N6 - Galway outer bypass: Is it needed?

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

... an attempted sop that everyone but your own anti bypass peers sees straight through.

You seem determined to polarise the debate by labelling people you don't agree with as "anti bypass". That's a strategy adopted by others on here and in other forums/threads, who prefer to attack a misrepresented or fabricated version of what some posters are saying. It's a close relative of the "anti-car and nothing else" straw man. Sample: "... you consistently stated in this and the other thread that we don't need a bypass, therefore PT is enough. I know you never said it directly but the inference [sic] is plain as your ignorance on the causes of the traffic problems in Galway."


Speaking just for myself, I insist that you either substantiate with verbatim quotes your apparent claim that I am solely "anti bypass" or withdraw it and accept that a more nuanced or multifaceted position is possible. If you refuse to do so, I will make a formal complaint to a Mod, because I regard such debating tactics as essentially dishonest.

antoobrien wrote: »

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).

I find the first half of that sentence incomprehensible, but I'm curious about the supposed "property developer" accusation. Link/quote?

antoobrien wrote: »

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

It would require "a 300% increase in the modal shares of both cycling and buses" to achieve what exactly?

As I mentioned already, a bus lane over the QB is proposed in the 2007 Galway Strategic Bus Study (GSBS), but is specifically stated to be dependent on a bypass being built. There are, however, a number of other bus corridors identified in the GSBS that are not dependent on the GCOB, and my view is that these recommendations should be acted on prior to any bypass being built, and in fact should have been done years ago. According to the GSBS, the areas suitable for non-bypass-dependent bus corridors are Salthill, Taylor's Hill and Clybaun/Rahoon.

Excerpt from the GSBS:

The existing road network in Galway presents great challenges to the introduction of priority measures for buses. ... Lack of space for a bus lane does not necessarily preclude a corridor from becoming a Quality Bus Corridor, however. It is still possible to improve conditions by addressing traffic management, parking problems, bus frequency and the pedestrian environment.

Conversely, having sufficient road width for a bus lane is not sufficient reason to designate the road as a Quality Bus Corridor. Sufficient bus services, whether existing or in the future, are needed to justify the provision of bus lanes and other priority measures.

Observations suggest that the traffic management system in Galway has great scope for improvement. There are two main issues:

Firstly, the level of compliance with existing parking restrictions is poor, so that illegal parking is one of the main sources of delay for buses in the central area. The City Council needs to invest in enforcement of the restrictions at all times of the day, including late at night when parking at bus stops is a particular problem.

Secondly, the current system of roundabouts has many disadvantages for buses, pedestrians and cyclists. It also provides insufficient control over the road network. Where signals are provided, they are not linked. A better arrangement would be to signalise all important junctions and link them through an urban traffic control system (UTC). This would allow better control, benefiting all road uses, including buses, and helping to avoid the gridlock conditions which sometimes occur, and are more likely to occur in future.

I get the impression that, regardless of what the GSBS might have concluded, you seem to regard strict parking controls as irrelevant in the context of traffic management policy. For example, elsewhere on Boards you have suggested that illegal parking, including on footpaths, is not much of a problem in Galway City and, perhaps, that it might just be a notion in the minds of "whiney, grouchy, complaining" people.

You have also gone on the record repeatedly in various threads/forums to oppose, for example, the removal of roundabouts as part of the N6 multimodal scheme and associated UTC, which you described as "this insanity project".

It therefore appears that you do not want even officially recommended non-bypass-dependent measures, such as those described in the GSBS. If so, is that an appropriate and justifiable position to take if ones genuine objective is the advancement of sustainable traffic and transportation policies in Galway?

antoobrien wrote: »

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?

See GSBS, referred to above. Where is it written that those "many spots" and "choke points" in Galway City must have bus lanes and cycle lanes "crowbarred in"?

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

You seem determined to polarise the debate by labelling people you don't agree with as "anti bypass".

More vaporware, keep it up.

serfboard

Iwannahurl wrote: »

There are, however, a number of other bus corridors identified in the GSBS that are not dependent on the GCOB, and my view is that these recommendations should be acted on prior to any bypass being built, and in fact should have been done years ago.

According to the GSBS, the areas suitable for non-bypass-dependent bus corridors are Salthill, Taylor's Hill and Clybaun/Rahoon.

[snip]

... strict parking controls ... the removal of roundabouts as part of the N6 multimodal scheme and associated UTC

I am 100% in favour of the bypass. However, until it is built, I think these are very sensible ideas which should be (and, in the case of the roundabouts, are being) acted on.

They won't, IMO, remove the need for a bypass though.

Iwannahurl

They are, however, measures which ought to be implemented, and imo greatly augmented, in the meantime. Much more could be done -- must be done -- to prioritise public transport, walking and cycling in the interim.

Thing is, it's far from coincidental that some vociferous bypass advocates have also vehemently opposed measures such as bus lanes, conversion of roundabouts to signals, an AUTC etc.

Part of the pro-bypass rhetoric is that it would make more space available for public transport, walking and cycling but the political reality is that what's primarily driving the project is demand for the facilitation of private cars.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Part of the pro-bypass rhetoric is that it would make more space available for public transport, walking and cycling but the political reality is that what's primarily driving the project is demand for the facilitation of private cars.

Simple facts are not rhetoric, regardless of whether or not you choose to accept them (which seems to be the point of this thread. There are a lot of people that can not indeed will not accept the simple fact that there is extremely limited road space and all I am seeing is ways of reducing that - which will create more not less congestion.

As for the farce of the new "intellignet" traffic lights - how is it quicker to go from Briarhill along the Monivea & Tuam Rods to get to Bodkin than it is to take the N6 - the answer is the traffic light controlled RAB at Terryland.

Traffic lights are a knee jerk reaction, especially in places like bodkin & parkmore (where the lights on the monviea Rd caused traffic to back up the dual carriageway) - where the lights are proven to be the problem with traffic flow. There are other solutions, like pedestrian bridges, that are more appropriate & cheaper that which give a best of all worlds solution - except that doesn't make life harder for motorists, so it's not a good thing.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Simple facts are not rhetoric, regardless of whether or not you choose to accept them (which seems to be the point of this thread. There are a lot of people that can not indeed will not accept the simple fact that there is extremely limited road space and all I am seeing is ways of reducing that - which will create more not less congestion.

Where has it been denied that road space is finite and constricted in Galway City? Quotes please.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Where has it been denied that road space is finite and constricted in Galway City? Quotes please.

In response to:

antoobrien wrote: »

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.

You wrote:

Iwannahurl wrote: »

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).

Put plain and simple, your plan is take space off general traffic regardless of the cars of the consequences..

You chose to ignore the fact that policies such has this - the removal of a traffic lane from the QB will have a massive detrimental effect on traffic flow - because it appears that that is what you want.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Speaking just for myself, I insist that you either substantiate with verbatim quotes your apparent claim that I am solely "anti bypass" or withdraw it and accept that a more nuanced or multifaceted position is possible. If you refuse to do so, I will make a formal complaint to a Mod, because I regard such debating tactics as essentially dishonest.

If it's true that you thing that a bypass of Galway may (ignoring all the other items you clearly think needs to be done first), please post a single post where you state this. After a quick search I can't find any such post and when I search for the words "also need" & "also require" I can find no point where you actually admit that a bypass may be necessary, but rather argue for provision of other items.

As has been commented on before, you go out of your way to claim that you are not anti bypass, however your posting record states the exact opposite (e.g starting this general anti bypass thread).


So go ahead because if, as you claim, you are not anti bypass, however anybody that has read your posts for a while will know that this claim is directly at odds with your posts.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Put plain and simple, your plan is take space off general traffic regardless of the cars of the consequences..

If it's true that you thing that a bypass of Galway may (ignoring all the other items you clearly think needs to be done first), please post a single post where you state this. After a quick search I can't find any such post and when I search for the words "also need" & "also require" I can find no point where you actually admit that a bypass may be necessary, but rather argue for provision of other items.

No comprendo the bit in red. You can search my posting history for whatever you like. I've said what I've said, repeating myself as necessary, and afaiac I have been consistent in my position.

What you wrote earlier was:

antoobrien wrote: »

There are a lot of people that can not indeed will not accept the simple fact that there is extremely limited road space

I have never claimed that road space is not finite, and ttbomk nobody else has either. Quite the opposite in fact: since road space is necessarily limited it ought to be high priority to make much more efficient use of it. That means moving people not cars: how many times have I stated as much, and illustrated that fundamental point with the likes of this:



The "consequences" are obvious: more efficient use of the finite space available. How can that not be clear?

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

No comprendo the bit in red. You can search my posting history for whatever you like. I've said what I've said, repeating myself as necessary, and afaiac I have been consistent in my position.

Answer the question, do you think that it may be possible that a bypass may be necessary in Galway?

what_traffic

http://www.galwaybayfm.ie/component/k2/item/1934-local-authorities-lose-supreme-court-case-on-city-bypass

monument

nd the sniping and name calling of posters etc.

Read the charter and take note of the warnings already given.

Iwannahurl

what_traffic wrote: »

http://www.galwaybayfm.ie/component/k2/item/1934-local-authorities-lose-supreme-court-case-on-city-bypass

Thanks. I wasn't aware that the Supreme Court judgment was so imminent.

I guess it would have been a big surprise if the SC went against the ECJ.

what_traffic

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Thanks. I wasn't aware that the Supreme Court judgment was so imminent.

I guess it would have been a big surprise if the SC went against the ECJ.

Me neither. True not a surprise. When ECJ ruling was announced the local politicians in press releases were talking about the IROPI process being the next step.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Answer the question, do you think that it may be possible that a bypass may be necessary in Galway?

As the ECJ and now the Irish Supreme Court have made abundantly clear, the GCOB is not so necessary that it justifies contravention of EU law. I won't second-guess them on that question.

The official question then becomes "is the GCOB necessary under IROPI"?

It may actually be possible that the IROPI process will conclude that a bypass is necessary.

However, given that a bypass will not materialise before 2019*, or so we're told, then in my view it is necessary -- for imperative reasons of overriding public interest -- to introduce rigorous and comprehensive measures to tackle traffic congestion in the intervening period. Such measures would include, but should not be limited to, proposals such as those described in the 2007 Galway Strategic Bus Study, for example.






* I'm just quoting another poster. Is 2019 a realistic estimate for the earliest possible date that a bypass might be opened?

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

As the ECJ and now the Irish Supreme Court have made abundantly clear, the GCOB is not so necessary that it justifies contravention of EU law.

That is not in question here. Your refusal to answer a direct question is.

I put it to you again, do you think that Galway may require an outer bypass?

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I won't second-guess them on that question.

Will you second guess them if they agree with a future IORPI request that states that a bypass is justified in Galway?

what_traffic

So has the IROPI process being used before in Eire?

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Answer the question, do you think that it may be possible that a bypass may be necessary in Galway?

antoobrien wrote: »

That is not in question here. Your refusal to answer a direct question is.

I put it to you again, do you think that Galway may require an outer bypass?

Will you second guess them if they agree with a future IORPI request that states that a bypass is justified in Galway?

The key words are "may be possible" and "necessary".

Is there an objective standard that defines "necessary" in this context?

If the IROPI process, using such an objective standard, concludes that a bypass is necessary, then yes, I think a bypass may be required.

However, assuming that the IROPI process is a consultative one, then I would be making the same submissions as I have repeatedly on Boards, e.g. that there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest to greatly improve provision for public transport, walking and cycling before a bypass is built in order to (a) ensure that the relevant local authorities do not abuse the proposed infrastructure and (b) prevent the generation of new traffic if and when overall road capacity is increased.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The key words are "may be possible" and "necessary".

Is there an objective standard that defines "necessary" in this context?

If the IROPI process, using such an objective standard, concludes that a bypass is necessary, then yes, I think a bypass may be required.

However, assuming that the IROPI process is a consultative one, then I would be making the same submissions as I have repeatedly on Boards, e.g. that there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest to greatly improve provision for public transport, walking and cycling before a bypass is built in order to (a) ensure that the relevant local authorities do not abuse the proposed infrastructure and (b) prevent the generation of new traffic if and when overall road capacity is increased.

So the answer is yes if (and only if) the EU rules that way but until then no?

antoobrien

what_traffic wrote: »

So has the IROPI process being used before in Eire?

To my knowledge no, but it has been used in Europe. From the ECJ opinion:

66. Whilst the requirements laid down under Article 6(4) are intentionally rigorous, it is important to point out that they are not insuperable obstacles to authorisation. The Commission indicated at the hearing that, of the 15 to 20 requests so far made to it for delivery of an opinion under that provision, only one has received a negative response.

And from the judgement

34 Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive provides that if, in spite of a negative assessment carried out in accordance with the first sentence of Article 6(3) of the directive, a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, and there are no alternative solutions, the Member State is to take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected (see Case C‑304/05 Commission v Italy [2007] ECR I‑7495, paragraph 81, and Solvay and Others, paragraph 72).

35 As an exception to the authorisation criterion laid down in the second sentence of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, Article 6(4) can apply only after the implications of a plan or project have been analysed in accordance with Article 6(3) (see Solvay and Others, paragraphs 73 and 74).

36 It follows that Article 6(2) to (4) of the Habitats Directive impose upon the Member States a series of specific obligations and procedures designed, as is clear from Article 2(2) of the directive, to maintain, or as the case may be restore, at a favourable conservation status natural habitats and, in particular, special areas of conservation.

There have been more tenuous cases than GCOB granted permission under the precautionary principle mentioned, so on the face of it there's no reason to believe that IORPI will be rejected offhand.

what_traffic

Iwannahurl wrote: »

However, given that a bypass will not materialise before 2019*, or so we're told, then in my view it is necessary -- for imperative reasons of overriding public interest -- to introduce rigorous and comprehensive measures to tackle traffic congestion in the intervening period. Such measures would include, but should not be limited to, proposals such as those described in the 2007 Galway Strategic Bus Study, for example.

Good point - 6 year's might even be too optimistic . As far as I am aware Galway City Council is in the process of appointing consultants once again to carry out a bus and cycle network assessment of Galway City and environs.

what_traffic

antoobrien wrote: »

To my knowledge no, but it has been used in Europe.

Presume it's use in Europe has been minimal then if not been used once in Eire?

antoobrien

what_traffic wrote: »

Presume it's use in Europe has been minimal then if not been used once in Eire?

Something like 20 cases brought to the commission.

Edit: Actually it mightn't be the first Galway project. There is another project that will use it, the only question is which one will get submitted first.

what_traffic

antoobrien wrote: »

Edit: Actually it mightn't be the first Galway project. There is another project that will use it, the only question is which one will get submitted first.

True it has been mentioned in the local Galway media- probably best left for another thread.

antoobrien

what_traffic wrote: »

True it has been mentioned in the local Galway media- probably best left for another thread.

Very subtle

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

So the answer is yes if (and only if) the EU rules that way but until then no?

Even if the GCOB was a dead cert, the proposal still has to go through IROPI.

There is no alternative to IROPI at this stage, so all other options are moot at best.

So yes, in the present context a bypass is not required until it is deemed necessary according to an objective standard of same (imo).

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Even if the GCOB was a dead cert, the proposal still has to go through IROPI.

There is no alternative to IROPI at this stage, so all other options are moot at best.

So yes, in the present context a bypass is not required until it is deemed necessary according to an objective standard of same (imo).

Thanks for finally admitting your position.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

a bypass is not required[/B] until it is deemed necessary according to an objective standard of same (imo).

There's something disturbing about this statement. It reads like the ECJ & SC have rejected the project on the basis of it being unnecessary - which is blatantly untrue of the ECJ ruling (I'll wait to see what the SC say, if they publish the ruling).

The ECJ have ruled that because the planners did not follow the rules (which up to this point had not been clarified, the legal equivalent of moving the goalposts after the ball has been hit), therefore the project can not go ahead under the current plans.

The SC case revolved around this, not the question of the necessity of the road (which the SC would not likely rule on, their remit being the legality of a project).

Anybody who thinks that the bypass is not necessary should not take this ruling as a vindication that it is not necessary as that has not been stated anywhere, except by certain parties that are against the project.

Interestingly, there are several rulings that have been passed down by the ECJ stating the same thing: plans that are subject to 6(4) can go ahead if the appropriate compensation measures take place.

We shall just have to wait and see what GCC, GCoCo & the NRA decide to do.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Thanks for finally admitting your position.

I had a feeling that you were going to misrepresent, misquote or distort my position.

To repeat what I said, in full and in context:

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Even if the GCOB was a dead cert, the proposal still has to go through IROPI.

There is no alternative to IROPI at this stage, so all other options are moot at best.

So yes, in the present context a bypass is not required until it is deemed necessary according to an objective standard of same (imo).

That's self-evident: a bypass is "necessary" (or "required") if an objective assessment deems it to be so. The corollary is that a bypass cannot be regarded as "necessary" until an objective assessment concludes otherwise.

It remains to be seen what the IROPI process concludes in that regard, and what are regarded as "imperative reasons" etc. It's not a done deal.

Presumably the IROPI process itself will be contested, but if in the end the decision is in favour of a bypass then that is the end of the line as far as any construction-related debate is concerned. There is a lot to be worked out in the intervening period (between now and, say, 2019-2022), and indeed in a possible post-bypass future, as the increased modal share for cars in bypassed Waterford ought to make clear.

antoobrien wrote: »

There's something disturbing about this statement. It reads like the ECJ & SC have rejected the project on the basis of it being unnecessary - which is blatantly untrue of the ECJ ruling (I'll wait to see what the SC say, if they publish the ruling).

The ECJ ruling was clearly about matters relating to interpretation of EU law, and I have not suggested otherwise. The issue of whether the GCOB proposal is "necessary" now relates to IROPI. Is it not the case that IROPI is the final official test of whether the bypass as proposed is "necessary"?

.

SeanW

Iwannahurl wrote: »

the proposal still has to go through IROPI.

There is no alternative to IROPI at this stage, so all other options are moot at best.

And how are you hoping the IROPI process goes? Are you hoping it will succeed, so that it may form some part of a plan? Or are you hoping it fails, and leaves the people stuck with "sustainable" modal-shift only plans?

Could somoene please quote these questions? Because I'd like IWH to answer it but he has me on his pathetic "Ignore" list. :rolleyes:

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I had a feeling that you were going to misrepresent, misquote or distort my position.

The ECJ ruling was clearly about matters relating to interpretation of EU law, and I have not suggested otherwise.

You're not fooling anyone except yourself.

what_traffic

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The ECJ ruling was clearly about matters relating to interpretation of EU law, and I have not suggested otherwise. The issue of whether the GCOB proposal is "necessary" now relates to IROPI. Is it not the case that IROPI is the final official test of whether the bypass as proposed is "necessary"?

So will it be An Bord Plenala that decide's this "IROPI" once the County/City Council submit the new plans?