N6 - Galway outer bypass: Is it needed?

monument

Is the Galway outer bypass needed?

Are there alternatives? ....Be that a different route, or different type of road, or upgrades to current routes, or a different approach or a mix of all these?


Strictly attack the post and not the poster / the ball and not the man.

Sponge Bob

Badly. and yes they could always tunnel it, sure twould only cost about €711,007,233 and 34c ...well worth it.

There is an alternative to the western section. Upgrade Barna Corcullen and 2+2 from Corcullen to Glenlo Abbey Hotel which latter is also up for sale by NAMA and buying just the golf course and lands near the N59 would be a good idea right now. You will need a decent sized site for the tunnel entrance you see and you can come up west of the Tuam Road.

seanmacc

Ideally with the construction of the Gluas and a few more pedestrianised streets and you'd have a fantastic city there.

Sponge Bob

seanmacc wrote: »

Ideally with the construction of the Gluas and a few more pedestrianised streets and you'd have a fantastic city there.

A Gluas is no good for Connemara traffic. The sheer amount of traffic around NUIG/NUHG is still too high. If they can't go over the limestone flag they should go under the limestone instead, simples. Otherwise they will only waste the €711m paying bankers to do nothing as has been the case for the last 4 years.

There is plenty of substitute flag that can be added to the SAC instead of the tiny scrim of flag they are taking to the east of that SAC. Heck if they bought the Lackagh Rock quarry from the receiver and sanitised its fringe and turned it into a water feature they could probably compensate for the lost flag that way.

Iwannahurl

TBH I'm not sure whether this question merits a new thread, but I can see why the recent ECJ ruling would raise it again.

The reality is that the completion of the 20-year-old GCOB project is now set to be delayed by several more years at least.

That's assuming the IROPI process is successfully invoked to approve the project, in accordance with EU directives etc.

In the interim, the only options would appear to be (a) do nothing else except grit ones teeth and wait for the GCOB to be completed by whatever means necessary, (b) wait for the GCOB and try to improve the traffic and transportation situation in the meantime, (c) accept the view that the GCOB is "dead in the water" and plan for a very different future.

Sponge Bob

One further alternative is a 'limestone flag' bridge like the Aghnaguig Bog Bridge across a small SAC on the N3 Belturbet Bypass.

And there is a rake of flag between 2 quarries north of Menlo villages that can be Sac'd as compo. Its about 10m from the lake at one point.I fail to see why everyone is getting all hung up and wittering about what is a plentiful supply of Limestone Flag and IROPIS and stuff.There is more flag south of Lackagh Rock ( in receivership)

The Bridge !

Two significant bridge structures shall be provided as part of the proposed Scheme:

River Erne Bridge - this proposed bridge structure consists of a three span extrados bridge of prestressed and reinforced concrete construction. The proposed bridge is approximately 141m long between centreline of bearing at abutments and shall include a clear span (approximate length = 70m) across the River Erne.

Aghnaguig Bog Bridge - this proposed bridge shall be a three span bridge of minimum length 210m and shall mitigate the impact of the proposed Scheme on the bog woodland priority habitat in the townland of Aghnaguig.

The Contract shall comprise the design, execution and completion of the N3 Butlersbridge to Belturbet Road Improvement Scheme, including without limitation the provision of:
- Approximately 6.7 kilometres of standard single carriageway national primary road;
- Approximately 0.23 kilometres of reduced single carriageway regional e

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

That's assuming the IROPI process is successfully invoked to approve the project, in accordance with EU directives etc.

No reason to believe it won't be, there were two roads granted permission in Germany through much smaller conservation areas with the highest level of protection and even less scope for replacement of "lost habitat".

Not that the habitat is particularly rare, given that the entire west of Ireland has limestone foundations - one of the reasons why radon gas is such a big issue.

monument

In and around Galway City there's seems to be a huge amount of current car trips which could be done by walking, cycling and public transport. The majority of people around the city are traveling relatively short distances and yet many of these trips are done by car.

On the Roads thread it was suggested there was an issue of lack of space but there's no huge space issue barring the improvement of cycling and walking in Galway. But often the issue isn't space it's getting how you use the space right and even when some space is used for cycling, it's poorly used.

The overall the attempts at improving cycling in Galway are a sick joke. "Shared use" seem to have been misused in Galway on a massively wider scale than in Dublin. The problems of lack of priority and general poor design of cycle tracks seen in Dublin seem far worse in Galway.

When you get to the point where designers feel the need to paint a man walking on the footpath, there's something gone seriously wrong:



The treatment of pedestrians seems to be even worse than how cyclists are treated -- or more so, pedestrians who are mainly pedestrians or bus users (as opposed to those who who only walk short distances from their cars). Look at GMT and the bus set up on the old Dublin Road with no crossing to get to the inbound bus stop... on a far from easy road to cross.

I've still yet to see a good reason for the removal of zebra crossing on Eyre Square.

On the fringes, access to places like the Galway Clinic (and the nearby houses) show how poorly walking and cycling is treated. Visitors and staff who want to walk or cycle have to face using the busy old Dublin Road and crossing a roundabout unaided on a dual carriageway (and less than 1km from the end of what is viewed as part of the motorway!).

If modal share change was looked at seriously, then improving the old "bypass" could be looked at.

lucernarian

The N6 GCOB, as a National route designed by the NRA, does not seem to be just catering for short "to school" journies but also for long-distance traffic. If there's a discussion to be had about the merits of road traffic and prioritsation of pedestrians over motorists, it should mainly pertain to the use of existing infrastructure. I'm not sure how new infrastructure catering for different strategic users like intercity or freight transport would impact significantly on modal usage for Galway residents.

I note that there had been comparatively scarce discussion on the Shannon tunnel or the Waterford bypass and even the Kilkenny to Waterford M9 "bypasses" were discussed from the point of view of alternative motorways being able to connect Waterford to Dublin, not whether traffic problems could be solved by using alternative modes of transport.

While congestion is central to the traffic issues in Galway, it is not the only one. If a bypass allowed for the removal from as many HGVs from the existing N6 as possible*, this in itself would contribute to road safety in a way that reducing car usage could not do.

*e.g. by a partial or selective HGV ban.

antoobrien

monument wrote: »

Is the Galway outer bypass needed?

Yes it is, the problem isn't so much the quantity of vehicles, but rather where they are being funnelled. All the city center traffic from the East and all the east west traffic must travel through this:

monument wrote: »

Are there alternatives? .... or upgrades to current routes,

What is needed are free flow junctions, but there is no space to do so at the current junctions (without serious money in buying land off the current land owners), combined with apparently a serious distaste for pedestrian bridges where they might be feasible (e.g. outside Dunnes Terryland) - which would be needed to make the junctions safe enough fort all road users.

The current "upgrades" don't seem to have had an effect at all, there are still long queues at peak times and at off peak times there are long waits. The only effect I can see is that the new junction layouts have increased the numbers of lanes entering the junctions, which with some minor redesigns (e.g. Ballybane Rd jucntion) have helped, but as for the lights controlling them, the only reason for thqat seems to be pedestrian access (which can and i.m.o. should be provided for many of the junctions using pedestrian bridges).

In the center of town, the preference of certain campaigners is to have no zebra crossings as they are not particularly usable for people with visual disabilities (fair enough), so light controlled junctions are the only option. I think a compromise can be done here to have a zebra style light incorporated into a two light traffic light (i.e. no green, just flashing yellow & red). When traffic is required to be stopped, push the button, otherwise the lights act as a zebra crossing. It might make things a bit more predicable for all concerned.

monument wrote: »

Be that a different route, or different type of road,.... or a different approach or a mix of all these?

It's probably worth engaging a civil engineer to see if it's possible to build a bigger suspension bridge that would not touch the protected limestone, but there is an SAC between Monument Rd and the Headford Rd (N84), which the proposed road seems to run through a corner (if I'm reading the maps right). An alternative route through Menlo/Coolough wouldn't be particularly feasible as the current route was picked to minimise the impact on the village. North of the village is the lake itself, which is a minor problem for a road.

Going south of the proposed site gives problems with the traffic system in the area, there are already problems caused by the QB and the restrictions for right turns meaning that traffic has to be put along Thomas Hynes Rd - a residential area - coming from both West and North of the Bridge. Needless to say anything that would increase traffic in that neighbourhood is not a particularly smart move.


Other alternatives:
Buslanes - there are very few roads that are wide enough for bus lanes on both sides of the road ("3rd lane" bus lanes make no sense to me as there are rarely places where there's a one way problem on a two way road). Where bus lanes are proposed, there will be reductions in the available footpath space (Wellpark rd) which doesn't do walking any favours.

I made a suggestion before to make College road & Bohermore a one way system, with one of the lanes to be a bus lane, but I was shouted down because it would increase traffic flow (lets ignore the fact that it will decrease the amount of space available to cars and that buses can't get in and out of the center of town at rush hour in reasonable time).

Cycle lanes - might be possible, but will also have to take space off footpaths in many places as there are many roads where the lanes are close to the minimum width permissible and the cycle lanes need to be a certain width as well. It'd be interesting to see how that would work in spots like this and this, where there isn't a whole lot of room to spare.

antoobrien

There's another issue that needs to be considered: jobs & where people live.

It's often lamented that a significantly larger part much of the city population lives west of the river than on the east (no longer true as of the last census there is less than a ), and a large number of those people work east of the river (e.g. Parkmore & Mervue Ballybane).

If we want to change this we need to get large scale employment west of the river, which means manufacturing companies (e.g. Boston Scientific, Medtronic et al., where large numbers of the residents of the west are supposed to work) as this is where the real growth potential for Galway is (we are already seeing large numbers of work permits being granted for IT).

The problem for that theory is that it is very hard to get goods out of the west of Galway, as evidenced by the oft lamented traffic trouble.

And no, I'm not saying a bypass is an overnight or total solution for Galway's problems, just one of many that are needed.

Aidan1

Also, while we're at it, it should also be noted that probably the best and most sensible way of encouraging cycling within Galway would be to build the GCOB, and take the bulk of that heavy traffic off the roads in the city centre.

The HGV ban in Dublin was instrumental in making the city habitable for cyclists, and something similar for Galway would allow the City Council to make the road network, and particularly junctions, safer for cyclists. Right now, there simply isn't room to properly accomodate cyclists (and pedestrians) and still get traffic through the city. Push the motorists out to the periphery (and to managed radial routes) and all of a sudden you can create an environment in the city centre that can actually support a huge increase in the numbers cycling. At present, it's a pain in the ass (I say this as someone who commutes on a bike in Dublin, and runs in Galway from time to time).

wonder88

At least the recession has reduced the level of traffic around the city, but there will be a major problem if we ever get real economic growth going again.

Lapin

monument wrote: »

The treatment of pedestrians seems to be even worse than how cyclists are treated -- or more so, pedestrians who are mainly pedestrians or bus users (as opposed to those who who only walk short distances from their cars).

Good points. A few years ago when the traffic lights broke down for a day on the Headford Road, Keith Finnegan on his radio show remarked on smoothly the traffic ran that day and questioned the need for having the lights there at all.

It summed up the mindset of the motorist in one sentence. The fact that pedestrians had to risk their lives to cross the road never occurred to him, or the thousands of others speeding along the N17 that day.

Iwannahurl

Aidan1 wrote: »

Also, while we're at it, it should also be noted that probably the best and most sensible way of encouraging cycling within Galway would be to build the GCOB, and take the bulk of that heavy traffic off the roads in the city centre.

The HGV ban in Dublin was instrumental in making the city habitable for cyclists, and something similar for Galway would allow the City Council to make the road network, and particularly junctions, safer for cyclists. Right now, there simply isn't room to properly accomodate cyclists (and pedestrians) and still get traffic through the city. Push the motorists out to the periphery (and to managed radial routes) and all of a sudden you can create an environment in the city centre that can actually support a huge increase in the numbers cycling. At present, it's a pain in the ass (I say this as someone who commutes on a bike in Dublin, and runs in Galway from time to time).

Agreed: the removal of 5-axle trucks from Dublin City's central streets was a major safety boost for vulnerable road users, especially given that in previous years 4 out of 5 cyclists fatalities were due to left-turning trucks.

The 30 km/h zone also made a big difference.

The GCOB, even if the ECJ had issued a ruling in its favour, will not be built for years yet.

In the meantime, Galway City Council, despite seeking the lion's share of national funding for the Smarter Travel programme, didn't even include a HGV strategy and speed management plan in its draft Walking & Cycling Strategy, and fought tooth and nail to keep such pro-cycling/pedestrian measures out (iirc).

Claiming that there "simply isn't room to properly accommodate cyclists and pedestrians" in Galway City is to miss the point entirely that the main occupier of space is all those single-occupant cars, many of them on journeys over distances amenable to walking, cycling and public transport. Claiming there is no room for modes of travel that take up way less room than cars is self-evidently a car-centric view, based (imo) on the assumption that moving cars is more important than moving people.

I can't quite believe that I have to post this image yet again to illustrate the basic reality of travel mode versus finite urban road space, but there you go.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I can't quite believe that I have to post this image yet again to illustrate the basic reality of travel mode versus finite urban road space, but there you go.

That's quite insulting to anybody working in the city that lives in the county - just under half the workers in Galway city. We need to stop being so blasted insular and look at all the realities of the situation.

We already have the highest proportion of walking commuters in the country (17%) and the well as the 2rd highest cycling rate behind Dublin (so much for the "unfriendliness" of Galway for cyclists I hear so much about) and are 3rd behind Dublin and cork for bus travel.

Where do you plan to extract the blood from?

Aidan1

and the well as the 2rd highest cycling rate behind Dublin (so much for the "unfriendliness" of Galway for cyclists I hear so much about

Galway is a small, relatively compact, relatively flat city, without the type of satellite town development deliberately encouraged in Cork - the share should be far higher than the 4.9% recorded in the last census (even more so given the nature of the population living in the city itself. A lot of that is down to the fact that the city centre is very difficult for cyclists (although the new signalised junctions have probably helped a lot in that regard).

We need to stop being so blasted insular and look at all the realities of the situation.

Agreed. Road space in the city itself is limited and thus valuable. It is far more efficiently used by public transport and bikes than by single occupancy cars, sitting in long queues. The answer is to;

(a) build the GCOB,
(b) revise the road network in the city centre to give far more space and attention to bikes and public transport,
(c) put in place a coherent regional spatial planning strategy to stop the spread of urban generated rural housing over most of the county, and to focus development on the city itself and those areas more easily served by public transport, and to more closely align where people live with where they work.
(d) ensure that the bus system is updated to meet the developing demands of the travelling public.

If you do (a) without (c), we'll all be back here in 20 years, talking about the construction of the GCOOB, and complaining about why people driving 20-60km to work have to queue in 'traffic' (ie, all of the other people driving 20-60km to work). Thats not offensive, it's just common sense.

TINA1984

antoobrien wrote: »

That's quite insulting to anybody working in the city that lives in the county - just under half the workers in Galway city. We need to stop being so blasted insular and look at all the realities of the situation.

Why is it insulting to cite that particular piece of info?

SeanW

Aidan1 wrote: »

Galway is a small, relatively compact, relatively flat city, without the type of satellite town development deliberately encouraged in Cork - the share should be far higher than the 4.9% recorded in the last census (even more so given the nature of the population living in the city itself. A lot of that is down to the fact that the city centre is very difficult for cyclists (although the new signalised junctions have probably helped a lot in that regard).



Agreed. Road space in the city itself is limited and thus valuable. It is far more efficiently used by public transport and bikes than by single occupancy cars, sitting in long queues. The answer is to;

(a) build the GCOB,
(b) revise the road network in the city centre to give far more space and attention to bikes and public transport,
(c) put in place a coherent regional spatial planning strategy to stop the spread of urban generated rural housing over most of the county, and to focus development on the city itself and those areas more easily served by public transport, and to more closely align where people live with where they work.
(d) ensure that the bus system is updated to meet the developing demands of the travelling public.

If you do (a) without (c), we'll all be back here in 20 years, talking about the construction of the GCOOB, and complaining about why people driving 20-60km to work have to queue in 'traffic' (ie, all of the other people driving 20-60km to work). Thats not offensive, it's just common sense.

But there are some people who would do just b) on its own, without a).

monument

antoobrien and To_be_confirmed -- I had a longer post mostly typed out but lost it earlier and am not rewriting it now, but I will when I get a change... but quickly replying here....

antoobrien wrote: »

That's quite insulting to anybody working in the city that lives in the county - just under half the workers in Galway city. We need to stop being so blasted insular and look at all the realities of the situation.

How is that image or what he said about it insulting to anybody working in the city that lives in the county?

antoobrien wrote: »

We already have the highest proportion of walking commuters in the country (17%) and the well as the 2rd highest cycling rate behind Dublin (so much for the "unfriendliness" of Galway for cyclists I hear so much about) and are 3rd behind Dublin and cork for bus travel.

17% of Galway city residents walking compared to Dublin's 14.5% could easy be explained by Galway being more compact and there being less attractive public transport compared to Dublin (I'm not saying Galway should have the same provision as Dublin).

The cycling figure at 4.9% is tiny. Unlike Dublin cycling in Galway is not booming but just stable.

antoobrien wrote: »

Where do you plan to extract the blood from?

Car users traveling short distances would seem to be a great starting and main focus point.

antoobrien

monument wrote: »

How is that image or what he said about it insulting to anybody working in the city that lives in the county?

Because the shortest one way trip from the nearest "towns" to the factories are in the region 6km with dire/no PT. It's insulting to suggest something that's practically impossible to use. IWH should already know this about Galway.

monument wrote: »

17% of Galway city residents walking compared to Dublin's 14.5% could easy be explained by Galway being more compact and there being less attractive public transport compared to Dublin

There's a statistic in there that says renters are more likely to walk as well.

monument wrote: »

The cycling figure at 4.9% is tiny. Unlike Dublin cycling in Galway is not booming but just stable.

Tiny by what standards, not Irish ones.

monument wrote: »

Car users traveling short distances would seem to be a great starting and main focus point.

That just ignores the problem that there are 37k journeys a day over the QB in Galway - just the bridge- and very few of those journeys are "short" trips. To put that in context, that's approaching the same levels as the M50/M1 showed in between J2 & J3 in January (40k vehicles).

lucernarian

antoobrien wrote: »

That just ignores the problem that there are 37k journeys a day over the QB in Galway - just the bridge- and very few of those journeys are "short" trips. To put that in context, that's approaching the same levels as the M50/M1 showed in between J2 & J3 in January (40k vehicles).

I had read a similar finding about the kind of journeys users of the bridge are taking, but I can't find it now. When you say very few of those journeys are "short", where did you find that out?

antoobrien

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

I had read a similar finding about the kind of journeys users of the bridge are taking, but I can't find it now. When you say very few of those journeys are "short", where did you find that out?

It's probably in the plans for their the QB junction changes or the Corrib Park Roundabout (Browne?) downgrade.

I'm getting this from my experiences of using it, very few people are turning the "right directions" to be classed as short journeys (e.g. less than 25% of the traffic I observed at 8.40 this morning were turning left at Newcastle to go in the direction of the university, meaning they were going another 0.5km minimum to get the the hospital). The bridge itself is over 1km long and to access it (with only a couple of exceptions) takes a minimum of a 1 km journey from the east. That's half the famous 4km radius gone (interestingly they haven't used it in this census yet). With the majority of the westbound traffic going further west than the hospital, it's fairly clear to me that the majority of journeys are in the medium (4-9km) range when using the bridge.

Sponge Bob

antoobrien wrote: »

That just ignores the problem that there are 37k journeys a day over the QB in Galway - just the bridge- and very few of those journeys are "short" trips. To put that in context, that's approaching the same levels as the M50/M1 showed in between J2 & J3 in January (40k vehicles).

Those who are ideologically against the Bypass constantly ignore that figure and hope it will go away...it won't UNTIL the bypass is built.

In order to create roadspace for other travel modes it is essential that lanes are taken out on the QB dualler and devoted to other uses ( COMBINED bus/cycle lanes would be useful) . The class of dualler built on the QB is congested at the movements currently there and taking a lane out would gridlock the city....and kill lots of sick people in ambulances on their way to UCHG...not that the ideologues care about that.

Road type capacity for the level of service ( 50kph) is certainly no more than 50k movements a day. If a lane is taken out this drops to no more than 15k

15k INTO 37k does not go.

Once the bypass is built I should think that 15-20k movements will transfer onto it daily. That of course means that the Bypass needs to be a dualler on day one but also means that 15-20k movements remain on the QB

Actions such as bus/cycle lane designation should take place IMMEDIATELY after the Bypass is built in order to manage QB movements down below 15k a day which is the most that the new Single lane bridge approach can now take. In fact Galway should become intolerant of having excessive vehicle movements in and around that chokepoint because it will remain a vital artery but at a deliberately greatly reduced vehicular capacity.

For now every sensible person knows that there is no alternative to a bypass because we are not going to get 20k Vehicle Movements onto bicycles in the pissing rain in Galway, well not overnight anyway and there is no road space for bus lanes at the QB pinch point.:D

However once the bypass is built then ruthlessly managing the vehicular traffic downwards is THE option that must be availed of for the benefit of all and ABSENT a bypass there is nowhere to send that traffic without crashing the entire economy of the west.....after all where do the taxpayers who pay for cycle and bus lanes and ecowhatnots come from if not Galway City???

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

That's quite insulting to anybody working in the city that lives in the county - just under half the workers in Galway city. We need to stop being so blasted insular and look at all the realities of the situation.

We already have the highest proportion of walking commuters in the country (17%) and the well as the 2rd highest cycling rate behind Dublin (so much for the "unfriendliness" of Galway for cyclists I hear so much about) and are 3rd behind Dublin and cork for bus travel.

Where do you plan to extract the blood from?

There's nothing "insular" about pointing out the physical reality: a car takes up a far greater amount of finite road space than a pedestrian or cyclist. Scale it up a bit and and it's perfectly obvious that, say, 50 single-occupant cars take up massively more space than a bus with 50 passengers. If we assume 5 metres per car and approximately 1 metre headway, that's nearly 300 metres of single-lane carriageway taken up by single-occupant cars compared to around 10 or 11 metres for a bus.

What's insulting, in my opinion, is to tell commuters who travel by modes that contribute nothing to traffic congestion that there is "no room" for them, and that they should wait for a higher Level of Service until cars have been accommodated, at some unspecified time in the future, with a shiny new road.

As you point out, pedestrians, cyclists and bus users already comprise a higher than average proportion of commuters at present. In which case, they deserve a higher Level of Service now, since by their mode of travel they are by definition not contributing to traffic congestion.

However, just look at the attitudes expressed Boards to the modification of roundabouts in Galway City. The general argument is that motorists are the People Who Matter, and that pedestrians, cyclists and bus users should make do with the left-overs.

As for "extract the blood", that's a neat example of the emotive rhetoric used by some motorists to portray themselves as victims in the face of current, and long-overdue, traffic and transportation policy developments.

Sponge Bob

Nevertheless the idea that motorists can be systematically squeezed out before the bypass is but a form of neo Luddism. It would utterly destroy the economy of the city, which economy itself generates the economic activity to pay for the bypass in the first place.

So while other modes have my sympathy as always I don't think we can do much for them in the form of exclusive road space until the bypass is built and that we plan for doing everything for them the second it opens with the small caveat that the newly constrained road space will itself need to cater for up to 12-15k movements a day instead of 37k as now

And then someone will surely mention building the Gluas and removing a complete Bus/Cycle lane from service ....oh the problems of success...what!??

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Because the shortest one way trip from the nearest "towns" to the factories are in the region 6km with dire/no PT. It's insulting to suggest something that's practically impossible to use. IWH should already know this about Galway.

"Planning" policies in County Galway and elsewhere have inexorably led to a situation in which car dependence is promoted and public transport is unviable. This has been well documented.

A bypass will not prevent that, and given that such a road would make car use in such areas even more appealing, the opposite would most likely be the case, ie promotion of car use or even more car-dependent development.

These points have been made on Boards over and over. The arguments just go round in circles.

Sponge Bob

Iwannahurl wrote: »

"Planning" policies in County Galway and elsewhere have inexorably led to a situation in which car dependence is promoted and public transport is unviable. This has been well documented.

A bypass will not prevent that

How can it prevent something if it don't exist, try reversing the horse towards the cart perhaps. ?????

Iwannahurl

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Nevertheless the idea that motorists can be systematically squeezed out before the bypass is but a form of neo Luddism. It would utterly destroy the economy of the city, which economy itself generates the economic activity to pay for the bypass in the first place.

So while other modes have my sympathy as always I don't think we can do much for them in the form of exclusive road space until the bypass is built and that we plan for doing everything for them the second it opens with the small caveat that the newly constrained road space will itself need to cater for up to 12-15k movements a day instead of 37k as now

And then someone will surely mention building the Gluas and removing a complete Bus/Cycle lane from service ....oh the problems of success...what!??

Neo-Luddism? Really?

So London and Stockholm, two cities with well-established road pricing/congestion charging are run by Ned Ludd's ideological descendants?

And cities such as Leiden, Utrecht, Copenhagen and Ghent are all run-down kips, teeming with unemployed people and marred by boarded-up shops?

Evidence please, that modal shift away from car use is economically detrimental.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What's insulting, in my opinion, is to tell commuters who travel by modes that contribute nothing to traffic congestion that there is "no room" for them

Do you realise that there are standards that have to be applied in order to provide for cycle lanes & road traffic lanes?

The basic fact of the matter that you refuse to accept is that there is insufficient room at various choke points to provide cycle facilities (at least 4 feet each) and adequate footpaths (6 feet each) and road way (9 feet each). That's 19-20 feet per side of the road to provide adequate (let alone proper) facilities for everyone on a two lane road.

I've cycled a few roads in Dublin that have on/off cycle lanes and they are worse than no lane at all. At least on "normal" roads the drivers know to give cyclists a bit of room, but when the lanes are scattered here & there the traffic often can't give room quickly enough because they don't know the lane is finishing (especially when it's just a white line and no "lane" colouring).

The alternatives, one way systems or give the traffic (all modes) an alternative route and throttle private vehicular traffic. Dublin is a mess of one way systems and the college Green experiment has been a disaster because of the lack of alternatives in the area supplied before stopping access (and then having to roll back on it).

Iwannahurl

Sponge Bob wrote: »

How can it prevent something if it don't exist, try reversing the horse towards the cart perhaps. ?????

Remedy the current situation, prevent its occurrence or worsening in future.

For example, "one-off" land will not disappear with a bypass, and the doomed Irish love affair with "one offs" won't end with a bypass either.

Sponge Bob

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Neo-Luddism? Really?

So London and Stockholm, two cities with well-established road pricing/congestion charging are run by Ned Ludd's ideological descendants?

You mean two cities that built an underground first and built beltways then for eg their Connemaras and THEN introduced charging much later when the alternative modes were long in place.

Really!

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Remedy the current situation, prevent its occurrence or worsening in future.

For example, "one-off" land will not disappear with a bypass, and the doomed Irish love affair with "one offs" won't end with a bypass either.

Have you any proof that the traffic is coming from "one off" housing to back up your assertion?

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Neo-Luddism? Really?

So London and Stockholm, two cities with well-established road pricing/congestion charging are run by Ned Ludd's ideological descendants?

And cities such as Leiden, Utrecht, Copenhagen and Ghent are all run-down kips, teeming with unemployed people and marred by boarded-up shops?

Evidence please, that modal shift away from car use is economically detrimental.

What do all those places have that Galway does not?

A road that does not run within 800m of the center of town!

What does Galway have theat these dfo not?

A road that runs through residential areas from the built in the 50s, 60s & 70s, before it was even considered and some people want to to call it a bypass despite going to within 800m of the designated center of the urban area!

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Do you realise that there are standards that have to be applied in order to provide for cycle lanes & road traffic lanes?

If there's room for cars and car-parking then there's room for other travel modes.

Reallocation of road space is key, eg bus-cycle lanes on SQR (however badly they may have been implemented).

With regard to cycling specifically, the National Cycle Policy Framework, for example, is not against bypasses (and may well promote them).

The key point is that the GCOB is years away, and waiting for it is not a sustainable option. A second key point, IMO, is that a bypass may not necessarily lead to modal shift on the required scale.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The key point is that the GCOB is years away, and waiting for it is not a sustainable option. A second key point, IMO, is that a bypass may not necessarily lead to modal shift on the required scale.

In the meantime we just prevent private traffic from using Newcastle Road so we can put in a cycle lane? You know the corner I'm talking about, there isn't room for a proper footpath on it and there's barely enough room to get a bus through it as things stand.

You do realise that if we were to put bus lanes on QB that, best case scenario we would need to increase the usage of the bus services in Galway by at least 400% based on commuting figures - that's allowing for a city wide doubling of cyclist and walkers and assuming that they are all using the bridge, just to service the QB traffic. Worst case (no increases) is 1200%.

A small bit of practicality is required from both sides and the logistics of what you are suggesting does not add up from any direction.

In the meantime, we can not change the fact that there are many physical choke points where we can not give cycle lanes and footpaths and road lanes, but you jsut want to ignore it.

Iwannahurl

Sponge Bob wrote: »

You mean two cities that built an underground first and built beltways then for eg their Connemaras and THEN introduced charging much later when the alternative modes were long in place.

Really!

Earlier quote:

Sponge Bob wrote: »

the idea that motorists can be systematically squeezed out before the bypass is but a form of neo Luddism.

Excluding cars from urban areas is not luddism, neo or otherwise.

The bypass will not be built for years. We can't go on gritting our teeth and waiting for it to appear.

Methods will have to be found to deal with the situation in the interim, under the banner of Transportation Demand Management or some such.

That's not luddism, its pragmatism, IMO. Neither is it "extracting blood" or whatever the earlier emotive term was.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

In the meantime we just prevent private traffic from using Newcastle Road so we can put in a cycle lane? You know the corner I'm talking about, there isn't room for a proper footpath on it and there's barely enough room to get a bus through it as things stand.

You do realise that if we were to put bus lanes on QB that, best case scenario we would need to increase the usage of the bus services in Galway by at least 400% based on commuting figures - that's allowing for a city wide doubling of cyclist and walkers and assuming that they are all using the bridge, just to service the QB traffic. Worst case (no increases) is 1200%.

A small bit of practicality is required from both sides and the logistics of what you are suggesting does not add up from any direction.

In the meantime, we can not change the fact that there are many physical choke points where we can not give cycle lanes and footpaths and road lanes, but you jsut want to ignore it.

Newcastle Road, where they drive up on the footpaths on a daily basis, including and perhaps especially at school drop-off and pick-up times?

Sponge Bob

I was waiting for one of your collection of "1000s" of photos of cars in Galway to show up.

Can you please reduce them in size in future, thanks. They ming the formatting in every thread you deploy them in.

I am delighted to hear that we are now on the same modal developmental level as Stockholm all the same.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Newcastle Road, where they drive up on the footpaths on a daily basis, including and perhaps especially at school drop-off and pick-up times?


http://i1089.photobucket.com/albums/i355/Iwannahurl/00-LM-1214.jpg

That kind've proves my point IWH - there is not sufficient room to have all three services provided side by side. And yet you do not want to see something that should make a difference.

lucernarian

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Evidence please, that modal shift away from car use is economically detrimental.

That's a bit of a straw man too. Where did Sponge Bob say the above? I don't know about you but I read that the economic activity of Galway would be damaged by not providing the bypass. I saw no generalised point about cars as a mode of transport being made and I certainly saw nothing about Sponge Bob's post that says the principle of encouraging modal shift away from cars would be economically damaging. Most posts about this issue make the point that the bypass is necessary to allow for basic accommodations to be made for cyclists and pedestrians within Galway city centre.

You're extrapolating something from nothing and it's becoming disruptive to any rational discussion of this issue...

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

That kind've proves my point IWH - there is not sufficient room to have all three services provided side by side. And yet you do not want to see something that should make a difference.

Only one mode is causing the problem. That's the point.

Iwannahurl

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

That's a bit of a straw man too. Where did Sponge Bob say the above?

rational discussion of this issue...

Here:

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Nevertheless the idea that motorists can be systematically squeezed out before the bypass is but a form of neo Luddism. It would utterly destroy the economy of the city

There is no bypass. There won't be a bypass for years to come.

Speaking of rational discussion, what is the evidence, eg from elsewhere in the EU, that modal shift would be utterly destructive to the city's economy in the interim?

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Only one mode is causing the problem. That's the point.

:pac: Yeah the bus is trapping the car in , while the cyclists are riding at the child waiting to get on the bus, instead of doing what they are supposed to do and cycle around the bus. Simplest thing ban the bus!:P

And motorists get a bad name for not doing the "right" thing:rolleyes:

Sponge Bob

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

That's a bit of a straw man too.

You're extrapolating something from nothing and it's becoming disruptive to any rational discussion of this issue...

Now you know why this discussion is effectively BANNED in the Galway City forum and is kicked over as standard to the Roads forum instead.

I have melancholic feelings about this subject undergoing a new eruption in C&T which has been spared the serial whataboutery and misuse of the 'straw' word (to date) but one of the Mods expressly wished to discuss it in here.

The general conclusion in whatever forum this subject kicks off in is that there is no road space in Galway with which to seriously tamper at present and that expensive tinkering with the existing network is just that, expensive tinkering not a solution.

Only ONE poster on all of boards serially and vehemently disagrees with the general conclusion.

As they have found this thread too we therefore cannot say that the discussion is in any way 'imbalanced' by their absence.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Yeah the bus is trapping the car in , while the cyclists are riding at the child waiting to get on the bus, instead of doing what they are supposed to do and cycle around the bus. Simplest thing ban the bus!

And motorists get a bad name for not doing the "right" thing

Refusal to see the obvious, as usual.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

There is no bypass. There won't be a bypass for years to come.

What has that to do with the debate over whether one is required?

lucernarian

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Here:

"Nevertheless the idea that motorists can be systematically squeezed out before the bypass is but a form of neo Luddism. It would utterly destroy the economy of the city"

No he did not!! Please show me where he said "that modal shift away from car use is economically detrimental.". Where did he say that?! If someone is making the point that modal shift cannot happen without the bypass, then how can any claim about the economic impact of the bypass not being built be suddenly turn into a claim about the economic impact of discouraging car use? Please provide evidence of this.

Beleive it or not, describing the economic damage to Galway in particular if modal change happens before the bypass is built is simply not the same thing as claiming that modal shift away from cars is economically damaging in general!.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Refusal to see the obvious, as usual.

http://i1089.photobucket.com/albums/i355/Iwannahurl/07-D-62332.jpg

Not from Galway but a nice counter point:



Can't be safe either can it?

Iwannahurl

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Now you know why this discussion is effectively BANNED in the Galway City forum and is kicked over as standard to the Roads forum instead.

I have melancholic feelings about this subject undergoing a new eruption in C&T which has been spared the serial whataboutery and misuse of the 'straw' word (to date) but one of the Mods expressly wished to discuss it in here.

The general conclusion in whatever forum this subject kicks off in is that there is no road space in Galway with which to seriously tamper at present and that expensive tinkering with the existing network is just that, expensive tinkering not a solution.

Only ONE poster on all of boards serially and vehemently disagrees with the general conclusion.

As they have found this thread too we therefore cannot say that the discussion is in any way 'imbalanced' by their absence.

Mods don't like such discussions in some forums because their RP dashboard lights up and they are hassled as a result.

The phrase "general conclusion" really just means dominant discourse. The prevailing dogma on some Boards forums is that the GCOB is unquestionably A Good Thing. Scepticism is not welcomed.

Take a look at some of the vitriol aimed at certain individuals and groups, and who's thanking whom, in the early stages of the GCOB thread here, long before the ECJ ruling put the cat among the self-satisfied pigeons.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055413202

Sample page: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=66230160

Iwannahurl

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

Beleive it or not, describing the economic damage to Galway in particular if modal change happens before the bypass is built is simply not the same thing as claiming that modal shift away from cars is economically damaging in general!.

What or where is the evidence that modal shift sans bypass would "utterly destroy" the city's economy?

Any documented examples from anywhere else?