N6 - Galway outer bypass: Is it needed?

Richard Logue

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

Putting up contextless statements is a rather brash attempt at adding to a debate, is it not?

Argue the post not the man. Run out of arguments?

Con Logue

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

Putting up contextless statements is a rather brash attempt at adding to a debate, is it not?

Have you read my posts on the previous two pages? I explained it there. So not a contextless statement. I'm not in the habit of repeating myself when I post and assume that those reading are following what has been said.

Iwannahurl

MYOB wrote: »

There are people who oppose the bypass ... solely because they don't actually want traffic to get any better unless its bikes/walking/buses that make it better. That is also petty and vindictive.

Well now, that's an interesting perspective. Are you suggesting that if Galway's traffic can be improved by LUTS/TDM approaches which reduce car dependence and car use, somehow that is inherently an undesirable outcome?

galwayrush wrote: »

We are already clogged up with traffic which will continue to grow

Really? Why so?

MYOB wrote: »

there is a pressing need for a bypass for what is already built.

yer man! wrote: »

congestion.... what would alleviate it? a bypass.... you could put in the best subway in the world in Galway and it would still need a bypass.

galwayrush wrote: »

thousands of vehicles taking way too long to get through the severe bottlenecks , taking up to an hour to travel short distances.

"Thousands of vehicles taking up to an hour to travel short distances." I've already illustrated, with an example, how travelling by car over a short distance (<4km) took around twice as long as travelling by bike. On much of the route I described, and which I see daily, traffic barely moves faster than walking pace. Indeed, on the other rare occasions when I drove, pedestrians actually passed me out.

Despite this snail's pace, thousands of motorists continue to do the same commute day after day during school term. They complain about it, and they keep coming back for more.

Those of you above who insist that congestion can only be alleviated by a bypass in the first instance, can you please address my earlier point regarding the considerable easing of traffic congestion when the schools are off, and the well-known return to jams when the schools are back?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84213562&postcount=136

How can it be the case that in a city where the current nature and extent of development allegedly results in traffic congestion almost as an organic process, and where a bypass is said to be urgently required as the primary means of alleviating the "severe bottlenecks", that the traffic is significantly less of a problem when the schools are off?

Where and why does the traffic go when the schools are off? Why does it come back with a vengeance when the schools return?

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

[M]y limited experience of [Galway] city, all outside term time, is that congestion seems to be a regular feature even when schools are closed.

Not correct. My experience, and that of many other Galwegians and city residents, is that traffic eases considerably when schools are off. It is for this reason that attempts are (sometimes) made to ensure that major roadworks are done outside of term time. The easing of congestion when schools are out also coincides with the influx of tourists during the summer, though major events like the Galway Races and the Volvo Ocean Race inevitably cause acute problems.

In any case, my point is that some easing of traffic congestion does occur at certain predictable times, which means that the phenomenon is cyclical, not continual.

MargeS wrote: »

I love the summer - no traffic jams to work.

yer man!

So basically Galway needs 1) A bypass and 2) good future planning procedures? have I missed anything?

Iwannahurl

yer man! wrote: »

have I missed anything?

Yes, my questions re the well-recognised cyclical connection between school term and traffic congestion in Galway City.

SeanW

Iwannahurl wrote: »

"Thousands of vehicles taking up to an hour to travel short distances." I've already illustrated, with an example, how travelling by car over a short distance (<4km) took around twice as long as travelling by bike. On much of the route I described, and which I see daily, traffic barely moves faster than walking pace. Indeed, on the other rare occasions when I drove, pedestrians actually passed me out.

I could be wrong here but I assume that - like all bypasses - the GCOB is planned to facilitate people whose journey start/destination is not in Galway city. e.g. people coming from Athenry and points East going towards Cliften/Oughterard/Spiddal etc and vice versa. As a Motorway, it would have limited junctions, not much use for "city" use.

The problem is that THIS traffic must go through Galway City urban area at present. What do you suggest these people do? Drive to the Galway city limits, put the car on their back, cycle through the City and then plonk the car back down on the road when they get to the M6? They have no reason to be in the city, which like it or not extends out to the old 'bypass' (at a major hospital and around 500 meters from Eyre Square).

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

As for my recent stupid decision to drive rather than cycle, sitting in stalled traffic that day felt like the height of stupidity. I've been cycling since I was a child. I know what the wind can be like, and that day was by no means stormy.

Then you were not in Galway because my car (a 4 door saloon) was being buffeted by the winds all along the N6 corrdior - which does not happen in light winds.

galwaycyclist

SeanW wrote: »

I could be wrong here but I assume that - like all bypasses - the GCOB is planned to facilitate people whose journey start/destination is not in Galway city. e.g. people coming from Athenry and points East going towards Cliften/Oughterard/Spiddal etc and vice versa. As a Motorway, it would have limited junctions, not much use for "city" use.

What is the population of Clifden/Oughterard/Spiddal? Why would this population need a motorway standard road? Genuine question not trying to be sarcastic.

SeanW wrote: »

The problem is that THIS traffic must go through Galway City urban area at present. What do you suggest these people do? Drive to the Galway city limits, put the car on their back, cycle through the City and then plonk the car back down on the road when they get to the M6? They have no reason to be in the city, which like it or not extends out to the old 'bypass' (at a major hospital and around 500 meters from Eyre Square).

No you have missed the point. The issue is not the likely relatively light traffic trying to get around the city to other destinations. The issue is what is being done with the traffic whose destination is within the city. The issue is not forcing people on long distance journies onto bikes but why so many people making very very short journies within the city have been forced into cars. Why are people from outside the city who work in the city not being diverted onto park and ride before they reach the Quincentenial Bridge?

lucernarian

Richard Logue wrote: »

Argue the post not the man. Run out of arguments?

Please accept my apologies, that was an incomplete post. Nonetheless I didn't agree with it at all and I thought the post I quoted was purile and unsupported. If you have a problem with my post, you can use the report button.

I will respond later with a more complete relpy.

antoobrien

TINA1984 wrote: »

Not sure what you're getting at here. You originally countered my point that there has been more growth in the hinterlands of urban area's then the urban area's themselves with polished stats to suggest otherwise in Galways case. Of course when you put your % through the ringer, the opposite was the case.

what I'm getting at is that the growth in the county has been happening in the "urban areas, not rurla areas. When you get the aggregate rural area (something that has to be calculated manually for older census reports), this population only increases by about 20,000 in 55 years.

TINA1984 wrote: »

Almost 2/3 of all residential planning permission granted by Galway Co.Co over the past decade or so has been for one off housing, the only other local authority in the state with a higher % is Mayo CC!

I wonder how does a county that does not have the most one offs end up worst? Mayo isn't 1st, 2nd or even 3rd in raw numbers, so how does it fare so poorly.

There were 15,797 one offs in Co Galway over the ten year period of that An Tasice report. In Co Dublin there were 7361 one off permissions.

Why are people not questioning the fact that half the number of permissions that were granted in Co Galway were granted for an area 1/7th the size of County Galway?

Co Meath shows 1/3 the number of one offs for a count 1/3 the size of Galway.

Co Mayo (10% smaller) somehow comes off worse than Galway despite having 5000 less permissions granted for one off housing, how the f**k does that happen?

If you want to go off one one regarding planning let's look at some figures of one offs per square KM, because Galway & Mayo between them 15% of the LA area in the Republic.

I did an alternative version of the An Tasice report, which looks at % of one off houses per square km. Under the AT rankings "best" 3 were Fingal, SDCC & Meath. Under the amount of one offs per sq km the worst three offenders are DCC, Cork City & DLR (with Galway City 4 & SDCC 5).

There are far more flaws with that An Tasice Report such as:

• SDCC, DLR, & Fingal are all heavily implicated in Mahon, yet are ranked officially 1, 2 & 4
• DCC (9) & Fingal developments are riddled with Saftey (there are several more Priory Hall scenarios waiting to happen) & Pyrite problems
• Dublin Docklands think they can grant planning permission to overrule DCC (ABP said otherwise)
• Fingal (4) has the highest number of ghost estates in the country
• A single burst pipe in Galway City (ranked 3) knocks out water for approximately 1/4 of the population

TINA1984 wrote: »

I used the term 'metro' Galway loosely, hence the comma marks, as there doesn't appear to be a defined metro Galway

When the Galway councils get their arse in order and come up with an appropriate LUTS for the metro Galway area - which they actually intend to implement as opposed to paying lip service to- then perhaps we can start taking seriously the idea of a metro Galway and can fund appropriate road and public transport infrastructure.

Why do people who know nothing about Galway get away with posting this tripe?

Instead of arguing based on inaccurate and misleading information, I suggest you educate yourself on the so called smarter travel plan for Galway, which defines the metro area.

TINA1984 wrote: »

As already mentioned Western politicians are adept at championing & securing infrastructure funding from the state, but not so great at putting in appropriate planning measures for best use of said infrastructure.

Nobody had been. Lets punish Dublin, Cork, Limerick & Waterford by not letting them build a single new house or apartment until they get their PT networks up to a level that makes cars not an option in those bypassed cities.

TINA1984 wrote: »

As pointed out, farmers and landowners can look forward to a bonanza as it'll be possible to build a one-off somewhere in deepest NW Co. Galway/Mayo and still commute in a reasonable time into Galway city & surrounds once the GCOB and M17/18 are built.

Again this myths are coming out, it's been very hard for anyone to get PP in the countryside in the past 5 or so years, unless they are from the area. I wasn't born in the parish and despite living there for 27 years, for planning purposes I'm not entitled to a one off unless I buy a house and knock it!

TINA1984 wrote: »

You could put a half hourly service for 20 hours a day on the WRC and it'll still have astonishingly poor loadings for the same reason it does now. Namely, not many people live in the bustling metropolis' of Gort, Craughwell etc.

Now that would be a waste of money. It only needs about 6 trains a day to be effective, but they need to be at the right times. A first train that arrives in Ceannt Station for 8.05 is too late for business that start at 8 (which is most of factories in Galway).

TINA1984 wrote: »

Y'know county Meath has far, far more people living in it then in the area you've mentioned right? To take your example to an extreme, Co. Kerry is bigger then Meath, should we build some motorway there as well?

As one would expect with several medium/large towns in the area.

TINA1984 wrote: »

FYI businessess are being "lost" everywhere in Ireland right now.

Lol, there is a historical drain front he west of Ireland going back to the 80s & 90s and you concentrate on the past 5 years.

TINA1984 wrote: »

y'know an invisible county border doesn't automatically demarcate a boundary where people will stop commuting to a city or town?

Indeed, but census figures tell us that there are what, 457 people that are coming north from Clare/Limerick to Galway city. But since the original attack was on Galway CC.....

TINA1984 wrote: »

Hmm lets see, 2/3 of all Co. Galway PP granted is for one-off housing. Do you really think these people living in all these new one-offs - remember Galway county population has expanded by 60k -are just locals who aren't commuting to the major employment centres? I think not.

Ah change of tack now, so the fact that they are not all commuting to Galway city and might be going to Ballinasloe or Loughrea is somehow relevant to a thread on a Galway bypass? I should have know when you brought the M17/18 into it.

Your rants read like something out of the James Nix stable of misguided research. Have a read of this paper that nix presented to the Irish Planning Institute.

tldr; it's a very poorly researched pile of crap that is used to support his views on why there should be a LVT based property tax.

Con Logue

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

Please accept my apologies, that was an incomplete post. Nonetheless I didn't agree with it at all and I thought the post I quoted was purile and unsupported. If you have a problem with my post, you can use the report button.

I will respond later with a more complete relpy.

I am perplexed as to how arguing that Galway needs a LUTS is somehow "puerile". As I will be away until Tuesday please feel free to kick around that substantive point until I return.

yer man!

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Yes, my questions re the well-recognised cyclical connection between school term and traffic congestion in Galway City.

So by that logic there should be no traffic for 3 months in year when when the schools are off, oh wait, there is.

antoobrien

Con Logue wrote: »

I am perplexed as to how arguing that Galway needs a LUTS is somehow "puerile".

It has one, it's just not published in a single coherent document. Parts of it are covered in the various development plans, parts under transport strategies and parts under the flawed* smarter travel plan.

*Parts of the plan based on traffic estimates are totally unrealistic as they are based on the assumption that there will be 0% growth in car use, despite the historical average of 2% population growth per annum. It's hard to believe that population growth in Galway will happen without a single extra car being added. This leaves aside the fact that Galway City is a fast growing economic hub, which will mean more jobs and more people trying to access Galway. There will be a lot of people that will not be able to afford to move/sell in the next 5-15 years until bubble priced mortgages get paid down towards market levels, so that will in turn mean more strain on the transport network in Galway.

I have other issues with it, including the assumptions that both Glaus & GCOB will be built - with no case dealing with the "worst case" of neither being built, leaving the status quo - a bus only mass transit system for Galway.

I'm for plans but this plan was rejected as a viable coherent strategy by the government in favour of putting in individual parts of the infrastructure that are needed, e.g. proposals for 3rd lane bus lanes (which I detest as being worse than useless) in places like Wellpark Rd.

antoobrien

yer man! wrote: »

So by that logic there should be no traffic for 3 months in year when when the schools are off, oh wait, there is.

Bearing in mind there has been a national drop of up to 10% in road traffic, it'd be interesting to see what people in Galway think the effect of the notional 10% drop in traffic has had on traffic in the city.

Seeing as the reported traffic reduction is roughly equivalent to a combined 50% increase in the modal shares of cycling and buses since the peak of traffic use (those arguments haven't changed since the proposed bypass routes were published 12 years ago), one wonders if the modal share change proposals are as scalable as some would have us believe.

redarmyblues

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/leo-varadkar-says-no-new-roads-but-existing-network-will-get-emergency-repairs-29117874.html

BY PAUL MELIA – 08 MARCH 2013

NO new local or regional roads will be built or upgraded over the coming years, Transport Minister Leo Varadkar has said.
There was "no point" in building new carriageways at a time when much of the road network is in need of urgent repairs, and extra funding will be made available for emergency maintenance works.

And he said that some €42m would be re-allocated from existing budgets to complete emergency repairs.

The announcement comes because there is a massive backlog of emergency works which need to be carried out across the road network.

There is some 100,000km of local, regional and national roads across the county, one of the highest in the EU per head of population, and outstanding repairs will cost more than €3bn to complete.

However, cuts in funding over recent years - coupled with two harsh winters which caused widespread damage - means the network is not being maintained.

Speaking this morning, Mr Varadkar said it was "obvious" that some road surfaces needed work.

He also said:

- Some 29 local authorities will be allowed re-allocate €42m earmarked for improvements - such as removing dangerous bends - for emergency repairs.

- Another €2.7m in new funding will be made available to improve drainage.

- This means it will "not be possible" to start any new road projects "in the immediate future".

"It is obvious to anyone who lives or drives through rural areas that some road surfaces are in need of repair," he said.

"As well as the usual winter damage, increasing rainfall levels have caused significant damage in recent years. Surface water is a particular problem because it undermines roads and causes potholes.

"Because resources are so limited, this focus on maintenance means it won't be possible to start any new local or regional road construction projects in the next couple of years. While this will be a disappointment to some areas, there is no point in building new roads if we cannot maintain the existing network."


I happened on this thread by chance, I wasn't aware that Galway had any major traffic issues never mind that this road was planned, (even though I am in Galway once or twice a year) so i don't claim to know the rights and wrongs of it, though I was amazed travelling out to Recess from Galway a few years ago at the amount of housing along the road which kind of spoiled the tourist experience.

It is hard to justify and I am sure harder to persuade the Troika of the need to spend €330m on a motorway standard road to nowheresville, that adds zero to a joined up national road network, anyway Varadkar is on record as saying the Atlantic Corridor is a priority for road spending so it is hard to see it going ahead in its current form before the oil runs out. I am a little amused at presumptions that the project is a matter of the most immediate and important consequence, let us not pay back a penny of what we owe and let the childer starve but don't delay me at the lights.

Does Galway need the road? Maybe.
Will it get the Kybosh from Europe or the State? Probably.
Are Galway people the most self obsessed in this benighted Isle? Definitely.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Then you were not in Galway because my car (a 4 door saloon) was being buffeted by the winds all along the N6 corrdior - which does not happen in light winds.

Non sequitur. Farcical also, since junior attended the Galway City school in question on that day.

I wouldn't call it stormy. Very windy, gusty or some such (we spotted a small poorly-rooted tree down on the way), but not stormy. In any case, IWH-OH had no problems with the perfect storm, and cycled to work as usual, with nothing pass-remarkable to report later.

Maybe the "buffeting" you experienced and the "struggling" you saw could be explained by "observation bias"?

I recall an interesting study done by a medic in UHG a few years ago, in which respondents' perceptions of the frequency of adverse weather were compared with a daily record of the actual conditions experienced by the researcher while cycling to work. There was a sizeable gap between what respondents believed was the frequency of rain versus the real-world findings of the study.

Iwannahurl

yer man! wrote: »

So by that logic there should be no traffic for 3 months in year when when the schools are off, oh wait, there is.

Note to self. Must. Not. Mention. Straw. Men.

Can you answer the real questions, please, regarding the well-known phenomenon of significantly less traffic congestion when the schools are off?

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Bearing in mind there has been a national drop of up to 10% in road traffic, it'd be interesting to see what people in Galway think the effect of the notional 10% drop in traffic has had on traffic in the city.

Seeing as the reported traffic reduction is roughly equivalent to a combined 50% increase in the modal shares of cycling and buses since the peak of traffic use (those arguments haven't changed since the proposed bypass routes were published 12 years ago), one wonders if the modal share change proposals are as scalable as some would have us believe.

Care to address the matter of the well-known reduction in traffic congestion when the schools are off?

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Maybe the "buffeting" you experienced and the "struggling" you saw could be explained by "observation bias"?

While I was driving in a straight line on a dry road, while noticing strong buffeting of the car, I noticed a cyclist - approx 75m-100m on front of me (looked about the same distance as I'd hit a sand wedge in good conditions) - swerve wildly for no visible reason (the manoeuvre was too radical for a dodge) at the same time as I felt the winds hit the car. I watched the cycle path as I passed, couldn't see anything on it to explain the manoeuvre the cyclist performed.

Unlike some people I could mention, I don't look for facts to fit a theory, I let all the facts dictate the theory.

edit

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I wouldn't call it stormy. Very windy, gusty or some such (we spotted a small poorly-rooted tree down on the way),

I never said stormy, I said strong winds. Interestingly my impression of the weather is backed up by weather and traffic reports on Tuesday morning indicating power lines down in Knocknacara & some trees down in the county. I wasn't aware of the issues with the power lines or trees until I listened to the reports that I missed as the radio wasn't on, but I'm not in the least bit surprised.

yer man!

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Note to self. Must. Not. Mention. Straw. Men.

Can you answer the real questions, please, regarding the well-known phenomenon of significantly less traffic congestion when the schools are off?

Jesus christ obviously LESS!!!!!!!!!!!!! traffic is what I meant, yes on some routes there is less congestion when schools are off but why is there congestion then during summer? that's when colleges finish, secondary and national schools are off.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Care to address the matter of the well-known reduction in traffic congestion when the schools are off?

Have done several pages ago. It's a phenomenon that's very interestingly not anywhere near as noticeable in the evening rush, as I can attest to over the Easter break. That's probably because schools are out before the evening rush gets into full swing.

It can be explained away by one/both parents not working for some period of time during the holiday period - my office here in Galway (and previously in Dublin) fairly emptied over the short breaks like Easter and first few weeks of July.

There's an initial drop during July, but I've noticed that as the peak holiday season starts to fade that traffic starts to go back up.

The pattern I see in that is that the drop can be attributed more to parents not working/working less hours over holiday periods. The holiday pattern is different in each factory here in Galway, the two weeks around the races/august bank holiday were the traditional shutdown period in many factories (some done close at all any more).

The evidence I see from this is that when parents stay at home to mind the kids for short periods of time or go on holidays, there is less traffic. It's caused by both the children not going to schoo and the parents changing their routines (i.e. different start/end hours or even not working at all).

Seeing it as "oh the children are off" and leaving that as the only cause, while not looking into what else happens while the children are off is another case of confirmation bias.

L1011

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Well now, that's an interesting perspective. Are you suggesting that if Galway's traffic can be improved by LUTS/TDM approaches which reduce car dependence and car use, somehow that is inherently an undesirable outcome?

Stop trying to twist my statements in to something you can argue against. There is absolutely nothing in that post to suggest your invention there.

galwaycyclist

antoobrien wrote: »

Have done several pages ago. It's a phenomenon that's very interestingly not anywhere near as noticeable in the evening rush, as I can attest to over the Easter break. That's probably because schools are out before the evening rush gets into full swing.

It can be explained away by one/both parents not working for some period of time during the holiday period - my office here in Galway (and previously in Dublin) fairly emptied over the short breaks like Easter and first few weeks of July.

There's an initial drop during July, but I've noticed that as the peak holiday season starts to fade that traffic starts to go back up.

The pattern I see in that is that the drop can be attributed more to parents not working/working less hours over holiday periods. The holiday pattern is different in each factory here in Galway, the two weeks around the races/august bank holiday were the traditional shutdown period in many factories (some done close at all any more).

The evidence I see from this is that when parents stay at home to mind the kids for short periods of time or go on holidays, there is less traffic. It's caused by both the children not going to schoo and the parents changing their routines (i.e. different start/end hours or even not working at all).

Seeing it as "oh the children are off" and leaving that as the only cause, while not looking into what else happens while the children are off is another case of confirmation bias.

Yes there is likely an aspect of this to the pattern of congestion. However it works both ways if Galway parents did not "have to" to bring the kids in the car then how many would walk or cycle themselves?

If the kids are able to walk, cycle or use public transport to school then that frees up their parents to walk, cycle or use public transport to get to work.

Edit: In fact that may be exactly what happens during the school holidays it is not just that parents are also off but many may still be at work but don't "have" to bring the car for that week.

antoobrien

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Yes there is likely an aspect of this to the pattern of congestion. However it works both ways if Galway parents did not "have to" to bring the kids in the car then how many would walk or cycle themselves?

I'd imagine that it's not as many as one would like to think, though both of us will find it hard to prove it wither way.

The only thing I can say is that the people who were inclined in my office to drive were not cycling, walking or getting the bus during holidays.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

If the kids are able to walk, cycle or use public transport to school then that frees up their parents to walk, cycle or use public transport to get to work.

Assuming of course that school isn't on the way to work several km away.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Edit: In fact that may be exactly what happens during the school holidays it is not just that parents are also off but many may still be at work but don't "have" to bring the car for that week.

Again that runs against what I have seen in the offices and factories I have worked in.

galwaycyclist

yer man! wrote: »

Even in the Netherlands (arguably the best place in the world to cycle and one of the higher ridership stats) most of the major cities are bypassed to get congestion out.

In the Netherlands the existence of a route around a town is only part of the picture. Nobody in officialdom is offering Galway a Dutch type traffic management plan. Indeed many of the people pushing for the bypass would be horrified by the idea of a Dutch type transport plan. It would not just involve a bypass but also stringent and active traffic reduction measures for the city.

• There would be 30km/h zones in most residential areas. On top of this would be "play streets" or "recreation zones" where children get priority and a speed limit of walking speed applies.
• Traffic would be prevented from entering residential areas other than for access although cyclists and pedestrians would retain a dense network of links not open to cars.
• Car parking supply would be limited and expensive - it costs up to EU5 per hour to park in the middle of Amsterdam.
• There would be active relocation of car parking to the outer edge and park and ride based public transport interchanges. (The relevant Dutch wiki article lists 16 cities with park and ride interchanges.
• There would be active speed management - there are 1200 traffic enforcement cameras in the Netherlands not including speed detection equipment in Police cars.
• Private cars would be blocked from crossing the city centre and the city would be divided up into traffic cells. Public transport, pedestrians and cyclists would be able to pass between the cells but not cars.
• There would also be more than token bike parking provision in the city.

If Galway was Delft, all the inner bridges would be closed to private cars but open to public transport, pedestrians and cyclists. Cars that needed to cross town would be required to go out and travel around using the ring road. Minor rural roads would also be access only.

I attach a document setting out a Delft like vision for the Galway city.

Nobody behind the bypass is offering anything like this - in fact the opposite is the case. The city council is trying increase capacity for cars with talk of another bridge beside the Salmon Weir bridge and encouraging more traffic directly into the core of the city. There is talk of more one-way streets on the west to keep cars moving. Extra lanes are being added to a junction in Mervue. If the crash had not intervened, the CIE Ceannt Station redevelopment would have increased city centre parking stock.

With regret trying to compare the traffic plans in Galway with anything in the Netherlands invites derision.

Please note I haven't even started on the other LUTS/planning issues such as the Dutch 1901 Housing Act which introduced zoning, or the 1965 spatial planning legislation.

yer man!

galwaycyclist wrote: »

In the Netherlands the existence of a route around a town is only part of the picture. Nobody in officialdom is offering Galway a Dutch type traffic management plan. Indeed many of the people pushing for the bypass would be horrified by the idea of a Dutch type transport plan. It would not just involve a bypass but also stringent and active traffic reduction measures for the city.

• There would be 30km/h zones in most residential areas. On top of this would be "play streets" or "recreation zones" where children get priority and a speed limit of walking speed applies.
• Traffic would be prevented from entering residential areas other than for access although cyclists and pedestrians would retain a dense network of links not open to cars.
• Car parking supply would be limited and expensive - it costs up to EU5 per hour to park in the middle of Amsterdam.
• There would be active relocation of car parking to the outer edge and park and ride based public transport interchanges. (The relevant Dutch wiki article lists 16 cities with park and ride interchanges.
• There would be active speed management - there are 1200 traffic enforcement cameras in the Netherlands not including speed detection equipment in Police cars.
• Private cars would be blocked from crossing the city centre and the city would be divided up into traffic cells. Public transport, pedestrians and cyclists would be able to pass between the cells but not cars.
• There would also be more than token bike parking provision in the city.

If Galway was Delft, all the inner bridges would be closed to private cars but open to public transport, pedestrians and cyclists. Cars that needed to cross town would be required to go out and travel around using the ring road. Minor rural roads would also be access only.

I attach a document setting out a Delft like vision for the Galway city.

Nobody behind the bypass is offering anything like this - in fact the opposite is the case. The city council is trying increase capacity for cars with talk of another bridge beside the Salmon Weir bridge and encouraging more traffic directly into the core of the city. There is talk of more one-way streets on the west to keep cars moving. Extra lanes are being added to a junction in Mervue. If the crash had not intervened, the CIE Ceannt Station redevelopment would have increased city centre parking stock.

With regret trying to compare the traffic plans in Galway with anything in the Netherlands invites derision.

Please note I haven't even started on the other LUTS/planning issues such as the Dutch 1901 Housing Act which introduced zoning, or the 1965 spatial planning legislation.

That's a very fair point, but could some of the traffic initiatives in the works for Galway city roads be simply some short term solutions to help a dire situation as the bypass is some time away still. Without the bypass I'm under the assumption that the city council are desperate to try anything to improve traffic flow in the city. If the council were to introduce anything radical like a congestion charge or closing off of more streets Galway would be almost unliveable as there would be very little alternative for the many people who need to make there way through the city to do long distance travelling. If in the future a congestion charge or some of the measures you outlined above were brought in so the short distance travelling in the city would be kept to a minimum and the long distance travelling would use the bypass would that make sense?

FYI: I have to make my way to the west of the city every morning and I would do anything to avoid having to go anywhere near the city centre. I was passing bushy park today and was thinking how great it would be if I could turn left off the N59 and be back in Oranmore in under 10 minutes without a hint of congestion.

Victor

Wow, I feel like the 6 year old child in the middle of an eight-way divorce.

Moderator

Iwannahurl

MYOB wrote: »

Stop trying to twist my statements in to something you can argue against. There is absolutely nothing in that post to suggest your invention there.

My response to your post below was a question, not a statement. You appear to suggest that reducing traffic congestion by changing the emphasis away from facilitating car use to prioritising public transport, cycling and walking would be "petty and vindictive". If so, why?

MYOB wrote: »

There are people who oppose the bypass ... solely because they don't actually want traffic to get any better unless its bikes/walking/buses that make it better. That is also petty and vindictive.

It appears that the Mods are concerned that Baby Jesus will wake up and start wailing woefully.

At the heart of the GCOB debate is the question "do we build more roads because there are more people and more traffic, or does building those roads create traffic sooner or later?" The answer is that both are true, but the inherent political and social ramifications are what causes the arguments. How should we live and work, how should we travel, who pays for it and how much, what are the social and environmental effects, can our choices be truly justified and sustained?

To clarify, and give additional context for, a point or two made earlier:

Weather. Just a storm in a teacup. It's often used to argue against walking and cycling as having significant potential in modal switch away from car use. The negatives are exaggerated, imo, and experience from elsewhere, eg Copenhagen, shows us that it's quite possible to have inclement weather and to have significant numbers of people commuting on foot or by bike.

Schools. It is an undeniable fact that many people experience much lighter traffic when the schools are off, especially during the summer. There may be several reasons for the reduced traffic congestion, and there may even be daily variations that lessen the effect. But the facts remain: when the schools are off congestion noticeably decreases and when the schools are due back in September people brace themselves for the return of traffic jams. What this reveals is that traffic congestion is a not a permanent fixture in the absence of a (literally) concrete measure such as a bypass, and is clearly subject in a large degree to human behaviour. Traffic congestion is not a natural phenomenon.

If changed behaviour can alleviate traffic congestion when the schools are off, why can behaviour not be changed to the same degree during term time, in a way that leads to the same effect size in terms of traffic reduction?

At the core of this is the problem of induced travel. I would argue that in a substantially unchanged Irish "planning" and transportation policy context the GCOB will not modify behaviour in the direction of reduced car use. More than likely the opposite will be the case, both in the city where more room will encourage people to drive where previously they wouldn't have bothered, and also in the large catchment area around the city where people are currently reluctant to drive through or across the city because of delays.

This is not a fanciful notion, and it has been well documented and discussed for decades. At present congestion itself is the biggest deterrent to car use, as my personal experience and that of thousands of others shows clearly. Increase capacity on the network and latent demand for car use that had previously been suppressed by peak-time congestion will emerge as soon as soon as the traffic situation is improved. Induced travel is not slow to develop either: take the brakes off and people's behaviour in relation to car use changes rapidly. Crucially, it also works the other way: reallocate existing road space to high-occupancy travel modes and you can reduce traffic considerably.

The cyclical variability in Galway's traffic associated with schools ought to show us that significant improvements are already possible to achieve with existing roads infrastructure. The fact that a bypass is many years away and indeed "may never be built" according to CEO of the NRA, Fred Barry, ought to focus our minds on the potential for significant behaviour change within current physical restraints.

Arguments about absolute AADTs etc obscure another crucial point: the relationship between key variables is non-linear, so small changes can have big effects when it comes to traffic bottlenecks. For example, in certain situations a mere 5% reduction in traffic volume can significantly increase average speed and eliminate stop-go conditions.

Why can't we aim for a sustainable "schools are off" effect all year round?

L1011

Iwannahurl wrote: »

My response to your post below was a question, not a statement. You appear to suggest that reducing traffic congestion by changing the emphasis away from facilitating car use to prioritising public transport, cycling and walking would be "petty and vindictive". If so, why?

No, I don't suggest that, and its clearly obvious from what you quoted that I don't. That is your twisting.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

For example, in certain situations a mere 5% reduction in traffic volume can significantly increase average speed and eliminate stop-go conditions.

Its pretty obvious that these situations do not apply in Galway, seeing as there has been more than 5% reduction in traffic volume without any appreciable change at all.

Iwannahurl

MYOB wrote: »

No, I don't suggest that, and its clearly obvious from what you quoted that I don't. That is your twisting.

Yet you don't attempt to clarify or expand, nor do you explain "petty and vindictive". It's just left there, as if it were a self-evident truth.

MYOB wrote: »

Its pretty obvious that these situations do not apply in Galway, seeing as there has been more than 5% reduction in traffic volume without any appreciable change at all.

The marked and well-recognised reduction in congestion when the schools are off is ample evidence that much of Galway City's traffic congestion is due to modifiable behavioural factors and not unavoidable structural deficits.

Since the GCOB is many years away, and may never be built according to the NRA, there is no good reason in the interim why we cannot achieve this kind of effect all year round:

MargeS wrote: »

I love the summer - no traffic jams to work.