N6 - Galway outer bypass: Is it needed?

Aidan1

When the smallest project they are talking about is in the billions, is that really opinion really jutified?

To quote someone or other, I reject the premise of the question. The reason the smallest project you might hear about is in the billions is solely because the city is big enough to require such capital projects. The Luas system, as presently constructed, cost about €770m for example. But there are always smaller capital projects in train that just don't make the national news.

I could easily read that as a denigration of Galway, but I'll point out that Galway City's population is 75k so comparisons of numbers of those employed are suspect

Apparently you did read it as a denigration; it's not, merely a statement of fact as a means of supporting a rebuttal of your argument that the other cities can or, indeed, need to take growth from Dublin. The other cities need to stand on their own merits, and compete on the basis of their own strengths. Galway does this very well for the most part, but it has a major traffic problem.

Similarly, the facts presented show the dangers associated with the belief that if we just build roads, fire together a spatial plan, and continue to allow people live all over the place, that every thing will be grand. It won't. In order to ensure that capital investment like the GCOB isn't wasted by becoming packed with commuters zipping in from all over the countryside, some difficult decisions need to be made around where people live. At present (well, 2011) the facts are fairly clear, County Galway has about 22-23% of it's population living in rural areas. County Cork, thanks in no small part to LUTS (and to the farcical city boundary admittedly) is around 50/50, despite it's nearly 20% larger size. Cork has 4 large towns (bigger than 12,000 people) in it's commuter zone, three of which have a commuter rail service, all thanks to good planning. Connaught, as a whole, only has 3 towns over 10,000 (including Sligo at 19,452), none of which have commuter rail.

I'll spell it out for you. Bad planning has it's consequences, consequences that will limit the growth of the city of Galway in the future if we are not very careful. Building the GCOB is far from a panacea. Unless it is accompanyed by proper spatial planning that has an actual effect on where people can live, and traffic demand management within Galway, and investment in Public Transport, it will be a waste of money because it will be clogged up in short order. And we'll all be back here again in 10 years, arguing about whether the chicken (GCOOB) or the egg (TDM, public transport investment and spatial planning) should come first.

Aidan1

But in case it wasn't clear, the point was that other areas have had large electrical engineering industries in the area and if DEC could build mainframes, why not intel building chips?

This has been partly covered already, but there are real practical reasons for it. DEC was essentially an assembley set up - they didn't have a huge power draw. Intel is completely different, they run far larger plant and equipment on site. It's one of the largest single site customers for electricity in the State (their connection is to the transmission grid, not the distribution grid!). That location was the only place in the country at that time that could safely meet that power draw. Right now, there are a couple of places in the Cork harbour region that could probably do the same (and I stress probably), but very few others. Galway has never had that level of connectivity.

But, in many ways, it owes its present good fortune to this and to the timing of the DEC pull out. It forced the city and the IDA to look for other industries, ones that didn't have a huge power draw (unlike the pharma plants that went to Cork). They settled on software and medical devices, and now you have Boston Scientific et al based there. Perversely, Limerick lost out because Dell stayed there so long.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

It's not a mutually exclusive concept, no reduction in congestion despite lower traffic flows is possible when the reason for the congestion -the junctions - remain over capacity.

Where did you get 20 years out of, when a couple of years ago you seemeed to be unaware that it had been in planning since 2001?

So are you in fact claiming that the alleged 5-10% reduction in traffic volume would have led to a reduction in congestion if it wasn't for the removal of those delightful roundabouts?

Eamon O Cuiv said the bypass has been in "planning" for around 20 years: http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/60344/eu-ruling-allows-way-for-outer-bypass-to-be-built

antoobrien wrote: »

Generally the same in my view, but then traffic figures indicate that the peak of traffic was later (08/09). You're just obsessed with '06 because there's census data. As snapshots go it's useful, but if we want meaningful information we need more than 1 survey every 5 years for things like this.

Obsessed? Really? How often have I mentioned 2006 in this thread?

So you're saying the level of traffic congestion has been generally the same, taking into account the point you made re "not mutually exclusive" etc?

monument

Could this be a model for the current N6 roundabouts?

http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/multi-level-roundabout-the-safest-solution-for-a-junction/

Iwannahurl

MYOB wrote: »

congestion making people buy things.

Cough medicine, one supposes.

antoobrien

Aidan1 wrote: »

Apparently you did read it as a denigration; it's not,

No, I said I could and pointed out where some of your comparisons were slightly misleading. I then went on to say that I viewed it as where Galway could be in the future, if the correct decisions are made.

Aidan1 wrote: »

Similarly, the facts presented

What facts? There have been nothing but innuendos from all sides and an argument that boils down to x happened in Dublin after y was built, so we can't do do x in Galway. That's not facts, that's presenting opinions as facts.

Any time facts are brought in they are ignored or thrown under the bus by posters that don't want to look at all the facts. We have the hysterically funny complaints that we should ignore co galways size and economic circumstances and that we should not learn form Dublin's mistakes i.e. the good and bad about the M50, instead of just concentrating on the bad.

Aidan1 wrote: »

But, in many ways, it owes its present good fortune to this and to the timing of the DEC pull out. It forced the city and the IDA to look for other industries, ones that didn't have a huge power draw (unlike the pharma plants that went to Cork). They settled on software and medical devices, and now you have Boston Scientific et al based there. Perversely, Limerick lost out because Dell stayed there so long.

Indeed, and it couldn't support the industries that have large power draws in any case. On the Dell issue, as it turns out hardware was going out of DEC in Galway within 5 years no matter what happened, as the plant that production was moved to closed a few years later because the line of PCs it had failed.

The reason for the pullout of DEC being a phoenix from the ashes for Galway is that DEC had no real competition for jobs and there was a suddenly available pool of talent, which attracted the likes of Boston (CR Baird now Medtronic were already there), Nellcor (multiple takeovers, now part of Covidien). It also allowed a lot of people start companies - Creganna is one of dozens of companies that started from the redundancy packages.

galwaycyclist

Aidan1 wrote: »

This has been partly covered already, but there are real practical reasons for it. DEC was essentially an assembley set up - they didn't have a huge power draw. Intel is completely different, they run far larger plant and equipment on site. It's one of the largest single site customers for electricity in the State (their connection is to the transmission grid, not the distribution grid!). That location was the only place in the country at that time that could safely meet that power draw. Right now, there are a couple of places in the Cork harbour region that could probably do the same (and I stress probably), but very few others. Galway has never had that level of connectivity.

But, in many ways, it owes its present good fortune to this and to the timing of the DEC pull out. It forced the city and the IDA to look for other industries, ones that didn't have a huge power draw (unlike the pharma plants that went to Cork). They settled on software and medical devices, and now you have Boston Scientific et al based there. Perversely, Limerick lost out because Dell stayed there so long.

In Galway, DEC (or Digital Equipment Corporation) gave way to Compaq which gave way to Hewlett Packard. There is still a HP operation on the site and they have decided that they now need a new office. They are in planning for a new building on the same site. Now heres the thing if we are serious about solving, rather than catering for, traffic then everything should be on the table.

HP has almost no manufacturing left - its almost all knowledge work - in that case would it not make sense to analyse the origins of all cars arriving in HP every morning? If most of them are coming from the West would it not make sense to find some way to encourage HP to relocate over by Zenimax for instance? There is already a concentration of IT companies in Dangan, again on the West but that site is likely too small for HP.

It may be that the analysis would argue for a location on the East - maybe even further east like Oranmore. We don't know.

If significant public investment is being asked for the bypass as a "strategic link" then land use issues have to be solved anyway. Otherwise it becomes misused for commuter traffic.

Aidan1

What facts? There have been nothing but innuendos from all sides and an argument that boils down to x happened in Dublin after y was built, so we can't do do x in Galway. That's not facts, that's presenting opinions as facts.

I'm not getting caught up in previous arguments - people clearly have entrenched positions, that's fair enough. All I'm doing is picking up on a couple of points that you have made around the geographical specificities of Galway, and using examples from elsewhere in the State to illustrate my point ---> that Galway's traffic problems right now are at least partially due to poor planning at a city and regional level, issues that building the GCOB will do little or nothing to deal with in and of themselves.

If significant public investment is being asked for the bypass as a "strategic link" then land use issues have to be solved anyway. Otherwise it becomes misused for commuter traffic.

Exactly.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

So are you in fact claiming that the alleged 5-10% reduction in traffic volume would have led to a reduction in congestion if it wasn't for the removal of those delightful roundabouts?

Now where have I stated such a thing and how do you manage to creatively misinterpret things in such as way as to ignore the point that despite the reduction in traffic, there has been no great effect on congestion in Galway.

The drop in traffic is roughly equivalent to a 100% increase in the use of other modes, which kinda debunks the theory that Galway will be fine with PT & cycling.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Eamon O Cuiv said the bypass has been in "planning" for around 20 years: http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/60344/eu-ruling-allows-way-for-outer-bypass-to-be-built

That's grand, I've had to explain to you a few times that planning started in the 90s, I wasn't aware that it started before the current N6 was completed ti Doughiska.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Obsessed? Really? How often have I mentioned 2006 in this thread?

How often have you referred acorss varius threads to the mythical 4km journey - as if a radius on a map was relevant in terms of distance travelled. That appeared in the 2006 report.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

So you're saying the level of traffic congestion has been generally the same, taking into account the point you made re "not mutually exclusive" etc?

I'm saying that I haven't seen the evidence of the great reductions in travel times. For example, the 5 minute wait at peak time to get through briarhill - I ahven't done it in less than ten minutes - same time as it was taking me in 2007 the few times I did it- if I don't get to it before 5pm.

Iwannahurl

galwaycyclist wrote: »

If significant public investment is being asked for the bypass as a "strategic link" then land use issues have to be solved anyway. Otherwise it becomes misused for commuter traffic.

You can be certain the GCOB would/will be used for commuter traffic, current and future.

I'm not sure how many will be employed at ZeniMax once it's fully up and running, but at the moment Aviva and adjacent business are drawing plenty of traffic, if the number of cars parked on the road as well as in the car-park is anything to go by. I'd be interested to know where the workers are coming from and what their modes of travel are.

Iwannahurl

monument wrote: »

Could this be a model for the current N6 roundabouts?

http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/multi-level-roundabout-the-safest-solution-for-a-junction/

Utrecht is cycle heaven, according to a Dutch friend (who gave up cycling in Galway).

antoobrien

galwaycyclist wrote: »

There is already a concentration of IT companies in Dangan, again on the West but that site is likely too small for HP.

I work in Dangan, definitely not enough capacity.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

It may be that the analysis would argue for a location on the East - maybe even further east like Oranmore.

But doesn't that fly in the face of PT & cycling arguments.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

If significant public investment is being asked for the bypass as a "strategic link" then land use issues have to be solved anyway. Otherwise it becomes misused for commuter traffic.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

If most of them are coming from the West would it not make sense to find some way to encourage HP to relocate over by Zenimax for instance?

Slight flip side of that. If they were well dispersed and not mainly from one side or the other, would Zenimax or say the former crown factory (currently a hole in the ground supposed to be a shopping center) in in Mervue be a suitable location?

markpb

antoobrien wrote: »

Yeah, so was luas mk1. Want to put a bet on that it'll be closer to the end price?

If we're polishing off our magic 8 balls, couldn't the same be said about whatever price was predicted for the GCOB? Maybe it'll be so expensive that it won't be worth it and a bypass should be built for Belmullet instead to relieve the congestion in the Galway region.

I've no problem with anyone wanting their region or city to grow and be the best it can but in Ireland it seems to be constantly the opposite - they want their region to get more than Dublin because of some misguided idea that Dublin is "full".

antoobrien wrote: »

We have the hysterically funny complaints that we should ignore co galways size and economic circumstances and that we should not learn form Dublin's mistakes i.e. the good and bad about the M50, instead of just concentrating on the bad.

Since Galway hasn't done any work on a proper planning or land use process, I don't see why you're so confident that they won't make the same mistakes that Dublin made. Instead of dealing with this, you constantly choose to denigrate anyone who disagrees with you, calling their posts hysterically funny, full of innuendo, delusional, claiming they have nothing to back up their posts (which is funny considering you've provided nothing but your own experience), asking "Where do people get off with this crap" or saying "I've long suspected you're being argumentative for the sake of it". Perhaps if you toned down your posting style a little, debated things properly instead of insulting people constantly you might pick up less infractions.

galwaycyclist

antoobrien wrote: »

But doesn't that fly in the face of PT & cycling arguments.

No not if it turned out that the majority of workers live in Oranmore.

SeanW

Con Logue wrote: »

Interesting, I didn't know who Peter Sweetman was before now, but thanks to Boards and googling An Taisce I do now. Those who want more rural sprawl may well have dropped the ball without realising it. Pulling Ireland out of the ECJ so we can continue to build all over the Galway hinterland without regard to the consequences might be a bit extreme.

Interesting. If you're referring to me, it seems you didn't actually read my post or have chosen to deliberately misrepresent it to build a strawman argument.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I have made the point repeatedly -- to no avail -- that the focus should be on moving people rather than cars.

I thought people used cars to move?

Unfortunately, the 20-year-old We-Must-Have-A-Bypass perspective (which was already outdated when first mooted) is rooted in thinking that equates moving cars with moving people.

Great, so if thinking that "we need a bypass" was outmoded 20 years ago, then the M50, the M6 (with all its attendant bypasses) the N5 bypasses e.g. Longford, the N40, should all be torn up because moving cars =/= moving people?

An example of a major GCOB proponent that equates mobility for cars with access for people is the Galway Chamber of Commerce, imo.

Their CEO said in 2010 that, while he supported the city's Smarter Travel bid, there was a "delicate balance" to be struck between "anti-car" measures and facilitating “people who want, need, prefer or like to use the car”. A potential downside of Smarter Travel, he suggested, was "a fantastic ambiance and streetscape with a great atmosphere where people congregate in the city centre but do their shopping elsewhere."

Gee, the Chamber of Commerce. I.E. representatives of city traders. Funny thing is that these trade representatives think they know what's going to make their business better ... how strange is that?

the focus on car mobility misses the crucial point that it's people who spend money, and that if people have more time, space and opportunities to browse and linger (aka dwell time) they will spend more money as well as feel like coming back more often.

Which is exactly my experience with car parking charges ... when I have to pay them, it's a case of get in, do what has to be done, and get the hell back out as fast as absolutely possible. When I lived in Cork I sometimes (not very often) drove into the city centre and parked in a multi-story as opposed to walking (which I did more often). On one occasion I dawdled a few minutes more than absolutely necessary, had to pay €3 extra for the turn of the hour as a result. I didn't make that mistake again.

No doubt Galway Chamber of Commerce knows that people who must drive to shop likely feel the same way. Again, to be sure I'm not suggesting that motorists be put at the centre of planning in the city (rather a more balanced approach) but I put it to you that the Chamber of Commerce knows a little bit more about how to attract customers to their shops than you do. I will go further: Their interest is in bringing customers to their shops, your interest appears to be in bashing motorists.

yer man!

If I'm not mistaken but didn't the IDA build a business park in Oranmore on the site of the old airfield for a Johnson and Johnson manufacturing facility (fell through for internal reason I think). One of the reasons stated for it's location was the M6, M17, M18 road connection, the fact that product could easily get to market and the fact that the facility would be easily accessible by road from most of the country, quickly. Something that the West of the city cannot reasonably compete with. This was also one of the reasons why the govt are pushing for the bypass so much, sending freight into the city to make it to the other side is not very efficient and puts many employers which need a lot of freight off.

galwaycyclist

antoobrien wrote: »

Now where have I stated such a thing and how do you manage to creatively misinterpret things in such as way as to ignore the point that despite the reduction in traffic, there has been no great effect on congestion in Galway.

The drop in traffic is roughly equivalent to a 100% increase in the use of other modes, which kinda debunks the theory that Galway will be fine with PT & cycling.

The problem with this theory is that among key cohorts there has been a shift towards increased car use in the city.

Five kilometers is often taken as a ball park range within which cycling works best. Its about a 20-25 minute cycle

Source Census 2006

Galway City distance to work or education

---

• Proportion of Workers living under 5km from work 44.67%
• Proportion of Secondary Students living under 5km from school 56.30%
• Proportion of Primary Students living under 5km from school 60.5% (22.8% under 2km)

Travel patterns 2006 2011

---

• For Galway City workers walking and cycling combined fell from 24.10% to 20.69% between census 2006 and 2011 (For PT, Walk, Cycle combined fell from 30.56% to 26.22%). Car use as a driver grew from 52.4% to 57.87%. Cycling use grew fractionally within that 4.44% to 4.63%
• For Galway City Secondary Students walking and cycling stayed pretty much static from 26.44% to 26.65% between census 2006 and 2011 (For PT, Walk, Cycle combined fell slightly from 53.43% to 52.73%). Car use as a passenger grew from 42.4% to 43%. Cycling use grew fractionally within that 3.42% to 3.61%
• For Galway City Primary schoolchildren walking and cycling combined fell from 22.57% to 21.02% between census 2006 and 2011 (For PT, Walk, Cycle combined fell from 30.9% to 27.35%). Car use as a passenger grew from 62.48% to 67.33%%. Cycling use grew within that from 0.56% to 1.64%

The numbers clearly show that in Galway city there is theoretically a large potential to get more people walking or cycling.

Although we are being told that less traffic will create a more attractive walking and cycling environment there is little real sign of it in these numbers.

We have just gone through a prolonged economic crisis, with cutbacks, high unemployment and a sustained period of record fuel prices. These are all pressures that in other cities might be expected to encourage a strong shift away from car use to other modes. Instead in Galway city the opposite has been happening there is increased car-dependancy at a time when the costs of driving are increasing and real incomes are falling.

Why? What has gone so wrong in Galway city that normal economic pressures no longer apply?

Iwannahurl

galwaycyclist wrote: »

there has been a shift towards increased car use in the city.

Source Census 2006

Galway City distance to work or education

---

• Proportion of Workers living under 5km from work 44.67%
• Proportion of Secondary Students living under 5km from school 56.30%
• Proportion of Primary Students living under 5km from school 60.5% (22.8% under 2km)

Travel patterns 2006 2011

---

• For Galway City workers walking and cycling combined fell from 24.10% to 20.69% between census 2006 and 2011 (For PT, Walk, Cycle combined fell from 30.56% to 26.22%). Car use as a driver grew from 52.4% to 57.87%. Cycling use grew fractionally within that 4.44% to 4.63%
• For Galway City Secondary Students walking and cycling stayed pretty much static from 26.44% to 26.65% between census 2006 and 2011 (For PT, Walk, Cycle combined fell slightly from 53.43% to 52.73%). Car use as a passenger grew from 42.4% to 43%. Cycling use grew fractionally within that 3.42% to 3.61%
• For Galway City Primary schoolchildren walking and cycling combined fell from 22.57% to 21.02% between census 2006 and 2011 (For PT, Walk, Cycle combined fell from 30.9% to 27.35%). Car use as a passenger grew from 62.48% to 67.33%. Cycling use grew within that from 0.56% to 1.64%

The numbers clearly show that in Galway city there is theoretically a large potential to get more people walking or cycling.

Although we are being told that less traffic will create a more attractive walking and cycling environment there is little real sign of it in these numbers.

These are the sort of stats I had in mind (but not to hand) when asking earlier whether traffic congestion had increased, decreased or stayed the same.

Whatever the real answer is on that score, car use in Galway City increased by five percentage points among workers and parents of primary school children during the intercensal period 2006-2011.

Why might that be the case, in the context of an alleged 5-10% decrease in traffic volume overall?

Fewer children now walking to school in Galway City

December 18, 2012

Seven out of ten primary school kids are being brought by car

The number of primary school pupils who walk to school in Galway has continued to decline as increasing numbers of parents opt to drive their children to the school gates.

Analysis of the Census 2011 figures released this week reveal that the car is by far the most popular means of travelling to primary school in Galway City and County for children aged between five and 12 years.

The Census shows that more than seven out of ten children (72.4%) in Galway travel to school in a car, which is way above the national average (61%); and much greater than five years ago when just 65% of Galway national school children were driven by car to school.

Secondary school students in Galway were far more likely to use alternatives to the car to get to school: 13% (2,193 students) walked, 46.5% travelled to school by car, while 38.6% travelled by bus and 1.3% cycled.

A total of 66,543 persons, representing 75.7 per cent of commuters in County Galway, either drove to work or were a passenger in a car in 2011. This compared to 69 per cent of commuters in the State overall.

Meanwhile, 3.3% used public transport (bus or train), 2.2% cycled and 9.4% walked to work. One in thirteen commuters residing in County Galway had travel times of an hour or longer to work, while 2.1% (1,821 persons) spent 90 minutes or more commuting. 28.5% of workers had travel times of 15 minutes or less.

antoobrien

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Five kilometers is often taken as a ball park range within which cycling works best. Its about a 20-25 minute cycle

That use of "ball park range" underlines the fact that the arguments are based on speculation not real facts and as such pure and utter rubbish!

antoobrien

galwaycyclist wrote: »

No not if it turned out that the majority of workers live in Oranmore.

Do you seriously believe that? It might have been true with DEC that the majority of workers lived in and around mervue, ballybane and ballybrit but those days are long gone. I worked in several factories while in college, the amount of people that had lost jobs/found in the county or better paying ones in the city and could not move (for various and sundry reasons) were large.

Another point to consider is the social mobility of the people we are talking about. For better or worse people live where they live and many people will not be able to move for 5-10-15 years (if ever) until the value of the dwelling gets back above the outstanding mortgage amount (including penalties for breaking fixed loans) - e.g. people in knockncara who bought vastly overpriced houses. I'm sure there are a few that would dearly love to swap with some of the houses that are available in Mervue/Ballybane but they can't.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

That use of "ball park range" underlines the fact that the arguments are based on speculation not real facts and as such pure and utter rubbish!

From Cycling -- the way ahead for towns and cities, European Commission, 1999

Technical improvements have made modern bicycles efficient and convenient to use. There is no pollution from bicycles, they are silent, economical, discreet, accessible to all members of the family and, above all, a bike is faster than a car over short urban distances (5 km and even more in the case of traffic jams).

More than 30 % of trips made in cars in Europe cover distances of less than 3 km and 50 % are less than 5 km. For such journeys alone, bicycles could easily replace cars, thus satisfying a large proportion of the demand and contributing directly to cutting down traffic jams.

We cannot afford to ignore the potential of cycling, whether for daily trips to school or to the workplace (which account for 40 % of all journeys made) or for other reasons (60 % of journeys made are to do with shopping, services, leisure pursuits, social activities, etc.)

Even if the bicycle is not the only solution to traffic and environmental problems in towns, it represents a solution which fits perfectly into any general policy which seeks to re-enhance the urban environment and improve the quality of a town and it mobilises comparatively few
financial resources.

Minister of State, Alan Kelly, speaking at the European Green Transport Conference, 2011:

"If people think that the possibilities of making a switch to active travel modes are limited, let me put this in the context of current travel patterns in Dublin City. Some 40% of daily journeys into the city centre are less than 5 kilometres. This sort of distance is eminently suited to travel by bike or, for many, on foot."

From UK Cycling Embassy: http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/wiki/cycling-not-practical-most-peoples-transportation-or-commuting-needs

Many of the journeys which people currently make by car [in the UK] are distances easily covered on a cycle:

22% of journeys in the UK are under 1 mile (1.5 km), 21% of these are made by car (a distance easily cycled in 5 minutes or less)
19% of journeys in the UK are between 1-2 miles (1.5-3 km), 60% of these are made by car (a distance easily cycled in 10 minutes or less)
28% of journeys in the UK are between 2-5 miles (3-8 km), 80% of these are made by car (a distance easily cycled in 20 minutes or less)
This gives a cumulative total of 69% of journeys made in the UK being under 5 miles (8 km), a distance easily cycled by the vast majority of people.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

These are the sort of stats I had in mind (but not to hand) when asking earlier whether traffic congestion had increased, decreased or stayed the same.

If you could get stats that reflect the traffic into Galway city that'd actually be useful because those are for the entore county (not that I'd expect anything less form the skullhead journos we have) - i.e. you are confusing Galway City traffic with traffic going to Ballinasloe, Loughrea, Athenry, Moycullen......

The actual figures for the city in 2006 were 1,190 5-12 year olds walking, this is now 1,209.

So much for

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Fewer children now walking to school in Galway City

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The number of primary school pupils who walk to school in Galway has continued to decline

markpb

antoobrien wrote: »

That use of "ball park range" underlines the fact that the arguments are based on speculation not real facts and as such pure and utter rubbish!

Ignoring the fact that you've already been shown where the figure came from, you realise that there's no hard facts when it comes to saying what people will be comfortable with. If you expect to see a paper showing that exactly 5.235km suits all people as cycling distance, it's no wonder you dismiss other posts are pure and utter rubbish.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

If you could get stats that reflect the traffic into Galway city that'd actually be useful because those are for the entore county (not that I'd expect anything less form the skullhead journos we have) - i.e. you are confusing Galway City traffic with traffic going to Ballinasloe, Loughrea, Athenry, Moycullen......

The actual figures for the city in 2006 were 1,190 5-12 year olds walking, this is now 1,209.

So much for

Thanks for the clarification. I had meant to add the caveat that the Galway News report (also in the Sentinel, iirc) did not distinguish between City and County.

Good to know, then, that 19 more children walked to Galway City primary schools in 2011 than in 2006. It might have been 20 had our child been eligible for the local school a year earlier, but the upside is that we will boost the bike stats by a similar number next time round.

Good to see also that unbypassed Galway City managed to have ten times as many primary school cyclists as did bypassed* Waterford City in both 2006 and 2011.






* Opened 2009, lest anyone quibble.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification. I had meant to add the caveat that the Galway News report (also in the Sentinel, iirc) did not distinguish between City and County.

Ah so when the figures prove you wrong they still prove you right, well done!:rolleyes:

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Good to know, then, that 19 more children walked to Galway City primary schools in 2011 than in 2006. It might have been 20 had our child been eligible for the local school a year earlier, but the upside is that we will boost the bike stats by a similar number next time round.

And when that child grows out of the statistic (e.g. hits 13 or 19), the effect could be to reduce the numbers of children cycling. Will you blame any such drop on "choices of parents" again?

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Good to see also that unbypassed Galway City managed to have ten times as many primary school cyclists as did bypassed* Waterford City in both 2006 and 2011.

How many of those kids go to school in Kilkenny?

antoobrien

markpb wrote: »

Ignoring the fact that you've already been shown where the figure came from, you realise that there's no hard facts when it comes to saying what people will be comfortable with. If you expect to see a paper showing that exactly 5.235km suits all people as cycling distance, it's no wonder you dismiss other posts are pure and utter rubbish.

You're wrong that it has been shown that they are exactly blah blah because the census figures referred to works by radius. To give you an example, anyone living in Tirellan, working in Danagan is less than 1.5-2.5km away. The trip however gate to gate is 4km. Kinda makes the 5km radius argument null and void in Galway.

If we want to get figures that we everyone can be comfortable with, we need to do far more regular and detailed examinations than the census, which is a scratching of the surface once every 5 years.

One of the reasons I distrust the census data and prefer actual traffic studies (e.g. traffic counters, bus & train passenger numbers where available) is because of the time lapse between them. The census capture snapshots at a particular time but they do not get useful continuing data. To give you an idea of what I'm talking about, here are what has been recorded for me in the last 3 censuses.

Census|Mode
2002 | Cycle
2006 | Walk
2011 | Cycle


In the intra census period 2002-2006 I appear as a cycling statistic, when I would have spent months either getting buses, being a passenger for someone going that way, walking, using PT or driving. But the census just sees a cyclist until 2006 who started walking (funny it's always assumed when we look at figrues that they are lost to cars if there is an increase in that figure). Between 2006 & 2011 I again did everything except drive to work. Right now I'm down as a cyclist again for the next 5 years, despite the fact that I was a PT passenger for most of the period and now drive.

Aidan1

You have to consider both data sources - travel figures do little to capture changing demographics, and are therefore of very little use in forecasting future demand. As an example, people have been quoting figures for walking to school within the city. That;'s just the figure over the line - what about the figure below (the total number of children in that age bracket attending school). Without that, you don't know if the percentage actually rose or fell, which is materially very important.

Also, you can't compare cities if you just use the raw numbers very easily, and so wouldn't be able to determine that Galway City and suburbs have 19% of their primary school age children walking to school, whereas the figure is 29% for Cork, 35% for Limerick and 42% for Dublin. All of which tells a very different story from the simple 'the raw number rose slightly so it's all hunky dory' line.

Figures from Table 12 on Page 49 of this;

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/census/documents/census2011profile10/Profile,10,Full,Document.pdf

antoobrien

Aidan1 wrote: »

You have to consider both data sources - travel figures do little to capture changing demographics, and are therefore of very little use in forecasting future demand. As an example, people have been quoting figures for walking to school within the city. That;'s just the figure over the line - what about the figure below (the total number of children in that age bracket attending school). Without that, you don't know if the percentage actually rose or fell, which is materially very important.

I'm aware of that, the figures though claimed a real numbers drop in the city - which is clearly untrue.

Aidan1 wrote: »

Also, you can't compare cities if you just use the raw numbers very easily, and so wouldn't be able to determine that Galway City and suburbs have 19% of their primary school age children walking to school, whereas the figure is 29% for Cork, 35% for Limerick and 42% for Dublin. All of which tells a very different story from the simple 'the raw number rose slightly so it's all hunky dory' line.

Who said hunky dory? I merely stated that IWH needs to check facts. Besides which there are at least 2 rural schools in Galway city that have no footpaths leading up to them. How will that affect the figures?

There's more than one layer to the figures, let's discuss all of them shall we and not just concentrate on the ones that suit the anti bypass arguments.

Aidan1

Actually, these figures don't suit the anti bypass argument. Patently there is something about Galway that makes it particularly poor in terms of car dependence, one of them being traffic in the city, and that can only really be dealt with by taking East-West traffic out of the city (and off the QB in particular). It also makes clear that you absolutely have to do something about planning the urban space better, not just in terms of slapping down the odd footpath, but in terms of making sure that schools and housing are better located. And you also have to engage and deal with the sprawl into rural areas. I'm a supporter of the bypass, but I would go so far as to suggest that the city shows good faith in terms of dealing with these issues, the GCOB should be held up.

antoobrien

Aidan1 wrote: »

Actually, these figures don't suit the anti bypass argument.

Oh, tell that to the people who tell give us the impression that if we can just fix the schools we won't need a bypass.

Aidan1 wrote: »

Patently there is something about Galway that makes it particularly poor in terms of car dependence, one of them being traffic in the city, and that can only really be dealt with by taking East-West traffic out of the city (and off the QB in particular).

Agreed.

Aidan1 wrote: »

It also makes clear that you absolutely have to do something about planning the urban space better, not just in terms of slapping down the odd footpath, but in terms of making sure that schools and housing are better located.

This is a big problem in Galway. Most of the secondary schools are west of the river - as shown by the much higher numbers getting buses to school for the 13-18 age group than the 5-12 age group.

Aidan1 wrote: »

And you also have to engage and deal with the sprawl into rural areas.
I'm a supporter of the bypass, but I would go so far as to suggest that the city shows good faith in terms of dealing with these issues, the GCOB should be held up.

And this is where things get interesting and side tracked into talks of a bungalow blitz which in reality has less to do with city traffic than the fact that a large number of farmers & people that had jobs in the county are having to look increasingly to the city for work (a phenomenon that started in the 80s).

So where do we develop. Do we finish, Doughiska, develop Ballintemple & Ardaun - right beside the East of the city which have PT plans as part of the proposals or do we develop Oranmore, Athenry Claregalway etc as dormitory towns with P&Rs and run frequent buses along the DCs to Galway.