N6 - Galway outer bypass: Is it needed?

antoobrien

what_traffic wrote: »

Your trying to put word's in my mouth. So you cannot specifically point to any quotes that I have previously made?

Oh great IWH Mark II - don't admit anything, despite what your posts say.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85336402&postcount=922

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=85331766

You started a thread about removing a car park from the city center (with a badly attempted justification)

This one though kinda takes the biscuit

what_traffic wrote: »

To many vested interests making money from car parking in the city for the park and ride to take off; City Council are included in those vested interests.

what_traffic wrote: »

These are the reason's it is failing.

It's failing because topographically Galway is seriously unsuited to it.

what_traffic wrote: »

Where do I discuss this "audience" ?

Every post you talk about too much parking being available in the city and any thread where you advocate the removal of spaces makes it quite clear that your target audience is people who drive into Galway city centre to park.

that has nothing to do with the provision of a bypass, which by definition is aimed at keeping traffic out of the city centre.

monument

antoobrien wrote: »

Oh great IWH Mark II - don't admit anything, despite what your posts say.

Very last warning: Cut the sniping out and deal with the points not the posters.

what_traffic

antoobrien wrote: »

It's failing because topographically Galway is seriously unsuited to it.

Galway City itself is not unsuited for P & R - it is just that the current conditions make it unsuitable for P & R to work.

antoobrien wrote: »

that has nothing to do with the provision of a bypass, which by definition is aimed at keeping traffic out of the city centre.

It does actually - if you take private motor vechicles off the current network with facilities such as P & R; it will free up capacity on the current network. Provision of a bypass can then be looked at if still required after this.

antoobrien

what_traffic wrote: »

It does actually - if you take private motor vechicles off the current network with facilities such as P & R; it will free up capacity on the current network. Provision of a bypass can then be looked at if still required after this.

Considering the traffic you are targeting and the traffic the bypass is targeting are two entirely different beasts, no it won't.

Here's what the ABP inspector had to say on the matter:

Absolutely nothing, city centre, commercial or industrial parking was not a even a minor issue. The only place parking did come up was for some residents of Tonabruckey who were worried about the effect of the changed access to the sporting facilities in Drum (Salthil Devon & Rahoon Newcastle) - a fair concern.

The inspector however did deal with alternatives to building a road, which is why I bring this up now as TDM, P&R and other solutions are being trumpeted as being more suitable than a bypass.

Put another way, any alternative considered should be orientated to achieving these aims and purposes. In addition, the consideration of alternatives should be incorporated into the selection process rather than added on after the selection of the project. Alternatives should also be practicable and reasonably capable of meeting the aims and purposes of the project.

What is the purpose of this project, according to the inspector:

This project has arisen from a specific aim to provide an outer bypass around Galway City to link the N6 National Primary Road, currently under construction, to the N59 and R336 roads, thereby providing a direct link into the Connemara area.

Since parking isn't mentioned, save for Drumm, we'll take on the relevant portions of text for rest of the proposals:

In the context of the transport needs of Galway, the case has been made that there should be investment in the public transport infrastructure of the city as an alternative to this project. That approach has merit in the context of sustainable transport facilities, but cannot reasonably be considered as an alternative given the specific aims and purposes of this road project. Nor should the road necessarily be seen as substituting for or precluding investment in public transport facilities. A relevant point in this regard is that the development of bus lanes on the Quincentennial Bridge and approaches would, in the absence of the bypass, reduce the capacity of the road system in the city to carry cross-city traffic.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

The [ABP] inspector however did deal with alternatives to building a road, which is why I bring this up now as TDM, P&R and other solutions are being trumpeted as being more suitable than a bypass.

Can you please quote the specific posts doing the 'trumpeting' as claimed above?


.

monument

antoobrien wrote: »

Considering the traffic you are targeting and the traffic the bypass is targeting are two entirely different beasts, no it won't.

Even if not one single cross-city trip could be transferred to a decent P&R system (which seems highly unlikely), local traffic on both sides of the crossing and city centre bound traffic (local and longer distance) has a profound affect on cross-city traffic.

There's loads of scope to transfer local traffic on both sides of the river crossing and, local and longer distance city bound traffic, onto public transport, their own two feet and onto two wheels.

This project has arisen from a specific aim to provide an outer bypass around Galway City to link the N6 National Primary Road, currently under construction, to the N59 and R336 roads, thereby providing a direct link into the Connemara area.

Well, with only around 20k people living west of the continuous urban area of the city, and most of them going nowhere near the river crossing daily, they'll have fun proving imperative reason of overriding public interest.

The reality is that the bypass will carry short to mid-distance city traffic, but if the city and county included that traffic in the project's main aims, the process would bring us back to alternatives and look at how that traffic can be transported by other modes.

A relevant point in this regard is that the development of bus lanes on the Quincentennial Bridge and approaches would, in the absence of the bypass, reduce the capacity of the road system in the city to carry cross-city traffic.

I'm not (yet, anyway) suggesting bus lanes on the QB, but that's a clear focus by the inspector of moving vehicles rather than looking at moving people -- bus lanes with a decently planned bus network can move more people using the same space.

The inspector sounds like a carbon copy of bus lane / cycle lane / tram lane / etc objectors who see moving cars more important than moving greater number of people.

SeanW

antoobrien wrote: »

You're addressing a problem that has little/nothing to do with the reasons for/against the provision of a bypass aimed at taking the long distance traffic out of the roads that lead to the city centre.

And that's the crux of the matter: at best the stuff about Park and Ride etc is all about a problem that has little or nothing to do with the problems intended to be solved by a bypass.

I really should thank Iwannahurl for letting the mask slip on the anti-bypass side - at least some of you are not afraid it would make promote bad development and make the traffic problem worse - you are actually terrified that it will make people's lives better, but do so in a way that facilitates those evil motorists and because people are no longer suffering unduly, will make it harder to promote a radical motorist-hating environmental-left agenda. (I should point out that this is only a small sampling of that posters extreme views).

The reason I am ironically grateful to IWH for this is that it explains very clearly not just opposition to the Galway bypass, but also certain inconsistencies in the hard environmental left on broader issues that until now I have not been able to explain or to reconcile. These are off-topic though so I will explore them in a more appropriate forum.

SeanW

I should also explain why I am particlularly interested in this matter: I've seen first hand very recently how a bypass can work wonders for everyone involved, I've watched my local town (Longford) transformed overnight from a glorified lorry park and general traffic hellhole to being much more pleasant to visit, shop and do business in - in addition to it being much easier to get to by car, maybe also by bus which we have a few of. Additionally also how much better it must be now for people driving through the area they no longer have to go through an urban are that they have no business being in.

That's why I regard people like Peter Sweetman and crazies like Save Newgrange etc with utter contempt that I simpy cannot hide.

monument

SeanW wrote: »

That's why I regard people like Peter Sweetman and crazies like Save Newgrange etc with utter contempt that I simpy cannot hide.

SeanW wrote: »

...for letting the mask slip on the anti-bypass side

SeanW wrote: »

... hard environmental left...

There's already a load of warning about this needless sniping -- cut it out!

- moderator

monument

SeanW wrote: »

I should also explain why I am particlularly interested in this matter: I've seen first hand very recently how a bypass can work wonders for everyone involved, I've watched my local town (Longford) transformed overnight from a glorified lorry park and general traffic hellhole to being much more pleasant to visit, shop and do business in - in addition to it being much easier to get to by car, maybe also by bus which we have a few of. Additionally also how much better it must be now for people driving through the area they no longer have to go through an urban are that they have no business being in.

There's a few key differences:

1. | Longford is in the centre of the country and was the town centre was the main route between the east at least something like 150,000+ people and a load of HGV movements | the N6 in Galway includes what can be classed as distributor roads or better and west of Galway City's continuous urban area there's only around 20,000 residents.
2. | While the cramped town centre was the most urban setting of the old route in Longford | This is the most urban space on the current Galway route -- distributor road type setting
3. | There was no space in Longford for decent segregation of cyclists and homes from HGVs and fast moving traffic | In Galway there is space and most of the needed space it is already allocated to cyclists (even if there are design flaws) and there's already a comparably high level of segregation between the homes and the traffic
4. | Most of the traffic clogging up Longford was long distance traffic | Most of the traffic clogging up Galway is local traffic -- short to mid-distance trips.

SeanW

Thanks for that monument, your previous post explains the skeptics side much better and more clearly than had been suggested previously.


Whilst I appreciate there may be some differences between Longford and Galway, indeed perhaps quite a few, I still see some impassible issues with the bypass-skeptics case:

1. Galway may not be as nodal on the road network as Longford is/was but by definition a bypass can only be accurately so called if it is to deal with long distance traffic. If the GCOB is not intended to facilitate through long distance traffic over a road profile appropriate to that use, then it should have been more have been called a Relief Road or something.
2. The roads forming the current N6 may not be so densely urban, but it has still become what the American advocacy groups calls a "Stroad" that is, a hybrid combination of a "Street" and a "Road." that provides poor value for money and fails abjectly at both roles. I'll let Strong Towns explain what a Stroad is far better than I could.
   
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6jFnOnjzrk
   
   If you can't watch the video, Strong Towns says that a "Street" must be designed for small volumes of low speed traffic, but focus on quality of the urban space, while a "Road" must focus on facilitating large volumes of high speed longer distance motorised traffic. Both, on their own, are great value in every respect, but what they identify as a "Stroad" or a hybrid Street and Road, is invariable a very poor choice from the perspective of all concerned.
   
   Problem is, the current N6 and the route from its end towards the West is a textbook Stroad. Heck, if this does not qualify as a Stroad, I don't know what does. And I don't think its fixable unless an alternative is found for the long distance through traffic.
   
   I think we would all like to get rid of Stroads along the N6 (or indeed anywhere they arise), but that would require the understanding that having Roads designed to facilitate fast long distance traffic are as good value for money as streets and equally important.
3. See Point 2
4. See Point 1

Iwannahurl

monument wrote: »

I'm not (yet, anyway) suggesting bus lanes on the QB, but that's a clear focus by the inspector of moving vehicles rather than looking at moving people -- bus lanes with a decently planned bus network can move more people using the same space.

The inspector sounds like a carbon copy of bus lane / cycle lane / tram lane / etc objectors who see moving cars more important than moving greater number of people.

Moving cars rather than people was the sine qua non of Irish transportation and spatial "planning" for decades, and ABP has not particularly distinguished itself in that regard. The existence of ABP did little or nothing to prevent, for example, the developer-led free-for-all during the Celtic Casino years, a large proportion of which produced huge swathes of car-dependent sprawl around the country, including what has been termed "urban pressure" on rural areas of County Galway (aka "measles development").

Bus lanes on the Quincentenary Bridge were actually proposed in the 2007 Galway Strategic Bus Study, albeit under the rubric of an "orbital corridor" dependent on a bypass being built (envisioned at the time as opening in 2010). The GSBS also included proposals for a number of other bus priority corridors, which by extension would have benefited pedestrians and cyclists and which were not dependent on the GCOB according to the report.

Again, non-bypass-dependent bus-priority measures recommended by the GSBS such as bus lanes, removal or modification of roundabouts, provision of pedestrian crossings etc, have been vehemently opposed by more than a few GCOB enthusiasts, for entirely predictable reasons.

Since a bypass will not be built before 2019 at the earliest, we're told, I would argue that, of necessity, much more of what the GSBS proposed should be implemented in the interim. Some of that is already under way, e.g. bye-bye Bodkin. That project involves the NRA, another statutory agency whose policies over many years have promoted car use and car dependence. For example, to the best of my knowledge it is the NRA that is clinging on to the obnoxious roundabouts guarding both ends of the Seamus Quirke Road scheme, both of which are hostile to pedestrians and cyclists.

monument wrote: »

Even if not one single cross-city trip could be transferred to a decent P&R system (which seems highly unlikely), local traffic on both sides of the crossing and city centre bound traffic (local and longer distance) has a profound affect on cross-city traffic.

There's loads of scope to transfer local traffic on both sides of the river crossing and, local and longer distance city bound traffic, onto public transport, their own two feet and onto two wheels.

Correct, imo. That is the basic point I have been making. Incidentally, according to the ABP inspector's report PL07.ER2056, citing the 2002 Galway Transportation and Planning Study, 87% of all cross-town traffic is commuter traffic. The ABP inspector also concluded (emphasis added by me):

"At the local level, it is reasonable to conclude that the development of the transport network, including both the private and public transport systems, has not kept pace with the growth of the city and that the consequences of shortfalls in the development of this network are the levels of congestion and delay suffered on the city’s main road network. The proposed road development [GCOB] would draw through traffic and certain volumes of local traffic out from the city and enable traffic conditions in the city to be significantly improved, with improvements also in public transport services."

In my opinion, far more could be done, between now and 2019, to make PT 'keep pace' and to eliminate local traffic.


.

antoobrien

monument wrote: »

Well, with only around 20k people living west of the continuous urban area of the city

This is why I openly laugh at the misinformation pedalled in by opponents of GCOB and the misguided polices that are based on outright lies such as this.

http://www.cso.ie/en/census/census2011reports/census2011populationclassifiedbyareaformerlyvolumeone/ - table CD118.

For those of you too lazy to click on the link the actual number of permanent residents west of the city boundary is 39,238, which naturally does not include the transient residents, such as holiday homes & tourists - which is being slowly squeeze out because of lack of access. Lets not forget the industry west of the corrib, which can not develop because goods can't get out, meaning that connemara residents have to look to the city for work - further increasing strain on the city infrastructure.

Nah the parking and other such trivia is much more relevant because of the ridiculous notion that a minor change is all that's needed, rather than actually looking at what's affecting the system.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Can you please quote the specific posts doing the 'trumpeting' as claimed above?


.

Here are some links, from this thread alone:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85456984&postcount=358
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85460650&postcount=362
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85460700&postcount=363
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85462555&postcount=369

None of these arguments deal with why we should or should not provide a bypass to take cross town traffic out of the centre of town. They deal with topics that are totally irrelevent to cross town traffic, which is what the bypass is targeting.

Nothing that has been posted gives any vaguely reaonsable argument against it.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

The [ABP] inspector however did deal with alternatives to building a road, which is why I bring this up now as TDM, P&R and other solutions are being trumpeted as being more suitable than a bypass.

antoobrien wrote: »

Here are some links, from this thread alone:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85456984&postcount=358
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85460650&postcount=362
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85460700&postcount=363
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85462555&postcount=369

None of these arguments deal with why we should or should not provide a bypass to take cross town traffic out of the centre of town. They deal with topics that are totally irrelevent to cross town traffic, which is what the bypass is targeting.

Nothing that has been posted gives any vaguely reaonsable argument against it.

Can you please quote the specific text doing the 'trumpeting' as claimed above?

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Can you please quote the specific text doing the 'trumpeting' as claimed above?

All of it.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

All of it.

Cop out.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Cop out.

May I remind you waht you asked:

Can you please quote the specific posts doing the 'trumpeting' as claimed above?

I did, I have an objection with those posts. Not little pieces of them.

There is nothing in those posts that gives me any faith that a plan based on these notions can provide a feasible, practical alternative to a bypass of the city centre.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

The [ABP] inspector however did deal with alternatives to building a road, which is why I bring this up now as TDM, P&R and other solutions are being trumpeted as being more suitable than a bypass.

antoobrien wrote: »

May I remind you waht you asked:

I did, I have an objection with those posts. Not little pieces of them.

There is nothing in those posts that gives me any faith that a plan based on these notions can provide a feasible, practical alternative to a bypass of the city centre.

What I am asking you to do is quote the actual text doing the particular 'trumpeting' that you specifically allege.

Either that text can be quoted to support your specific contention or it can't.

It's a favourite -- and in my view intellectually lazy -- ploy on Boards to attack a caricature or a misrepresentation of other posters' position. That's so much simpler than responding to what has actually been written though, isn't it?

Why bother addressing what has actually been said when it's so easy to attack what I like to think has been said.

Incidentally, I'm looking for specific quotes of what I wrote. Other posters can answer for themselves.


.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What I am asking you to do is quote the actual text doing the particular 'trumpeting' that you specifically allege.

What part of ALL OF IT, do you not get?

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It's a favourite -- and in my view intellectually lazy -- ploy on Boards to attack a caricature or a misrepresentation of other posters' position. That's so much simpler than responding to what has actually been written though, isn't it?

The only intellectually lazy bit here is your refusal to accept plain English. It not a misrepresentation to state that these posts are, both individually & collectively, trumpeting "alternatives" to the bypass, they discuss nothing but the supposed "alternatives".

The only ploy here is not dealing with the charge put forth, but starting the standard strawman defence in order to deflect form the fact that these posts do nothing but push "alternatives", while at the same time do nothing to put forth how these "alternatives" can provide an alternative for the traffic that the bypass is aimed at - cross city traffic.

what_traffic

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Since a bypass will not be built before 2019 at the earliest, we're told, I would argue that, of necessity, much more of what the GSBS proposed should be implemented in the interim. Some of that is already under way, e.g. bye-bye Bodkin. That project involves the NRA, another statutory agency whose policies over many years have promoted car use and car dependence. For example, to the best of my knowledge it is the NRA that is clinging on to the obnoxious roundabouts guarding both ends of the Seamus Quirke Road scheme, both of which are hostile to pedestrians and cyclists.

This is not 100% correct - NRA have responsibility for the Browne. N6 terminates/begins here and as the N59 terminates/begins here they also have responsibility. This Roundabout is to be converted - but still requires a change to the Local Area Plan(Same as the Kirwin). The Deane Roundabout is responsibility of City Council - no current plans to change.

what_traffic

antoobrien wrote: »

It not a misrepresentation to state that these posts are, both individually & collectively, trumpeting "alternatives" to the bypass, they discuss nothing but the supposed "alternatives".

This is not true - what is being stated is that alternatives should also be looked at as a solution rather than a: "Only the GCOB is a solution to Galway's Car traffic woes". I cannot find one post where it was stated that ONLY the alternatives provide a solution?

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

TDM, P&R and other solutions are being trumpeted as being more suitable than a bypass.

antoobrien wrote: »

What part of ALL OF IT, do you not get?

It not a misrepresentation to state that these posts are, both individually & collectively, trumpeting "alternatives" to the bypass, they discuss nothing but the supposed "alternatives".

So the text below, for example, is "trumpeting", specifically as you describe above?

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I've already referred to the situation in Waterford, bypassed in 2009 iirc, where (as far as I can see from a quick check of the Census figures) the proportion of people walking to work decreased from 16% in 2006 to 15% in 2011. Bus use dropped from 4% to 3%, while the number of car passengers decreased from 9% to 8%. Meanwhile, the proportion of people driving to work increased by five percentage points, from 58% to 63%. I haven't looked at the travel to education figures for Waterford City.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Both Galway City and County Councils are heavily reliant on a Bypass as part of their supposed strategy to develop more sustainable traffic and transportation policies. Making significant and effective attempts to do the latter prior to the construction of the former would be an excellent way for them to show that their intentions are both serious and honest. I'll believe it when I see a lot more of it.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

n the summer months, when tourist influx is at its peak but when primary, secondary and tertiary students are off, traffic flows better both within and -- crucially -- through the city.

[...]

It is a truism in traffic engineering that 90% of the existing roads network is uncongested 90% of the time, therefore acute congestion is not due to the roads network as is but to the extreme (and unmanaged) demands placed on it at peak times.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

mall reductions in traffic volume can bring about a significant improvement in traffic flow, viz. reducing traffic volume from 2,000 to 1,800 vehicles per hour (a 10% reduction) shifts a roadway from Level of Service E to LOS D.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The fundamental principle is that the same infrastructure can become highly inefficient due to lack of active management or made highly efficient through TDM.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

So the text below, for example, is "trumpeting", specifically as you describe above?

Yep

antoobrien

what_traffic wrote: »

This is not true - what is being stated is that alternatives should also be looked at as a solution rather than a: "Only the GCOB is a solution to Galway's Car traffic woes". I cannot find one post where it was stated that ONLY the alternatives provide a solution?

Okay, explain this:

what_traffic wrote: »

Provision of a bypass can then be looked at if still required after this.

That is explicit exclusion of a bypass in favour of other "alternatives". The approach is classic long-fingerism, hope that the problem will go away somehow.

Now let me be clear about this, I don't think that the bypass is the only solution, but I do believe it's integral to enabling the kind of "alternatives" that you want to see.

Every example of cities with various initiatives given thus far prove it because they have one common piece of innfrascture - a bypass. Find us a city that has no bypass, one that doesn't mix approach traffic with cross city traffic and then we can discuss just how realistic the "alternatives" are for Galway.

what_traffic

antoobrien wrote: »

That is explicit exclusion of a bypass in favour of other "alternatives".

No it's not - I am not saying that ONLY the alternatives provide a solution. I am not excluding the concept of the GCOB. I am saying we should look at reducing the traffic as a starting point.

antoobrien wrote: »

Now let me be clear about this, I don't think that the bypass is the only solution, but I do believe it's integral to enabling the kind of "alternatives" that you want to see.
Every example of cities with various initiatives given thus far prove it because they have one common piece of innfrascture - a bypass. Find us a city that has no bypass, one that doesn't mix approach traffic with cross city traffic and then we can discuss just how realistic the "alternatives" are for Galway.

I am more interested in knowing what "alternatives" you propose?
Or is this simply predicated on building the GCOB first and then coming up with proposals? i.e waiting a minimum 6 /7 years before attempting to reduce Car traffic in the mean time?

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Yep

Congratulations. You win the internet.

SeanW

what_traffic wrote: »

This is not true - what is being stated is that alternatives should also be looked at as a solution rather than a: "Only the GCOB is a solution to Galway's Car traffic woes". I cannot find one post where it was stated that ONLY the alternatives provide a solution?

Huh?

Either the bypass is part of the solution or it's not. There's no in-between. If you support the bypass explicity or have some other plan to facilitate through motorists (as, to be fair, monument does), great: otherwise indeed, "ONLY the alternatives provide a solution." And your position by failing to be clear on that point, forced us to make inferences based on what you post and emphasise.

But with the exception of monument who has explicity stated that he feels many parts of the existing N6 could rehabilitated to serve all road users to a very high standard, none of ye on the bypass skeptic side have given any reason to believe that your solution is not "modal-shift only." And within that, one in particular is not capable of giving a reason to belive it.

antoobrien

what_traffic wrote: »

No it's not - I am not saying that ONLY the alternatives provide a solution. I am not excluding the concept of the GCOB. I am saying we should look at reducing the traffic as a starting point.

Not really, not when you examine what proposals you actually make, it's fairly clear that you have no belief that any kind of bypass may be required. You argue against it so much, delving off into irrelevancies like city centre parking, that saying that it might be required and you're not against it is an attempted sop that everyone but your own anti bypass peers sees straight through.

what_traffic wrote: »

I am more interested in knowing what "alternatives" you propose?

Most of the same ones you are, bus lanes cycle lanes etc (and a few that I won't mention because of the ad hominem attacks that are so popular, I am particularly insulted when I'm called a property developer - which is the height of trolling imo).

However I am acutely aware of how a bad patch job will make the issue worse not better, which is why I give absolutely no credence to the reduce first model being proposed, it won't, indeed can't, work in Galway (as has been proved over the past couple of years).

The classic argument is the proposal to cut traffic on the QB, which would be congestion suicide. It'd cut in half the capacity main cross city route, which would require a 300% increase in the modal shares of both cycling and buses to keep us at status quo ante - and require a massive reconfiguration of the existing public transport network as it'd take up somewhere between 30% and 70% of the current resources (based on bus capacities of 50 including both BE & CD busees, and taking into account the fact that we don't have many double deckers).

There are other proposals like bus lanes and cycle lanes through choke points - there are many spots where there is barely space to provide for 2 traffic lanes & narrow paths. How will we crowbar these facilities in? The results in some areas will be be to remove left and right turn filters, which will increase the traffic queues, which means that we'd need a significant switch to other transport on those routes - which is not realistic imo as shown by the traffic coming out of Doughiska - where probably the best route in town is located.

The most laughable one of all has to be the multi level junctions that momumnet is so fond of. I'll rule it out on cost grounds, by there are other issues like the impact it would have on a potential light rail system (just as long as it's not gluas, that like P&R is serving the wrong masters).

The Nx/M11 project has been tendered at approx €240m. The M11 is approx approx 16km, making the cost of that portion of the project (based on €10m/km twice the boom rate), approx €160m. That leaves Nx costing up to €90m, which is horrifically horrifically expensive for a single junction (which I hope to god includes any land acquisition costs) and monument wants to build how many? Even at 1/4th of the cost that is a prohibitively expensive solution that is being abandoned across the world.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Congratulations. You win the internet.

Well it's better than not looking at factors that contribute to traffic drops. You want to blame the drop in by usage s & cycling on the provision of a bypass but there is no evidence to support that, especially when looks at the traffic counters indicating that total traffic (i.e old N25 and new) is holding steady*.

How about you take a look at the job losses in Waterford over the period. Thle closures of Waterford crystal & Talk Talk alone would account for the drops you ascribe to a bypass being present.


* This conforms to a phenomenon I have noted before, where the combined totals of traffic on both the old and new roads at bypassed towns bucks the national trend of downward traffic counts. this indicate a pattern change in that people are moving away from using smaller, less safe roads, to get to a destination in preference of safer bigger roads - one of the aims of these bypasses.