M6 - Galway City Ring Road [planning decision pending]

Aontachtoir

xckjoo wrote: »

For years we've thrown more and more money at the healthcare system and they've hired more and more people, yet we've got longer waiting lists and a creakier healthcare system than ever before. Bit like the way we've thrown more and more money at road building but have more traffic than ever before. Time for a different approach or continue to do the same?

Good question. The healthcare service clearly doesn't have enough capacity, and the more healthcare services we provide, the more people seem to be using them. No matter how many operating rooms we build, no matter how big the A&Es are, no matter how many beds we open, there never seems to be enough. Patient numbers keep rising to take account of expansions in service. If this isn't induced demand, how does it meaningfully differ?

So, do we leave people languishing in waiting rooms and on waiting lists? Or do we invest in expanding infrastructure along with more public health measures? What are your thoughts on this?

xckjoo wrote: »

But you do realise all these planning applications and everything around it are costly don't you? I'd say we're in the hole on this project for millions already.

Almost certainly. Most planning applications cost a few million - peanuts in the overall picture, if we're casually talking about spending several hundred million on light rail for Galway. Same with your other objections about scarcity of resources. Of course we are dealing with scarce resources. That's why we're even talking about this.

remfan wrote: »

Having read the summary of the climate action bill I don't see how this makes it any easier to object, what would the basis of any such objection be on the strength of this?

It probably won't. The government may have to show they considered any potential increase in carbon emissions arising from a project and how to eliminate/offset them as part of the planning process, but that will become increasingly irrelevant as electric vehicles take over. Soon we'll have a national car fleet that is quite literally powered by the wind, and the tired old argument that "roads = bad because cars use petrol" can finally be put to bed for good. When that happens, it is hard to see what connection, if any, road projects could be considered to have with climate change.

If the M6 does in fact take a decade to build, the national switch to EVs will be very far advanced.

KrisW1001

Traffic congestion is still a waste of everyone’s time, regardless of how the cars are powered.

The problem with M6 is that it will not fix the problem it is proposed for: give it a couple of years, and the M6 and the old N6 will be just as congested as before.

This has been seen time and time again with road expansion in car-dependent cities: once you build more road space, traffic increases. People shift their driving patterns toward peak periods, and soon the additional capacity is swallowed up again. This is called Induced Demand, and it was described earlier. It’s not some bogeyman invented by environmentalists - it happens everywhere.

You make an analogy to the health service. Hospital capacity is like roads - it is a finite resource, but one that is shared. Also, like roads, it is subject to induced demand: if you expand a local A&E, more people will present there, often with trivial matters that shouldn’t be there, but hey it’s free, isn’t it? But the health service doesn’t build out capacity - it hasn’t been doing that for a long time. Instead, the budget goes into diversion, because you can’t keep building hospitals - pretty soon you run out of money.

N6 is the silver bullet fallacy: the one big thing that’ll fix everything. Keeping your health analogy, it’s like pouring money into a new 500-bed acute hospital because the local government was too lazy to organise funding for multiple smaller projects like diabetes clinics, supports to stop smoking, running educational programmes to combat childhood obesity, or provide additional clinical outreach. The total cost of all those small measures is much smaller, but there’s more admin involved in setting them up, and – more importantly – no big impressive ribbon for the elected officials to cut just before an election.

N6 will cost about €900 million to build as specified. That’s a lot of money, and its high price will starve the city of further transportation investment: politically, it’s hard to ask for more money just after you’ve been handed a billion. If it were my money, I’d spend about €400 million on outer bypass of Galway to tie together the radial routes, and spend the rest on making the city less car-dependant. (I know this is not how transport funding works, and yes, that is another part of the problem). Better bus services, a free or near-free Park+ride system subsidised by a congestion charge (maybe with discounts for cars with 2,3 or more occupants), improved medium-distance cycleways.

riddlinrussell

remfan wrote: »

Having read the summary of the climate action bill I don't see how this makes it any easier to object, what would the basis of any such objection be on the strength of this?

Between now and 2030 there will be a series of 'Carbon budgets' that each dept will need to work within, with less available each year, as a bare result of that you are definitely going to see significant priority changes in departments so they can 'afford' their highest priorities.

Its not necessarily that it makes objections easier, just that the raw calculations on what's 'worth' building are likely going to see a major shift.

cgcsb

riddlinrussell wrote: »

Between now and 2030 there will be a series of 'Carbon budgets' that each dept will need to work within, with less available each year, as a bare result of that you are definitely going to see significant priority changes in departments so they can 'afford' their highest priorities.

Its not necessarily that it makes objections easier, just that the raw calculations on what's 'worth' building are likely going to see a major shift.

With the carbon budgets I would estimate we'll get to 2030 with the M20, M28, M11 to Rosslare and the motorway to Foynes. Maybe the M40 North at a stretch. These will be the last new motorways and most of them are pretty short stretches that basically finish the motorway network, connecting all cities and ports. The Derry motorway is dead I'd say, at least the section south of Monaghan. These roads will be about €3bn to €4bn all in all.

There might be some new dual carriageway stretches on the N4 and N24 but that's basically it. The rest of new road projects will be single carriageway retrofits, safety improvements and bypasses of the more dangerous parts of the secondary route network.

I'd say The Galway Ringroad and the Motorway widening projects in Greater Dublin don't have a snowballs, their feasibility studies and EIAs are flawed at this point.

cgcsb

cgcsb wrote: »

I'd say The Galway Ringroad and the Motorway widening projects in Greater Dublin don't have a snowballs, their feasibility studies and EIAs are flawed at this point.

I have to say, watching the progression of the first bypass through the processes and now the ring road that its truly astounding to see how much attitudes have changed in relation to this road, sustainable travel in Galway, climate change and alternative ways of achieving similar results.

Originally I was an ardent supporter of the original bypass and initially the ring road too (you'll find lots of posts on here from me supporting it) but as I educated myself more on planning, infrastructure, sustainable travel, active travel, etc I came to realise that this ring road could be a 6 lane both-ways motorway and would still not solve Galway's traffic problems.

Aontachtoir

It is interesting to me that so many comments opposing building the bypass are along the lines of "building the bypass AND DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ELSE won't solve Galway's traffic problems, therefore the bypass is the wrong choice."

Of course the bypass won't solve all of Galway's traffic problems by itself. Nobody on earth is claiming that it would, and everyone acknowledges that more PT should be provided in Galway. "Bypass alone" is not on the table in any likely future, and it stretches credibility to suggest that it would ever be. "More PT and better roads" or "more PT and the same roads" are the options that are realistically on offer. Attacking a "bypass only" plan in our current political context is basically attacking a strawman.

what_traffic

riddlinrussell wrote: »

Between now and 2030 there will be a series of 'Carbon budgets' that each dept will need to work within, with less available each year, as a bare result of that you are definitely going to see significant priority changes in departments so they can 'afford' their highest priorities.

Its not necessarily that it makes objections easier, just that the raw calculations on what's 'worth' building are likely going to see a major shift.

This is the issue, the money.
IMF came out yesterday with a report
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/CR/Issues/2021/06/15/Ireland-Selected-Issues-460785 (Page 13)

they reckon we need to spend about 0.9 billion a year on Climate Mitigation measures (very close to the cost of this road at this point with construction inflation etc)

The other problem is that the ARUP stats show that with the Ring Road going ahead, public transport and cycling % of trips are projected in the single digits for the City by 2037

Aontachtoir

Aontachtoir wrote: »

It is interesting to me that so many comments opposing building the bypass are along the lines of "building the bypass AND DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ELSE won't solve Galway's traffic problems, therefore the bypass is the wrong choice."

Of course the bypass won't solve all of Galway's traffic problems by itself. Nobody on earth is claiming that it would, and everyone acknowledges that more PT should be provided in Galway. "Bypass alone" is not on the table in any likely future, and it stretches credibility to suggest that it would ever be. "More PT and better roads" or "more PT and the same roads" are the options that are realistically on offer. Attacking a "bypass only" plan in our current political context is basically attacking a strawman.

Who said that and where? As far as I am aware nobody has said that.

The GTS has set out the next few years of transport development in Galway City. It is broken into ring road, PT, bikes & pedestrian.

The GTS is implementing the bare minimum in terms of an efficient bus service for example, with a spine of bus infrastructure traversing the city which all routes will use to some extent.

Again it does the same for bike and pedestrian infrastructure.

What it also does is make a hilariously poor argument that the ring road is needed.

By laying so much at the feet of the ring road it positions Galway as a car dependant city for the 10 years following its construction by which time they will be in the exact same position and will have no option but to try implement a full network of bus and bike infrastructure. The only difference is it will have to be done when the population will have increased by 50% making it harder to do.

The main difference between the arguments is this, move people or move cars.

If the goal is to move the greatest number of people in the most efficient way possible, in the shortest amount of time, then the answer is infrastructure for sustainable modes.

If the goal is to move cars, build the ring road which will be a bandaid for a decade.

Take a look at the M6 pre-covid. Tailbacks almost back to the Oranmore exit barely over a decade since it opened. Meanwhile the Tuam Rd is as bad as it ever was. There will likely be a post-covid dip in the volumes but within a few years I think its safe to say the tailbacks will be the other side of the Oranmore exit and making their way to Rathmorrisey.

The ring road will be no different.

You also have to remember, the opening date is most likely to be around 2034 and Galway can't wait that long.

Aontachtoir

Dominik Flabby Pantry wrote: »

By laying so much at the feet of the ring road it positions Galway as a car dependant city for the 10 years following its construction by which time they will be in the exact same position and will have no option but to try implement a full network of bus and bike infrastructure. The only difference is it will have to be done when the population will have increased by 50% making it harder to do.

Are you saying that the GTS plan is to build the ring road and not provide anything else? Maybe I have misunderstood your meaning.

Dominik Flabby Pantry wrote: »

The main difference between the arguments is this, move people or move cars.

But that's a false choice. Cars move people. Moving cars moves people. And people overwhelmingly prefer to be moved by cars.

Dominik Flabby Pantry wrote: »

Take a look at the M6 pre-covid. Tailbacks almost back to the Oranmore exit barely over a decade since it opened. Meanwhile the Tuam Rd is as bad as it ever was. There will likely be a post-covid dip in the volumes but within a few years I think its safe to say the tailbacks will be the other side of the Oranmore exit and making their way to Rathmorrisey.

The ring road will be no different.

You also have to remember, the opening date is most likely to be around 2034 and Galway can't wait that long.

I would expect road use to significantly increase if Galway's population is going to go up by 50%, wouldn't you? Shouldn't we plan for that? As far as 2034 is concerned (a date that seems to get pushed inexplicably further into the future any time this claim is brought up), why would Galway have to wait that long for transport investment? Are you suggesting that the plan would be to build the bypass and do nothing else in the meantime?

Aontachtoir

Aontachtoir wrote: »

Are you saying that the GTS plan is to build the ring road and not provide anything else? Maybe I have misunderstood your meaning.

Refer to the 5 paragraphs above the one you quoted

Aontachtoir wrote: »

But that's a false choice. Cars move people. Moving cars moves people.

Sure, inefficiently

Aontachtoir wrote: »

I would expect road use to significantly increase if Galway's population is going to go up by 50%, wouldn't you? Shouldn't we plan for that? As far as 2034 is concerned (a date that seems to get pushed inexplicably further into the future any time this claim is brought up), why would Galway have to wait that long for transport investment? Are you suggesting that the plan would be to build the bypass and do nothing else in the meantime?

No, I'm saying that current plans call for half measures + a ring road.

Again, read my previous post fully. I'm not sure why you continue to maintain this line about the ring road and nothing else, nobody has stated that except you

cgcsb

Aontachtoir wrote: »

It is interesting to me that so many comments opposing building the bypass are along the lines of "building the bypass AND DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ELSE won't solve Galway's traffic problems, therefore the bypass is the wrong choice."

That's because if we spend €100m on public transport improvements in Galway and €1000m on a bypass we'll have wasted €1000m. There's no value in it, we'd be building it for the sake of creating a more difficult traffic situation in the future.

It's not all about Galway you see, that ring road money could be extremely effective at providing sustainable transport solutions anywhere in Ireland.

Aontachtoir

Dominik Flabby Pantry wrote: »

Sure, inefficiently

As inefficiently as empty buses, I suppose.

Dominik Flabby Pantry wrote: »

No, I'm saying that current plans call for half measures + a ring road.

What are "full measures", to you? How would you define and deliver these full measures?

cgcsb wrote: »

That's because if we spend €100m on public transport improvements in Galway and €1000m on a bypass we'll have wasted €1000m. There's no value in it, we'd be building it for the sake of creating a more difficult traffic situation in the future.

But that's such a sweeping statement, and only makes sense if you choose to define any investment in roads as wasted money. If we invest €500m in public transport for Galway, and it doesn't completely eliminate Galway's traffic problems, is that a wasted €500m? Of course not - as long as traffic is reduced somewhat, it will be labelled a successful intervention. I don't see why a different standard should be applied to the "PT+bypass" plan than to the "PT-only" plan.

Besides, I can't see a better way to guarantee a more difficult traffic situation in the future than by point-blank refusing any investment in road capacity even though we know Galway's population is expected to increase by 50% in the coming years. Are all these people just going to ride the bus or cycle? Do we honestly believe that it will be cheaper or easier to fix infrastructure deficits like this a decade from now? Has that ever been the case?

cgcsb

Aontachtoir wrote: »

But that's such a sweeping statement, and only makes sense if you choose to define any investment in roads as wasted money.

Actually no, not all roads are a waste of money. For example the business case for M20 is quite strong. Its just that the Galway ring road is a waste of money.

Aontachtoir wrote: »

If we invest €500m in public transport for Galway, and it doesn't completely eliminate Galway's traffic problems, is that a wasted €500m? Of course not - as long as traffic is reduced somewhat, it will be labelled a successful intervention. I don't see why a different standard should be applied to the "PT+bypass" plan than to the "PT-only" plan.

Because the PT measures will actually reduce traffic somewhat but the modelling shows the ring road will create a worse congestion scenario by 2037.

Aontachtoir wrote: »

Besides, I can't see a better way to guarantee a more difficult traffic situation in the future than by point-blank refusing any investment in road capacity even though we know Galway's population is expected to increase by 50% in the coming years. Are all these people just going to ride the bus or cycle? Do we honestly believe that it will be cheaper or easier to fix infrastructure deficits like this a decade from now? Has that ever been the case?

Because we know now that new roads can't solve capacity issues

veryangryman

cgcsb wrote: »

Because we know now that new roads can't solve capacity issues

They extend capacity. In growing populations that is a good thing. Yes NY and London are choc a bloc for traffic despite great transport systems along with road infrastructure. The point is that the squeeze is less due to the infrastructure.

Have to say it's a farce to say that either roads or public transport "don't solve the problem". Any city worth visiting will be packed regardless of what you build. And will continue to have problems. The trick is to ease said problems

Aontachtoir

Aontachtoir wrote: »

As inefficiently as empty buses, I suppose.

Now now, no need for pettiness. You know full well the buses are not empty

Aontachtoir wrote: »

What are "full measures", to you? How would you define and deliver these full measures?

I've said it several times, but I'll repeat. note this is not an exhaustive list, just what I can recall off the top of my head

Buses

• Full network of bus lanes for all routes
• Priority sequencing at all junctions on bus routes
• Cashless ticketing only
• Middle door alighting
• High frequency on all routes (less than 10 mins)
• Bus lanes on Tuam rd (in and out) all the way to Tuam. Same for Oranmore
• Removal of permission for taxi's in bus lanes

Bikes

• Full network of protected cycle lanes which are segregated from both motor traffic & pedestrians
• Dutch style intersections on all junctions
• Dutch style calming at all entrance/exit points. To include all housing estates, businesses etc
• Large expansion of bike share scheme all across the city to meet "max 5 minute walk" time from each station
• Large expansion on the amount of bike parking spaces
• City center secure parking a la Drury st
• Planning requirement - All apartment blocks must include secure bike parking sufficient to meet 100% bike use
• Bike repair stations located on high traffic routes

Pedestrian

• Implement permeability measures to eliminate as many "long way around" walking routes as possible
• Max 30 second wait at any request crossing lights
• Address all pinch points where paths narrow or disappear
• Review desire lines of pedestrian foot traffic and add safe crossing points wherever its absent
• Survey to identify the "no-go" areas, reasons why (e.g. poor lighting) and address

Cars

• Park n strides (PNS) on all major entry points into the city
• All PNS to be served by a high frequency bus route
• PNS have free parking
• PNS have secure and free bike parking & repair facilities
• PNS to be connected to path & bike lane network

City Center Infrastructure

• Removal of all on street parking except for disabled spots
• Expand width of paths to capture gained space from the above
• Reduce to one-way where pinch points remain
• All one-way streets will be 2 way for pedestrians and bike users
• Provide a network of secure bike hangars across the city for residents with no storage space for bikes
• A 0.50c per customer per day levy on all remaining paid parking spaces in the city to go towards funding all other measures in perpetuity

As for delivery, you would need to talk to the local govt reps for details on that. Pretty much everything I've listed above has been done somewhere in Ireland at some point so its nothing new.

If the above was implemented (along with a few other things I can't think of right now) the net result would be a far higher % of people travelling by bus, bike and on foot, capacity freed up, reduced pollution, densification of the city reducing the need to drive etc etc

The ring road does the exact opposite

CatInABox

remfan wrote: »

Having read the summary of the climate action bill I don't see how this makes it any easier to object, what would the basis of any such objection be on the strength of this?

Previously our Paris Agreement targets had zero legal force in Ireland. After this bill passes, they'll be codified, and any project that doesn't take them into account will face significant difficulties in the courts.

Look at the advice that Matheson are giving out concerning section 5 of the bill

In preparing both Climate Action Plans and the national long term climate strategy, the Minister and the government must consider, among other things, value for money, the need to promote sustainable development and restore, and protect, biodiversity and relevant scientific or technical advice.

Hard to reconcile a lot of that with the ring road.

There's a host of groups lining up to bring this to judicial review, and as we've seen recently, the courts are quite happy to strike down planning approval even from state bodies like ESB over quite minor things. ABP are buckling under their workload, and many major projects are very obviously not getting the scrutiny that they need/deserve, and this is resulting in a lot of successful JRs.

fmlarnapairce

Dominik Flabby Pantry wrote: »

Now now, no need for pettiness. You know full well the buses are not empty



I've said it several times, but I'll repeat. note this is not an exhaustive list, just what I can recall off the top of my head

Buses

• Full network of bus lanes for all routes
• Priority sequencing at all junctions on bus routes
• Cashless ticketing only
• Middle door alighting
• High frequency on all routes (less than 10 mins)
• Bus lanes on Tuam rd (in and out) all the way to Tuam. Same for Oranmore
• Removal of permission for taxi's in bus lanes

Bikes

• Full network of protected cycle lanes which are segregated from both motor traffic & pedestrians
• Dutch style intersections on all junctions
• Dutch style calming at all entrance/exit points. To include all housing estates, businesses etc
• Large expansion of bike share scheme all across the city to meet "max 5 minute walk" time from each station
• Large expansion on the amount of bike parking spaces
• City center secure parking a la Drury st
• Planning requirement - All apartment blocks must include secure bike parking sufficient to meet 100% bike use
• Bike repair stations located on high traffic routes

Pedestrian

• Implement permeability measures to eliminate as many "long way around" walking routes as possible
• Max 30 second wait at any request crossing lights
• Address all pinch points where paths narrow or disappear
• Review desire lines of pedestrian foot traffic and add safe crossing points wherever its absent
• Survey to identify the "no-go" areas, reasons why (e.g. poor lighting) and address

Cars

• Park n strides (PNS) on all major entry points into the city
• All PNS to be served by a high frequency bus route
• PNS have free parking
• PNS have secure and free bike parking & repair facilities
• PNS to be connected to path & bike lane network

City Center Infrastructure

• Removal of all on street parking except for disabled spots
• Expand width of paths to capture gained space from the above
• Reduce to one-way where pinch points remain
• All one-way streets will be 2 way for pedestrians and bike users
• Provide a network of secure bike hangars across the city for residents with no storage space for bikes
• A 0.50c per customer per day levy on all remaining paid parking spaces in the city to go towards funding all other measures in perpetuity

As for delivery, you would need to talk to the local govt reps for details on that. Pretty much everything I've listed above has been done somewhere in Ireland at some point so its nothing new.

If the above was implemented (along with a few other things I can't think of right now) the net result would be a far higher % of people travelling by bus, bike and on foot, capacity freed up, reduced pollution, densification of the city reducing the need to drive etc etc

The ring road does the exact opposite

that is all very impressive, very laudable, and I really want to see it all in place yesterday.

However, I am a commuter from west of corrib (ps that is a large area, with a large population, with currently a huge amount of traffic travelling in and out every day) and I want to get to Parkmore/I am a business owner west of the Corrib and I want to get deliveries or make deliveries/i am a tourist who wants to get from Dublin to west of corrib/i am a hotel,bnb etc owner west of the corrib who wants my guests not to have to sit in traffic for 2 hours on a Fri evening/etc list is not exhaustive.

All above points you listed are about helping people get into the city centre, I suppose to go shopping or wandering around on a sat or whatever, as we do not have a 'business district'. What about us who do not want to go anywhere near the city centre, we want to bypass it? Why can we not have all you say above and also a road so that we can avoid town and that fcuking QB? I just do not get this view that it can only be one or the other, and others saying that this money could be used elsewhere in Ireland to fund x y z. I am only concerned about Galway (I know, how very greedy of me), and I am fed up to the teeth being on that bridge, and everyone i know is the same. I think the only people who are actually against this road are 1) those who will lose their houses or have a road on their backdoor (i understand their pain) and 2) people posting on this site.

i do not care if they reduce the number of exits and entrances to the ring road, but there needs to be a way for people to get around the city, not through it, and PT will not solve that issue, not for those who do not live in the city (but are still citizens etc so deserve to be catered for as much as possible).

Aontachtoir

CatInABox wrote: »

There's a host of groups lining up to bring this to judicial review, and as we've seen recently, the courts are quite happy to strike down planning approval even from state bodies like ESB over quite minor things. ABP are buckling under their workload, and many major projects are very obviously not getting the scrutiny that they need/deserve, and this is resulting in a lot of successful JRs.

Agreed. I expect to see some amendments to these laws once the Greens are out of power. It sounds increasingly like it will not be possible to build the infrastructure we need in a rapidly growing country.

Dominik Flabby Pantry wrote: »

The ring road does the exact opposite

Is that the old strawman of the ring road by itself with absolutely nothing else? Because the inevitable inclusion of PT alongside the ring road would address many of the suggestions you have made.

You promise that your "full measures" will deliver a "far higher percentage" of people walking, cycling, taking the bus, etc. How high is that increase? What figures or modelling are you basing this on? What effect would it have on overall traffic patterns in a growing city? How much would all of this cost?

The significant restrictions on road capacity your "full measures" scheme requires would seem likely to be restrictive enough to normal road users that it would encourage businesses to move out of the city centre to peripheral locations, where they can be more easily accessed by people who choose to or need to drive. Which is fine, I guess, but doesn't that just increase car dependency outside the city?

timmyntc

fmlarnapairce wrote: »

that is all very impressive, very laudable, and I really want to see it all in place yesterday.

However, I am a commuter from west of corrib (ps that is a large area, with a large population, with currently a huge amount of traffic travelling in and out every day) and I want to get to Parkmore/I am a business owner west of the Corrib and I want to get deliveries or make deliveries/i am a tourist who wants to get from Dublin to west of corrib/i am a hotel,bnb etc owner west of the corrib who wants my guests not to have to sit in traffic for 2 hours on a Fri evening/etc list is not exhaustive.

All above points you listed are about helping people get into the city centre, I suppose to go shopping or wandering around on a sat or whatever, as we do not have a 'business district'. What about us who do not want to go anywhere near the city centre, we want to bypass it? Why can we not have all you say above and also a road so that we can avoid town and that fcuking QB? I just do not get this view that it can only be one or the other, and others saying that this money could be used elsewhere in Ireland to fund x y z. I am only concerned about Galway (I know, how very greedy of me), and I am fed up to the teeth being on that bridge, and everyone i know is the same. I think the only people who are actually against this road are 1) those who will lose their houses or have a road on their backdoor (i understand their pain) and 2) people posting on this site.

i do not care if they reduce the number of exits and entrances to the ring road, but there needs to be a way for people to get around the city, not through it, and PT will not solve that issue, not for those who do not live in the city (but are still citizens etc so deserve to be catered for as much as possible).

PT will take traffic off the road, so that people such as yourself who have no option but to drive into or through the city can do so.

Personally I wouldnt be against an actual bypass further out of the city, but the proposed N6 is not that. If they build the N6 GCRR as proposed, it too will succumb to excessive traffic and you will be in the same situation you are now, but with 1bn+ of public money spent on getting us there.

Compo82

This thread must be populated by the most anti-car individuals of any thread on the roads section. There are huge new estates going up on the Ballymoneen rd and Clybaun rd in Knocknacarra, so I don't know where all the traffic is going to go.

I wonder if you took an actual survey of people in Galway and see what percentage is in favour of the bypass, I's say it's well over 70%.

The bypass is needed if Galway is going to grow as a city and if it is to attract further investment from multinationals. I'm not against further public transport but the bypass is needed first before putting in further bus lanes. The Gluas would be just a extreme waste of money as the people along the line would only benefit and Galway is just too small from a Gluas.

fmlarnapairce

fmlarnapairce wrote: »

that is all very impressive, very laudable, and I really want to see it all in place yesterday.

However, I am a commuter from west of corrib (ps that is a large area, with a large population, with currently a huge amount of traffic travelling in and out every day) and I want to get to Parkmore/I am a business owner west of the Corrib and I want to get deliveries or make deliveries/i am a tourist who wants to get from Dublin to west of corrib/i am a hotel,bnb etc owner west of the corrib who wants my guests not to have to sit in traffic for 2 hours on a Fri evening/etc list is not exhaustive.

All above points you listed are about helping people get into the city centre, I suppose to go shopping or wandering around on a sat or whatever, as we do not have a 'business district'. What about us who do not want to go anywhere near the city centre, we want to bypass it? Why can we not have all you say above and also a road so that we can avoid town and that fcuking QB? I just do not get this view that it can only be one or the other, and others saying that this money could be used elsewhere in Ireland to fund x y z. I am only concerned about Galway (I know, how very greedy of me), and I am fed up to the teeth being on that bridge, and everyone i know is the same. I think the only people who are actually against this road are 1) those who will lose their houses or have a road on their backdoor (i understand their pain) and 2) people posting on this site.

i do not care if they reduce the number of exits and entrances to the ring road, but there needs to be a way for people to get around the city, not through it, and PT will not solve that issue, not for those who do not live in the city (but are still citizens etc so deserve to be catered for as much as possible).

Per the planning application the type of traffic you describe equates to 3% of the total volume. You don't build a ring road for that

By reducing the access and appeal of the private car, travellers switch to alternate methods of travel i.e. more sustainable options. Those who have the option (PNS, Bus, Bike, Walk, Train) free up capacity for those who have no option but to use the car.

Aontachtoir wrote: »

Agreed. I expect to see some amendments to these laws once the Greens are out of power. It sounds increasingly like it will not be possible to build the infrastructure we need in a rapidly growing country.

So the claim goes, for the last few decades and yet here we are. The reason this has not been done is because there are limitations on what roadblocks can be put in place to stop objections due to the Aarhus Convention.

Any attempt to thwart this will lose in the courts

Aontachtoir wrote: »

Is that the old strawman of the ring road by itself with absolutely nothing else? Because the inevitable inclusion of PT alongside the ring road would address many of the suggestions you have made.

Asked and answered

Aontachtoir wrote: »

You promise that your "full measures" will deliver a "far higher percentage" of people walking, cycling, taking the bus, etc. How high is that increase? What figures or modelling are you basing this on? What effect would it have on overall traffic patterns in a growing city? How much would all of this cost?

Cost? A lot less than the ring road

As for the rest, evidence from all over the world where similar measures have been carried out e.g. Amsterdam, Paris, London etc

Aontachtoir wrote: »

The significant restrictions on road capacity your "full measures" scheme requires would seem likely to be restrictive enough to normal road users that it would encourage businesses to move out of the city centre to peripheral locations, where they can be more easily accessed by people who choose to or need to drive. Which is fine, I guess, but doesn't that just increase car dependency outside the city?

Whats a non-normal road user?

Where did I say cars couldn't access the city?

cgcsb

Compo82 wrote: »

This thread must be populated by the most anti-car individuals of any thread on the roads section. There are huge new estates going up on the Ballymoneen rd and Clybaun rd in Knocknacarra, so I don't know where all the traffic is going to go.

I wonder if you took an actual survey of people in Galway and see what percentage is in favour of the bypass, I's say it's well over 70%.

The bypass is needed if Galway is going to grow as a city and if it is to attract further investment from multinationals. I'm not against further public transport but the bypass is needed first before putting in further bus lanes. The Gluas would be just a extreme waste of money as the people along the line would only benefit and Galway is just too small from a Gluas.

That's an ironic statement, the modelling shows the bypass would cater to 3% of traffic but the gluas is a waste of money??

KrisW1001

Aontachtoir wrote: »

Is that the old strawman of the ring road by itself with absolutely nothing else?

The reality is that, at the current pricing of around €1bn for the N6 ring road project, it can only be “the ring road by itself with absolutely nothing else”. If this ring road is funded, then Galway won’t be in line for any more transport funding for a long time afterwards.

Given the discussion and how it relates to car dependency versus other modes, this 5 min video sums it up nicely

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

fmlarnapairce

Dominik Flabby Pantry wrote: »

Per the planning application the type of traffic you describe equates to 3% of the total volume. You don't build a ring road for that

I am not sure I can believe that figure (I know, it was put forward by people who want the road built), but if it is true, and only 3% of the traffic are like me, then why is the QB like a car park most of every day? Surely the 97% of city traffic would turn off at the hospital roundabout or(edit) the tesco junction and head into town, why bother crossing the bridge if they do not want to go around the town? To me that would imply that most people want to get from one side of Galway city to the other without going through the city.

As per other (Timmy), I do not care where they put the ring road as long as I am not sitting on the QB moving at 1m/hr. But I imagine for reasons of geography (i.e. river) they have to build it where it is planned to go. But I am not up to speed on that to be honest, just surmising.

timmyntc

fmlarnapairce wrote: »

Dominik Flabby Pantry wrote: »

Per the planning application the type of traffic you describe equates to 3% of the total volume. You don't build a ring road for that

I am not sure I can believe that figure (I know, it was put forward by people who want the road built), but if it is true, and only 3% of the traffic are like me, then why is the QB like a car park most of every day? Surely the 97% of city traffic would turn off at the hospital roundabout or(edit) the tesco junction and head into town, why bother crossing the bridge if they do not want to go around the town? To me that would imply that most people want to get from one side of Galway city to the other without going through the city.

As per other (Timmy), I do not care where they put the ring road as long as I am not sitting on the QB moving at 1m/hr. But I imagine for reasons of geography (i.e. river) they have to build it where it is planned to go. But I am not up to speed on that to be honest, just surmising.

Parkmore and Briarhill are still in "the city" - so traffic going from West of corrib to Parkmore is still city traffic.

The people going to Parkmore or Briarhill could easily be served by buses, or if they live outside the city, park & ride.
That & bus lanes over QCB are the only way to solve your traffic problem. New roads will not.

If you build a bypass, it will get backed up at the Parkmore exit and that will back up onto the bypass itself, and sure enough you will get stuck in traffic there too.

fmlarnapairce

timmyntc wrote: »

fmlarnapairce wrote: »

Parkmore and Briarhill are still in "the city" - so traffic going from West of corrib to Parkmore is still city traffic.

The people going to Parkmore or Briarhill could easily be served by buses, or if they live outside the city, park & ride.
That & bus lanes over QCB are the only way to solve your traffic problem. New roads will not.

If you build a bypass, it will get backed up at the Parkmore exit and that will back up onto the bypass itself, and sure enough you will get stuck in traffic there too.

fair enough, but do you think people from west of corrib are going to drive to a pnr on west of corrib, get on a bus to parkmore/briarhill? maybe they will, I wouldn't chose to anyway unless the PnR service was of a quality that i have never seen existing anywhere in Ireland or the world (on my many ring road based fact finding missions)

timmyntc

timmyntc wrote: »

fair enough, but do you think people from west of corrib are going to drive to a pnr on west of corrib, get on a bus to parkmore/briarhill? maybe they will, I wouldn't chose to anyway unless the PnR service was of a quality that i have never seen existing anywhere in Ireland or the world (on my many ring road based fact finding missions)

If the journey times are
car - 1+ hour
bus - 25 mins
bike - 40 mins / 20 mins for an ebike/scooter (thanks Sam)

Then the alternatives become attractive to a lot of workers.

Pre-covid, when I had the car, any time I went to Dublin I parked up at the red cow P&R and got the Luas in from there. In the case of Galway it would be a bus

Btw, the 3% figure I mentioned which you quoted, thats not mine, that is coming from the ring road planning application and is repeated in the GTS. That is coming from the analysis done by the folks proposing the ring road and I believe their source was the CSO

Sam Russell

Dominik Flabby Pantry wrote: »

If the journey times are
car - 1+ hour
bus - 25 mins
bike - 40 mins

Then the alternatives become attractive to a lot of workers.

Pre-covid, when I had the car, any time I went to Dublin I parked up at the red cow P&R and got the Luas in from there. In the case of Galway it would be a bus

Btw, the 3% figure I mentioned which you quoted, thats not mine, that is coming from the ring road planning application and is repeated in the GTS. That is coming from the analysis done by the folks proposing the ring road and I believe their source was the CSO

You could add:

car - 1+ hour
bus - 25 mins
bike - 40 mins
Electric e-scooter - 15 mins. (This is a game changer if it is legalised).

Another game changer will be the shared cars - like the Dublin Go-cars. And the added option of shared e-scooters, just like the Dublin Bikes.

what_traffic

Dominik Flabby Pantry wrote: »

That is coming from the analysis done by the folks proposing the ring road and I believe their source was the CSO

I think they also did a number plate analysis/surveys as well, been a while since I read up on this part of the ARUP. Its 2015 data? but it will not have changed much since. Galway City is the destination for the vast majority 90%+ of road users on the approach roads to the City