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

Iwannahurl

Bypasses of cities and large towns are often regarded as top priority infrastructure, although this is not necessarily reflected in the time it takes to bring them to fruition (eg the 40-year wait for a Waterford Bypass).

Bypasses are expected to give rise to economic growth and rejuvenation locally and regionally, partly due to the relieving of traffic congestion within the bypassed urban area and partly because of improved access in the region.

For example, according to the NRA the Waterford Byass, which opened in 2009, was expected to remove 10,000 to 12,000 vehicles per day from the city quays, which would have the added benefit of "allowing us to rejuvenate our city along the quays to the maximum commercial advantage". This would "breathe new life into the City residents and the Region as a whole, allowing business and industry to operate more efficiently [and] city dwellers, visitors and tourists [to] enjoy a more pleasant, healthier and safer environment."

What other cities and large towns have been bypassed in a similar way and with similar anticipated results? Are there reliable data available demonstrating the effects on traffic and transportation, the economy and residents' quality of life? What major changes have occurred and how have these been quantified?

I would imagine that the recession/national receivership crisis might be a major confounding factor, so earlier data might be more indicative of real effects.

veryangryman

Locals in the main wont use the bypass as it is tolled.

So the Waterford bypass only really diverts Cork/Rosslare bound traffic.

Problem with this country - the major city bypasses (Limerick, Waterford and Dublin) are all bloody tolled. These are cities that are in the middle of other major routes.

Waterford (Cork-Rosslare)
Limerick (Cork-Galway)
Dublin (South/South west/ West traffic bound for Belfast)

All of which have no decent alternative other than sitting in brutal traffic for an hour.

Untoll any of those bypasses and see the results. If you want to see a modest example of good results, try Athlone. Town has been thriving since the building of the bypass in the early 90s. Regarding traffic, yes its still difficult to get around the main streets, but the second Shannon crossing means that locals can get across town much quicker. Most cities in Ireland would kill for an untolled functioning bypass like Athlones.

Most cities in Ireland would kill for an untolled functioning bypass like Athlones.

Same could be said for Moate as well.

Iwannahurl

It seems to be inevitable that these bypasses are tolled. It is said that the Galway City Outer Bypass will be tolled also.

Maybe the reverse should be the case? In other words, a congestion charge for entering the city being bypassed? Or both perhaps, with the two tolls being balanced against each other to engineer the desired effect?

I recall shocking tail-backs trying to get through Moate. As for Athlone, I used to work there in another century, but I can't recall much about the actual effects of the DC around it.

Have there been any before-after traffic counts in places like Waterford, Limerick, Moate etc?


Cullen turns sod on N6 road project

Transport Minister, Martin Cullen, T.D., today (Wednesday, 31st May 2006) turned the sod on yet another Transport 21 road project in the West. The N6 Kilbeggan to Athlone project, will stretch some 29kms and will continue on from the Kinnegad to Kilbeggan phase, which between them will provide a total of almost 57kms quality national road. Work is due to commence immediately on the new phase and is estimated to be completed in Summer 2008.

The route is also the key east-west axis providing the major inter-urban route from Galway to Dublin and it is a vital step in the improvement of road infrastructure serving the west of Ireland and areas of the BMW region.

At the sod turning, Minister Cullen said: "The N6 Kilbeggan to Athlone road project forms part of the East/West Strategic Road Corridor. It is a further development in delivering Transport 21 that connects the regions and promotes prosperity in communities. It will provide a bypass for Kilbeggan, Moate and Horseleap, giving these towns back to their people. At the moment this section of the N6 has traffic volumes in the region of 13,000 every day, of which 1,500 are HGVs while Moate can experience three-mile tailbacks on Friday evenings. In addition, it will reduce journey times by up to 30 minutes at peak times. In this competitive environment time savings generate an economic advantage and these savings are translated, ultimately, into jobs."

The bursting of the bubble has put paid to the those economic ambitions, presumably, but to what extent have the people been given their towns back?

A quick search suggests there has been significant traffic reduction in Moate, but I'd be more interested in data rather than media reports.

dubhthach

As far as I know there was no plan to toll the GCOB though given economic conditions at moment I wouldn't be surprised if they try to retrofit one in.

Personally bypasses should never be tolled, the whole point is to remove traffic from urban area that has no reason been in there. Both Limerick and Waterford are prime examples of how not to do it.

Tolls are only suitable on inter-urban routes where there is by nature also an untolled/non-motorway parallel route.

Personally I pay a toll twice a day using the Eastlink bridge and I've no problem with that, it's a considerably quicker as well as slightly cheaper option then taking the Dart.

I haven't gone near Moate since the M6 opened, I use to regulary spend up to hour stuck in Moate most other weekends from going Dublin <-> Galway. There is no toll you see from Ballinasloe to Kinnegad so other then local traffic there wouldn't be much traffic going through Moate these days. From what I hear the local businesses are actually seeing an increase in local business, as many people from around who avoided Moate due to the traffic now come into it for shopping etc.

veryangryman

Nothing against Moate (or any bypassed town) but...

If i dont want to go to Moate, i dont want to look at it. A bypass allows me this wish.

The couple of times ive been over have shown that the town is much safer to cross the road, liveable in, commutable to Athlone etc. I dont live there (and wouldnt wish it upon my worst enemy) but i guess those who want a quiet life would be happy enough there.

The point is that there are 1000s of people daily who benefit from the existance of this bypass. That to me is delivering the goods.

Regarding bypasses in general, it really depends on the town/structure of the bypass. Enfield/Loughrea internal bypasses were pretty sh1t jobs which people im sure could take or leave. Id imagine Claregalway non motorway effort will be the same, same for Adare. Fantastic efforts include Ballinasloe, Abbeyleix, Mountrath. Ask any local there and they'll tell you they were a godsend*

dubhthach

veryangryman wrote: »

Regarding bypasses in general, it really depends on the town/structure of the bypass. Enfield/Loughrea internal bypasses were pretty sh1t jobs which people im sure could take or leave. Id imagine Claregalway non motorway effort will be the same, same for Adare. Fantastic efforts include Ballinasloe, Abbeyleix, Mountrath. Ask any local there and they'll tell you they were a godsend*

I always found it took longer driving through Loughrea then taking the bypass given the structure of town streets etc, unlike Enefield where the bypass takes longer. Of course in context of Loughrea it also serves as development boundary

mike65

If they deliver the goods its by keeping some of the traffic growth out of the town/city they bypass. Waterford is of course a mighty cock up, the numbers are terrible less than half the projection and that's not all down to recession.

http://nraextra.nra.ie/CurrentTrafficCounterData/html/N25-1a.htm

With the Quays development plans it looks like the City council are trying to shoo away traffic by making life difficult esp for larger vehicles.

coolperson05

I think the evidence is seen in Cork with the untolled Jack Lynch Tunnel. It's a roaring success. Granted the population and traffic volumes are larger than any other city (outside Dublin obviously) but it just works. So much so, it's nearly at capacity.

Had Limerick/Waterford untolled bypasses, More people would obviously use them. In Waterford for example, I arrive back from Dublin three times a week and I often need to get to Tramore/WIT/IDA etc. so the Suir Bridge would be ideal, but not for 1.80 a go. Especially with the relatively modest congestion in Waterford City compared to say Galway/Cork.

But now that it's built, I don't see NRA or CCs having much say. Must be paid for by someone!

Sponge Bob

I am not in favour of tolling city bypasses in general but Waterford has 2 of them in a way. An untolled southern section and a tolled western section.

I would toll longer distance routes instead, especially ones like Ballinasloe-Galway where the alternative old route will cost as much in fuel alone as paying a toll would.

Our economy is far more reliant on fewer large cities and their narrow hinterlands than it was 30 years ago when industry and economic activity was generally far more dispersed. It has undergone a sucking centrifuge towards these large cities since.

L1011

The Waterford bypass is the one completely invalid example and yet you chose to use it. I wonder why...

Waterford's bypass is tolled more than the resultant benefits and the city already had a dual carriageway relief road.

The only cases where a tolled bypass has delivered the expected results are where the benefits of using the bypass far outweigh the cost of it. Such as Drogheda and the Westlink.

As goes the traffic counts, the NRA has kept their counters on bypassed ex-N roads so there are plenty of before/after counts available:

http://nraextra.nra.ie/CurrentTrafficCounterData/index.html

The bridge in Waterford's AADT has gone down by 6,000. Some of the reduction is accountable to the general reduction in traffic but there is also a chance that there has been some increase in local traffic. The HGV % has dropped significantly which you should be pleased with.

There isn't a counter for Moate but counts at other points suggest that there is about 70% less traffic on the old N6, but that the M6 is carrying more traffic than the old N6 ever did. This would be the traffic that is no longer flying to Galway or doing business that was otherwise unviable with the old road.

invinciblePRSTV

Is there not ample evidence throughout the western world that tolled bypasses of urban areas are a success, or at the very least, are not a barrier to people using them? my thinking here are the tolls on the Dartford Tunnel, the new M6 in B'ham and sections of the French M-way system and the various turnpikes in North America?

Of course would any of these countries actually even consider building and tolling motorway bypasses of comparatively small urban area's like Galway, Limerick or Wa'furd? I think not.

veryangryman

Forgetting that we live on an island for the moment, witness the success of any ring roads worldwide...

M25 and M62 in the UK would bring the cities to a standstill without. Im in Beijing where i am right now (population 11m, not much more than London) and they have FIVE ring roads. The last 2 of which the traffic flows faster. In addition the city has good subway, bus and even cyclist facilities (that Kate Melua tune - there are 9 million bicyles in Beijing coming to mind)

Bypasses on their own dont keep a city flowing, but they do a huge chunk of it. London isnt exactly a cyclist paradise, but seems to run quite well with a combo of public transport and the M25. Congestion charge helps too. You can drive around Big Ben without hitting gridlock. The same cant be said for the Quays in Dublin.

People should be charged to use a cities facilities, not charged to avoid them (a la the M50)

veryangryman

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Is there not ample evidence throughout the western world that tolled bypasses of urban areas are a success, or at the very least, are not a barrier to people using them? my thinking here are the tolls on the Dartford Tunnel, the new M6 in B'ham and sections of the French M-way system and the various turnpikes in North America?

Of course would any of these countries actually even consider building and tolling motorway bypasses of comparatively small urban area's like Galway, Limerick or Wa'furd? I think not.

M6 UK Toll works because Brum already has a Motorway relief road for the locals to use. Long distance traffic (London-Manchester/Holyhead etc) are happy to get the feck out of there en route. Same principle for Severn Bridge.

Similarly i dont think that many Rosslare-Cork journeys dodge the Waterford toll. Drivings a head wreck for the poor truckers as it is without sitting in the Deise for an hour

Iwannahurl

mike65 wrote: »

If they deliver the goods its by keeping some of the traffic growth out of the town/city they bypass. Waterford is of course a mighty cock up, the numbers are terrible less than half the projection and that's not all down to recession.

http://nraextra.nra.ie/CurrentTrafficCounterData/html/N25-1a.htm

With the Quays development plans it looks like the City council are trying to shoo away traffic by making life difficult esp for larger vehicles.

Thanks for the link.

What I'm looking for is data, preferably, such as those NRA traffic counts.

Tolls clearly make a significant difference, but rather than a discussion of their advantages and disadvantages I'd prefer to have some hard information on what specific bypasses have delivered to the bypassed cities and towns versus what was predicted or envisaged.

veryangryman

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Thanks for the link.

What I'm looking for is data, preferably, such as those NRA traffic counts.

Tolls clearly make a significant difference, but rather than a discussion of their advantages and disadvantages I'd prefer to have some hard information on what specific bypasses have delivered to the bypassed cities and towns versus what was predicted or envisaged.

Its difficult to get unbiased results as the bypasses change driver behaviour

Example...Drivers now take longer distance journeys as journey times are reduced. Tolls impact a decision on whether to use th bypass. Economic downturn yada yada.

For instance, 10 years or so ago, there was 1 route through Kinnegad. There are now 3. Plus the other factors so its hard to really measure

Iwannahurl

MYOB wrote: »

The Waterford bypass is the one completely invalid example and yet you chose to use it. I wonder why...

Waterford's bypass is tolled more than the resultant benefits and the city already had a dual carriageway relief road.

The only cases where a tolled bypass has delivered the expected results are where the benefits of using the bypass far outweigh the cost of it. Such as Drogheda and the Westlink.

As goes the traffic counts, the NRA has kept their counters on bypassed ex-N roads so there are plenty of before/after counts available:

http://nraextra.nra.ie/CurrentTrafficCounterData/index.html

The bridge in Waterford's AADT has gone down by 6,000. Some of the reduction is accountable to the general reduction in traffic but there is also a chance that there has been some increase in local traffic. The HGV % has dropped significantly which you should be pleased with.

There isn't a counter for Moate but counts at other points suggest that there is about 70% less traffic on the old N6, but that the M6 is carrying more traffic than the old N6 ever did. This would be the traffic that is no longer flying to Galway or doing business that was otherwise unviable with the old road.

Don't start.

Waterford was the first example to come up when I did an initial Google search. I also mentioned Moate. Others have since mentioned Cork and Limerick. I have made no comment on any specific case.

I am simply trying to find out whether there is any hard evidence of bypass effects. It doesn't matter where, initially at least. What counts is the measured effects, AFAIAC.

AugustusMinimus

If you want to see the difference, trying driving through Cork City centre any time the tunnel is fully closed.

They'll be doing so in October during the evening, night and early morning.

Anytime they do so, the traffic in the city centre goes mental, even at 8 or 9 at night.

If the Jack Lynch Tunnel was tolled, Cork City centre would grind to a halt.

Tolling Waterford and Limerick were two majorly awful decisions.

invinciblePRSTV

veryangryman wrote: »

M6 UK Toll works because Brum already has a Motorway relief road for the locals to use. Long distance traffic (London-Manchester/Holyhead etc) are happy to get the feck out of there en route. Same principle for Severn Bridge.

Maybe then we should build bypasses of the bypasses for the poor hard pressed Limerick & Wa'furd locals?

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

If you want to see the difference, trying driving through Cork City centre any time the tunnel is fully closed.

They'll be doing so in October during the evening, night and early morning.

Anytime they do so, the traffic in the city centre goes mental, even at 8 or 9 at night.

If the Jack Lynch Tunnel was tolled, Cork City centre would grind to a halt.

There's a simple solution to that. Slap a congestion charge and HGV ban on the city centre island. Not only would it push all the stingy HGV drivers and commuters back out to the tunnel, it would almost certainly improve the quality of life for the main thoroughfares in the city and the pedestrians and cyclists who use them, as well as PT times dramatically improving.

I'd gladly pay a JLT toll if a portion of the toll meant Dunkettle gets pushed up the list for an upgrade.

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Tolling Waterford and Limerick were two majorly awful decisions.

Should have tolled the M9 and M7 Nenagh sections instead.

Amtmann

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Of course would any of these countries actually even consider building and tolling motorway bypasses of comparatively small urban area's like Galway, Limerick or Wa'furd? I think not.

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Maybe then we should build bypasses of the bypasses for the poor hard pressed Limerick & Wa'furd locals?

It's Waterford or nothing, OK?

invinciblePRSTV

Tremelo wrote: »

It's Waterford or nothing, OK?

Why? Should it be Birmingham or nothing as well or is this specific to one place name?

Amtmann

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Why? Should it be Birmingham or nothing as well or is this specific to one place name?

Simple answer: To avoid the inevitable reported posts from people who, rightly or wrongly, perceive it to be some sort of sleight against Waterford.

Generally, you should refer to places using broadly acceptable, recognised terms. 'Wa'furd' is unacceptable. Moving on now.

Iwannahurl

veryangryman wrote: »

Its difficult to get unbiased results as the bypasses change driver behaviour

Example...Drivers now take longer distance journeys as journey times are reduced. Tolls impact a decision on whether to use th bypass. Economic downturn yada yada.

For instance, 10 years or so ago, there was 1 route through Kinnegad. There are now 3. Plus the other factors so its hard to really measure

I wouldn't necessarily use the word bias in this context.

But you're right: bypasses, and new roads generally, can indeed change driver behaviour. I would go as far as to say they can change social behaviour also. In other words, the intended or unintended, expected or unexpected effects of a bypass may extend beyond the impact on current drivers and their travel and commuting patterns.

Iwannahurl

coolperson05 wrote: »

I think the evidence is seen in Cork with the untolled Jack Lynch Tunnel. It's a roaring success. Granted the population and traffic volumes are larger than any other city (outside Dublin obviously) but it just works. So much so, it's nearly at capacity.

Had Limerick/Waterford untolled bypasses, More people would obviously use them. In Waterford for example, I arrive back from Dublin three times a week and I often need to get to Tramore/WIT/IDA etc. so the Suir Bridge would be ideal, but not for 1.80 a go. Especially with the relatively modest congestion in Waterford City compared to say Galway/Cork.

But now that it's built, I don't see NRA or CCs having much say. Must be paid for by someone!

OK, let's look at Cork then, since the Jack Lynch Tunnel has not been tolled so far.

Excerpt from a Cork City Council webpage (probably published 1999) on the Jack Lynch Tunnel:

Motorists began to reap the benefits of this £100 million scheme when the tunnel was opened for normal traffic on Monday 31st of May 1999. Since then on average about 33,000 vehicles use the tunnel each weekday, with about 28,000 vehicles per day at weekends, and the tunnel and the associated ring road network has significantly reduced traffic congestion in the city centre.

An Irish Times report on 5th May 1999 had this to say:

The opening of the Jack Lynch Tunnel yesterday represented a proud day for the people of Cork and a very significant addition to this State's infrastructure. The Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, has pointed to the very practical benefits of the tunnel; by easing traffic congestion, it will help to give the heart of the city back to its people.

Fast forward four years to 2003. Here's the first post in a thread titled "Cork Tunnel Chaos" in the Commuting & Transport Forum (dated 1st October of that year):

De Rebel wrote: »

Today’s Irish Examiner (Note 1) carried an article on the front page about congestion at Cork’s Lee Tunnel (aka the jack lynch tunnel). Apparently, 4 years after opening the tunnel it is carrying twice its design capacity. Think about that, twice its design capacity. Not twice the load it carried on day one, but twice its design capacity.

[...]

Note 1: Unfortunately not on the online edition.

Note 2: One could conservatively assume the working life of a road tunnel to be somewhere around 100 years, for design purposes. Given the immense cost in terms of money and disruption of rectifying any design flaws it is imperative not to under estimate the capacity requirements. And given this nation's amazing and unenviable record in depopulation the rural areas and growing its towns it is reasonable to assume that this trend will continue and that urban traffic will continue to increase. How then, can paid professionals be so so wrong that they design a tunnel to cater for 100 years traffic growth and see it reach double its design capacity in 4 years.

So, when a bypass gave the heart of Cork City back to its people, what did they do with this gift of brilliant engineering?

It seems they drove more. Granted, the Celtic Bubble was really starting to expand then, so car ownership and car commuting was on the increase.

Be that as it may, the anticipated congestion-relieving effects of the Jack Lynch Tunnel didn't include at the time, for example, a resurgence in non-car commuting in Cork City.

Has this situation changed much since?

In April of this year, the Irish Examiner reported that "the NRA has predicted the Jack Lynch Tunnel will exceed capacity after work is completed to make the Dunkettle interchange a full freeflow junction."

This trend in traffic growth predated and necessitated the JLT, but the bypass didn't slow the trend. In fact, it could perhaps be argued that it added to it.

Cork City Council's analysis of travel patterns based on data from the 2002 Census revealed that there was a substantial increase in the percentage of people travelling to work in private vehicles and a continued decline in more sustainable forms of travelling to work, school and college.

Walking and cycling as a means of getting to work, school and college recorded significant decreases in the period 1996-2002. In contrast, travelling to work by motor vehicles has increased in almost direct proportion with the decrease in walking and cycling.

Results from the census reveal that there has been a substantial increase in the percentage of people travelling to work in private vehicles. The number of people travelling to work as car passengers has dropped, probably due to the increase in car ownership allowing people the choice of travelling in their own car. The numbers travelling to work on foot has increased slightly by 2.8%, most likely due to population and employment growth in the City Centre. The numbers travelling to work by bicycle dropped by a third between 1996-2002. Public transport has also experienced decreases.

The numbers travelling to both primary and secondary school on foot decreased, while the number of students cycling dropped significantly by over 50%. However, the numbers using public transport, particularly buses, continued to increase.

Growing numbers of students are being driven to school in cars, particularly at primary level. Over 10,000 primary schoolchildren are now driven to school by car, a 150% rise between 1996-2002. In 1996 it accounted for a third of all trips to primary school while in 2002 this percentage had risen to a over a half.

Another trend evident in the 2002 results was an increase in the numbers of secondary school students driving to school, both on motorcycles and in cars.

Given the chance to rejuvenate the heart of the city by taking advantage of the traffic-relieving effects of the Bypass, did the residents of Cork collectively decide that the best way to do this was to generate new traffic?

The Cork City Strategic Plan 2001-2020 (CASP) recognises that road infrastructure improvements are needed, but warns that car traffic growth is not sustainable in the long or even medium term:

The car dependent trend in Cork is fuelled by economic growth; rising car ownership; dispersed, low density development; a relatively high standard of road infrastructure and a historic lack of investment in public transport. The large forecast growth in population, employment and the increase in incomes, which enables higher rates of car ownership, will make matters disproportionately worse. Without a sustainable transport plan, traffic will double over the next 20 years. Peak hour travel speeds will fall to 5mph on most roads in the urban area. Journeys to work will take four or five times longer in many cases, so that two hour journeys to work from the suburbs to the City will not be unusual. The benefits of recent and planned road improvements will be rapidly eroded. Commuter traffic will dominate the road network, at the expense of its efficiency for strategic movement. None of these predictions is unrealistic.

Provision of new roads is not generally a sustainable solution – it would only exacerbate the problem in the long term.

A 2008 update of CASP re-emphasised this fundamental principle and confirmed that the traffic-relieving bypass itself was becoming significantly congested:

Research carried out as part of this Update indicated that there is a continuing growth in the demand for car travel and that significant congestion is being experienced on parts of the road network including the South Ring Road and the Jack Lynch Tunnel at peak times. Future growth in car based demand for traffic is eroding the capacity of the key national and arterial route network and is not sustainable. between now and 2020. If this growth is not addressed in an integrated way congestion will intensify and spread throughout the City and urban areas bringing average traffic speeds down to as low as 5mph. This must be addressed by providing a choice of mode of travel by public transport and other non car modes including walking and cycling.

dubhthach

Regarding the time period covered in that graph, between 1991 and 2002 the number of cars per 1000 population went from:
324/1000 to 469/1000

That's an increase of 44.75%, population grew by 11.1% in same period (1991-2002)

If you go from 1991 to 2006 (528/1000) the increase is: 57.4%, the population of the state grew by 20% during period 1991-2006.

If we do some back of hand calculations. A rate of 324/1000 in 1991 =

1991: (324/1000) = 1,142,332 cars

2002: (469/1000) = 1,837,168 cars

2006: (528/1000) = 2,238,639 cars

Growth rate 1991-2002 in car numbers: 60.82%
Growth rate 1991-2006 in car numbers: 96%

The question isn't that more people decided to drive because the "Jack Lynch Tunnel" removed trucks etc from Cork city center. The issue is simply that we've seen a situation where over 15 years the population grew by 20% and numbers of cars on the road almost doubled (96%) growth.

Germany by the way in 2008 anyways had slightly higher rate of car ownership per 1,000 (534/1000), Netherlands came in at 523/1000 so slightly lower then us.

antoobrien

To give you an example of a place that has been bypassed where there are (a) no tolls and (b) direct counters available, Kinnegad to Tyrellspass (part of Kinnegad to Kilbeggan on M6) was opened on December 5th 2006. The AADT went from 11,601 in 2006 (before the opening the actual counts ranged from 10,500 to 14,000). In 2007 the AADT dropped to 2756, a 76% reduction (range 2,600 - 3,200).

The proportion of HCV (this includes cars with trailers) is lower 11.9% vs 12.7% - but since these are a percentage of the actual figures the actual numbers have also dropped significantly (approx 330 vs 1,475).

invinciblePRSTV

I think the main thing to take into consideration when considering the imapct or otherwise of bypasses is the lax planning regimes which local authorities put in place around the the bypasses.

In the Cork example, you can't just take the JLT in isolation when discussing Cork commuters driving habits, one has to consider the impact of Cork Co.Co planning decisions over the past 2 decades in tandem with the development of the South Ring road.

What we've seen witht the development of the SR is the haphazard growth of car-dependant satellite towns like Carrigaline, Passage West & Rochestown, numerous scattered housing developments like Eagle Valley and Mount Oval, a couple of large shopping centre developments and the the mushrooming of one off housing around the lower western harbour area.

This has the effect of making the South Ring as much an arterial route for the Cork metro area as it is a bypass of the city itself. For all the vaunted efforts of the CASP and LUTS plans (which have had a decent enough effect on the eastern side of the city in particular) Cork is still massively reliant on the car as public transport is barely functional within the defined city limits, and fairly poor outside city limits to large suburbs like your Carrigalines & Ballincolligs. Long commutes by car to cover short distances are pretty common place as a result.

So considering this in relation to the OP's intent as to what the impact of the Galway City BP will be; You can be dam sure, knowing what the western county councils are like, that the Galway councillors will engage in an orgy of unsustainable development in the forms of out of town retail and housing developments, as well as loads of one off housing to take full advantage of the GCOB and N17/18 upgrade.

antoobrien

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

So considering this in relation to the OP's intent as to what the impact of the Galway City BP will be; You can be dam sure, knowing what the western county councils are like, that the Galway councillors will engage in an orgy of unsustainable development in the forms of out of town retail and housing developments, as well as loads of one off housing to take full advantage of the GCOB and N17/18 upgrade.

So what's the alternative - build factories & business parks in places like Athenry, Gort & Tuam? There is an IDA strategic site in Athenry that had a link road built to bring traffic directly to it from the M6 & R338, avoiding the village. I haven't heard of any companies interested in (re)locating there.

invinciblePRSTV

antoobrien wrote: »

So what's the alternative - build factories & business parks in places like Athenry, Gort & Tuam?

Ideally the alternative isn't a roads related topic at all. We need a shake up of how local government operates to prevent previously mentioned acts of councillors acting on behalf of their electorate being able to easily contravene already flimsy local development plans.

antoobrien

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Ideally the alternative isn't a roads related topic at all. We need a shake up of how local government operates to prevent previously mentioned acts of councillors acting on behalf of their electorate being able to easily contravene already flimsy local development plans.

I agree with most of that but i.m.o. it's not possible to entirely ignore roads when considering the alternatives, since they will have an effect on how roads are used. People have to travel to work and they will do so from areas where there are few if any reasonable PT options that will get them in for say an 8 a.m. start. To pick Eyrecourt at at random from Co Galway, residents will still have drive to where they're going. So should we cater for or ignore places like this?

In an extreme case there are two solutions to the problem of people driving to long distances to work from areas that currently have little or no pt options (illustrative, I don't necessarily support or oppose either and not trying to spark a discussion of their merits):
1) make places like this so expensive so as it's impossible to live there, forcing people to move to towns like Galway, Tuam, Loughrea etc that have employment & facilities that make it possible to use PT, walk or cycle most places.

2) Move jobs closer to the people that are traveling to the large towns to work. Within Galway City it would be Knocknacara, in the county Athenry Loughrea, Ballinasloe, Tuam & Gort. This would help to reduce the pressure on the larger towns (e.g. the 5 city areas), giving extra time to time to put in place infrastructure (roads, rail, pt, water, telecoms, schools etc) that is needed to continue with proper development of these areas.

Either solution would affect transport policy which includes roads.

Iwannahurl

dubhthach wrote: »

Regarding the time period covered in that graph, between 1991 and 2002 the number of cars per 1000 population went from:
324/1000 to 469/1000

That's an increase of 44.75%, population grew by 11.1% in same period (1991-2002)

If you go from 1991 to 2006 (528/1000) the increase is: 57.4%, the population of the state grew by 20% during period 1991-2006.

If we do some back of hand calculations. A rate of 324/1000 in 1991 =

1991: (324/1000) = 1,142,332 cars

2002: (469/1000) = 1,837,168 cars

2006: (528/1000) = 2,238,639 cars

Growth rate 1991-2002 in car numbers: 60.82%
Growth rate 1991-2006 in car numbers: 96%

The question isn't that more people decided to drive because the "Jack Lynch Tunnel" removed trucks etc from Cork city center. The issue is simply that we've seen a situation where over 15 years the population grew by 20% and numbers of cars on the road almost doubled (96%) growth.

Germany by the way in 2008 anyways had slightly higher rate of car ownership per 1,000 (534/1000), Netherlands came in at 523/1000 so slightly lower then us.

I've yet to look at the travel stats in the 2006 Census, so I'm not sure whether the trend continued in Cork City. It might also be interesting to compare the before and after stats for commuting times.

Population growth and economic growth are important factors, but the level of car ownership does not necessarily have to equate with the level of car use in any particular location.

In 2007 Ireland ranked behind the Netherlands in terms of car ownership, but it hardly needs to be spelled out how different the urban traffic and transportation environments are in each country.





Compare for example the cities of Graz (Austria) and Brighton (England) which are similar in population size, c. 250,000, about twice that of Cork City.

Graz has a population density of 760 persons per sq km, whereas Brighton's is 2945/km^2 which would suggest that the latter might be better for public transport. In addition, car ownership in Graz is 474 per thousand pop. whereas in Brighton it's 360. Nevertheless, the car modal share for Graz is 52% -- for all trips -- compared to 69% for Brighton. (Source: Study of European Best Practice in the Delivery of Integrated Transport)

I'm not sure what the quality of urban life is like in Brighton, but Graz is often held up as a best practice example of integrated public transport. The authorities made a political decision long ago to promote sustainable transport modes and to tackle car dependence and traffic congestion. They have systematically prioritised mobility, convenience and safety for users of public transport, pedestrians and cyclists. For example, in the mid-1990s Graz became the first European city to introduce a 30 kph limit city-wide, and now more than 75% of its road network has this lower limit. Studies have shown that 30 kph zones are of major importance in allowing public transport to compete successfully with the private car.

Ireland's population has indeed grown significantly, and we still have the highest fertility rate in the EU 27 (albeit still below the replacement level).

However, while breeding more human beings may be a biological imperative, breeding more car drivers is not.

Does a growth in the number of secondary school students inevitably mean that there will be an increase in the number of them driving to school in their own cars? Anecdotally, I have heard of a secondary school in Cork where a bike shed was demolished to make way for student parking. Do they do that sort of thing in Copenhagen or Leiden?

When the Jack Lynch/Lee Tunnel was conceived, a political decision could have been made to use the extra road space, especially in the absence of HGVs, for purposes other than accommodating more private car traffic.

That didn't happen, despite the firm conclusion in CASP that projected traffic growth is unsustainable.

If a bypass like the JLT/LT does not result in relief from traffic congestion, even in the short term, and if it does not facilitate traffic reduction by other means (eg public transport) within its catchment area, then IMO such infrastructure is not 'delivering the goods', especially in the context of planning strategies like the CASP.

In terms of their desired effects, bypasses are sometimes promised as the panacea that will cure traffic congestion and make public transport, walking and cycling not only more feasible but positively enjoyable in the newly quiet streets. IMO that's a reasonable, laudable and sustainable vision. But it takes a lot more than the construction of a bypass to make such things happen, and in the absence of political will to implement the necessary transportation and planning policies the freed up road space can be filled with induced traffic surprisingly quickly, not just in the city streets but also on the bypass itself.

invinciblePRSTV

antoobrien wrote: »

I agree with most of that but i.m.o. it's not possible to entirely ignore roads when considering the alternatives, since they will have an effect on how roads are used. People have to travel to work and they will do so from areas where there are few if any reasonable PT options that will get them in for say an 8 a.m. start. To pick Eyrecourt at at random from Co Galway, residents will still have drive to where they're going. So should we cater for or ignore places like this?

Should we cater for tiny settlements and one off housing many KMs away from places of employment? no most certainly not as it would be cost prohibitive to provide PT options or improved roads to sparsely populated areas.

As we well know PT works better the higher population densities are, the onus is on local authorities to put into place planning practices which limit dispersed housing and ribbon development and promote sustainable development and increasing population densities.

Of course in the Irish example this isn't the case, with Cllrs frequently and with impunity contravening whatever development plans are in place. which is why I'm somewhat sceptical of plans for the N17/18, but less so for the GCOB, as both, despite I'm sure the NRA's best efforts, will be be eyed by developers, auctioneers and politicians (who frequently can be the same person) as something to make some money out of by lopping a housing estate off a junction 3 miles from the closest shop, or putting a mega shopping centre on the bypass.

antoobrien wrote: »

In an extreme case there are two solutions to the problem of people driving to long distances to work from areas that currently have little or no pt options (illustrative, I don't necessarily support or oppose either and not trying to spark a discussion of their merits):

1) make places like this so expensive so as it's impossible to live there, forcing people to move to towns like Galway, Tuam, Loughrea etc that have employment & facilities that make it possible to use PT, walk or cycle most places.

2) Move jobs closer to the people that are traveling to the large towns to work. Within Galway City it would be Knocknacara, in the county Athenry Loughrea, Ballinasloe, Tuam & Gort. This would help to reduce the pressure on the larger towns (e.g. the 5 city areas), giving extra time to time to put in place infrastructure (roads, rail, pt, water, telecoms, schools etc) that is needed to continue with proper development of these areas.

Either solution would affect transport policy which includes roads.

If we're talking about development policies for the Galway urban area then it's rather simple: clamp down on irresponsible developments such as out of town shopping developments and one off housing/rural estates far away from amenities, and most crucially, try and put the big ticket employmers, if they ever come to Ireland again, in area's already well served by PT. Will Galway Co.Co and it's councillors go along with such a plan? most certainly not.

Simpler solutions to dissuade long distance commuting would include a congestion charge for the Galway urban area, a motorway tolling system and of course, most importantly, increased spend on public transport measures.

Of course as has been seen on this forum and in infrastructure, most of these measures are fiercely resisted, although they are the optimum solution. I don't expect any of them to come to fruition, or for more stringent planning laws being put in place as part of a erform of local government.

As such I'm quite sure in time Galway will mimic the larger Irish urban area's and become another town with a dead centre whilst out of town commercial and residential developments prosper and congestion will be ever present.

invinciblePRSTV

Iwannahurl wrote: »

That's a great table iwannahurl, it shows exactly what happens when the transport spend is massively weighted towards roads spending like it has been in Ireland.

One only has to compare the never ending criticism and moaning about the costs of LUAS, Metro and Irish Rail projects in comparison to the near universal praise the Interurban programme, as well as all the other projects of dubious merit the NRA have built, receives.

The question of 'Boston or Berlin' frequently haunted political discourse during the bubble years, but when it comes to transport spending and planning, we Irish have made the conscious decision to go for American style of car worship and building never ending motorways to the smallest of places, as well as ignoring any good planning practices.

L1011

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I'm not sure what the quality of urban life is like in Brighton

Generally seen as extremely high. A competent, private, bus operator and a difficult to navigate by car city centre help in terms of what you'd count as quality factors.

HILLS, however, are a reason why cycling and walking are a lot less common than you'd expect for the only city in the UK with a Green MP - Brighton backs on to the South Downs, the railway line had to give up short of where the town centre at the time was due to the slope and so on.

Most people actually work in the city centre - the largest employer around is American Express who are very central, there's other major employers in the centre too - but live outside the city centre, often in the northern suburbs which are extremely difficult to cycle back to.

I spend a lot of time in Brighton (football) and have both driven and relied on public transport there; the parking and city layout mean that I generally use the buses now.

Should also add that Brighton's bus network was crippled until the town was bypassed by the A27 DC in the early 1990s.

dubhthach

Graz has a population densisty of 2,027 /km² from what I can see online.

It also has motorway (autobahn) bypasses to the West (A9) and South (A2). the western one (A9) is in a 10km tunnel. There is also a "Süd Autobahn" which feeds into the A2. The A2/A9 junction itself sees about 100k vehicle movements a day. Even leading aside the two bypasses the B69 basically forms an inner-relief dual carriageway bypassing the historic core to the west from North-South.

The reason why they can easily reduce speed limits on surface roads is the fact that all long distance North/South and East/West trips are removed via the presence of autobahn's which bypass the city.

I should also point out that the Urban population of Cork is actually 190k, the Cork city boundaries like those of Limerick are hopelessly out of date. Anyone who looks at Google Maps can see that there is a large amount of development south of the "Southern Ring Road"

Iwannahurl

In terms of bypass benefits, the size of an urban centre is very important.

Bypassing Kinnegad (pop. 2200) and Kilbeggan (pop. 1000) was obviously a major relief to the locals, given that the vast majority of traffic was just passing through.

However, nobody would claim that there was latent demand in such towns and villages for a local bus network that could be reasonably accommodated in a post-bypass situation.

Cities like Cork and Galway are much more suited to replacing car use with public transport, cycling and walking because of their larger populations and other factors.

The key consideration, IMO, is that while bypasses may be regarded as essential infrastructure, any resulting traffic 'vacuum' can't simply be left to fill up with car traffic by default. Nor should a bypass or other new roads infrastructure be used to facilitate unsustainable development.

Amtmann

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Cities like Cork and Galway are much more suited to replacing car use with public transport, cycling and walking because of their larger populations and other factors.

In plain language, is it your contention that Cork does not need - or never needed - a bypass?

marmurr1916

MYOB wrote: »

Generally seen as extremely high. A competent, private, bus operator and a difficult to navigate by car city centre help in terms of what you'd count as quality factors.

HILLS, however, are a reason why cycling and walking are a lot less common than you'd expect for the only city in the UK with a Green MP - Brighton backs on to the South Downs, the railway line had to give up short of where the town centre at the time was due to the slope and so on.

Cork is also very hilly. For example, cycle from the city centre to Douglas and you've got to negotiate some very steep uphill stretches.

Similarly, the railway line from Dublin to Cork didn't reach the city centre until the tunnel was built through the hills, several years after it had reached the northern outskirts of the city.

marmurr1916

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Compare for example the cities of Graz (Austria) and Brighton (England) which are similar in population size, c. 250,000, about twice that of Cork City.

Cork's population is closer to 200,000 than to 125,000, no matter what the census figures show. The city council area doesn't include Rochestown, Maryborough, Grange, Donnybrook, Frankfield, Glanmire, Ballincollig and all the other suburban areas that are part of the same built-up area.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

When the Jack Lynch/Lee Tunnel was conceived, a political decision could have been made to use the extra road space, especially in the absence of HGVs, for purposes other than accommodating more private car traffic.

That didn't happen, despite the firm conclusion in CASP that projected traffic growth is unsustainable.

Have you ever been to Cork? Because you don't see to be aware of the extensive pedestrianisation of city centre streets (which Cork pioneered in Ireland), and the re-construction of Patrick's Street, Oliver Plunkett Street, Emmett Place, the Grand Parade and the Coal Quay,(Cornmarket Street) to increase footpath space, reduce road space and generally enhance their streetscapes.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

If a bypass like the JLT/LT does not result in relief from traffic congestion, even in the short term, and if it does not facilitate traffic reduction by other means (eg public transport) within its catchment area, then IMO such infrastructure is not 'delivering the goods', especially in the context of planning strategies like the CASP.

Cork's SRR has reduced city centre traffic congestion. The fact that the county council gave planning permission which led to over-development of car-dependent commuting estates around the city's hinterland does not mean that congestion in Cork city centre and other parts of the city hasn't been reduced.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

In terms of their desired effects, bypasses are sometimes promised as the panacea that will cure traffic congestion and make public transport, walking and cycling not only more feasible but positively enjoyable in the newly quiet streets. IMO that's a reasonable, laudable and sustainable vision. But it takes a lot more than the construction of a bypass to make such things happen, and in the absence of political will to implement the necessary transportation and planning policies the freed up road space can be filled with induced traffic surprisingly quickly, not just in the city streets but also on the bypass itself.

As another poster has pointed out, Graz has a very well-developed network of motorways which enables traffic to bypass the city.

If it didn't have these motorways, then it wouldn't have been able to adopt the public transport, cycle- and pedestrian-friendly infrastructure that is has.

It's not a question of either/or. Ireland needs both a good quality road infrastructure and a good quality public transport and cycle/pedestrian infrastructure.

The fact that FF-led governments chose to prioritise roads from 1997 onwards, while utterly failing to develop any coherent national planning strategy or national landscape protection policy does not mean that bypasses of Cork or other cities have not been beneficial.

Any country which experienced a doubling in the levels of car ownership would see much more traffic on the roads, whether these roads existed before or after the increase in car ownership.

Ireland has made huge mistakes when it comes to planning and infrastructure.

Building bypasses of Cork and other cities can't be counted amongst those mistakes.

Iwannahurl

Tremelo wrote: »

In plain language, is it your contention that Cork does not need - or never needed - a bypass?

No.

I'm focusing on Cork City, for the moment, because an earlier poster nominated the Lee tunnel/Jack Lynch Tunnel as a highly successful (untolled) bypass.

Iwannahurl

marmurr1916 wrote: »

Cork is also very hilly. For example, cycle from the city centre to Douglas and you've got to negotiate some very steep uphill stretches.

Similarly, the railway line from Dublin to Cork didn't reach the city centre until the tunnel was built through the hills, several years after it had reached the northern outskirts of the city.

I believe CASP refers to the topography and concludes that cycle commuting is not a runner (as it were) for some parts of the city.

Iwannahurl

marmurr1916 wrote: »

Cork's population is closer to 200,000 than to 125,000, no matter what the census figures show. The city council area doesn't include Rochestown, Maryborough, Grange, Donnybrook, Frankfield, Glanmire, Ballincollig and all the other suburban areas that are part of the same built-up area.

Have you ever been to Cork? Because you don't see to be aware of the extensive pedestrianisation of city centre streets (which Cork pioneered in Ireland), and the re-construction of Patrick's Street, Oliver Plunkett Street, Emmett Place, the Grand Parade and the Coal Quay,(Cornmarket Street) to increase footpath space, reduce road space and generally enhance their streetscapes.

Cork's SRR has reduced city centre traffic congestion. The fact that the county council gave planning permission which led to over-development of car-dependent commuting estates around the city's hinterland does not mean that congestion in Cork city centre and other parts of the city hasn't been reduced.

As another poster has pointed out, Graz has a very well-developed network of motorways which enables traffic to bypass the city.

If it didn't have these motorways, then it wouldn't have been able to adopt the public transport, cycle- and pedestrian-friendly infrastructure that is has.

It's not a question of either/or. Ireland needs both a good quality road infrastructure and a good quality public transport and cycle/pedestrian infrastructure.

The fact that FF-led governments chose to prioritise roads from 1997 onwards, while utterly failing to develop any coherent national planning strategy or national landscape protection policy does not mean that bypasses of Cork or other cities have not been beneficial.

Any country which experienced a doubling in the levels of car ownership would see much more traffic on the roads, whether these roads existed before or after the increase in car ownership.

Ireland has made huge mistakes when it comes to planning and infrastructure.

Building bypasses of Cork and other cities can't be counted amongst those mistakes.

I haven't been to the beautiful city of Cork for several years -- mo náire é.

I am merely commenting on what is contained in official reports. Cork City Council's analysis of the 2002 Census highlights the fact that up to 50% of people walk or cycle to work, school or college in the city centre, as well as the fact that over a third of the City’s households have no car.

Cork City still compares favourably to national averages in terms of sustainable modes of travelling to work, school and college. This is not surprising considering that the option to walk, cycle or use public transport is more viable in an urban location rather than a rural one. Nevertheless, the continuing decline of walking and cycling and the opposing rise in the use of private vehicles as a means of getting to work, school or college is a worrying trend. Additionally, though again not surprisingly, the City also compares favourably nationally in terms of the distances travelled to work, school or college and the length of time it takes to get there.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that in the period 1991-2002 "walking and cycling as a means of getting to work, school and college recorded significant decreases" whereas "travelling to work by motor vehicles ... increased in almost direct proportion with the decrease in walking and cycling". In that time period, cycling to work decreased by 32.9% whereas driving increased by 32.8%. Commuting by bus decreased by 7%. These are the facts. The SRR may have reduced congestion, but the extra road space was not taken up by buses and bikes. As I said, I haven't yet looked at the 2006 CSO figures, and I haven't found a similar CCC report on that year's census.

The 2008 CASP update spoke of how future growth needs to be "solidly based on the principle of sustainable development and in particular needs to take place in a way which supports the use of sustainable transport modes (public transport, cycling and walking)".

The original CASP, published several years earlier and not long after the JLT opened, had referred to the "over-riding conclusion of the transport assessment" that the demand for travel would increase dramatically over the 20 year period of the Plan:

Without policy measures and infrastructure improvements to reduce car dependency, more travellers will drive cars rather than walking, cycling, using public transport or car sharing. This, in conjunction with population growth, will result in a doubling in demand for car use in the morning peak hour.

I agree with you that good roads infrastructure (including bypasses) and sustainable transport do not have to be mutually exclusive. To borrow from Bill Shakespeare, a bypass is neither good nor bad but planning makes it so.

The only reason I mentioned Graz is that it tends to pop up in EU reports on integrated transport, such as this one (the earlier link was broken).

Another city I could mention, this time from personal experience, is Copenhagen. They have superb public transport, blissfully uncongested streets (while I was there) and world-class cycle infrastructure. They're also not shy about planning major new roads infrastucture linked to other developments. The City of Copenhagen is currently developing the 3 km Nordhavnsvej road and tunnel in the residential Østerbro district, one of the wealthier areas of of the city. The Nordhavnsvej may be the first stage of a new 14 km eastern bypass linking the highway system north of Copenhagen with the highway system on the south, the purpose of which is to "remove a substantial part of road traffic from the centre of Copenhagen as well as providing better access to development areas east of Copenhagen Harbour".

From 1994 to 2005, the City of Copenhagen reduced parking spaces in the city centre from 14000 to 11500, replacing the spaces with other facilities and amenities such as parks and cycle paths. "Over that same time, not accidentally, bicycle traffic rose by some 40 percent" (source: Tom Vanderbilt, 2008, Traffic - why we drive the way we do, and what it says about us).

Can you see the culture and politics of Cork City giving rise to anything similar in the next ten years?

veryangryman

That "motorways to nowhere" line got my hump up.

WHAT motorway does not go in the direction to or from a city. If your talking about the M3, it is a road to Dublin which alot of people use to get to and from Dublin. M18 is Galway-Limerick-Cork. M11 is in the main inside the pale and connects the country's ferry ports albeit incomplete. Every other motoway is an inter-urban.

The M3 can be argued against as it doesnt lead to a city northbound. I forgive this as it is a tolled project. Yes they negotiated the toll/compensation via taxpayer deal, but the motorway in principle is badly needed for a region of the country (Meath to Donegal northwest) with no railway.

M9 should have been tolled but probably would have got the same sh1te toll/compensation deal negotiated by the tools Cullen and Dempsey. Dempsey especially is such a tool. Why people dont follow the smug git around and egg him daily is beyond me. Mention of his name makes the blood boil.

As for bypass of city benefits, we all have to say that the port tunnel/free-flow M50 combo is a great advertisement for what can be achieved. City has had the sense to develop Luas/Dublinbikes/Truck ban/Bus corridoors and it has improved things alot. Of course traffic is still pretty crap at rush hour but it is a help

Zubeneschamali

veryangryman wrote: »

As for bypass of city benefits, we all have to say that the port tunnel/free-flow M50 combo is a great advertisement for what can be achieved.

Indeed, several cyclists a year used to be killed by artics in the city centre before the port tunnel.

CerebralCortex

veryangryman wrote: »

That "motorways to nowhere" line got my hump up.

WHAT motorway does not go in the direction to or from a city. If your talking about the M3, it is a road to Dublin which alot of people use to get to and from Dublin. M18 is Galway-Limerick-Cork. M11 is in the main inside the pale and connects the country's ferry ports albeit incomplete. Every other motoway is an inter-urban.

<cough>Shannon Airport<cough>

Iwannahurl

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Indeed, several cyclists a year used to be killed by artics in the city centre before the port tunnel.

Collision with a left-turning HGV was the proximal cause in a majority of such fatalities I believe. Taking HGVs off city centre streets is a great move.

An extensive 30 kph zone is also a valuable measure, though in this country such measures are not respected or enforced.

antoobrien

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Should we cater for tiny settlements and one off housing many KMs away from places of employment? no most certainly not as it would be cost prohibitive to provide PT options or improved roads to sparsely populated areas.

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

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

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

If we're talking about development policies for the Galway urban area then it's rather simple: clamp down on irresponsible developments such as out of town shopping developments and one off housing/rural estates far away from amenities, and most crucially, try and put the big ticket employmers, if they ever come to Ireland again, in area's already well served by PT. Will Galway Co.Co and it's councillors go along with such a plan? most certainly not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

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

You're skeptical about the bypass, the first published documents are from 1999 - a rare bit of foresight for GCC. Between the 1996 & 2002 censuses the population grew by 15%, with a further 8.8% in the county. There was no attempt at catering for this with PT so don't make me laugh.

Bypasses depend on proper planning to function effectively. Is there a shining example of such in Ireland currently? Will the GCOB startle us all by breaking the mould forever?

Quote from the website of Galway private bus company City Direct:

Galway City Direct Limited was established in 1999 and is based in Rahoon, Galway. City Direct provides important public transport scheduled bus services from Barna, Knocknacarra, Salthill and Rahoon to Eyre Square - the centre of Galway city. There are numerous city bus stops along each route where passengers can board or alight.

I use that bus service myself from time to time. It's not exactly EU-standard but it's still a bus. Actual bus stops with bus shelters and non-fiction timetables would be nice.

City Direct have been crying out for QBCs for years. They may be getting some soon(ish).

Transport 21 arrived in 2005. I'm not sure when its effects started to be felt in Galway City, but I believe that the highly successful (though erratic in my experience) #9 bus route to Parkmore/Ballybrit was expanded in 2007.

A thought occurs: how much of Transport 21 was spent on PT and how much on roads? I believe that a 50/50 split or thereabouts was envisaged at the start.

Zubeneschamali

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Taking HGVs off city centre streets is a great move.

Did you ever see the bottleneck in Athlone?

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

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Quote from the website of Galway private bus

Fair play to city direct - that's a business person in action instead of people like yourself whining about not having buses.

The problem is that they service the west side of town, when the growth has been largely in the east during this period - Ballybrit, Merlin Park, Doughiska & Roscam in particular (should really have clarified that earlier shouldn't I).

What did we get east of Eyre square? The movable feast that was the #3 bus (terminus moved between only servicing Castlepark, going to current stop @ Briarhill, up to the industrial estate at Parkmore, before finally going back to the current spot) until they figured out that there was several hundred houses & apartments along the Dublin Rd past GMIT.

That's not even mentioning the developments on Bothar na Cosite (I'd love to see how the #7 bus is doing since they re routed it out there).

GCC have known about the PP for all these places and failed to act in association with the BE (the major bus network provider) or private enterprises like city direct to facilitate these developments.

I wonder what they're going to do with the #3 now anyways since the city council in their wisdom are about to remove the roundabout that allows it to use its current terminus. At a guess back to the future.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Fair play to city direct - that's a business person in action instead of people like yourself whining about not having buses.

antoobrien wrote: »

There was no attempt at catering for this with PT so don't make me laugh.

Cake is being both had and eaten here.

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

I am strongly of the opinion that every effort should be made to facilitate and prioritise buses above private car traffic. That includes bus lanes and the ripping out of car-friendly roundabouts to facilitate bus-friendly AUTCs and pedestrian access to buses.

In the context of bypasses, traffic management and transportation planning, one big difficulty is that there is no coordinating body (in Galway/the West) with power and responsibility for overseeing the integration of different transport modes with each other or with spatial planning.

Galway City Council will tell you that they can provide bus lanes, for example, but beyond that can do no more than encourage PT providers to develop services.

It's all very well to say that cities like Graz are well supplied with bypasses and ring roads, but at the end of the day what really matters is planning, coordination and integration, with sustainablity as a primary objective.

Without such a coherent vision, bypasses can end up merely as good roads for motorists going from A to B, as opposed to strategic infrastructure for optimising transportation in urban settlements.