Advertisement
Private Profiles - an update on how they will be changing here
We've partnered up with Nixers.com to offer a space where you can talk directly to Peter from Nixers.com and get an exclusive Boards.ie discount code for a free job listing. If you are recruiting or know anyone else who is please check out the forum here.

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

15791011

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 Iwannahurl


    Jeez, that long?

    And they're still moaning.

    Galway Chamber whipping up more opposition to removal of other roundabouts, and in doing so still whining about Moneenageisha. See Galway City forum.


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 59,945 Mod ✭✭✭✭ L1011


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Jeez, that long?

    And they're still moaning.

    Galway Chamber whipping up more opposition to removal of other roundabouts, and in doing so still whining about Moneenageisha. See Galway City forum.

    I'll look in a bit. At least one of the roundabouts that was mentioned last time I saw a list was far too big to be effectively replaced by a crossroads but I think the freesheet with the list may have got its wires crossed and it was only going to be signalised

    The Moneenageisha roundabout was far, far too small to be any more effective than a crossroads for the traffic figures using it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 Iwannahurl


    MYOB wrote: »
    I've dismissed it as I cannot see how the bypass is ever going to alleviate traffic in Galway Docks - as traffic there is not through traffic.

    Politics.

    Both are going to be traffic generators, in an area that the bypass is not going to alleviate. I wouldn't be for them unless the planning authorities require serious transport planning constraints on them. As one of the proposers is CIE, a requirement to provide stations in Renmore, Oranmore etc with a commuter service might be one option (this would reduce traffic coming in from the East to Galway City Centre and *would* alleviate traffic in the Docks area)


    You dismiss as mere "politics" the statements of those who claim that a major purpose of the GCOB is to alleviate city centre traffic (mainly in the City Centre/Docks area) in order to make space for new traffic, which you accept will be generated by the massive redevelopments proposed for that side of the city.

    You also claim that traffic in the Docks area is not "through traffic", though a couple of recent posts suggest that at least some motorists coming from the West are using that route as an alternative to the N6, which in turn suggests a degree of East to West through traffic also.

    This got me wondering, and I did a very brief check back to the beginning of this thread to see what posters might be saying about the need for the GCOB. Here's a quote from 2008:
    87% of Quincentennial bridge traffic is commuter traffic (Bord Pleanala report)
    That presumably means commuter traffic from Knocknacarra and the now built-up "rural" areas beyond.

    You've also stated that the GCOB is needed "as a bypass" and that "any traffic improvements for the city are nearly entirely unconnected to the bypass".

    You have read extensively on road engineering and planning matters, eg junction capacities, traffic flows etc. I haven't; my interests are more on the socio-political side.

    I now find myself wondering (a) who is the bypass intended for, (b) who is actually going to use the bypass, (c) what effect will the bypass have on traffic in different city locations, especially in the Docks/Lough Atalia area, which seems to at least partly function as an alternative commuter route to the QB, and (d) will there be any general relieving effect on city centre traffic?

    The business associations are claiming that city centre trade is being affected by the lack of a bypass.

    Galway is a small city. It is not inconceivable that different areas are being used as through routes. Likewise, if traffic in the city generally will be alleviated by the GCOB, and this paves the way for massive redevelopment in the centre (Ceannt Station and the Docks) then is it not likely that there will be a general resurgence of traffic around town as motorists adapt to the newly generated traffic. Would that not bring us back to square one in due course?


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 59,945 Mod ✭✭✭✭ L1011


    a: Those who need to get past Galway City. Knocknacarra is far enough out that people for there would count for this

    b: see a:

    c: Minimal. There is obviously *some* traffic using the Docks that might be bypass suitable but by and large the traffic through there is terminating in the city.

    d: see c:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 Iwannahurl


    Presumably An Board Pleanala is not (overtly) a political entity in terms of its regulatory functions.

    Here is a one-paragraph summary of the rationale for the GCOB, taken from the Inspector's report:
    The need for the scheme is stated to be derived from government policy and development plans and to cater for the increasing volumes of traffic on the existing highway network within Galway City and its environs.

    It is explained that the existing road system in and around Galway City has insufficient capacity to deal with traffic wishing to use it, in particular at peak times.

    With traffic growth it is stated that the provision of the Galway City Outer Bypass would increase road and junction capacity on the highway network and it is noted that the need for a bypass is included in the National Road Needs Study and the National Development Plan, as well as being an objective of the Galway City and County Development Plans. The proposed N6 major inter-urban road is currently proposed to terminate at a roundabout on the extreme eastern edge of Galway City.

    Without the proposed bypass the traffic to and from the centre and northern and western environs of Galway City would have to use the existing congested inner city road network. This network developed over a period of time and does not meet current design standards.

    With the design of the bypass to current standards there would be a transfer of traffic from the existing road network to the bypass with a consequent reduction in the number of road traffic accidents.
    Emphasis added.

    @MYOB: you have insisted that "any traffic improvements for the city are nearly entirely unconnected to the bypass".

    My contention is that the GCOB is strongly desired for two main over-arching purposes: (1) a generalised reduction of traffic congestion across the entire city network in order to free up road space, and (2) that road space is needed for the increased traffic that will inevitably result from further 'organic' growth in city traffic generally but especially from massive planned deveopments such as Ceannt Station and the Harbour.

    I would further contend that the official rationale for the GCOB supports my position and contradicts your repeated position that "any traffic improvements for the city are nearly entirely unconnected to the bypass".

    For the record, I support objective 1 above, but I have serious concerns about objective 2.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 802 kiwipower


    Iwannahurl - Seriously?
    I give you this:
    kiwipower wrote: »
    Please excuse me addressing some of your points separately.


    I just had a quick look at the Smarter Travel Plan. I can see a lot of positives to it.

    As long as they maintain the cycle/walkways so they are clean and secure I think them an excellent Idea.
    I like the ideas for improving the pedestrianisation of Galway City Centre, this is development. But there is the issue of what to do with the traffic presently using these routes? That traffic does not just disappear, even if we want it to, given other options SOME of this traffic will, but not all. For these ideas to work the traffic going through the city needs clear route to get around the city.
    As I see it many of these developments will not easy Galways congestion issues unless the GCOB is built. Again I would use foresight and attach a light rail (like Perth city has attached to its motorway system) to the GCOB.




    I strongly agree about addressing on-street parking, especially in the Marys road type areas. I don't think it is fair or feasible to tell residence who have lived in these areas many years and who have no option but to park on the road to just push off. What I do think would work is the use of residences permits with restricted parking times. ie you can park here between 8pm and 8am Monday to Friday. 8am to 8pm Monday to Friday (+/-Saturday) these would become Road/cycleways and parking is not permitted. This would allow vehicles/cyclists and pedestrians safer easier movement.

    30km/hr zone - agree but needs enforcement. I would even consider the Australian example of these speed limits around schools.

    The school transport system needs a huge global rethink. It needs to consider working parents, after school-care, child safety. It needs to be local to where children live and enable safe bulk transport of children to there place of education &/or care.

    Along with your "parking route" idea, I would add low cost parking buildings +/-Park and Ride facilities on the outskirts of the city and more expensive parking buildings closer to the city centre.



    As above I agree with a lot of what you say, but I also find I take issue with a lot of what you say.

    A congestion charge when there are limited other options is just another tax. The biggest and best way to "deal with all the excuses people have for preferring to chew their own arm off rather than leave their car." Is give them other options. Then use the carrot to make the option appeal.


    Unfortunately Iwanahurl my biggest issue with you in this thread is your approach to the arguments. I find your arguments are often hard to follow. You seem to often get caught in arguing for arguing's sake (or it appears sometimes to inflame.)

    Im still not clear on how you think your proposals or the Smarter Travel Plans proposals, will work without the GCOB?

    And you pick up on this one little line that is tongue in cheek to Sponge Bob following on from a sensible discussion, on improving both road and public transport options around Galway. Taking it Way out of context!
    kiwipower wrote: »
    Hey Sponge bob.
    Thanks for posting them.

    Can we please have the top one for Galway?
    The one with the Beautiful scenery, lovely warm weather and green fields? :p

    Oh the bridges look lovely too!

    And you reply:
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Is that a 50 mph or 50 kph limit I see?

    If the latter, that would be a human rights violation against Irish drivers...


    I mean seriously are you trying to prove my conjecture? That:
    You seem to often get caught in arguing for arguing's sake

    But you have failed to answer my below question. When you improve the Galway City Centre area, with pedestrianisation etc Where do you expect all this traffic to go if they do not have another option (GCOB) to get across the Corrib and around the city?
    But there is the issue of what to do with the traffic presently using these routes?

    Your essential argument against the development of a GCOB appears to be related to concern around the development of Galway City Centre through plans to improve the Docks and Ceannt Station Amenities for the citizens of and visitors to Galway City causing more road traffic. Where is your Proof that this will occur?

    Surly even you can see that through a combined approach of removing cross corrib traffic, improving the city centre with better public transport (ie the station, Cycle, walkways, bus lanes, Light Urban Rail) you will be negating a large amount of your conspiracy theory based traffic generation.

    If you really want to get rid of inner city short travel distance traffic you can do to things.
    1. Curtail parking options in the city centre to a near minimum.
    2. Price the few available parking options, at such a high rate to make parking enviable.
    Both of which IMO Galway City Council and there notorious clamper's have been doing reasonably effectively over the last 8years!


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 59,945 Mod ✭✭✭✭ L1011


    The western section of the existing 'ring road' is part of the "inner city road network" - seeing as its a few minutes stroll from Shop Street.

    The bypass is needed irrespective of any future development and I cannot see how the bypass will possibly reduce traffic in the city centre to any level that could be used to justify either or both of the proposed major redevelopments.

    A significant modal shift to buses/trains/cycling would, however...


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭ galwaycyclist


    kiwipower wrote: »

    If you really want to get rid of inner city short travel distance traffic you can do to things.
    1. Curtail parking options in the city centre to a near minimum.
    2. Price the few available parking options, at such a high rate to make parking enviable.
    s!

    I endorse this view. It is the apparent absence of proposals to restrict car parking that undermines the claim that the GCOB is intended to remove traffic and reinforces the view that the intent is to provide for traffic growth.

    Also if Galway was a market/university town in the Netherlands, a Delft or a Groningen, there would be a system of traffic cells put in place. In Delft they closed key bridges to private motor traffic but left them open to other transport modes. Galway could do the same and the cycling campaign proposed similar measures in a submission on the Smarter Travel bids.

    Private car traffic is limited to radial routes and the ring road. This would also help drive the development of local services in the Western and Eastern peripheries.

    The absence of similar proposals for Galway suggests a desire to provide for traffic growth at the direct expense of the other functions a town or city must provide.


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 59,945 Mod ✭✭✭✭ L1011


    I endorse this view. It is the apparent absence of proposals to restrict car parking that undermines the claim that the GCOB is intended to remove traffic and reinforces the view that the intent is to provide for traffic growth.

    Car parking = the remit of Galway City Council

    GCOB = the remit of Galway County Council and the NRA.

    Stop trying to look for connections that don't exist to push your viewpoint.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭ galwaycyclist


    MYOB wrote: »
    Car parking = the remit of Galway City Council

    GCOB = the remit of Galway County Council and the NRA.

    Stop trying to look for connections that don't exist to push your viewpoint.

    In case you weren't aware I can assure you that the City Council roads department are ardent supporters of the GCOB.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 59,945 Mod ✭✭✭✭ L1011


    In case you weren't aware I can assure you that the City Council roads department are ardent supporters of the GCOB.

    Relevance? They're not in any way involved in designing it.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 Sponge Bob


    MYOB wrote: »
    Relevance? They're not in any way involved in designing it.

    They do support it, no question about it.


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 59,945 Mod ✭✭✭✭ L1011


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    They do support it, no question about it.

    Still doesn't connect for a conspiracy on the part of the designers to have unrestricted parking in the city...


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 Sponge Bob


    You cannot have unrestricted parking in the City, it is already nuts in the Uni and Hospital area and the centre has tried to price them out for years, charging €2.50 an hour. This started in the 1970s and developed as Galway grew.

    Galwaycyclist is right about traffic cell management, once they have no excuse to be in the centre or sqr/headford road area any longer that is. They should also look at that Cycle grant where your employer applies on your behalf an allow employers to contract into annual Bus Passes at around €500 a year (BIK tax and Vat free) where the employee must ordinarily transit the cells between home and work irrespective of mode of transport.

    They never did much with the €200???? annual tax on employee parking spots either. Most employers do not assign spaces.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭ galwaycyclist


    MYOB wrote: »
    Still doesn't connect for a conspiracy on the part of the designers to have unrestricted parking in the city...

    How is the design relevant? The question at hand is the purpose and likely consequences of its construction. Raising the issue of design invites the accusation that you are attempting to evade discussion of the points being raised.


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 59,945 Mod ✭✭✭✭ L1011


    How is the design relevant? The question at hand is the purpose and likely consequences of its construction. Raising the issue of design invites the accusation that you are attempting to evade discussion of the points being raised.

    The design is a result of its intended purpose. This is all the county council and the NRAs remit and not the city council.

    You are attempting to generate a conspiracy theory with which to oppose the bypass. I've dealt with all the points in great detail.

    You can accuse all you want but its empty accusations when you're spinning ridiculous theories.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭ galwaycyclist


    MYOB wrote: »
    The design is a result of its intended purpose. This is all the county council and the NRAs remit and not the city council.

    You are attempting to generate a conspiracy theory with which to oppose the bypass. I've dealt with all the points in great detail.

    You can accuse all you want but its empty accusations when you're spinning ridiculous theories.

    Where is the conspiracy? Everything that is being done points to an intent to cater for.traffic growth in the city at the expense of all other considerations.

    This is what you need to get your head around. There is no need for anyone who is skeptical of the purpose of the bypass to invent any conspiracies.

    Much of the available evidence, including arguments advanced by you, points to the bypass being very bad for the city.


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 59,945 Mod ✭✭✭✭ L1011


    Where is the conspiracy? Everything that is being done points to an intent to cater for.traffic growth in the city at the expense of all other considerations.

    A bypass which is going to relief traffic on an existing shambolic "relief road" is not going to have an appreciable impact on traffic in the city itself and, ergo, cannot have any intent to cater for traffic growth there.
    This is what you need to get your head around. There is no need for anyone who is skeptical of the purpose of the bypass to invent any conspiracies.

    There's nothing for me to get my head around. You, however, need to know what you're arguing against. Claiming "skepticism" when its down right opposition in an attempt to pretend you're not just downright against something is pathetic - this applies to IWH too.

    And there most certainly is a need for opponents of the bypass to invent reasons to be against it, because the benefits of the bypass are so massive as to make it effectively unopposable except by cranks and vested interests.
    Much of the available evidence, including arguments advanced by you, points to the bypass being very bad for the city.

    Poor attempt at comedy.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 Sponge Bob


    Where is the conspiracy? Everything that is being done points to an intent to cater for.traffic growth in the city at the expense of all other considerations.
    Which is why they are not expanding road capacity is it ?? .....except where they add opportunistic buslanes of course and the odd smidge of cycle path.
    Much of the available evidence, including arguments advanced by you, points to the bypass being very bad for the city.

    Eh ???? Have you any idea how many people utterly loathe going anywhere near Galway unless they absolutely have to nowadays. It ain't the parking but the lunatic traffic.

    The Bypass will take much of it out, not all of it but much of it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 Iwannahurl


    kiwipower wrote: »
    But you have failed to answer my below question. When you improve the Galway City Centre area, with pedestrianisation etc Where do you expect all this traffic to go if they do not have another option (GCOB) to get across the Corrib and around the city?

    Your essential argument against the development of a GCOB appears to be related to concern around the development of Galway City Centre through plans to improve the Docks and Ceannt Station Amenities for the citizens of and visitors to Galway City causing more road traffic. Where is your Proof that this will occur?

    Surly even you can see that through a combined approach of removing cross corrib traffic, improving the city centre with better public transport (ie the station, Cycle, walkways, bus lanes, Light Urban Rail) you will be negating a large amount of your conspiracy theory based traffic generation.


    If you really want to get rid of inner city short travel distance traffic you can do to things.
    1. Curtail parking options in the city centre to a near minimum.
    2. Price the few available parking options, at such a high rate to make parking enviable.
    Both of which IMO Galway City Council and there notorious clamper's have been doing reasonably effectively over the last 8years!



    1. I would have thanked your earlier post, except for your claims that my arguments "are often hard to follow" and that I am often "arguing for arguing's sake". I may be sarky sometimes (usually responding to others who engage in similar repartee) but when I address key issues I usually try to support my position with reference to evidence. If you find those evidence-based arguments hard to follow then what can I say? Also, I assure you that my primary motivation is genuine concern and affection for the city of Galway, which in my view has been seriously damaged over a period of decades by questionable and unsustainable policies in relation to "planning" and transport. I am not wrong about that. It is self evident, or else traffic congestion would not be the #1 complaint about the city.

    2. You describe my position as an "argument against the development of a GCOB". This ignores the fact that I have already referred several times to my position as one of scepticism. Of course this has also been dismissed, with the facile jibe that I am anti-car (which is rather unfair to my car).

    3. You're asking for proof that a particular outcome is going to occur in the future? Now there's a line of argument that I find hard to follow or respond to. On the other hand, if you are seeking evidence that "planning" in Galway City and County and in Ireland generally is less than adequate, look around you. Are you aware that the Celtic Casino has just imploded and that we have been left with a legacy of disastrous developer-led "planning" virtually everywhere in the country, much of which has locked large sections of the population into long-term car dependence? The policies and politics that have brought this country to ruin haven't really gone away, you know, they've just been eclipsed by the worst financial crisis in the history of the state. Maybe this economic disaster has been a watershed, maybe not.

    4. How can my contention that the Ceannt Station and Harbour Redevelopment plans will generate traffic be classed as some sort of conspiracy theory? The plans indicate clearly a level of commercial activity that couldn't but generate traffic. Furthermore, supporters of the proposals themselves, such as TDs Brian Walsh and Noel Grealish, have stated as much on the record.

    5. Galway City Council's parking control is far from being effective and efficient. They haven't had clampers for about two years now, IIRC, and when the clampers were there the cost to the Council was €2 million annually.

    6. "A combined approach of removing cross corrib traffic, improving the city centre with better public transport (ie the station, Cycle, walkways, bus lanes, Light Urban Rail)" sounds great. Unfortunately, there is no bypass. A bypass is several years away. I'll pull a figure out of the air and suggest that we won't have a bypass for the next five years. What do we do in the meantime? Let's say we all agree with each other that the GCOB is a splendid idea and is bound to lead to all the other traffic and transportation improvements you mention. What does that do for us now? Do we sit in our cars for the next five years or more and dream about a rosy post-GCOB future? No thanks. Give me the thumb screws rather than have me sit in traffic hour after hour day after day. This is what boggles my mind about so many people -- I mean many motorists -- who whine about the traffic. If you could conceivably commute by another means then do so. But if you're just going to sit in your car no matter what then stop the bloody whining please! (I feel like I'm talking to my 4-year-old now...)


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 Iwannahurl


    MYOB wrote: »
    And there most certainly is a need for opponents of the bypass to invent reasons to be against it, because the benefits of the bypass are so massive as to make it effectively unopposable except by cranks and vested interests.




    What's your personal interest in the bypass?

    And what are the anti-GCOB "vested interests" you refer to?

    Cranks of course are people who don't agree with me and who challenge the dominant view.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 Sponge Bob


    Better than your usual posts IWH, 2 observations.

    1. I don't think anything useful can be done for traffic absent the bypass. The Moneenageisha fiasco was one example of this futility, forcing cyclists into lanes too narrow to allow cars and bikes to co exist/manoever safely. The previous arrangement was safer for cyclists, given the then lane widths, bar the roundabout itself.

    Spending €10m(ish) on the SQR merely to add a bus and taxi lane and some cycle laneage in each direction is pretty useless and stupid to my mind. I would support a bus and taxi lane there after the bypass is built of course as traffic is being flushed out of the centre and disincentivised to cross the centre on a commute.

    2. The Ceannt Development is tiger era pie in the sky and the main private sector partner is into NAMA for squillions. NAMA will no more fund Ceannt than my granny will. There is no business case. The Docks proposal is another property play of dubious commercial merit.

    Of course if BOTH were built as proposed during the bubble you _would_ be right. But really, giz the odds on either being built in the next 20 years. :cool:


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 59,945 Mod ✭✭✭✭ L1011


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    What's your personal interest in the bypass?

    Up to a hundred hours a year of my and my employers time its lack destroys.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    And what are the anti-GCOB "vested interests" you refer to?

    From what I can see, cyclist groups who are scared of letting people be able to use cars comfortably. For no coherent argument against it other than "ooh, some planners might allow stuff to happen!" have been produced despite serious opposition, sorry, "scepticism"...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 Iwannahurl


    MYOB wrote: »
    Up to a hundred hours a year of my and my employers time its lack destroys.

    From what I can see, cyclist groups who are scared of letting people be able to use cars comfortably. For no coherent argument against it other than "ooh, some planners might allow stuff to happen!" have been produced despite serious opposition, sorry, "scepticism"...



    What is/are your usual route/s and how does current traffic affect them?

    Cyclist "groups" What groups? How does their "vested interest" have any impact on the bypass or related issues?

    IIRC, galwaycyclist has stated that the Cyclists Campaign has taken no position on the bypass.

    Ooh, some "planners" have already allowed stuff to happen. Galway Co Co, the applicant for the GCOB scheme, has a record so bad that it is being probed for planning irregularities. Galway City Council, while not tarred with the same brush, has quite deliberately over the past few decades created an environment where the private car is prioritised and other modes of transport often must compete for the leftovers. The resulting growth in car dependence in a city of its character and size has, predictably, led to the massive congestion we see today.

    The biggest whiners about this largely preventible unnatural disaster, naturally, are the car dependants themselves. They sit in their cars for hours every day whining and moaning, while the cyclists, walkers and bus users just get on with it despite the barriers they face and the low status they must endure.

    The cyclists, walkers and bus users there at present -- who are contributing nothing to the congestion and are in fact directly helping to relieve it -- deserve a much better level of service, and were they to be properly catered for latent demand for non-car commuting might be released. But no, their needs have to be long-fingered because the car is king, don't forget, and we need the space for all those more important drivers.

    So let's spend a third of a billion Euro that this country can't afford just now because "letting people be able to use cars comfortably" is top priority. As for the cyclists, walkers and bus users -- we know you're not causing the congestion so jam tomorrow, folks.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 Sponge Bob


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Galway Co Co, the applicant for the GCOB scheme, has a record so bad that it is being probed for planning irregularities. Galway City Council, while not tarred with the same brush, has quite deliberately over the past few decades created an environment where the private car is prioritised and other modes of transport often must compete for the leftovers.
    Sigggggh, it couldn't last could it. :(

    1. The NRA planned the bypass not the co.co
    2. The city council did not 'prioritise' cars, it certainly prioritised building in areas where friends/members of FF/PDs had land they could get zoned residential and which areas were not near where those people worked.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 Iwannahurl


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    Sigggggh, it couldn't last could it. :(

    1. The NRA planned the bypass not the co.co
    2. The city council did not 'prioritise' cars, it certainly prioritised building in areas where friends/members of FF/PDs had land they could get zoned residential and which areas were not near where those people worked.



    1. Context is very relevant. Galway Co Co is the applicant: fact. The NRA have identified problems resulting from "planning" decisions made by both local authorities as factors necessitating a bypass: fact, IIRC.

    2. Over several decades the Corporation/Borough Council/City Council (officials and elected members) has favoured residential/commercial developments and road designs that generated significant levels of car traffic, promoted car dependence, deterred cycling and walking, and made public transport unattractive, unreliable and inefficient. IIRC galwaycyclist has already outlined some of these structural problems, and I have mentioned others: large cul-de-sac estates, roundabouts, one-way systems on city streets, roads with high design speeds, lack of traffic calming, lack of pedestrian priority crossings, lack of decent cycle facilities, lack of bus facilities, failure to control illegal parking, and so on and so forth ad nauseam. The list could be a lot longer, but much as I'd like to I don't have time now to add more. They have resisted demands for many years from various community groups such as the City Forum to tackle these structural deficits.

    To focus on just one aspect of all of the above: can you name a single one-way street in all of Galway City that exempts cyclists?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 Sponge Bob


    Yes but Galway city proportionately accounts for much more of the overall economy of Connacht than it did in 1990 or 1960 so that would happen wouldn't it.

    It can all be sorted out after the bypass is built, assuming the city administrators will bother listening to anybody .........which they normally don't.


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 59,945 Mod ✭✭✭✭ L1011


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    What is/are your usual route/s and how does current traffic affect them?

    East of Galway to Carraroe, Carna, Moycullen, Kilkeiran and Clifden. Western parts of Galway City and further out (Roscam, Oranmore) to Knocknacarra.

    All in a van, all commercial traffic.

    The current traffic adds, at worst, an hour each direction (that'd be an oddly timed day admittedly) but generally costs an hour or so between the return trips.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Cyclist "groups" What groups? How does their "vested interest" have any impact on the bypass or related issues?

    IIRC, galwaycyclist has stated that the Cyclists Campaign has taken no position on the bypass.

    Going on what the two cycling evangelists on here on doing, there is clearly some vested interest in trying to stop the bypass.

    You oppose it, pretend not to oppose it, and give continually conflicting reasons as to why. Reducing traffic bad, reducing traffic good; ooh the nasty planners will do nasty things, etc.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    So let's spend a third of a billion Euro that this country can't afford just now because "letting people be able to use cars comfortably" is top priority. As for the cyclists, walkers and bus users -- we know you're not causing the congestion so jam tomorrow, folks.

    Spending to allow Galway City and Connemara function economically, more like.

    The lack of a bypass ensures that no further economic development is going to happen west of the Corrib and ensures that those living there are going to continue having to commute to - or through - Galway.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 Iwannahurl


    MYOB wrote: »
    Going on what the two cycling evangelists on here on doing, there is clearly some vested interest in trying to stop the bypass.

    You oppose it, pretend not to oppose it, and give continually conflicting reasons as to why. Reducing traffic bad, reducing traffic good; ooh the nasty planners will do nasty things, etc.

    The lack of a bypass ensures that no further economic development is going to happen west of the Corrib and ensures that those living there are going to continue having to commute to - or through - Galway.



    MYOB, your contributions are a prime example of the Bellman Fallacy: "what I tell you three times is true".

    On the other hand, SpongeBob just ignores stuff he can't or won't answer.

    Very poor quality debate. I've seen better in AH.

    The lack of a bypass ensures that you can keep telling yourself how right you are as you sit in stalled traffic for the next five to ten years. An appropriate sentence, in my judgment.

    We'll wave as we pass you by...


    2011-05-24.gif


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 59,945 Mod ✭✭✭✭ L1011


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Very poor quality debate. I've seen better in AH.

    That line, coming from you, is possibly the most hilarious thing I've seen written in some time.

    Good to see you've finally admitted your sole purpose on this is to further cycling by impeding motorised vehicle usage, though. Just take in to account the massive damage this does to the economy as a whole - trucks and vans can't go by bike.


Advertisement