the right demand-side measures in place, traffic on the same infrastructure can be managed in such a way as to reduce congestion to acceptable or even just bearable levels (as it is when the schools are off, for example).

To simply assume as a given that a sufficient number of car trips "cannot be removed" in order to achieve a 'schools-are-off' level of congestion reduction is to beggar the question.

To repeat: the reality is that such a level of congestion reduction already does occur in Galway City, and is clearly possible absent a bypass.

The challenge then becomes: how can that effect be replicated across the entire roads network, for all or most sources of traffic (including schools), all year round?

Traffic enters and crosses the city from a variety of sources and for a variety of reasons. It's not a natural phenomenon, and it occurs due to human behaviour and people's choices. An increase in road supply, ie a bypass, would tend to alter that behaviour and influence those choices in the direction of more car use, not less. Behaviour modification, under the broad banner of Transportation Demand Management, would strive for the opposite effect.

There are a range of measures that can be used to reduce car use, deter unnecessary car trips and incentivise modal switch to public transport, cycling or walking. I would suggest that, by reducing the level of car use across all sectors, it ought to be possible to achieve a congestion-alleviating effect as good as, or better than, that which already occurs due to the elimination of school traffic at certain times.

If you don't accept this basic premise, what policies, strategies, evidence or examples can you point to which demonstrate that Transportation Demand Management in its various forms is neither feasible nor effective?

Citations or links please, not unsubstantiated opinion.

monument · 23-04-2013 12:33am

Iwannahurl wrote: »

To engage in 'debate' with certain posters on Boards is to enter some sort of nonsense world invented by a poor imitator of Lewis Carroll.

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't, till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,' " Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less."

Deal with the points and not the poster.

L1011 · 23-04-2013 7:45am

You're changing what I said to create a point to argue against again, by the way. I never said anything about car trips being removed, I said trips. The entire journeys do not exist in summer. Argue against that rather than the position you're inventing - which is the actual definition of a strawman, not what you seem to believe that means.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

To repeat: the reality is that such a level of congestion reduction already does occur in Galway City, and is clearly possible absent a bypass.

The reality is that only occurs when a significant amount of traffic is entirely removed from the system and not replaced by anything at all, and there is absolutely nothing to suggest that the same could be achieved when the same amount of journeys have to be undertaken - other than your own:

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Citations or links please, not unsubstantiated opinion.

When its entirely your unsubstantiated opinion that as many trips can be modal-shifted as are entirely removed during the summer?

We're being told here that "simple" measures will suddenly manage to remove 20%+ of all car traffic, when its quite clear that what measures have been done, e.g. new bus lanes, haven't removed even a fraction of that.

Iwannahurl · 23-04-2013 9:52am

MYOB wrote: »

The reality is that only occurs when a significant amount of traffic is entirely removed from the system and not replaced by anything at all, and there is absolutely nothing to suggest that the same could be achieved when the same amount of journeys have to be undertaken - other than your own:

When its entirely your unsubstantiated opinion that as many trips can be modal-shifted as are entirely removed during the summer?

We're being told here that "simple" measures will suddenly manage to remove 20%+ of all car traffic, when its quite clear that what measures have been done, e.g. new bus lanes, haven't removed even a fraction of that.

The school-are-off experience shows what could be potentially achieved by removing a major source of traffic congestion. Actually the source of traffic congestion: too many cars and too much car use.

Achieving the same level of traffic reduction by other means -- including modal switch to public transport, cycling and walking -- would not "replace" that traffic.

Galway City doesn't yet have an integrated, multi-sectoral, strategic Transportation Demand Management programme. Stretches of QBC or cycle lane here and there do not a TDM strategy make, and therefore you cannot point the finger at such piecemeal measures and claim that TDM would not work. However, as it happens they do make a positive difference. The SQR QBC, short and all as it is, has enabled a greater frequency of buses from Knocknacarra. The Parkmore route is one of the most successful in the country, according to BE.

We don't yet have a TDM in Galway City. What we have is deeply-rooted car dependence and Bypass dependence, exacerbated by populist politics, ineffective and unaccountable local government, and ignorant notions that there is "no room" for bus users, pedestrians and cyclists.

Evaluations of TDM have shown it can work, as has the experience of many European cities where it was long ago realised that continued car traffic growth was unsustainable (see James Wickham's book Gridlock, 2006).

See also:

http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/data/files/publications/fairness_car_dependant.pdf

http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/files/car_dependency_scorecard_2.pdf

I'm still waiting for you to point to an iota of evidence that TDM could not be used to significantly alleviate Galway City's traffic congestion, in the absence of a bypass. In any case, the reality is that the GCOB will not be built for several years, and the indications from the NRA is that it may never be built, so TDM has to be seriously considered.

In the meantime, I'm making my own choices, and what I'm thinking as I squeeze past all those car drivers clogging up the roads, roundabouts and even footpaths at peak time is: you are the traffic jam, not me.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-98-percent-of-us-commuters-favor-public-tra,1434/

L1011 · 23-04-2013 10:10am

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I'm still waiting for you to point to an iota of evidence that TDM could not be used to significantly alleviate Galway City's traffic congestion, in the absence of a bypass.

You're the one proposing the idea, and yet all you can compare it to is "when the schools are out", despite not even being able to quantifty how much of a traffic reduction this is or how it would even be possible to obtain this. You aren't providing any evidence to begin with yet start demanding it from others.

Quoting Lewis Carroll, slamming up Youtube videos that explain how road capacity is calculated and putting up pathetic cartoons doesn't prove your point either. Its like reading a Junior Cert CSPE book - all good intentions, zero ideas and zero content of use.

When you can come back and show that TDM will actually remove the need for a bypass, let us know. That is the topic of the thread and you haven't even managed to brush against it.

Iwannahurl · 23-04-2013 10:12am

MYOB wrote: »

zero ideas and zero content

All posted by me earlier, and ignored by you:

http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/

http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/ump/07%20SEATTLE%20Best%20Practices%20in%20Transportation%20Demand%20Management.pdf

http://www.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/7997_93169_GTZ_TDM_Armin_Wagner.pdf

http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/data/files/publications/fairness_car_dependant.pdf

http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/files/car_dependency_scorecard_2.pdf

There is no Bypass, and there may never be one.

The lack of same ensures that you can keep telling yourself how right you are as you sit in stalled traffic for the next ten years.

L1011 · 23-04-2013 10:19am

Iwannahurl wrote: »

There is no Bypass, and there may never be one.

The lack of same ensures that you can keep telling yourself how right you are as you sit in stalled traffic for the next ten years.

There is no TDM either. Telling people that something that doens't exist and is utterly unquantified can prevent the need for a bypass that a competent roads authority has deemed entirely necessary doesn't wash.

L1011 · 23-04-2013 10:21am

Iwannahurl wrote: »

All posted by me earlier, and ignored by you:

http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/

http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/ump/07%20SEATTLE%20Best%20Practices%20in%20Transportation%20Demand%20Management.pdf

http://www.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/7997_93169_GTZ_TDM_Armin_Wagner.pdf

Not ignored. Discounted, as not one of these has anything to do with Galway. You have zero evidence that there would be any impact at all in Galway, let alone making traffic move to a level that would negate the need for a bypass.

All we have to date is actual proof on the ground that expensive and disruptive measures such as bus lanes haven't done a single thing.

You are relying on the fact that removing an absolutely huge amount of traffic makes the delays in Galway just about acceptable. It is dreamland to even hope that you could remove that much traffic.

Iwannahurl · 23-04-2013 10:29am

MYOB wrote: »

Not ignored. Discounted, as not one of these has anything to do with Galway. You have zero evidence that there would be any impact at all in Galway, let alone making traffic move to a level that would negate the need for a bypass.

All we have to date is actual proof on the ground that expensive and disruptive measures such as bus lanes haven't done a single thing.

You are relying on the fact that removing an absolutely huge amount of traffic makes the delays in Galway just about acceptable. It is dreamland to even hope that you could remove that much traffic.

Did you actually even glance at the content, and appraise the various TDM strategies? Or did you just search the documents for "Galway" and "discount" TDM when you didn't see us specifically mentioned?

Referring to QBCs as "disruptive" is a neat example of the car-centric thinking that characterises the populist politics of traffic and transportation in Galway.

Part of the same mind-set that there is "no room" for high occupancy travel modes, since the People That Matter have first dibs on all the space available.

L1011 · 23-04-2013 10:33am

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Did you actually even glance at the content, and appraise the various TDM strategies? Or did you just search the documents for "Galway" and "discount" TDM when you didn't see us specifically mentioned?

Yes. None of them even appear to look like they could reduce traffic by the huge amount required in a city the size and shape of Galway to have any impact at all.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Referring to QBCs as "disruptive" is a neat example of the car-centric thinking that characterises the populist politics of traffic and transportation in Galway.

It was the construction which was disruptive - hugely so.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Part of the same mind-set that there is "no room" for high occupancy travel modes, since the People That Matter have first dibs on all the space available.

There was room, it hasn't reduced the existing room on the road, but it has effectively done bog all for the massive amount of time and money invested in it.

Iwannahurl · 23-04-2013 10:38am

MYOB wrote: »

Yes. None of them even appear to look like they could reduce traffic by the huge amount required in a city the size and shape of Galway to have any impact at all.

Really? Can you elaborate a bit on your TDM assessment process vis-a-vis Galway's traffic and transportation situation?

Examples please.

MYOB wrote: »

It was the construction which was disruptive - hugely so.

Omelettes, eggs etc. Mind you, never bothered me...

L1011 · 23-04-2013 10:44am

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Really? Can you elaborate a bit on your TDM assessment process vis-a-vis Galway's traffic and transportation situation?

Examples please.

Galway has a widely dispersed commuter zone, no light rail or realistic potential to get one, one heavy rail line that ends on one side of its river and no realistic potential to return to the other side (although it would be fantastic if it did, even if the route was just restored as a cycleway would be of benefit I imagine). It also has a major imbalance between housing and industrial/commercial areas in relation to its layout across the river. Two educational facilities and a major health facility which serve a massive geographical area. There is also a significant amount of crossing traffic which cannot be removed at all.

None of the fluffy examples have anything close to this level of complexity. Australian and US cities that are under 200 years old with wide streets and planned suburbs don't compare. European capitals with extensive tram systems don't compare.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Omelettes, eggs etc. Mind you, never bothered me...

Uneaten omelette maybe.

Certainly looked like it'd have caused as much disruption for a cyclist - or did you just not have to go to that part of the city much?

Iwannahurl · 23-04-2013 11:10am

That's a description of Galway City, not an assessment of why a Galway-specific TDM strategy could not be effective.

L1011 · 23-04-2013 11:14am

Iwannahurl wrote: »

That's a description of Galway City, not an assessment of why a Galway-specific TDM strategy could not be effective.

Just as your examples provide no assessment of how it could be.

Con Logue · 23-04-2013 11:25am

MYOB wrote: »

Just as your examples provide no assessment of how it could be.

Are you saying build the bypass and ignore the structural issues in Galway's expanding hinterland?

L1011 · 23-04-2013 11:27am

Con Logue wrote: »

Are you saying build the bypass and ignore the structural issues in Galway's expanding hinterland?

No. I'm not going over this again.

Con Logue · 23-04-2013 11:34am

MYOB wrote: »

No. I'm not going over this again.

Fine.

yer man! · 23-04-2013 11:44am

This is getting confusing now, there's a lot of good points being brought up here. There's a clear "pro-bypass" and a "we can do without" thing going on, well that's what I can gather from it anyway. I'm a firm advocate for public transport and I think in order for public transport to improve it needs the bypass, both would depend on each other. Nobody can deny that the car will not be obsolete anytime soon and that you cannot get 99% of people to take to bus, you just can't, accept that, there will always be a need for cars owing to the dispersed housing and the like. Public transport facilitates people moving in urban areas, it's the only way it makes money, in Galway that means moving people about the city, grand. Long distance travelling will rely on the car, it's not feasible to have buses running everywhere, bus eireann is a prime example (only making money on Urban routes, intercity routes), most people in the countryside wouldn't use the bus if it stopped outside their house and went every 15 minutes, they have cars and they want to use them, it's much more convenient. By having a bypass you get all those people who want/have to use cars (please for the love of god accept that they need to use cars to be efficient for where they live and need to go to) they get to bypass the city leaving more road space in the city. By penalising anybody who wants to drive in the city you can get more people to use a public transport system or cycle and allow both of these to improve with all the space you now have created. I can understand ( I think ) what Iwannahurl is saying is that by getting city traffic to use public transport or cycle you could allow the long distance traffic to use the free space created in the coty network, but what's going to force city traffic to use public transport that won't penalise those who need to use a car.

Summary: Get those who need to use a car out (on a bypass) those that don't need to use a car (on public transport/cycling on freed up city space)

Richard Logue · 23-04-2013 12:01pm

MYOB wrote: »

No. I'm not going over this again.

Your original message is completely lost due to your need to score points tbh.

L1011 · 23-04-2013 12:10pm

Richard Logue wrote: »

Your original message is completely lost due to your need to score points tbh.

Defending myself against misrepresentations is not 'scoring points"

yer man! · 23-04-2013 12:18pm

This is why we can't have nice things!!!

markpb · 23-04-2013 12:26pm

yer man! wrote: »

This is getting confusing now, there's a lot of good points being brought up here. There's a clear "pro-bypass" and a "we can do without" thing going on, well that's what I can gather from it anyway. I'm a firm advocate for public transport and I think in order for public transport to improve it needs the bypass

There's a third camp of people who say that the bypass isn't going to happen anytime soon and that GCC should do whatever they can to alleviate the traffic in the meantime. It's possible that they'll be so successful that the bypass won't be needed but that's not relevant right now.

Iwannahurl · 23-04-2013 12:28pm

MYOB wrote: »

Defending myself against misrepresentations is not 'scoring points"

Claiming misrepresentation while declining to provide clear refutation, on the other hand, does look a lot like mere point-scoring.

MYOB wrote: »

Just as your examples provide no assessment of how it could be.

So you didn't actually read the documentation on TDM I linked to earlier.

MYOB wrote: »

There is no TDM either. Telling people that something that doens't exist and is utterly unquantified can prevent the need for a bypass that a competent roads authority has deemed entirely necessary doesn't wash.

The lack of TDM does not bolster the case for a bypass.

Quite the opposite in fact: it shows clearly that alternatives have never been seriously attempted.

The 20-year-old GCOB proposal is rooted in old-school thinking, outdated spatial "planning" priorities, car-dependent development and traffic-generating transport policies. It is vehemently supported by those who see no problem with our car-is-king culture (The People That Matter, "no room" for pedestrians etc) and who deride bypass opponents or even just mere sceptics as "BA**ARDS", "ecomentalists", "sociopaths" and the like (see original GCOB thread for numerous examples of such posts).

On the other hand, the guaranteed non-availability of a bypass for several more years (or ever) greatly strengthens the case for proper TDM, there being no alternative. No alternative, that is, except sit in our cars and moan righteously about traffic, as so many seem grimly willing to do.

L1011 · 23-04-2013 12:43pm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

So you didn't actually read the documentation on TDM I linked to earlier.

Unless there's one you forgot to link, there is nothing to support any of your claims. Some nifty PowerPoint work and some cities nothing like Galway.

Not a bit to suggest an ability to replace the bypass which is all this thread is about.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Claiming misrepresentation while declining to provide clear refutation, on the other hand, does look a lot like mere point-scoring.

When someone deliberately "misreads" something over and over again to try and find something to argue against, they are not worth refuting. You are the only person who managed to do so.

*awaits onslaught of poems, cartoons, links to unrelated things, piles of asteriks and absolutely no content relating to the topic*

If you can find me one single city in the world where a TDM or similar has removed 20%+ of the traffic, without a light rail system, I'll be delighted to read about it in detail.

?Cee?view · 23-04-2013 12:56pm

yer man! wrote: »

This is getting confusing now, there's a lot of good points being brought up here. There's a clear "pro-bypass" and a "we can do without" thing going on, well that's what I can gather from it anyway. I'm a firm advocate for public transport and I think in order for public transport to improve it needs the bypass, both would depend on each other. Nobody can deny that the car will not be obsolete anytime soon and that you cannot get 99% of people to take to bus, you just can't, accept that, there will always be a need for cars owing to the dispersed housing and the like. Public transport facilitates people moving in urban areas, it's the only way it makes money, in Galway that means moving people about the city, grand. Long distance travelling will rely on the car, it's not feasible to have buses running everywhere, bus eireann is a prime example (only making money on Urban routes, intercity routes), most people in the countryside wouldn't use the bus if it stopped outside their house and went every 15 minutes, they have cars and they want to use them, it's much more convenient. By having a bypass you get all those people who want/have to use cars (please for the love of god accept that they need to use cars to be efficient for where they live and need to go to) they get to bypass the city leaving more road space in the city. By penalising anybody who wants to drive in the city you can get more people to use a public transport system or cycle and allow both of these to improve with all the space you now have created. I can understand ( I think ) what Iwannahurl is saying is that by getting city traffic to use public transport or cycle you could allow the long distance traffic to use the free space created in the coty network, but what's going to force city traffic to use public transport that won't penalise those who need to use a car.

Summary: Get those who need to use a car out (on a bypass) those that don't need to use a car (on public transport/cycling on freed up city space)

Post of the Day.

You have encapsulated the issues and taken each "side's" view into account to arrive at sensible conclusions. Most of the other posts here are from zealots and those defending themselves and logic against them.

Iwannahurl · 23-04-2013 12:56pm

MYOB wrote: »

Unless there's one you forgot to link, there is nothing to support any of your claims. Some nifty PowerPoint work and some cities nothing like Galway.

Not a bit to suggest an ability to replace the bypass which is all this thread is about.

If you can find me one single city in the world where a TDM or similar has removed 20%+ of the traffic, without a light rail system, I'll be delighted to read about it in detail.

I can find one city very close to home where no attempt was made in twenty years to even try TDM, the clear preference being traffic generation and the promotion of car dependence.

You didn't answer these points:

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The lack of TDM does not bolster the case for a bypass.

Quite the opposite in fact: it shows clearly that alternatives have never been seriously attempted.

The 20-year-old GCOB proposal is rooted in old-school thinking, outdated spatial "planning" priorities, car-dependent development and traffic-generating transport policies. It is vehemently supported by those who see no problem with our car-is-king culture (The People That Matter, "no room" for pedestrians etc) and who deride bypass opponents or even just mere sceptics as "BA**ARDS", "ecomentalists", "sociopaths" and the like (see original GCOB thread for numerous examples of such posts).

On the other hand, the guaranteed non-availability of a bypass for several more years (or ever) greatly strengthens the case for proper TDM, there being no alternative. No alternative, that is, except sit in our cars and moan righteously about traffic, as so many seem grimly willing to do.

antoobrien · 23-04-2013 12:59pm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I can find one city very close to home where no attempt was made in twenty years to even try TDM, the clear preference being traffic generation and the promotion of car dependence.

Do tell.

After all as we hear so often, proof or it never happened.

L1011 · 23-04-2013 1:01pm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I can find one city very close to home where no attempt was made in twenty years to even try TDM, the clear preference being traffic generation and the promotion of car dependence.

You didn't answer these points:

I'll take that as a no then, shall I?

Those points have been answered - by all means do one but theres not a hope in hell it'll remove the need for a bypass. You're still arguing as if people are looking for onr or the other when it's only really you who wants to do one alone

Iwannahurl · 23-04-2013 1:03pm

yer man! wrote: »

Get those who need to use a car out (on a bypass) those that don't need to use a car (on public transport/cycling on freed up city space)

How do you define "need", in terms of city traffic especially?

Incidentally, major Bypass proponents such as Galway Chamber of Commerce want transport policies to support people who "like, want, prefer and need" to use the car.

TDM would address those assumptions PDQ in the absence of a GCOB.

antoobrien · 23-04-2013 1:03pm

markpb wrote: »

There's a third camp of people who say that the bypass isn't going to happen anytime soon and that GCC should do whatever they can to alleviate the traffic in the meantime. It's possible that they'll be so successful that the bypass won't be needed but that's not relevant right now.

I wonder how the proponents of these measures reconcile the fact that there has been a marked reduction (some estimates put it at 5%-10%) in traffic since ABP granted permission for the eastern section in 2008 but but no great reduction in traffic congestion?

In fact some of the measures that the council have introduced have made things worse rather than better e.g. the N6 corridor plan has put traffic on the R339 back to pre-motorway tailbacks every day with traffic regularly backing up at least 1 mile from the lights at parkmore. It had been the case before these works that there was little or no traffic on this road. The N6 outbound is still regularly backing up past the racecourse gates, often as far or further than the exit of the business park (sometimes even hogans). This is despite the extra lanes that has been provided.

I won't even get started with the utter mess that is moneenaghesha cross.

?Cee?view · 23-04-2013 1:09pm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Zealots, BA**ARDS, ecomentalists: your repeated labelling of Bypass sceptics and opponents in such terms is far from being value-neutral.

You interpreted my reference to zealots to be a reference solely to bypass "sceptics"

I take it that you are not attributing "BA**ARDS" to me?

Iwannahurl · 23-04-2013 1:10pm

antoobrien wrote: »

I wonder how the proponents of these measures reconcile the fact that there has been a marked reduction (some estimates put it at 5%-10%) in traffic since ABP granted permission for the eastern section in 2008 but but no great reduction in traffic congestion?

In fact some of the measures that the council have introduced have made things worse rather than better e.g. the N6 corridor plan has put traffic on the R339 back to pre-motorway tailbacks every day with traffic regularly backing up at least 1 mile from the lights at parkmore. It had been the case before these works that there was little or no traffic on this road. The N6 outbound is still regularly backing up past the racecourse gates, often as far or further than the exit of the business park (sometimes even hogans). This is despite the extra lanes that has been provided.

I won't even get started with the utter mess that is moneenaghesha cross.

The alleged increased congestion has coincided with an increase in the proportion of children being driven to school in the inter-censal period 2006-2011. Funny that: more congestion prompts more people to drive Johnny and Mary to school.

Incidentally, the City Council is claiming that the RAB-signals conversions have reduced tailbacks. I don't have a link but it was in the most recent City Tribune, iirc.

N6 - Galway outer bypass: Is it needed?

Comments