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

Iwannahurl

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Half the town is dug up, was just dug up or is about to be dug up for cyclists pedestrians and buses, what planet are you on.????

The N6 upgrade (removal of roundabouts, installation of signals, implementation of AUTC) is primarily aimed at relieving motorised traffic congestion, although it is also being touted as a benefit for bus users, cyclists and pedestrians.

If that turns out to be the case, then it's a welcome development.

The removal of the roundabouts in particular has been the focus of a hysterical opposition campaign. Good to see certain Councillors showing some vision and determination for once.

So great, a new era for sustainable transport in Galway City? Let's see.

Other changes are coming very slowly, if at all.

What are the chances of Smarter Travel being funded and implemented properly? What are the chances of the National Cycle Policy Framework being taken seriously? Where are the plans for speed control, parking control, traffic calming, more pedestrian priority crossings, one-way street exemptions, removal or alteration of all the other roundabouts, remedial action to fix permeability issues, bus shelters etc?

The point is: serious 'active transport' measures are needed now. Sitting in our cars and moaning about the lack of a bypass until 2017 is not an option, IMO.

what_traffic

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Half the town is dug up, was just dug up or is about to be dug up for cyclists pedestrians and buses, what planet are you on.????

That's untrue. Works currently have not been just for these groups. Majority of the work being undertaken right now today is resurfacing works and they benefit everybody. The traffic light upgrade on the N6/N59 will benefit motorists, cyclists and pedestrians.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

1. Typical landscape in the Barna/Furbo/Tonabrocky area, near the route of the Galway City Outer Bypass. Unspoilt? See photo #5.

Ah take it to the one off thread why don't you.

Galway's problem is not down to a rash of new one off houses - it's down the the changing nature of employment in the country. You might notice that there are increasingly larger numbers of people working in large towns, with decreasing numbers working in smaller towns and the country side.

And since you think that rural dwelling is a new thing here's some figures for you. Taken from the 1956 census there were approx 45k (21k of this Galway city) living in towns/villages of 200 or greater, out of a population of 155k for Galway county, leaving about 110,000 living in one off / rural houses. In 2006 the figures were 115k (72k Galway city) and 230k respectively. That's about 115k living in rural/one off houses.

When they publish the urban area reports (as opposed to the electoral divisions reports which have been published) I'll throw those into the mix as well.

What's the difference in 50 years? Jobs, in quantity and pay.

Sponge Bob

antoobrien wrote: »

Ah take it to the one off thread why don't you.

Galway's problem is not down to a rash of new one off houses - it's down the the changing nature of employment in the country. You might notice that there are increasingly larger numbers of people working in large towns, with decreasing numbers working in smaller towns and the country side.

The flight of employment to LARGE towns is undoubted and certain posters in this thread are unwilling to address this employment flight. It applies to all large towns, not just Galway. On the other hand Tuam and Ballinasloe have lost many of _their_ employers with no replacements in sight.

There is also an element of flight out of these large towns to build one offs , particularly among the middle classes who simply loathe the substandard noisy shoe box semis built in Galway City in the past 50 years and can afford to escape from them.

One simple solution is to build proper houses with soundproofing in the city itself but we kinda missed the boat on that one did we not?? :cool:

tharlear

6. Several large detached houses recently constructed on formerly rural boreen. Galway County Council practice for many years has been to require the setting back of the frontage of such properties. National guidelines since 2005, as set out in the policy document Sustainable Rural Housing: Guidelines for Planning Authorities state:
The removal of existing roadside boundaries, except to the extent that this is needed for a new entrance, should be avoided where at all possible except where required for traffic safety purposes. Roadside boundaries, whether hedgerows, sod and stone bank, stone wall or other boundaries, provide important features that are elements of both the landscape and ecology of rural areas. The retention of such boundary treatments assists in absorbing new rural housing into its surrounding and should generally be encouraged.

There is little or no evidence that these guidelines have had any impact on County Galway “one-off” construction in recent years.

My uncle’s house in rural south Galway has a similar set back of the wall from the road.
House was built in the late 1800’s and the wall is a photo from 30’s. It’s a common feature.

7. Another narrow boreen featuring several “one-off” houses, some constructed within the last 3-5 years or even more recently. The surface and edges of the road – more likely a cart track, historically — have been damaged by traffic that it was never built to sustain.


8. Another boreen where the long-established boundary of hedgerows, earth banks and stone walls have been obliterated to make room for large detached sites and their frontages. The surface of this road is pitted with potholes, while the edges are crumbling to traffic passing in both directions. Such roads were never designed for regular car traffic of this nature, and maintaining them (wherever and whenever possible) is a major cost for the local authority.

But the population when these roads were built was many times larger than it is today. I would guess that tractors and trucks hauling milk etc do more damage to roads than any private car. For example near my uncle’s farm which is over 30 km from the city over 15 houses have been built in the last 20 years. Approx 8 by children of farmers, another 4 from people outside the area. . 3 of the houses were built to move people out of flooding prone areas, 2 of which were 80 year old dwellings
However they are still less houses in the area than there were 1950’s. Many of the old cottages and land commission houses that were abandoned in the 30’s 40’s and 50’s are now barley visible if they have not been knocked. 6 of the 15 houses are on the sites where farms/cottages/houses once stood.

GALWAY total City County
1841 441822 26979 414843
1851 323391 29878 293513
1861 272741 21464 251277
1871 247390 16992 230398
1881 239827 16607 223220
1891 212737 14771 197966
1901 196871 14243 182628
1911 186369 13990 172379
1926 173521 14858 158663
1936 172031 18930 153101
1951 163632 22035 141597
1961 151919 23686 128233
1971 151041 29495 121546
1981 173849 41116 132733
1991 177931 47284 130647
2002 201008 56750 144258
2011 250000 75414 174586



Population bottoms out in 1970, where we see the beginning of bungalow “blitz”,

population of county with all the one's is only up 50000
(tried to load a chart but could not figure it out)

9. According to the current Galway County development plan, the Council “acknowledges” that “some persons from urban areas seek a rural lifestyle with the option of working in and travelling to and from, nearby larger cities and towns.” These lifestyle-motivated urban rural dwellers evidently favour substantial detached properties far larger than the typical 105-125 sq metre semi-detached homes in the town or city, such as this split-level residence on an extensive elevated site west of Galway City.

And finally we have the real answer to why we have so much one off housing built in the last 20 years, "the size of the typically overpriced typical 105-125 sq metre semi-detached homes in the town or city"
People are voting were there feet (wheels) and refusing to buy what they don’t want. Development of proper suburbs with reasonable sized houses and gardens was prevented. Just compare the gardens in the old housing estates in salthill (glenard) to the 80’s in clybaun to the 90’s in clybaun to the 00’s off the distributer road. Ever decreasing until there was nothing left but ironically place to park cars in front of the house/apt. These small lots were forced on people thru a combination of developer greed backed up by political correctness (which they did not believe). Those with the means, built what they wanted where they could, with the same politicians help

antoobrien

please clean up the quotes - it's nearly impossible to follow

edit: If you want to load a chart take a screenshot and attach the image

what_traffic

Wednesday, 14 September 2011

N6 bus lanes will cause more problems
http://www.galwayindependent.com/letters/letters/n6-bus-lanes-will-cause-more-problems-20110914/

"
The 2011 Census shows that population has increased in Galway county. It is now 99,813, an increase of ten per cent. The population within the city is 75,127. This has implications for our transport infrastructure and has to be factored into any changes.

Sincerely,
Cllr Nuala Nolan,
24 Bowling Green
Galway

"
she also states:
"
The N6 was originally meant to be a ring road not an urban street and it is clear that this must be a free flow traffic area at least as far as Terryland. It is a national road directly linked to the motorway, so putting in bus lanes on the N6 will naturally mean less space for motorists. This will cause more problems than it will solve.
"
This is the first I have heard of this? I believe this is misinformation on her part as I cannot see Bus Lane idea being a runner on any section of the N6 until the GCOB is built?

antoobrien

what_traffic wrote: »

Wednesday, 14 September 2011

N6 bus lanes will cause more problems
http://www.galwayindependent.com/letters/letters/n6-bus-lanes-will-cause-more-problems-20110914/

"
The 2011 Census shows that population has increased in Galway county.

Probably referring to the Galway Metropolitan Area* referred to in the city council smarter travel area

* delusions of grandeur possibly?

what_traffic

antoobrien wrote: »

Probably referring to the Galway Metropolitan Area* referred to in the city council smarter travel area

* delusions of grandeur possibly?

Thanks. That makes alot more sense - was wondering did the Galway Indo have any proof readers at all. I suppose "Galway Metropolitan Area" would include Barna, Moycullen, Claregalway and Oranmore?

Sponge Bob

what_traffic wrote: »

T I suppose "Galway Metropolitan Area" would include Barna, Moycullen, Claregalway and Oranmore?

Everywhere for 20 miles should be including and including Tuam Loughrea Oughterard Gort and Rossaveal + points in between.

The population growth projections are a tad crazy but they were supplied by the Dept of the Environment as official projections I'll wager.

http://www.galwaycity.ie/AllServices/RoadsandTraffic/Publications/FileEnglish,4857,en.pdf

See page 18 for the map. I'd have thought nearer 150,000 meself.

what_traffic

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Everywhere for 20 miles should be including and including Tuam Loughrea Oughterard Gort and Rossaveal + points in between.

The population growth projections are a tad crazy but they were supplied by the Dept of the Environment as official projections I'll wager.

http://www.galwaycity.ie/AllServices/RoadsandTraffic/Publications/FileEnglish,4857,en.pdf

See page 18 for the map. I'd have thought nearer 150,000 meself.

But what makes up the figure in her letter "99,813"?

what_traffic

Anybody know if new plans are being drawn up by Galway Councty Council for the N59/R335 section of the GCOB i.e the part An Bord Pleanala shot down?
Are they going to submit one of the other proposed routes? Cannot see the GCOB being anywhere as effective for the West side of the city and South Connemara until this section is included?

?Cee?view

On the subject of the GCOB, as opposed to bicycles, does anyone know if anything has happened with the case in Europe?

Are they any closer to a decision?

antoobrien

what_traffic wrote: »

But what makes up the figure in her letter "99,813"?

Somehow i've came out with 11 more (probably 1/2 small errors in the numbers) but it looks like Galway City & the populations of the following electoral areas as taken from this years census:

042 Baile an Teampaill (Part Rural), Co. Galway 1,460
043 Ballynacourty, Co. Galway 1,161
044 Bearna (Part Rural), Co. Galway 3,725
046 An Carn Mór, Co. Galway 2,604
047 Ceathrú an Bhrúnaigh (Part Rural), Co. Galway 905
048 Baile Chláir, Co. Galway 2,008
049 Clarinbridge, Co. Galway 3,271
050 Deerpark, Co. Galway 1,314
051 Na Forbacha, Co. Galway 1,313
052 Galway Rural (Part Rural), Co. Galway 126
059 Maigh Cuilinn, Co. Galway 2,006
060 Oranmore, Co. Galway 4,321
075 Kiltullagh, Co. Galway 196 - Monivea road near the airport, not off the M6
Total 24,410
Galway City 75,414
Total Area 99,824

Sponge Bob

Crudely 8 miles from Eyre Square, substitute clonboo/annaghdown for Kiltullagh maybe.

antoobrien

churchview wrote: »

On the subject of the GCOB, as opposed to bicycles, does anyone know if anything has happened with the case in Europe?

Are they any closer to a decision?

I was right back in april, they hadn't referred the questions to the ECJ.

It has been officially referred to Europe as of May of this year.

A quick google revealed an article from the times in May, this quite gives a concise summary of the case:

The planning board found that while the road would have “localised severe impact” on part of the Lough Corrib conservation area, this did not “adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned”.

However, environmental campaigner Peter Sweetman claimed An Bord Pleanála was wrong in its interpretation of the habitats directive. His challenge to the board’s decision is supported by Ireland, the Attorney General, and the Minister for Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

In its referral to Europe, the Supreme Court said the “essential legal issue in respect of which a response from the Court of Justice is sought” related to whether a body such as An Bord Pleanála had authority to approve development which involved “the destruction and permanent loss” of part of a listed priority habitat, other than in special exemptions under the habitats directive itself.

The Supreme Court is also seeking clarity on the “true construction” of phrases such as “adverse effect on the integrity of the site”.

Last June the five-judge Supreme Court, presided over by the Chief Justice, Mr Justice John Murray, granted the application for referral to the European Court of Justice.

Earlier this month, the Courts Service wrote to the parties involved to say the request had been sent to that court.

Full text: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0531/1224298147042.html

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Ah take it to the one off thread why don't you.

Galway's problem is not down to a rash of new one off houses - it's down the the changing nature of employment in the country. You might notice that there are increasingly larger numbers of people working in large towns, with decreasing numbers working in smaller towns and the country side.

And since you think that rural dwelling is a new thing here's some figures for you. Taken from the 1956 census there were approx 45k (21k of this Galway city) living in towns/villages of 200 or greater, out of a population of 155k for Galway county, leaving about 110,000 living in one off / rural houses. In 2006 the figures were 115k (72k Galway city) and 230k respectively. That's about 115k living in rural/one off houses.

When they publish the urban area reports (as opposed to the electoral divisions reports which have been published) I'll throw those into the mix as well.

What's the difference in 50 years? Jobs, in quantity and pay.

I wasn't aware of a "one off thread" but I'll certainly take a look at it.

Boards has its own internal logic, but the issue of one-off housing in County Galway and environs is very germane to the bypass issue, IMO, so I think it belongs in this thread too.

You developed a (thankfully brief) fixation earlier with the inadequacies of James Nix's analyses. However, IIRC you haven't acknowledged at all those regional strategies and analyses that I have referred to, such as the Galway Transportation and Planning Study which specifically identifies "sporadic and uncoordinated development within the rural hinterlands of Galway City and County" as a cause both of traffic congestion and of unviable public transport.

The Sustainable Rural Housing Guidelines refer to these hinterlands as "rural areas under strong urban influence" and also point out that in the West "up to 70% [of households] live in the open countryside".

It is evident that the many thousands of urban rural-dwellers (many of them households with two cars or even more) in the wide swathe of commuter-land around Galway City are not only putting pressure on the all the boreens and bog roads leading to their haciendas, but also on the arterial routes leading to and through the city itself.

Populism and denial: two of the pillars that have sustained Ireland's political system for decades, as well as paving the way for the Celtic Casino fiasco.

Despite living in one of those "substandard noisy shoe box semis" (funnily enough, still about 25-30% larger than some of the European apartments I've stayed in) I missed the huge clamour from the general electorate for better soundproofing in suburban dwellings. However, I do recall a lot of vehement protests led by FF TDs like Eamon O Cuiv and Frank Fahey against Galway County Council's alleged "dictatorial" attitude to one-off housing.

There is no doubt in my mind that a sizeable portion of the demand for the GCOB is coming either from those who want to facilitate their private car commute from their rambling ranch in remotest Rahoon or else those who see the bypass as a means of facilitating yet more such development well into the future.

At the height of the Celtic Casino construction bubble, here's what a local auctioneer had to say about such prospects:

Galway City and County is governed by development plans which have plan boundaries. If we were to compare what is happening in other towns and cities that have been bypassed, land tends to become zoned inside the ring road, bypass, etc and these roads tend to become the new plan boundary. Areas in Knocknacarra, Bushypark, Menlo, Castlegar, Barna and Briarhill will be opened up. Already there is a local area plan being prepared for a section of land between the Monivea Road, the Tuam Road and the Parkmore Road and inside the GCOB.

And here's another revealing excerpt from the same authors, still on the KMS website:

[The GCOB] will make commuting time from all of these areas much more accessible, creating serious opportunities for land development and providing further opportunities for house buyers, warehouses, commercial buildings, shopping centres and park and ride. Bearing in mind the continuation of the provision of the infrastructural services like sewer, water, energy and roads which will open up enormous development potential.

Iwannahurl

churchview wrote: »

On the subject of the GCOB, as opposed to bicycles, does anyone know if anything has happened with the case in Europe?

Are they any closer to a decision?

antoobrien wrote: »

I was right back in april, they hadn't referred the questions to the ECJ.

It has been officially referred to Europe as of May of this year.

A quick google revealed an article from the times in May, this quite gives a concise summary of the case:

Full text: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0531/1224298147042.html

So on the subject of stalled traffic, as opposed to bicycles, how long must we wait for Godot GCOB?






EDIT:

"However, environmental campaigner Peter Sweetman claimed An Bord Pleanála was wrong in its interpretation of the habitats directive. His challenge to the board’s decision is supported by Ireland, the Attorney General, and the Minister for Environment, Heritage and Local Government."

Sponge Bob wrote: »

... chief time and money waster Sweetman. A right axis of weasels he finds himself in company with.

Looks like the "right axis of weasels" also includes not just the AG and the Minister for EH&LG but this entire country!

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It is evident that the many thousands of urban rural-dwellers (many of them households with two cars or even more) in the wide swathe of commuter-land around Galway City are not only putting pressure on the all the boreens and bog roads leading to their haciendas, but also on the arterial routes leading to and through the city itself.

Populism and denial: two of the pillars that have sustained Ireland's political system for decades, as well as paving the way for the Celtic Casino fiasco.

Despite living in one of those "substandard noisy shoe box semis"

Now I get it, you bought into the casino and are now living in a negative equity house that's a poor quality build and will probably fall down in 10-20 years and can't stand the fact that you can hear the neighbour boiling the kettle. The real problem here is that you're jealous of the people whom you think are rich in the country side and your trying to hide it behind all these reports.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

You developed a (thankfully brief) fixation earlier with the inadequacies of James Nix's analyses.

I'm not the one that suggested we base transport policy (in this case an argument against the bypass) on a report that has flawed data and analysis. I didn't attempt to distance myself from said report and attempted to cover it with other data. I'm not the one that refuses to acknowledge the fact that the findings may be flawed flawed by the data and may undermine the argument being made.

Reading the document again it looks like he collected data specifically to support a proposal for a property tax in line with his ideology.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The Sustainable Rural Housing Guidelines refer to these hinterlands as "rural areas under strong urban influence" and also point out that in the West "up to 70% [of households] live in the open countryside".

Not much changed since the 50's imagine that. Wait no, farming is no longer viable for the population and due to the requirement for large numbers of employees companies are requiring us to travel to towns for work. How inconsiderate of them not to provide us with a property in the town and supply the bus to bring us to work.

I notice you've studiously ignored the fact that there were only 5k more people living in rural Galway (as defined by the cso) in 2006 that there were in 1956.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

At the height of the Celtic Casino construction bubble, here's what a local auctioneer had to say about such prospects:

Galway City and County is governed by development plans which have plan boundaries. If we were to compare what is happening in other towns and cities that have been bypassed, land tends to become zoned inside the ring road, bypass, etc and these roads tend to become the new plan boundary. Areas in Knocknacarra, Bushypark, Menlo, Castlegar, Barna and Briarhill will be opened up. Already there is a local area plan being prepared for a section of land between the Monivea Road, the Tuam Road and the Parkmore Road and inside the GCOB.

I've seen the area plan for the area in bold - it's at least 6 years old (it was before I had to leave Galway as an economic refugee), IIRC it was prepared by the county council, ala Ardaun. It's a fully laid out plan for what would effectively a new fully serviced village - the kind of thing you should be happy about because it shows forward planning. Given your general attitude I'm convinced you're against any kind of development in Galway whatsoever.

By the way the selected route was published in 2001, so it likely that at some property developers have already been conned out of their money for at least some of that land at the height of the boom.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

And here's another revealing excerpt from the same authors, still on the KMS website:

[The GCOB] will make commuting time from all of these areas much more accessible, creating serious opportunities for land development and providing further opportunities for house buyers, warehouses, commercial buildings, shopping centres and park and ride. Bearing in mind the continuation of the provision of the infrastructural services like sewer, water, energy and roads which will open up enormous development potential.

So it's a bad thing that an auctioneer does their job identifies potential business opportunities? If they didn't see them and I was their boss I'd fire them for incompetence.

But seriously instead of pontificating on here maybe you should do something about it like run for office to block rezoning of lands or campaign to have some of the land in any of the areas mentioned to parks or recreational use, with maybe some legislation.

I won't tell you my suggestions on PT because if I ever get money I have a few ideas for setting my own business and I don't want to give the competition any ideas.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Now I get it, you bought into the casino and are now living in a negative equity house that's a poor quality build and will probably fall down in 10-20 years and can't stand the fact that you can hear the neighbour boiling the kettle. The real problem here is that you're jealous of the people whom you think are rich in the country side and your trying to hide it behind all these reports.

I'm not the one that suggested we base transport policy (in this case an argument against the bypass) on a report that has flawed data and analysis. I didn't attempt to distance myself from said report and attempted to cover it with other data. I'm not the one that refuses to acknowledge the fact that the findings may be flawed flawed by the data and may undermine the argument being made.

Reading the document again it looks like he collected data specifically to support a proposal for a property tax in line with his ideology.

Not much changed since the 50's imagine that. Wait no, farming is no longer viable for the population and due to the requirement for large numbers of employees companies are requiring us to travel to towns for work. How inconsiderate of them not to provide us with a property in the town and supply the bus to bring us to work.

I notice you've studiously ignored the fact that there were only 5k more people living in rural Galway (as defined by the cso) in 2006 that there were in 1956.

I've seen the area plan for the area in bold - it's at least 6 years old (it was before I had to leave Galway as an economic refugee), IIRC it was prepared by the county council, ala Ardaun. It's a fully laid out plan for what would effectively a new fully serviced village - the kind of thing you should be happy about because it shows forward planning. Given your general attitude I'm convinced you're against any kind of development in Galway whatsoever.

By the way the selected route was published in 2001, so it likely that at some property developers have already been conned out of their money for at least some of that land at the height of the boom.

So it's a bad thing that an auctioneer does their job identifies potential business opportunities? If they didn't see them and I was their boss I'd fire them for incompetence.

But seriously instead of pontificating on here maybe you should do something about it like run for office to block rezoning of lands or campaign to have some of the land in any of the areas mentioned to parks or recreational use, with maybe some legislation.

I won't tell you my suggestions on PT because if I ever get money I have a few ideas for setting my own business and I don't want to give the competition any ideas.

1. LOL. Good one! Psychic reading, economic analysis, engineer's report and social critique -- all in one.

2. I didn't make such a suggestion either. I unreservedly withdraw my remark that your nixation with James Fix was a brief one.

3. Roll on the property tax. I'll have to pay it too by the way. Unless my house falls down first of course.

4. More LOL. Are you suggesting that the 'dormers', mansions and haciendas dotting the landscape are in the vast majority of cases occupied by rural folk born in the same parish but who now need to drive to Galway City because farming no longer provides sufficient employment? I'm afraid I just don't believe that. In any case, Galway Co Co's own plan (whatever about its practices) regards such development as sporadic, uncoordinated and unsustainable. I don't see this happening elsewhere to the same extent. For example, in Northern Ireland, where the agricultural economy is not vastly different from ours, you do not see the same level of "one off" housing. Comparing the Donegal and Derry landscapes, for example, it is evident that "one off" houses are much more numerous on the RoI side.

5. One good job that auctioneer did was to reveal some people's real ambitions for the GCOB. That is the point I have been making from the outset: the bypass is in theory meant to alleviate traffic, but there is a not insignificant risk that it may not be a permanent or even long term sustainable solution given the development pressures that could be unleashed within and around the city. Nothing outlandish about such prospects, IMO, given this country's record. The Celtic Casino meltdown has certainly put paid to a lot of such ambitions, but do you really think the gombeens are gone forever?

6. The bankrupting of this country by said gombeens has made the GCOB, and any other proposed solutions to Galway's traffic problems, a major economic challenge. But even if the money for the bypass were made available tomorrow, the actual infrastructure is still years away. I'm not prepared to sit and wait, in my car or in my crumbling house (only 1-11 years left before it falls down! :eek:), for the GCOB to materialise. I'd prefer to put my energy into seeking practical solutions now and in the near future.

Sponge Bob

I am heartily sick of Nix and his hysterical green muppetry. Only a few months ago he claimed there was an NRA plan to build a "Motorway" out to Spiddal.

http://planbetter.ie/2011/01/06/nra-buys-up-land-to-force-new-government-into-building-ghost-roads/

In which ...inter alia.....Nix accuses the NRA of buying up land for a Regional Road ( they don't) and in which he constantly equates single lane road and 2+2 road with Motorway ( it ain't) and in which he conflates current and capital spending all the time.

Very few of the listed roads are proposed as motorways.

The man is a self confessed front up for misc loolas in an Taisce and that Peter Sweetmans lot. In fact this planbetter thing is Nix, nobody else seems to have anything to do with it even though they allegedly support him.

This is all dreadfully McGuckian

wiseguy

Iwannahurl wrote: »

1. LOL. Good one! Psychic reading, economic analysis, engineer's report and social critique -- all in one.

2. I didn't make such a suggestion either. I unreservedly withdraw my remark that your nixation with James Fix was a brief one.

3. Roll on the property tax. I'll have to pay it too by the way. Unless my house falls down first of course.

4. More LOL. Are you suggesting that the 'dormers', mansions and haciendas dotting the landscape are in the vast majority of cases occupied by rural folk born in the same parish but who now need to drive to Galway City because farming no longer provides sufficient employment? I'm afraid I just don't believe that. In any case, Galway Co Co's own plan (whatever about its practices) regards such development as sporadic, uncoordinated and unsustainable. I don't see this happening elsewhere to the same extent. For example, in Northern Ireland, where the agricultural economy is not vastly different from ours, you do not see the same level of "one off" housing. Comparing the Donegal and Derry landscapes, for example, it is evident that "one off" houses are much more numerous on the RoI side.

5. One good job that auctioneer did was to reveal some people's real ambitions for the GCOB. That is the point I have been making from the outset: the bypass is in theory meant to alleviate traffic, but there is a not insignificant risk that it may not be a permanent or even long term sustainable solution given the development pressures that could be unleashed within and around the city. Nothing outlandish about such prospects, IMO, given this country's record. The Celtic Casino meltdown has certainly put paid to a lot of such ambitions, but do you really think the gombeens are gone forever?

6. The bankrupting of this country by said gombeens has made the GCOB, and any other proposed solutions to Galway's traffic problems, a major economic challenge. But even if the money for the bypass were made available tomorrow, the actual infrastructure is still years away. I'm not prepared to sit and wait, in my car or in my crumbling house (only 1-11 years left before it falls down! :eek:), for the GCOB to materialise. I'd prefer to put my energy into seeking practical solutions now and in the near future.

Why are Greens|Enviromentalists sound so creepy & sinister at times?
What is this "final solution" of yours? move everyone to ghettos? gas the rest to reduce the carbon footprint?

From a psychology point of view it seems to me that your are full of resentment and jealosy for those people doing better than you, and this is manifested in your desire to drag Galway into the stone age and impose more misery on the people and let the local economy stagnate.

KevR

Iwannahurl wrote: »

4. More LOL. Are you suggesting that the 'dormers', mansions and haciendas dotting the landscape are in the vast majority of cases occupied by rural folk born in the same parish but who now need to drive to Galway City because farming no longer provides sufficient employment? I'm afraid I just don't believe that. In any case, Galway Co Co's own plan (whatever about its practices) regards such development as sporadic, uncoordinated and unsustainable. I don't see this happening elsewhere to the same extent. For example, in Northern Ireland, where the agricultural economy is not vastly different from ours, you do not see the same level of "one off" housing. Comparing the Donegal and Derry landscapes, for example, it is evident that "one off" houses are much more numerous on the RoI side.

5. One good job that auctioneer did was to reveal some people's real ambitions for the GCOB. That is the point I have been making from the outset: the bypass is in theory meant to alleviate traffic, but there is a not insignificant risk that it may not be a permanent or even long term sustainable solution given the development pressures that could be unleashed within and around the city. Nothing outlandish about such prospects, IMO, given this country's record. The Celtic Casino meltdown has certainly put paid to a lot of such ambitions, but do you really think the gombeens are gone forever?

Do these points not contradict each other? Please explain yourself.

Are you against development taking place in County Galway or are you against development taking place in Galway City? It seems to me like you are against both.

In your opinion, should people live in the city so they are near work/schools/shops/colleges/hospitals? People moving to the city from the countryside will result in more development in Galway City.

Or do you not want any development to take place in Galway City? This would involve more people having to live in County Galway.

The population is growing! Development will have to take place somewhere so make your mind up.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

EDIT:

"However, environmental campaigner Peter Sweetman claimed An Bord Pleanála was wrong in its interpretation of the habitats directive. His challenge to the board’s decision is supported by Ireland, the Attorney General, and the Minister for Environment, Heritage and Local Government."

The government minister who at the time happened to be the TD for the area in which Mr Sweetman has his offices - do you find it strange that anything that minister Gormless objected to ideologically Mr Sweetman was the chief opponent?

This is the same minister Gormless who propped up the FF government you show so much disdain for through your comments like celtic casino, helping them to continue the bad planning decisions you so hate and instead of worrying about piffling issues like jobs, planning or making our PT services effective instead started debating fox hunting.

Transport (NRA) supports GCOB, Environment (probably better described as our lack of planning dept) against.

The score is one all, with the High Court (impartial, at least until they rule against your beliefs) asked to referee. Rule against Mr Sweetman.

2-1 to transport

No wait appeal on the spot kick, change of referee - the Supreme court (another impartial body until they say something you don't like). Rule against Mr Sweetman.

2-1 to transport (deja vu)

No wait, another appeal on the spot kick - ECJ asked to referee. Deja Vu again.

So lets see thats the planning authority (APB), The High Court and the Supreme Court ruling that transport have a better case than the dept who failed to plan for our population boom.

Oh well, since we're not allowed to travel to our offices and factories from towns & villages all over the west of Ireland to one of the few places with jobs left, we'll just have to go back to working the land and the horse and cart for transport.

Nope scratch that we can't do that either, since cow farming are regarded by our pseudo environmentalist greens as being nearly as destructive to the environment as motorised transport.

And the horses will sh*t all over the place, are too expensive and will be taken off people by the ispca for not housing them in luxury that we ourselves can't afford because the animal themselves are so expensive to buy and care for.

we're doomed

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

So on the subject of stalled traffic, as opposed to bicycles, how long must we wait for Godot GCOB?

Straw poll, since 'hurl is repeatedly driving the point home about the expected delivery of GCOB being 5-10 years in the future, and nobody is disagreeing, imo this is trolling and an unnecessary insult of a valid question & answer.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74372011&postcount=659
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74391104&postcount=672
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74392417&postcount=675

Iwannahurl

wiseguy wrote: »

Why are Greens|Enviromentalists sound so creepy & sinister at times?
What is this "final solution" of yours? move everyone to ghettos? gas the rest to reduce the carbon footprint?

From a psychology point of view it seems to me that your are full of resentment and jealosy for those people doing better than you, and this is manifested in your desire to drag Galway into the stone age and impose more misery on the people and let the local economy stagnate.

I suspect that creepy feeling you get is primarily due to your apparent paranoia, or at least an over-active imagination.

Then again, you may just like making things from straw.





EDIT: I'm not sure whether to give you the benefit of any doubt in the light of this comment on Mike Godwin's canny observation:

Godwin's Law: prov.
[Usenet] “As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.” There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.

Iwannahurl

KevR wrote: »

Do these points not contradict each other? Please explain yourself.

Are you against development taking place in County Galway or are you against development taking place in Galway City? It seems to me like you are against both.

In your opinion, should people live in the city so they are near work/schools/shops/colleges/hospitals? People moving to the city from the countryside will result in more development in Galway City.

Or do you not want any development to take place in Galway City? This would involve more people having to live in County Galway.

The population is growing! Development will have to take place somewhere so make your mind up.

You seem determined to engage in fanciful speculation about my motives, attitudes and circumstances rather than engage rationally and constructively with the issues I raise, and which are supported with reference to policy documents produced by both local authorities, as well as other external sources.

In any online debate of this kind, it always helps to remember that it's a thread, hence there's a written record that can be checked before making unsubstantiated claims.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74370681&postcount=657

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

The government minister who at the time happened to be the TD for the area in which Mr Sweetman has his offices - do you find it strange that anything that minister Gormless objected to ideologically Mr Sweetman was the chief opponent?

This is the same minister Gormless who propped up the FF government you show so much disdain for through your comments like celtic casino, helping them to continue the bad planning decisions you so hate and instead of worrying about piffling issues like jobs, planning or making our PT services effective instead started debating fox hunting.

Transport (NRA) supports GCOB, Environment (probably better described as our lack of planning dept) against.

The score is one all, with the High Court (impartial, at least until they rule against your beliefs) asked to referee. Rule against Mr Sweetman.

2-1 to transport

No wait appeal on the spot kick, change of referee - the Supreme court (another impartial body until they say something you don't like). Rule against Mr Sweetman.

2-1 to transport (deja vu)

No wait, another appeal on the spot kick - ECJ asked to referee. Deja Vu again.

So lets see thats the planning authority (APB), The High Court and the Supreme Court ruling that transport have a better case than the dept who failed to plan for our population boom.

Oh well, since we're not allowed to travel to our offices and factories from towns & villages all over the west of Ireland to one of the few places with jobs left, we'll just have to go back to working the land and the horse and cart for transport.

Nope scratch that we can't do that either, since cow farming are regarded by our pseudo environmentalist greens as being nearly as destructive to the environment as motorised transport.

And the horses will sh*t all over the place, are too expensive and will be taken off people by the ispca for not housing them in luxury that we ourselves can't afford because the animal themselves are so expensive to buy and care for.

we're doomed

The EU case is a legal one, not a political one, I should think.

The other parties mentioned were "Ireland" and the Attorney General.

The former may be having a doomed love affair with the car, but the AG?

The AG's involvement couldn't possibly be a formal legal one, could it? There couldn't possibly be a major legal issue to be determined at EU level, could there?

Maybe she goes to work by ass and cart and secretly wants us all to do the same?

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Straw poll, since 'hurl is repeatedly driving the point home about the expected delivery of GCOB being 5-10 years in the future, and nobody is disagreeing, imo this is trolling and an unnecessary insult of a valid question & answer.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74372011&postcount=659
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74391104&postcount=672
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74392417&postcount=675

Trolling? Insult?

I don't get it. Is it not a realistic assessment?

I would guess that the legal issues will take a long time to resolve, as they often do.

Then there's the CPOs.

And of course the construction of the bypass itself.

Surely we're looking at a minimum of five years?

When do you think the GCOB will be finished?

dear god can a thread split be done. Im sick of the bickering in this thread

Sponge Bob

Yes can we have a cycling in Galway thread please and throw the last 2 weeks worth of this thread into it.

Iwannahurl

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Yes can we have a cycling in Galway thread please and throw the last 2 weeks worth of this thread into it.

A sizeable chunk of this thread could also be "thrown" into an anti-cycling thread, of which I'll wager there are more than a few on Boards, as you're probably aware.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58318964&postcount=33

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66227155&postcount=312

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68004551&postcount=333

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68004746&postcount=334

Another portion could be "thrown" into a Beckett thread. Or are we still waiting for one?

Other suitable threads for throwing stuff in: Green-bashing, Straw Modelling, Psychic Abilities, Ostrich Studies.

Sarcasm aside, and bearing in mind the tone and content of many posts in the earlier pages of this thread all the way back to 2008, what exactly do you see as the nature and purpose of the overall discussion?

glineli

The sooner this thread is split, the better as its descended into farce!!!

Amtmann

Locking this temporarily for containment purposes.

Amtmann

Thread split. I will read through the whole thing when I get a chance and will retrospectively infract if necessary. In the mean time, thread is open for business again.

EDIT to provide explanation for the thread split:


Now is not a time when I can give a detailed reply (very busy). Basically, the original Galway outer bypass thread was started in 2008 along with other threads for many similar schemes that have since been completed. In 2008, such threads were mainly for Boards.ie road enthusiasts to comment on the design, spec, and construction progress. So, briefly, it was very much a construction and planning thread. Even though this was not explicitly stated in the first post, that was the context under which it was started. Obviously, I would not expect relative newcomers to the forum to know that.

I split the thread because it was being taken in a different direction, with the issue of transport 'culture' and differing perspectives basically taking over the thread. While I do think that such discussions have a place in the forum and am happy to accommodate them, they are tangential to the original purpose of the thread. I have received many complaints over the past few days about the change in direction of the thread, and the split is my solution. The original thread is about design, planning progress and, ultimately, construction; this new thread is for the debate.

RE the name of the new thread, I am happy to change it if suitable alternatives are suggested. As you can see, I edited galwaycyclists' post to make it clear that the OP now is the result of mod intervention.

Irish and Proud

To those who don't think Galway needs a bypass:

Of course Galway needs a bypass - you just don't dump a major road or motorway at the back of a city (especially where it meets only one of the roads therein) with no proper through road to take traffic around it or past it. Even the M3 to Kells (a relatively small town) splits into the N3 Type 2 Dual and N52 Kells Bypass (a proper bypass in that it goes completely around the town). One would expect at least one decent road to take the traffic past Galway, even if it was only a Type 2 Dual with the odd roundabout (of course, it should be motorway though IMO).

Regards!

johngalway

By passing Galway would be fantastic. Not everyone from West of the city who heads East needs, or more importantly, wants to be caught up in that traffic. Being stuck on the road beside another faceless hotel or crappy industrial estate isn't everyones goal

what_traffic

@antoobrien Note that you have not attempted to respond to posts #218 or #220 which pretty clearly show that your post #216 was the real "rubbish" post

antoobrien

what_traffic wrote: »

@antoobrien Note that you have not attempted to repsond to posts #218 or #220 which pretty clearly show that your post #216 was the real "rubbish" post

You accuse me of posting rubbish then don't have the good grace to post links or at least quote what I said, if you're going to criticize at least put some context up for those of us who don't know (or in my case can't remember) which posts you're referring to.

Post 216 was a response to the notion that GCC was very pro motorist, something originally brought up by 'hurl and answered by Sponge Bob in an ongoing slagging match between those two:

Sponge Bob wrote: »

2. The city council did not 'prioritise' cars

To which galwaycyclist responded:

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Sorry but with regret thats just silly. The council have spent 20 years prioritising cars at the expense of all other considerations. Why do you think you are stuck in traffic?

I gave a list of things I think that GCC did where I think motorists were not not prioritised or things were done badly that affected motorists:

antoobrien wrote: »

What utter rubbish.

The following things have been inflicted on motorists over the past 20 years in Galway:
The excessive application of traffic lights (which are supposed to be friendlier to cyclists & pedestrians) and pedestrian crossings - they're usually badly placed so that pedestrians will still prefer to cross 20, 50 or 100 yards away
The "upgrade" of Eyre Square
The shambolic setup of the pedestrian lights at the the junction with Forster St & Eyre Sq
The pedestrianization of the Shop St area (totally cutting off O'Briens bridge to all but local traffic)
The closing of roads, turnoffs and creation of one way systems
Generally counter intuitive junction design
Creating bus lanes on roads where there is not space for 3/4 lanes of traffic
The slip from from the new Quincentenary Bridge to the Headford Road that requires traffic to stop (wtf is up with that - may as well have left that traffic at the lights)
Moneenageesha (I was sitting in a bus on college rd for more than 5 minutes on Saturday waiting for lights to turn, so much for the supposedly PT friendly smart lights)

I can go on, but the obvious is totally lost on you.

In Post 218 hurl doesn't actually dispute that any of these measures are pro-motorist but brings up that the fact that their either bad for cyclists or pedestrians. My post has nothing to do with the pedestrian/cyclist impact, ( granted the first point does acknowledge that some of these things have been done, badly but) the premise of the post is that that motorists have been adversely affected by various measures taken, when GCC is supposed to be so pro motorists that it is "prioritising cars at the expense of all other considerations."

Hurl brings it back to how they are bad for pedestrians or cyclists - which is nothing to do with the original point regarding GCC pandering (my phrasing) to motorists. The fact that GCC have botched the attempts to provide for cyclists and pedestrians - in some cases created worse problems for either or both - is not in question, it merely makes it even more aggravating to motorists.

I happen to agree with some of the things he/she said, but lets stick to the point.

Your own post 220 does the same thing as hurl, you again bring it back to the impact of these measures on cyclist & pedestrians through the hamfisted efforts of GCC. While that's well and good, it completely ignores the premise of my post, so I'll ask you directly:

Do these measures to the benefit of motorists in Galway or do they make the situation worse for motorists?

For the record I agree with some of what you said as well, I'm just trying to break through this false perception that GCC is biased towards motorists - take a look at the mess they've made at scheduling of the road works and the rather head in the sand responses form the council for the latest piss poor example of they treat motorists.

what_traffic wrote: »

@antoobrien Note that you have not attempted to repsond to posts #218 or #220[

MYOB responded to (thanks btw, put far more succinctly than I would have) 'hurls post, and even though yours was posted slight after that, it already dealt with the criticisms in your post, so I don't feel the need to respond.

What yourself and hurl have done here is a classic attempt at moving the debate away from the issue by re-interpreting the original premise, in this case from GCC being so pro car that it is "prioritising cars at the expense of all other considerations." to somehow make it about how these measures, most of which are aimed at making life easier either cyclists or pedestrians, some at aimed at motorists are bad for both.

It may be worth bearing in mind that it's not particularly easy to please everyone, but when attempts to provide something for one group or another backfire it does annoy everyone - and everyone else gets the blame.

By failing to deal with the premise of my post and attempting bring it back to your own hobby horses, your & 'hurl's arguments got what they deserved: being completely ignored as irrelevant. Discussing them would have been to legitimize the distraction from the point - in which case it reverts to the slagging match that 'hurl has been attempting to derail the thread with, eventually causing the split.

Had you even discussed the fact that these measures may be bad for motorists a rational debate might have ensued, in which we would have probably reached agreement on some of the points you raised. We might have even discussed points where some of the measures in question had been successful for one or more of the groups involved. Instead you ignored the premise and went into (what could be construed as) an anti motorist tirade.

I regard the matter as closed, would you like to discuss how they are good or bad for the specific groups, or do you want to go back to the slagging match?

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

What yourself and hurl have done here is a classic attempt at moving the debate away from the issue by re-interpreting the original premise, in this case from GCC being so pro car that it is "prioritising cars at the expense of all other considerations." to somehow make it about how these measures, most of which are aimed at making life easier either cyclists or pedestrians, some at aimed at motorists are bad for both.

It may be worth bearing in mind that it's not particularly easy to please everyone, but when attempts to provide something for one group or another backfire it does annoy everyone - and everyone else gets the blame.

By failing to deal with the premise of my post and attempting bring it back to your own hobby horses, your & 'hurl's arguments got what they deserved: being completely ignored as irrelevant. Discussing them would have been to legitimize the distraction from the point - in which case it reverts to the slagging match that 'hurl has been attempting to derail the thread with, eventually causing the split.

Had you even discussed the fact that these measures may be bad for motorists a rational debate might have ensued, in which we would have probably reached agreement on some of the points you raised. We might have even discussed points where some of the measures in question had been successful for one or more of the groups involved. Instead you ignored the premise and went into (what could be construed as) an anti motorist tirade.

I regard the matter as closed, would you like to discuss how they are good or bad for the specific groups, or do you want to go back to the slagging match?

Part of my earlier assertion (clumsily framed and phrased in certain aspects, and rapidly withdrawn after a Mod PM and in-thread warning) has been somewhat confirmed.

Note: I am referring now to certain posters' interest in this thread, rather than to the Mod's decision (and prerogative) to split the thread. Does that cover me? :eek:

IMO, at no point did I make "a classic attempt at moving the debate away from the issue by re-interpreting the original premise".

Rather I reframed discussion of the points you raised by describing how the alleged motoring inconveniences you described were in fact motoring benefits in some cases (eg one-way streets) and trivial issues in others.

I'm a motorist too, and I can tell you that none of the things you identified have given me the slightest problem when driving whereas they definitely do when cycling or walking.

"Being completely ignored as irrelevant" by whom? "Legitimised" by whom? Who gets to decide what's relevant or legitimate?

As for your accusation that I was "attempting" to derail the other GCOB thread, derail it from what exactly? From its anti-cyclist sneering? From its defamatory descriptions of Bypass objectors as "sociopaths"? From its canonical group-think that there is no room for scepticism about the GCOB in terms of its central role in Galway City transportation policy and development planning?

So is that the shibboleth for entry into the group that decides what's relevant and legitimate: some expression of sympathy that motorists are being treated as badly as cyclists, pedestrians and bus users have for decades?

We had one poster, eventually and inevitably, trying to compare Galway's motorists to the Jews in Nazi Germany.

"Slagging match" in this context is just a euphemism for "a debate where the dominant group won't tolerate dissenting voices". I don't recall the senior club members being too upset about "tirades" when the targets were cyclists, the Green Party, An Taisce, and named individuals specifically identified in the thread and singled out for branding as "sociopaths". See threads below.

churchview wrote: »

An Taisce at one time was quite a reputable organisation in Galway, but now it's gone beyond a joke. If something could be done to get an Taisce to silence or remove Hambleton it would do a lot of good for Galway and, incidentally, for An Taisce.

It's like he's hardwired just to object to everything. Sociopathic describes the attitude very well. There is a total lack of feeling or empathy for the effect that statements and actions have on others.

As usual, Hambleton never lets facts get in the way of his hysteria.

BluntGuy wrote: »

I'm sorry, but I just had to laugh...

I'm a cyclist.

Speaks volumes before we've even begun.

KevR wrote: »

Those cyclists who also have a car and pay motor tax can have a say on the SQR. Those who don't pay any motor tax don't really deserve a say because they're not paying for it in any shape or form

churchview wrote: »

KevR,

I dare you to go over to the Psycholing forum, and say that

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Funny that, the last time I actually saw O Brolcháin was in that very same Ardilaun which was his sort of 'constituency office' when he was a councillor in Galway.

I'd say the FFers would wrap the bike around his neck and drag the bicycle and impaled senator around the Ardilaun carpark tied to a state merc ...more like ...while tweeting back at Dan Boyle of course

what_traffic

antoobrien wrote: »

You accuse me of posting rubbish then don't have the good grace to post links or at least quote what I said, if you're going to criticize at least put some context up for those of us who don't know (or in my case can't remember) which posts you're referring to.

Post 216 was a response to the notion that GCC was very pro motorist, something originally brought up by 'hurl and answered by Sponge Bob in an ongoing slagging match between those two:


To which galwaycyclist responded:


I gave a list of things I think that GCC did where I think motorists were not not prioritised or things were done badly that affected motorists:


In Post 218 hurl doesn't actually dispute that any of these measures are pro-motorist but brings up that the fact that their either bad for cyclists or pedestrians. My post has nothing to do with the pedestrian/cyclist impact, ( granted the first point does acknowledge that some of these things have been done, badly but) the premise of the post is that that motorists have been adversely affected by various measures taken, when GCC is supposed to be so pro motorists that it is "prioritising cars at the expense of all other considerations."

Hurl brings it back to how they are bad for pedestrians or cyclists - which is nothing to do with the original point regarding GCC pandering (my phrasing) to motorists. The fact that GCC have botched the attempts to provide for cyclists and pedestrians - in some cases created worse problems for either or both - is not in question, it merely makes it even more aggravating to motorists.

I happen to agree with some of the things he/she said, but lets stick to the point.

Your own post 220 does the same thing as hurl, you again bring it back to the impact of these measures on cyclist & pedestrians through the hamfisted efforts of GCC. While that's well and good, it completely ignores the premise of my post, so I'll ask you directly:

Do these measures to the benefit of motorists in Galway or do they make the situation worse for motorists?

For the record I agree with some of what you said as well, I'm just trying to break through this false perception that GCC is biased towards motorists - take a look at the mess they've made at scheduling of the road works and the rather head in the sand responses form the council for the latest piss poor example of they treat motorists.



MYOB responded to (thanks btw, put far more succinctly than I would have) 'hurls post, and even though yours was posted slight after that, it already dealt with the criticisms in your post, so I don't feel the need to respond.

What yourself and hurl have done here is a classic attempt at moving the debate away from the issue by re-interpreting the original premise, in this case from GCC being so pro car that it is "prioritising cars at the expense of all other considerations." to somehow make it about how these measures, most of which are aimed at making life easier either cyclists or pedestrians, some at aimed at motorists are bad for both.

It may be worth bearing in mind that it's not particularly easy to please everyone, but when attempts to provide something for one group or another backfire it does annoy everyone - and everyone else gets the blame.

By failing to deal with the premise of my post and attempting bring it back to your own hobby horses, your & 'hurl's arguments got what they deserved: being completely ignored as irrelevant. Discussing them would have been to legitimize the distraction from the point - in which case it reverts to the slagging match that 'hurl has been attempting to derail the thread with, eventually causing the split.

Had you even discussed the fact that these measures may be bad for motorists a rational debate might have ensued, in which we would have probably reached agreement on some of the points you raised. We might have even discussed points where some of the measures in question had been successful for one or more of the groups involved. Instead you ignored the premise and went into (what could be construed as) an anti motorist tirade.

I regard the matter as closed, would you like to discuss how they are good or bad for the specific groups, or do you want to go back to the slagging match?

You where the one who started the slagging.
This reply is a very long winded reply - but at the end of the day you still have not been able to back up anything you said in post Post 216

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Part of my earlier assertion, clumsily framed and phrased, and rapidly withdrawn after a Mod warning, has been somewhat confirmed.

I was wondering why I got that notification in my inbox and why I hadn't seen it before, and indeed can't find it in the thread any more.

Any chance you can pm me what it is I have only seen part of (to avoid further trouble)?

For the record, I'm waiting to see if Tremolo (or any of the other mods) will come back to me about anything I've said on here because I'm aware that there are a few things I've said are borderline (despite trying to stay on the right side of the posting rules), but I'm willing to take the risk because I believe that they need to be said.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

IMO, at no point did I make "a classic attempt at moving the debate away from the issue by re-interpreting the original premise".

Why then do you keep changing the subject back to whatever hobby horses you have about the various topics, and will not discuss something when directly questioned?

I notice, once again, you have dodged an invitation to discuss your criticisms of what I said:

antoobrien wrote: »

Had you even discussed the fact that these measures may be bad for motorists a rational debate might have ensued, in which we would have probably reached agreement on some of the points you raised. We might have even discussed points where some of the measures in question had been successful for one or more of the groups involved.

Please deal with my premise that those items I listed in post 216 are anti-motorist or leave it - your choice.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

"Slagging match" in this context is just a euphemism for "a debate where the dominant group won't tolerate dissenting voices".

Nice definition but wrong, what you're describing is intolerance (there are stronger words I could use but I won't for fear of insulting you). What I was referring to was the lack of manners that yourself, what_traffic, spongebob & I all used used when discussing the premise that GCC is pro car.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I don't recall the senior club members being too upset about "tirades" when the targets were cyclists, the Green Party, An Taisce, and named individuals specifically identified in the thread and singled out for branding as "sociopaths".

Give me a little credit - I have stayed away from using those terms - in order to try to avoid the debate from degenerating into this kind of farce, though I do agree with the assertion that the people you've singled out are somewhat "not all there".

The only thing i attacked was Nix's document with which I found serious factual issues, even then I tried to keep it family and reasonably professional. IMO it's not too much to expect that somebody who expects people to listen his views on planning will come up with realistic figures.

antoobrien

what_traffic wrote: »

You where the one who started the slagging.
This reply is a very long winded reply - but at the end of the day you still have not been able to back up anything you said in post Post 216

Care to discuss the fact that what I said is that the measures are anti motorist?

Sponge Bob

antoobrien wrote: »

Care to discuss the fact that what I said is that the measures are anti motorist?

No they seemingly don't Anto.

But as long as the Galway Green/An Taisce/Cycling/Objectocratic tendency is left an ickle thread to fulminate and thrash about within (and hopefully mainly at each other :cool:) then life goes on apace.

I'm outta this one, forever.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Why then do you keep changing the subject back to whatever hobby horses you have about the various topics, and will not discuss something when directly questioned?

I notice, once again, you have dodged an invitation to discuss your criticisms of what I said:

Please deal with my premise that those items I listed in post 216 are anti-motorist or leave it - your choice.

Changing the subject? Hobby horse?

Transportation policy is the subject. Traffic is a "hobby horse" for an awful lot of people.

I have already responded to your list:

Iwannahurl wrote: »

If these are "obvious" barriers to motoring then it would appear that it is you who's missing the point, IMHO.


The excessive application of traffic lights (which are supposed to be friendlier to cyclists & pedestrians) and pedestrian crossings - they're usually badly placed so that pedestrians will still prefer to cross 20, 50 or 100 yards away
"Excessive" according to whom? If lights are badly placed and are removed from pedestrians' preferred crossing points then it is clear that they were not sited to maximise pedestrian convenience. Often the Council will reluctantly install lights but will do so in a manner biased towards traffic flow rather than pedestrian convenience. Here's a post illustrating this in action. One of the Council's main failings, IMO, is that they try in a piecemeal fashion to keep different stakeholders a little bit happy, when what they really should be doing is developing and implementing a grand vision with sustainable transportation as its fundamental aim.


The "upgrade" of Eyre Square
I don't like the new Square, but IIRC there were more pedestrian priority crossings there once upon a time. AFAIK bus facilities have also been improved.


The shambolic setup of the pedestrian lights at the the junction with Forster St & Eyre Sq
Very bad for pedestrians in my experience. Walking from Forster Street to the Meyrick Hotel across these two roads without the benefit of a pedestrian crossing is not pleasant with children in tow, so I imagine it would be even more difficult for disabled people and senior citizens who can't move quickly enough to dodge the buses, taxis and cars. There's nowhere for pedestrians to cross two lanes of one-way traffic here on Forster Street either.

The complicated one-way system around Eyre Square and adjacent streets is itself a prime example of cycle-hostile traffic management primarily aimed at keeping motorised traffic moving, albeit with a few compromise pedestrian crossings in the mix. Cycling around here is a joke because so many direct and natural cycle routes are blocked off by one-way restrictions.

Furthermore, control of illegal parking around Forster Street and environs is a farce. Another example of City Council bias towards motorists, IMO.


The pedestrianization of the Shop St area (totally cutting off O'Briens bridge to all but local traffic)
Another barrier for cyclists. Galway City Council knew this was cutting off a prime cycling route but they went ahead and did it anyway. I remember Shop Street when it was two-way and had buses on it! Closing it off to traffic was never a difficulty for me as a driver, but it's a real nuisance as a cyclist.


The closing of roads, turnoffs and creation of one way systems
One-way systems are specifically implemented to improve traffic flow. Traffic moves faster on average on one-way streets than on the same thoroughfares with two-way traffic. One-way systems are inherently anti-cyclist. I've asked this question already but got no answer: can you identify a single solitary one-way street in all of Galway City that exempts cyclists?


Generally counter intuitive junction design
Frequently bad junction design. Who do you think are the biggest potential losers: motorists in the metal cocoons with seat-belts, air-bags, crumple zones etc, or vulnerable road users such ad pedestrians, cyclists, disabled people, senior citizens who may need support to walk?


Creating bus lanes on roads where there is not space for 3/4 lanes of traffic
Buses are high value traffic, moving far greater numbers of people than private cars per metre width of road. It is right and proper, and totally in keeping with national policy, to give them more room. My guess would be that the real problem is that bus lanes are too narrow, especially where cyclists are expected to share them.


The slip from from the new Quincentenary Bridge to the Headford Road that requires traffic to stop (wtf is up with that - may as well have left that traffic at the lights)
That slip road is a serious hazard for pedestrians. Vehicles come flying down there at speed (from the Quincentenary Bridge where the vast majority of traffic is grossly exceeding the speed limit). Motorists driving down the slip road are often looking to their right to anticipate what traffic they may encounter at the junction. This roundabout generally is a nightmare for cyclists and pedestrians. If you can't sprint, tough luck. In general such slip roads are also very hazardous for cyclists, since those wishing to go straight ahead may find themselves positioned inside fast-moving left-turn traffic.


Moneenageesha (I was sitting in a bus on college rd for more than 5 minutes on Saturday waiting for lights to turn, so much for the supposedly PT friendly smart lights)
Moneenageisha, though still a challenging junction, is better than the roundabout for cyclists and pedestrians. If buses are being held up there it's because there are too many private cars. It is absurd having buses stuck in car traffic -- defeats the purpose entirely, and removes all the advantages that PT should be given as a matter of policy. The solution is more bus priority measures, not less.

Iwannahurl

Sponge Bob wrote: »

No they seemingly don't Anto.

But as long as the Galway Green/An Taisce/Cycling/Objectocratic tendency is left an ickle thread to fulminate and thrash about within (and hopefully mainly at each other :cool:) then life goes on apace.

I'm outta this one, forever.

See what I mean?

what_traffic

antoobrien wrote: »

Care to discuss the fact that what I said is that the measures are anti motorist?

You still have not explained "How" they are anti-motorist? For example I would agree that the pedestrianisation of shop street has inconvinced motorists and cyclists to the benefit of pedestrians. You however have not explained any items on your list in post Post 216

antoobrien

what_traffic wrote: »

You still have not explained "How" they are anti-motorist? For example I would agree that the pedestrianisation of shop street has inconvinced motorists and cyclists to the benefit of pedestrians. You however have not explained any items on your list in post Post 216

Ok, I'll change the order a little tho


The excessive application of traffic lights
Example: Riverside & Liosban Industrial estate - two sets of lights, the sequencing of which have caused massive problems since they were installed, combined with the left filter coming out of the estate. They really should have routed the traffic from Riverside into Liosban or vice versa.
It would be better at riverside as there is more space, as well as potentially adding access to the business park (maybe make it left in left out) but a bigger impact on a residential area than if it were done at Liosban (leaving no entrance to the business park.

Also the serious of lights between Moneenaghesha & Doughiska - though I know some of them are needed there's a lot there for a short stretch of road. SOme of them could be removed, e.g the pedestrian lights at dawn dairies could be replaced with a pedestrian overbridges at GMIT as there's space to make it safe for everyone (not just the young and reasonably fit students).

The "upgrade" of Eyre Square
Closed off the road outside the skeff (there was a good reason for doing so, but we're talking about how these things impact motorists) - requiring a change in layout which I'll deal with in the next points.

The shambolic setup of the pedestrian lights at the the junction with Forster St & Eyre Sq and
Generally counter intuitive junction design
What's good about this for anyone? Turning right from Forster St you have very limited visibility as to what the status of the lights actually are and it's so near it that even going slowly you've very little time to react. It's too easy to hit unwary pedestrians & cyclists here. The tresult of the lights is that the traffic backs up around corners, while simultaneously making it harder for buses & taxis (not that I give a rats about taxis) to exit the train station.

And the fact that pedestrians generally cross where they want instead of using these, e.g. between Foxes and Garveys - when the facilities are specifically for them really aggravates motorists..

The pedestrianization of the Shop St area (totally cutting off O'Briens bridge to all but local traffic)
Already dealt with


The closing of roads, turnoffs and creation of one way systems
Dock road and the surrounding streets has lead to queue hopping due to the fact that people don't know how to/won't zip merge. I know the intention was to cut off a rat run. I'm not question that decision, just saying that imo the outcome is bad for motorists.

Creating bus lanes on roads where there is not space for 3/4 lanes of traffic
Dublin Rd - there isn't enough space for 4 lanes where they have the lane, without which bus lanes aren't much good, and it ends inbound (at least temporarily) at Duggans in Renmore. This leads to buses & taxis having to "butt" into traffic (yellow boxes not withstanding) - I've been on enough buses where the driver makes me very nervous with the speed approaching these lights.

The slip from from the new Quincentenary Bridge to the Headford Road that requires traffic to stop (wtf is up with that - may as well have left that traffic at the lights)
A specific attempt to help motorists that failed spectacularly creating several dangers for everybody using this road not matter whether on wheels or shanks mare. I think we're all in agreement there.

Moneenageesha (I was sitting in a bus on college rd for more than 5 minutes on Saturday waiting for lights to turn, so much for the supposedly PT friendly smart lights)
I said more than five minutes because I checked my watch to see what time it was, and I checked later to see how long we'd been sitting there. The total time is closer to 10 minutes, but I don't know how much so I'm being generous with 5.
What more can I say, there wasn't much traffic about while I was on the bus but we were still sitting still waiting for lights to clear - far too long.

I've said my bit and humored you more than you deserve - now explain how these measures are pro-motorist.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I have already responded to your list:

Yes, but you as usual haven't addressed the question I asked - how are these good for motorists?

dubhthach

Personally I don't see it as an "either or" situation, I'm fully in support of both the GCOB, improved cycle facilities and bus lanes