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

antoobrien · 20-09-2011 1:28pm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Cake is being both had and eaten here.

Fair enough it was a bit ranty, however the intention is to show just how badly mismanaged PT provisioning was in Galway over the past 10+ years. After all GCC gave PP for all this residential & commercial land - so they should know where the buses have to go to support them - why aren't they planning ahead and where is the evidence that they are doing so?

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I'm a motorist, pedestrian, cyclist and bus user.

So am I in more than one city on this Island. The difference between us is that I don't have a persecution complex about being a cyclist or pedestrian, and my views on roads come from investigation of figures not based on sitting in traffic.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Bus services in Galway City have improved, but there is still a long way to go. Once you experience PT in other European countries where it is reliable and efficient, the level of service in Ireland looks a bit ramshackle.

I like the way you keep comparing Galway to Stockholm - a capital city that has a ring road (like our prospective road it's much objected to). I much prefer a comparison to somewhere like Lorient - a regional town (which Galway is) which has a decent bus network, which is run reasonable efficiently (or at least it was when I was there in the mid 90s). I could throw in my experiences in Berlin, but that it also a capital city so not a fair comparison.

I wonder how many locations you'll find good PT in where the traffic has to go through the center of town to get across it.

Iwannahurl · 20-09-2011 1:54pm

antoobrien wrote: »

So am I in more than one city on this Island. The difference between us is that I don't have a persecution complex about being a cyclist or pedestrian, and my views on roads come from investigation of figures not based on sitting in traffic.

I like the way you keep comparing Galway to Stockholm - a capital city that has a ring road (like our prospective road it's much objected to). I much prefer a comparison to somewhere like Lorient - a regional town (which Galway is) which has a decent bus network, which is run reasonable efficiently (or at least it was when I was there in the mid 90s). I could throw in my experiences in Berlin, but that it also a capital city so not a fair comparison.

Two other differences you may wish to note. I don't mind-read, and I don't sit in traffic.

I haven't compared Galway to Stockholm. What I have in mind is the ability of planners in these European cities to organise traffic and transportation efficiently, and of the citizenry to resist car dependence. A small city like Galway ought to find such things easier. Instead we have people driving their kids 800 metres to school and parking on the footpaths and cycle lanes, all the while lamenting the lack of a bypass and the removal of roundabouts.

Once you experience such efficiency and responsibility elsewhere, the Irish lack of same jars a bit. An earlier poster mentioned our "closer to Boston than Berlin" tendencies. Our preference for private versus public transport may be part of that syndrome.

Iwannahurl · 20-09-2011 1:57pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Did you ever see the bottleneck in Athlone?

That used to be the N6 Galway-Dublin road, HGVs and all.

According to the 2006 Census, 67% of people in Athlone travel to work by car, either as a driver or passenger.

44% of Athlone residents travelled a distance of 4 km or less to work. 12.5% travelled 1 km or less. Interestingly, almost one in five respondents didn't answer this question, mainly because the 2006 Census asked it in metric units for the first time. Another way in which we Irish tend to be stubbornly non-European.

invinciblePRSTV · 20-09-2011 2:14pm

antoobrien wrote: »

Again with the alternatives - are you telling us that we should just ignore them and wait for them to decide to move to town(s)? Should we decide to support 1/2/3+towns in a county - remember the top 4 counties by area covered take up more than 1/3 of the landmass of the republic and it's a long way from Clifden to Galway city - are you suggesting we abandon everything west of the corrib?

Are these places not 'ignored' already, eg PT options, besides school buses, are limited or non existant and road infrastructure is basic? you realise it's cost prohibitive to provide extensive PT and decent road links to every settlement haphazardly developed within the long distance commuting radius of every Irish urban area?

That's why we need to focus all commercial and residential development as possible, so the few resources the DoT does have can be spent in as efficient a manner as possible.

antoobrien wrote: »

Are you suggest ing we should forc ethese people to move, potentially creating another Knocknatallagh, Darndale or Dolphins Barn?

Nope, I'm suggesting a rigorous planning regime should be put in place the likes of which Galway has never seen.

antoobrien wrote: »

Now I know you know nothing about Galway but what you read from certain sources (not many of which know anything about Galway either). Shopping centers have been developed either within the City limits or in towns like Oranmore, Tuam, Athenry, Loughrea, Ballinasloe. Why - because these places (which are all well established towns) have the required facilities and amenities and the people living in the towns and their hinterlands cant get into Galway for various reasons mainly die to the lack of any kind of planning.

Perhaps you're not following the train of thought in my post but it really is rather simple: build infrastructure like the GCOB & M17/18 and spiv local politicians,and their special interests buddies, of which the wesht is famous for will see these developments as the perfect chance to engage in exactly the kind of unsustainable developments other cities have seen when they've had their BP's built.

antoobrien wrote: »

Estates have been created in towns/villages int he area surrounding Galway in, with the same pattern of development that emerged in Dublin in the 50s & 60s starting to emerge in Galway.

Yeah but we've also seen rampant one off housing and ghost estates built in Co. Galway and further afield, just like in the rest of the country. Pretty much every major Irish town or city can point to some examples of properly planned area's but those are isolated examples, by and large the cities of Dublin, Cork, limerick and probably Galway have developed or will develop on a sprawl like exurb basis.

antoobrien wrote: »

You're skeptical about the bypass, the first published documents are from 1999 - a rare bit of foresight for GCC. Between the 1996 & 2002 censuses the population grew by 15%, with a further 8.8% in the county. There was no attempt at catering for this with PT so don't make me laugh. In 1999 the population of the city was about 61,500 (1996 figure 57241, average growth rate 2.5% over the 6 year cencus period), it's now 75,414. If you take a look at Galway city, the doubled in population between 71 & 96 (25 years), with the current growth rate being the lowest since 1961.

I'm not sceptical about the bypass, I'm sceptical about the knock on effects the bypass will have on Galways local authorities and beal bocht local interests if that makes sense.

antoobrien wrote: »

On PT efforts, the Galway Smarter Travel plan appears to be predicated on 2006 trip levels (to work & education, see page 5 of the doc).

They appear to be only taking into account 4k extra trips over a 14 year period, with no growth at all in trips between 2015 & 2020. That seems optimistically small given a historical growth rate from the 50s to the current day of roughly 1/8 extra being added to the city's population per census period.

People wonder why people give out about not estimating capacity correctly - things like this are a good example. They haven't learned anything from the estimates of the usage road network and now they appear to be making the same mistakes with PT. Over capacity is not a bad thing in itself (of course things like planning have to happen to maintain the balance)- under capacity is far worse.

PT just isn't a priority for Irish government or local authorities.

Zubeneschamali · 20-09-2011 2:30pm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

According to the 2006 Census, 67% of people in Athlone travel to work by car, either as a driver or passenger.

That only counts against the usefulness of the bypass if you believe that people travelling by car is in itself bad.

Athlone had a chronic congestion problem, with the N6 travelling the length of the town, through that bottleneck and over the only Shannon bridge for many miles up or downriver. The bypass sorted out that congestion. It didn't turn Athlone into a cycling mecca, but then, it wasn't intended to.

antoobrien · 20-09-2011 4:01pm

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Are these places not 'ignored' already, eg PT options, besides school buses, are limited or non existant and road infrastructure is basic? you realise it's cost prohibitive to provide extensive PT and decent road links to every settlement haphazardly developed within the long distance commuting radius of every Irish urban area?

That's why we need to focus all commercial and residential development as possible, so the few resources the DoT does have can be spent in as efficient a manner as possible.

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

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Perhaps you're not following the train of thought in my post but it really is rather simple: build infrastructure like the GCOB & M17/18 and spiv local politicians,and their special interests buddies, of which the wesht is famous for will see these developments as the perfect chance to engage in exactly the kind of unsustainable developments other cities have seen when they've had their BP's built.

Followed and dismissed as private car bashing.

And for the love of god, loike, stop talking loike a d4 head loike.

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

PT just isn't a priority for Irish government or local authorities.

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

The Mayor of Galway has slammed City Council management and accused them of being shortsighted in their efforts to alleviate traffic problems in Galway.

And she insisted councillors only voted in favour of plans to replace city roundabouts with signalised junctions because of warnings by officials that €6m in funding would be withdrawn by Government.

“There appears to be a problematic system within the City Council that continues to come up with agendas that are proven to be inadequate when it is too late e.g. Moneenageisha junction, the Eyre Square upgrade fiasco and the cryptosporidium crisis to name but a few,” Mayor Hildegarde Naughton told the Connacht Sentinel.

She added that she had been professionally advised that there is no need to remove the roundabouts.

Mayor Naughton – who was one of the five councillors who voted against the plans last week – said: “Councillors voted in favour of removing the roundabouts because they were told if they didn’t, we would lose the €6m in funding. There should have been alternatives looked at.

“We should use common sense – we should put the Urban Traffic Control system in place first, analyse traffic flow and know exactly how to proceed. I’m not convinced that removing roundabouts is the answer.

“We gave our power over to officials by voting the project through. If we voted against it, there would have been a need for an alternative, and I believe that we would have come up with an alternative.

“I have made a stand on behalf of the citizens of Galway, and based on the professional expertise I have received from outside the City Council.

Iwannahurl · 21-09-2011 12:21am

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That only counts against the usefulness of the bypass if you believe that people travelling by car is in itself bad.

Athlone had a chronic congestion problem, with the N6 travelling the length of the town, through that bottleneck and over the only Shannon bridge for many miles up or downriver. The bypass sorted out that congestion. It didn't turn Athlone into a cycling mecca, but then, it wasn't intended to.

I would contend that it's possible to be in favour of -- or at least not to be against -- any particular bypass, yet to oppose certain effects of such infrastructure.

Bypasses provide opportunities, and making certain choices above others may have opportunity costs.

"If you believe that people travelling by car is in itself bad": this raises the question of values as well as costs.

In the case of Athlone, the bypass didn't turn this small town into a "cycling Mecca" (3% modal share of commuters) despite the small distances involved and the nature of the terrain, eg not being hilly like Cork. Neither did this small town turn into a walking Mecca (15%) or a bus Mecca (3%).

It didn't turn into a Mecca for children walking to primary school, since 47% of them travelled by car in 2006.

It didn't turn into a Mecca for walking or cycling to secondary school either, since 37% travelled by car as a passenger, while a total of 12 students drove to school in their own cars (four less than went by bike).

However, the fact that three times as many girls drove their own cars to secondary school than went by bike might suggest that Athlone is a Mecca for female school-going motorists aged 13-18. As long as you don't look too hard at the actual numbers: three drivers and one cyclist.

The Athlone bypass, of course, was constructed in the early 1990s I believe, long before Transport 21, the National Spatial Strategy, Kyoto, National Climate Change Strategy, Smarter Travel and PR rhetoric about giving the heart of a city back to its people.

It therefore wasn't "intended" to give the heart of Athlone back to its "people" presumably, just to take passing cars and HGVs off the narrow streets that couldn't handle such through traffic.

But do new and planned bypasses have different categories of effect I wonder: intended effects that are declared, intended effects that are undeclared, and actual intended or unintended effects that may only become apparent over time?

A city like Copenhagen may be planning to construct a major new bypass, but you can be sure that it is intended to complement other transport and planning decisions. If they say its purpose is to remove a substantial amount of road traffic from the centre of Copenhagen then that's what it will do. And they won't fill the gaps with new traffic either. It will be buses and bikes for the most part. That's their values.

What are the Irish values underlying the planning and construction of bypasses in places like Cork and Galway? And what are the intended effects?

Iwannahurl · 21-09-2011 12:25am

antoobrien wrote: »

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

No doubt she'll be revealing all the details of that professional advice soon.

I wonder (a) whether she paid for it out of her own pocket and (b) if it's on paper?

veryangryman · 21-09-2011 4:28am

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What are the Irish values underlying the planning and construction of bypasses in places like Cork and Galway? And what are the intended effects?

Values? Really? These values are just the planners being practical - stop painting them as some airy fairy types that are holier than thou. Theyre normal regular joes like you and me.

Asides from the fact that your post meanders and repeats words over and over again, (IOU 1 Thesaurus signed God), its actually a head wreck at this stage reading it. Why do I? I like this forum. Most posters speak sense and help to educate one on infrastructural matters.

Zubeneschamali · 21-09-2011 9:35am

Iwannahurl wrote: »

In the case of Athlone, the bypass didn't turn this small town into a "cycling Mecca" (3% modal share of commuters) despite the small distances involved and the nature of the terrain, eg not being hilly like Cork. Neither did this small town turn into a walking Mecca (15%) or a bus Mecca (3%).

Correct. In order to turn Athlone into a cycling, walking and bussing Mecca, you would have to introduce really oppressive, punitive anti-car measures, and massively upgrade pedestrian, cycling and public transport infrastructure.

This would be extremely expensive, and make you about as popular as Brian Cowen in the process, because Irish people like their cars.

antoobrien · 21-09-2011 9:56am

Iwannahurl wrote: »

No doubt she'll be revealing all the details of that professional advice soon.

I wonder (a) whether she paid for it out of her own pocket and (b) if it's on paper?

I'd like to see both that and the study that told us that the traffic lights were necessary in the first place - I automatically don't trust figures quoted by people that look like they have an agenda (i.e sales blurb which is all I've heard from anyone on the city council), a byproduct of making a living doing R & D.

Iwannahurl · 21-09-2011 10:42am

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Correct. In order to turn Athlone into a cycling, walking and bussing Mecca, you would have to introduce really oppressive, punitive anti-car measures, and massively upgrade pedestrian, cycling and public transport infrastructure.

This would be extremely expensive, and make you about as popular as Brian Cowen in the process, because Irish people like their cars.

So is that one of the main pillars of our transportation and planning policies then: liking cars?

Could we say therefore that if we wanted to select a key indicator for evaluating the benefits of constructing bypasses, one very important one is whether motorists like it or not?

And therefore, if liking cars is a core value, and being popular is a primary objective in the formation and implementation of public policy, can we conclude that any serious proposals aimed at promoting public transport and active travel modes are tantamount to oppression of the citizenry by the state?

veryangryman · 21-09-2011 10:46am

Iwannahurl wrote: »

So is that one of the main pillars of our transportation and planning policies then: liking cars?

Could we say therefore that if we wanted to select a key indicator for evaluating the benefits of constructing bypasses, one very important one is whether motorists like it or not?

And therefore, if liking cars is a core value, and being popular is a primary motive for the formation and implementation of public policy, can we conclude that any serious proposals aimed at promoting public transport and active travel modes are tantamount to oppression of the citizenry by the state?

The majority of it yes Mr Shakespeare. And not just this country either. Its a human thing, not an irish thing

And that would be the case in any country. If people had the choice (and traffic was not an issue), of course they would select using a car over the inconvenience of public transport (waiting in rain/cold, mixing with junkies a la red Luas lines, etc etc)

Cars rock. Fact

Iwannahurl · 21-09-2011 10:50am

veryangryman wrote: »

Cars rock.

And on this rock I will build my bypass.

Zubeneschamali · 21-09-2011 12:02pm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

So is that one of the main pillars of our transportation and planning policies then: liking cars?

I would phrase it as allowing the public to choose.

can we conclude that any serious proposals aimed at promoting public transport and active travel modes are tantamount to oppression of the citizenry by the state?

No. It is possible to promote public transport and active travel by measures like spending more money on them. If you want people to shift, make public transport better. Make cycling or walking safe and convenient, and some people will choose to shift.

What I don't like is the other side of the coin: oppressive measures taken to punish car users in the hopes that they will shift to use crappy public transport, cycle in lethal traffic, walk in all weathers in the pious hope that after they shift, policy will then make PT better, cycling safer and walking warm and dry.

Iwannahurl · 21-09-2011 3:58pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I would phrase it as allowing the public to choose.

No. It is possible to promote public transport and active travel by measures like spending more money on them. If you want people to shift, make public transport better. Make cycling or walking safe and convenient, and some people will choose to shift.

What I don't like is the other side of the coin: oppressive measures taken to punish car users in the hopes that they will shift to use crappy public transport, cycle in lethal traffic, walk in all weathers in the pious hope that after they shift, policy will then make PT better, cycling safer and walking warm and dry.

So it would appear that the order in which things are done is important?

I'll get back to you on the various points you raise later.

In the meantime, can you detail some key examples of "oppressive measures taken to punish car users" that have been implemented in Ireland or other European countries?

antoobrien · 21-09-2011 4:42pm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

So it would appear that the order in which things are done is important?

I'll get back to you on the various points you raise later.

In the meantime, can you detail some key examples of "oppressive measures taken to punish car users" that have been implemented in Ireland or other European countries?

Just to give you a sample of what people think about pt in Ireland, BE announced a €1.1m investment in the bus fleet & information systems.

You may find the comments enlightening, I particularly like the on in bold - something that has to be done if the goal is to entice people out of cars:

John
· 5 hours ago
Rather than wifi, how's about the following changes:

- Buses run on time
- Drivers educated with regard to fares
- Stops are made mandatory

What good is wifi when the bus turns up 20 minutes late, the driver tries to charge you twice the proper fare, and then speeds past your stop later?
Report
Reply
1 reply · active 5 hours ago
+9

pop
· 4 hours ago
I know its thinking outside the box, but why not run the transport infrastructure to suit passengers and not the drivers / unions.
Report
Reply
+6

Dick Barrett
· 4 hours ago
Loos on the long distance buses would be great. Any chance?
Report
Reply
+4

steve
· 5 hours ago
Can they just fix heating systems, was on waterford bus melting in combination of 17-20 degrees outside and heating up full belt, when asked bus driver if he cdould do anything he toldus he couldnt turn off heating but could turn up air conditioner. heat rising from below and coldair pelting down from above, recipe for making people sick
Report
Reply
+3

Flexible
· 4 hours ago
They need to cut the pay of Bus Drivers who are earning the equivalent of junior consultants in EU accession states. That money could then be diverted into further upgrades.
Report
Reply
+2

joey
· 3 hours ago
eh two words, integrated ticketing - LOL!!!!!
Report
Reply
+2

joey
· 3 hours ago
That'll be about 4 new tyres for 2 old buses they way these state tools spend their tax payers money. Most of it will go on meetings on how to divvy it up.
Report
Reply
+1

cash
· 2 hours ago
Start learning to drive a Horse and Cart...we're heading in that direction..
Report
Reply
0

Jokeshopcountry
· 39 minutes ago
Haven't been on a bus for years thank god.
Report
Reply
0

governmenthill
· 3 hours ago
To Pop

If they did that . then the unions would not be able to get their Bonus

Iwannahurl · 22-09-2011 2:12pm

antoobrien wrote: »

Just to give you a sample of what people think about pt in Ireland, BE announced a €1.1m investment in the bus fleet & information systems.

You may find the comments enlightening, I particularly like the on in bold - something that has to be done if the goal is to entice people out of cars:

Here's an arbitrary list of things Irish motorists complain about, IMO, in no particular order.

Traffic congestion (the first and most ironic, since motorists are not stuck in traffic, they are traffic)
Cyclists
Cyclists who prefer to use the road rather than the "cycle lane"
The provision of high-quality cycle facilties if such infrastructure costs money and "punishes" motorists
Too many traffic lights
Too many pedestrian crossings
Pedestrian crossings in the wrong place
"Jaywalkers"
Pedestrianisation
One-way streets
Cyclists going the "wrong way" up one-way streets
30 km/h zones
Traffic congestion in city streets
The poor quality of public transport
Bus lanes
Bus priority measures
Motorists who can't use roundabouts properly
Roundabouts that aren't designed properly
Clogged up roundabouts
The replacement of roundabouts with traffic signals
Roadworks
Potholes and poor road surfaces generally
Car repair costs
"Road Tax"
Motor Tax
VAT (including on fuel)
Excise on fuel
The cost of fuel
Having to do too much driving generally
Anything that interferes with the enjoyment of motoring
Lengthy commutes
Planning policies that would try to restrict car dependent rural housing development
Living in an urban "shoe box" even if it's closer to employment, education, services and amenities
The poor state of rural roads
VRT
NCT
Carbon Tax
Climate change policies
That the weather is too bad to cycle or walk
Flooded roads
Insufficient clearing of icy roads
Insurance costs
Lowering of the alcohol limit for driving
Speed surveillance
Speed limits that are too low
Speed limits that are too high
Too much enforcement
Not enough enforcement
Other motorists driving too slow
Other motorists driving too fast
Lack of parking
Obnoxious parking
Lack of parking enforcement
Overly rigorous parking enforcement
Parking wardens
Clampers
Being asked by pedestrians not to park (illegally) on the footpath
Being asked not to park (inappropriately) in Parent & Child spaces
Too many disabled parking spaces
Not being able to park directly outside shops etc.
Anything regarded as "punitive" or "oppressive" to motorists.

I'm sure there are more.

Yet despite the many complaints, we are to believe that "cars rock".

veryangryman · 22-09-2011 2:27pm

Cars themselves do rock, its the expense/measures which you have outlined above that ruin the pleasure of having one.

As i said, if all things were equal, everybody would prefer to have a car than use PT. Its just a fact. The idea that i can go anywhere on the island anytime 24/7 on a whim is a great thing, made only possible through... a car.

Iwannahurl · 22-09-2011 2:47pm

veryangryman wrote: »

Cars themselves do rock, its the expense/measures which you have outlined above that ruin the pleasure of having one.

As i said, if all things were equal, everybody would prefer to have a car than use PT. Its just a fact. The idea that i can go anywhere on the island anytime 24/7 on a whim is a great thing, made only possible through... a car.

There must be a lot of whimsical people stuck in Galway traffic so!

So motorists keep driving in large numbers even though the "pleasure" is "ruined"?

Yet many insist that they can't or won't take the bus, walk or cycle, and point to the complaints of bus users, for example, as justification...

veryangryman · 22-09-2011 2:58pm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

There must be a lot of whimsical people stuck in Galway traffic so!

So motorists keep driving in large numbers even though the "pleasure" is "ruined"?

Yet many insist that they can't or won't take the bus, walk or cycle, and point to the complaints of bus users, for example, as justification...

Selective reading of my post. "If all things were equal". Of course poor infrastructure and a million other things will pee off any motorist (or cyclist or train/bus user)

If infrastructure for all was good, then those who could afford it would pick the car. And the peoGalweigans would be whimsical characters indeed William. :pac:

antoobrien · 22-09-2011 4:28pm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

we are to believe that "cars rock".

With modern suspensions it's not that hard and it can be fun too - just don't get caught or the owner might have a few (ahem) kind words.

Iwannahurl · 22-09-2011 7:45pm

veryangryman wrote: »

Selective reading of my post. "If all things were equal". Of course poor infrastructure and a million other things will pee off any motorist (or cyclist or train/bus user)

If infrastructure for all was good, then those who could afford it would pick the car. And the peoGalweigans would be whimsical characters indeed William. :pac:

A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool. ~YKW

monument · 22-09-2011 10:54pm

I'm not sure if Iwannahurl is trolling or if he's just trying to provoke people to think or what, but some of the stuff he gets in response in golden...

veryangryman wrote: »

Cars themselves do rock, its the expense/measures which you have outlined above that ruin the pleasure of having one.

As i said, if all things were equal, everybody would prefer to have a car than use PT. Its just a fact. The idea that i can go anywhere on the island anytime 24/7 on a whim is a great thing, made only possible through... a car.

No, sorry, that's not a fact.

How many people want to, or more so do, go anywhere in the county at a whim? Anyway with car sharing like GoCar one does not need to own a car for that, nor do people who own a car need to use it all the time -- the link between car usage and ownership is not as high in many richer countries. Many people own cars but still choose to use public transport, walk or cycle.

Iwannahurl · 22-09-2011 11:15pm

monument wrote: »

I'm not sure if Iwannahurl is trolling or if he's just trying to provoke people to think or what, but some of the stuff he gets in response in golden...

How many people want to, or more so do, go anywhere in the county at a whim? Anyway with car sharing like GoCar one does not need to own a car for that, nor do people who own a car need to use it all the time -- the link between car usage and ownership is not as high in many richer countries. Many people own cars but still choose to use public transport, walk or cycle.

Tut tut.

It's always much easier on Boards to troll rather than to invite thoughtful responses.

Ironically, the thought-provoking approach frequently prompts accusations of trolling, because that's easier than thinking.

Just found this while looking at some evidence-based commentary on climate change:

It is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant, and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting. ~H. L. Mencken

That explains some of the content of more than a few Boards threads...

antoobrien · 23-09-2011 12:03am

monument wrote: »

Anyway with car sharing like GoCar one does not need to own a car for that, nor do people who own a car need to use it all the time [/qopte]

That's a bit like saying I have a tv but choose to got to the pub to watch a match, or listen on the radio.

monument wrote: »

-- the link between car usage and ownership is not as high in many richer countries.

Really, because most of the richer countries on here show higher car ownership.

monument wrote: »

Many people own cars but still choose to use public transport, walk or cycle.

So do I, but then I occasionally like a pint during the day so it'd be silly not to use PT. And as other people have pointed out in various threads PT is not always practical, there's at least one tradesman who posts on here regularly, imagine tring to get a bale of copper pipes onto a bus.

monument · 23-09-2011 12:23am

antoobrien wrote: »

That's a bit like saying I have a tv but choose to got to the pub to watch a match, or listen on the radio.

No, it's more like saying I don't want to drive in rush hour because doing so is not enjoyable and slow so I walk, cycle or take public transport.

antoobrien wrote: »

Really, because most of the richer countries on here show higher car ownership.

I may have phrased that badly. 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.

antoobrien wrote: »

And as other people have pointed out in various threads PT is not always practical, there's at least one tradesman who posts on here regularly, imagine tring to get a bale of copper pipes onto a bus.

Anybody who says and means everybody can use public transport / walk / cycle is just plane silly.

It's not practical for everybody, however, the vast majority of trips in Dublin are possible by a mix of public transport, walking and cycling. A huge percentage are an easy walk or cycle.

Iwannahurl · 23-09-2011 12:34am

antoobrien wrote: »

Really, because most of the richer countries ... show higher car ownership.

Vehicles per capita (2006 figures)
Denmark 649/1000
Ireland 542/1000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita

Bicycle share of trips
Denmark 18% (2001)
Ireland 2% (2006)

http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/irresistible.pdf
http://www.dttas.ie/pressRelease.aspx?Id=242

veryangryman · 23-09-2011 2:24am

monument wrote: »

No, sorry, that's not a fact.

How many people want to, or more so do, go anywhere in the county at a whim?

Off the top of my head....

Shift workers
People who live countryside and work in towns (plenty of them)
People whose employer is in Industrial estates not served by buses (Galway is a great example of this)
People going on staycations (example being getting up early to beat the traffic to things like Reek Sunday - find me a train/bus to that)
Emergencies that can crop up needing fast access to different locations (e.g countryside in county A to countryside in county B - even a taxi probably wont bring you)

Many of those are more "have to" than "want to travel situations but they do make the car a useful commodity nonetheless

antoobrien · 23-09-2011 9:39am

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Bicycle share of trips
Denmark 18% (2001)
Ireland 2% (2006)

http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/irresistible.pdf
http://www.dttas.ie/pressRelease.aspx?Id=242

What the hell has that to do with car ownership figures?

I mean if you're trying to make some kind of link between having no facilities (we do they're called roads), you might want to consider the nature of the two countries involved. Denmark is a small largely urban country, Ireland is a bigger largely rural one|, the whole transport system is based around moving people often long distances to jobs that are concentrated in a small area.

Zubeneschamali · 23-09-2011 9:51am

Iwannahurl wrote: »

In the meantime, can you detail some key examples of "oppressive measures taken to punish car users" that have been implemented in Ireland or other European countries?

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.

antoobrien · 23-09-2011 10:17am

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.

You've missed an important bit here, both of these measures make the city areas slightly less economically viable to locate to.

The second one is something I see the effect of every day - I work for a large multi national and we're fortunate enough to have facilities that allow us to work remotely. Many people use these facilities to avoid coming into Dublin except for meetings or other projects that require face to face interactions. The result - when we had the snow last year there was no major loss in productivity (there was lots of PT disruption, but my house mate was still able to drive into the his office).

While that's all well and good for office work, manufacturing environments require large numbers of people to get in and out or they can't produce the goods they sell - e.g. Boston Scientific or Medtronic (which started out as a CR Baird factory a long time before the bus started going to parkmore).

monument · 23-09-2011 12:08pm

antoobrien wrote: »

You've missed an important bit here, both of these measures make the city areas slightly less economically viable to locate to.

Give the cost of congestion to business and the overall economy, measures to reduce car use, and thus congestion, are more likely to benefit business and the economy and make Dublin more attractive to business.

antoobrien wrote: »

What the hell has that to do with car ownership figures?

I'm guessing he posted it because: With the other figures he posted, it shows the link between car ownership and use is not as strong.

antoobrien wrote: »

I mean if you're trying to make some kind of link between having no facilities (we do they're called roads), you might want to consider the nature of the two countries involved. Denmark is a small largely urban country, Ireland is a bigger largely rural one|, the whole transport system is based around moving people often long distances to jobs that are concentrated in a small area.

Ireland is actually largely urban.

According to the 2006 census, just under 50% of the population commutes 9km or less, and a bit under 60% commute 14km or less.

30% of the population lives in Co Dublin alone. Nearly 40% live in the Greater Dublin Area.

veryangryman wrote: »

Off the top of my head....

Shift workers
People who live countryside and work in towns (plenty of them)
People whose employer is in Industrial estates not served by buses (Galway is a great example of this)
People going on staycations (example being getting up early to beat the traffic to things like Reek Sunday - find me a train/bus to that)
Emergencies that can crop up needing fast access to different locations (e.g countryside in county A to countryside in county B - even a taxi probably wont bring you)

Many of those are more "have to" than "want to travel situations but they do make the car a useful commodity nonetheless

Shift works may commute abnormal hours but they do so much like everybody, that is not going anywhere in the country "at a whim", it's somebody's normal commute.

Galway City is also a great example of a high percent of people using cars when a high percentage have short commutes -- under 5km. If higher amounts of people who could use other modes where enabled to, then business and those who need to use their cars would be less affected by congestion, and it would also lessen the harmful affects of cars. In any case, those trips to industrial estates are to commutes, not "at a whim".

A 'staycations' is for the vast majority of people usually planned rather than "at a whim".

Fair enough, people living in the country are more likely to need cars, but the majority and a growing number of people are living within urban areas.

antoobrien · 23-09-2011 12:15pm

monument wrote: »

According to the 2006 census, just under 50% of the population commutes 9km or less, and a bit under 60% commute 14km or less.

That gives you most of the area between Eyress Sq and:
Clonboo to the north,
Derrydonell east,
Clarinbridge to the south
Furbo to the west.

The vast majority of the this area is not urban, and the vast majority of the rest of county Galway is not urban either, so that makes Galway county about 60% non-urban population.

If take a look I think you'll find a similar pattern outside Dublin & Cork.

monument wrote: »

Galway City is also a great example of a high percent of people using cars when a high percentage have short commutes -- under 5km.

Galway is a city where 26.7% of the people walk to work or school, with a further 4.6% cycling. The total figures for trips up to 5 km (0-1 & 2-4) is 51%.

If you take a look at where the trips are coming from it's places with poor public transport links, Bearna, Castlegar, Dangan, Menlough & Knocknarcara contribute 40% of the trips in this category out of 22 electoral areas in Galway City. No Surprise then that they make up 47.5% of the total trips in cars (driver & passenger) and have a 50/50 split on distances traveled (trips over or under 5km). The vast majority of these trips are local, after all 4km on the road is vastly different to 4km between two points on a map.

monument · 23-09-2011 12:30pm

antoobrien wrote: »

That gives you most of the area between Eyress Sq and:
Clonboo to the north,
Derrydonell east,
Clarinbridge to the south
Furbo to the west.

The vast majority of the this area is not urban, and the vast majority of the rest of county Galway is not urban either, so that makes Galway county about 60% non-urban population.

If take a look I think you'll find a similar pattern outside Dublin & Cork.

Even if Galway is a pretty messed up example of car dependency... As I mentioned, Galway City actually has one of the highest percentages of people who commute less than 5km.

Given Dublin has 30% of the population and the GDA has 40%, and Cork is the second largest city, there's no really that much point talking about the rest of the country without talking about them.

antoobrien · 23-09-2011 1:01pm

monument wrote: »

Given Dublin has 30% of the population and the GDA has 40%, and Cork is the second largest city, there's no really that much point talking about the rest of the country without talking about them.

They being the exception to the rule, what goes on in the 90% of the landmass of the country? It's more rural than urban.

monument · 23-09-2011 1:10pm

antoobrien wrote: »

They being the exception to the rule, what goes on in the 90% of the landmass of the country? It's more rural than urban.

What matters is people and where people live. Most people live in towns and cities, not out in the countryside.

It's no exception to the rule, it is the rule.

antoobrien · 23-09-2011 2:33pm

monument wrote: »

What matters is people and where people live. Most people live in towns and cities, not out in the countryside.

It's no exception to the rule, it is the rule.

From the CSO
2006 state population: 4,239,848
Population within legally defined town boundaries:1,368,068

Aidan1 · 23-09-2011 2:59pm

It's more rural than urban.

You mean if you leave out the 5 cities in the State? Actually not as much as you'd expect. Taking the national figures with the cities included, in 2006 the census found that over 60% of the population lived in cities or 'aggregate town areas'. If you exclude the 1.471m people who lived in the cities (admittedly an understatement because of the border issues with Cork, Limerick and Waterford), there were another 1.1m people living in urban areas, giving an 'urban' population of 44%. In the low population density counties on the western seaboard and midlands (also the counties with the oldest populations, poorest educational profile, and highest concentrations of unoccupied housing as per the 2011 census), there are a large proportion of people living in rural areas, but elsewhere the balance is much more even. Essentially, only a third of the population in 2006 (2011 figures to that level haven't been released yet) lived in open country side (from 'Implementing the NSS, 2010, p.20).

As the review of the NSS also showed however "The strongest growth between 2002 and 2006 took place within the commuter catchment areas of Dublin (5.2% per annum), Galway (3.6% per annum), and Cork (3.5% per annum)." The 2011 figures essentially show exactly the same trend btw.

Check out the map on Page 5 below. It shows clearly that many rural EDs lost population in the last intercensal period (or grew more slowly than the national average). In short, population is becoming increasingly concentrated in or around urban areas. The fact that our cities have general acquired an accompanying spread of low density housing, some of which is in rural areas and can only be served by the private car, is a function of poor planning, rather than any 'love of the car' (which is no different here from anywhere else in the developed world btw).

(the population density map on page 7 is interesting also)

http://www.cso.ie/census/documents/Prelim%20complete.pdf

What has all of this got to do with cars? Well, essentially its already clear that our cities, primarily Dublin but also Cork and Galway, are the primary economic motors of the State. Thats where jobs growth is, and likely to remain. If these areas are to remain as such, they need investment in infrastructure. That means roads, but it also means public transport and cycling. Why? Because in cities, not everyone can use a car. It's a simple fact of life. Galway is a mess, certainly, not least due to underprovision of roads and public transport and extremely bad planning (having people live of one side of a river, and work on another, with very poor links between the two). But merely throwing roads at the problem won't fix it - provide and predict has limits. You have to (a) integrate land use and transport planning, and (b) work on ways of getting people put of their cars.

antoobrien · 23-09-2011 3:16pm

Aidan1 wrote: »

work on ways of getting people put of their cars.

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.

Aidan1 · 23-09-2011 3:58pm

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.

antoobrien · 23-09-2011 4:20pm

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.

Iwannahurl · 23-09-2011 4:31pm

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.

Iwannahurl · 23-09-2011 4:38pm

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.

ei.sdraob · 23-09-2011 4:42pm

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.

Iwannahurl · 23-09-2011 4:51pm

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.

Iwannahurl · 23-09-2011 4:52pm

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.

monument · 23-09-2011 4:53pm

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.

Aidan1 · 23-09-2011 4:58pm

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).

antoobrien · 23-09-2011 4:59pm

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.

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

Comments