"N6 Galway City Transport Project"

cgcsb

That's all very interesting but if all that money was spent by individuals in the domestic economy instead of being sent to the Saudi an Emirati royals, then there'd be much more tax revenue from other sources.

dubhthach

cgcsb wrote: »

That's all very interesting but if all that money was spent by individuals in the domestic economy instead of being sent to the Saudi an Emirati royals, then there'd be much more tax revenue from other sources.

55% of fuel cost is made up of tax/excise. This gets "reinvested" back into economy via government spending (Well that or sent to Frankfurt) so it's bit fallacious to claim it's all going to the House of Saud's private trust fund.

what_traffic

cgcsb wrote: »

That's all very interesting but if all that money was spent by individuals in the domestic economy instead of being sent to the Saudi an Emirati royals, then there'd be much more tax revenue from other sources.

True and we don't have any car manufacturing here either. So much money is been exported out of the country. Would be better to see it slosh around locally.

what_traffic

dubhthach wrote: »

That reminds me to dig up this old post of mine from another site:
---

VRT revenue from 1997-2008, taken from an answer to a Dáil question.

Any updated figures for the last 5 years?

cgcsb

dubhthach wrote: »

55% of fuel cost is made up of tax/excise. This gets "reinvested" back into economy via government spending (Well that or sent to Frankfurt) so it's bit fallacious to claim it's all going to the House of Saud's private trust fund.

yeah, so if the money was spent elsewhere in the economy, it'd
a)boost our domestic economy and
b) increase tax collected in other areas

saying that the state needs more and more cars for tax revenue is simply not true. The tax base can easily be diversified. If I get rid of my car tomorrow, the money I was spending on running it doesn't just evaporate.

galwaycyclist

cgcsb wrote: »

yeah, so if the money was spent elsewhere in the economy, it'd
a)boost our domestic economy and
b) increase tax collected in other areas

saying that the state needs more and more cars for tax revenue is simply not true. The tax base can easily be diversified. If I get rid of my car tomorrow, the money I was spending on running it doesn't just evaporate.

The thought occurs that its a bit like arguing in favour of local authority development levies on property development while at the same time ignoring the rash rezoning decisions and foolish construction effort that this promoted during the "celtic tiger".

A particular type of tax is of no net benefit if it acts to push public practices that come close to bringing the country to its knees.

To follow the evaporation analogy - much of the money that was spent on motorway infrastructure during the tiger years has also gone up in smoke, much like the money blown on what are now irrecoverable ghost estates.

This roads "investment" is now tied up in concrete that does nothing for much of the day.

Pete_Cavan

A major shift in commuting from cars to cycling/public transport does not necessarily mean a reduction in VRT. Most people will continue own a car to use for other journeys so change in VRT income would most likely be negligible. Most people I know us public transport to get to work yet still own a car moreso for social/leisure/recreational purposes made a non-peak traffic times. Fewer car journeys would see a reduction in income from taxes on petrol but commutes tend to be shorter journeys and slow moving so the reduced consumption and therefore income is unlikely to be significant.

I am sure the benefits from increased share for cycling/public transport would more than offset the less of government income.

Iwannahurl

The motoring taxes and charges issue is a particularly whiffy red herring in the present context. It's an argument essentially based on a sense of personal and collective entitlement: I've paid for my car, I paid VRT, I'm making monthly repayments on my car loan, I'm paying for petrol, I pay Road Motor Tax, I pay for insurance, I pay for maintenance, I pay VAT, I pay Excise, I pay for parking ... so dude, where's my bypass?

Unfortunately for this spurious argument, the reality is that, in general, the external costs of road transport are not covered by the all the taxes and charges. And that's not just me saying it. There is a major effort under way in the EU to address this very issue, because it goes to the heart of transportation policy generally.

Charges and taxes do not fully reflect the societal costs of transport. The attempts at introducing policies to internalise the transport externalities and to remove present tax distortions have been unsuccessful. The road and aviation sector are the main beneficiaries of such distortions.

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/strategies/doc/2011_white_paper/white_paper_2011_ia_full_en.pdf

The European Commission has produced a Handbook on the External Costs of Transport, which is based on masses of international research, and which is to be updated periodically.

Not all countries will be faced with the same internal and external costs, which is why calculations can be very complex. Hence the Handbook, presumably.

Public transport also has its externalities. However, the reality is that road transport, especially private car transport, has greater externalities (eg traffic congestion and GHG emissions). A crucial point, often forgotten or dismissed, is that the aim of passenger transport is not to move vehicles but to move passengers. This is why public transport and other more efficient modes of travel have lower externalities per passenger kilometre. It also supports the argument that more efficient use of existing infrastructure is not just more sustainable but is also cheaper:

New infrastructure is costly and making the optimal use of existing facilities can already achieve a lot with more limited resources. ... Upgrading the existing infrastructure — also through intelligent transport systems — is in many cases the cheapest way to enhance the overall performance of the transport system.

EU Commission, 2009: "A sustainable future for transport"
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/media/publications/doc/2009_future_of_transport_en.pdf

dubhthach

cgcsb wrote: »

saying that the state needs more and more cars for tax revenue is simply not true.

And I said this where? The claim was made that taxes on motoring isn't a money spinner. A claim that isn't backed by the facts which showed the government took close on €28 billion from motorists in period 2002-2007.

Of course one of the reason government income collapsed so badly post 2008 was their over dependence on consumption taxes such as above, VAT and stamp duty. So with one hand they could go "tax cuts -- vote for us" and the other "we going to rise VAT to cover tax cut but we'll have it in small print on page 600 of budget". Result collapse in "consumption taxes" led to yawning gap in government budgets.

what_traffic

dubhthach wrote: »

Of course one of the reason government income collapsed so badly post 2008 was their over dependence on consumption taxes such as above, VAT and stamp duty. So with one hand they could go "tax cuts -- vote for us" and the other "we going to rise VAT to cover tax cut but we'll have it in small print on page 600 of budget". Result collapse in "consumption taxes" led to yawning gap in government budgets.

True - that's why I was wondering had you updated figures for the last 5 years re motoring related taxes? Would also show the same change. Also would show the change in motor tax receipts due to the emissions based model.

dubhthach

what_traffic wrote: »

True - that's why I was wondering had you updated figures for the last 5 years re motoring related taxes? Would also show the same change. Also would show the change in motor tax receipts due to the emissions based model.

I'll have a dig around later, but I see following from 2011 Audit, it covers Motor Tax from 2007 to 2011 so kinda fills in picture on that angle.



One would hope the new emissions based system would show some change, however given the collaspe in motor trade between 2009 and 2012 (new system came in July 2008) there probably hasn't been enough turn-over in the car fleet to see a huge difference here. I think at least 3/4ths of the current car-fleet predates 2008 and thus on the old regime.

KevR

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It's an argument essentially based on a sense of personal and collective entitlement: I've paid for my car, I paid VRT, I'm making monthly repayments on my car loan, I'm paying for petrol, I pay Road Motor Tax, I pay for insurance, I pay for maintenance, I pay VAT, I pay Excise, I pay for parking ... so dude, where's my bypass?

Surely the sense of entitlement is far greater with staunch public transport advocates.

"The fares that I and my fellow passengers pay is nowhere near enough of a contribution to cover running costs of the service. We get tax back on our commuter tickets. Dude....where's my bus lane".

It would be funny if it wasn't true.

foramoondance

Does anyone know where traffic count data for Galway City Centre can be found, specifically the three bridges ?.
Not the NRA published data, that's for the major approach roads only

what_traffic

KevR wrote: »

Surely the sense of entitlement is far greater with staunch public transport advocates.

"The fares that I and my fellow passengers pay is nowhere near enough of a contribution to cover running costs of the service. We get tax back on our commuter tickets. Dude....where's my bus lane".

It would be funny if it wasn't true.

You forgot the "50/80 of us on the bus are only taking up the space of 3 motor car's"

dubhthach

foramoondance wrote: »

Does anyone know where traffic count data for Galway City Centre can be found, specifically the three bridges ?.
Not the NRA published data, that's for the major approach roads only

Using some google-fu I found the following:

• Quincentenary Bridge: 36,000 vehicles/day
• Salmon Weir Bridge: 19,000 vehicles/day
• Wolf Tone Bridge: 22,000 vehicles/day
• O’Briens Bridge: 9,000 vehicles/day

Presentation given by Ciarán Hayes, Director of Services, Galway City Council

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDEQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ciht.org.uk%2Fdownload.cfm%2Fdocid%2F877A2F2D-87E2-4EFA-88B768AC5A8512AD&ei=fGXrVOj6FKSy7QbZ5YDQDQ&usg=AFQjCNG4ArVnEEtPRY0I9z5hzBGZAeq6_w&sig2=tUKBnzJC3biSZcwVv-GAJA

Aard

KevR wrote: »

Surely the sense of entitlement is far greater with staunch public transport advocates.

"The fares that I and my fellow passengers pay is nowhere near enough of a contribution to cover running costs of the service. We get tax back on our commuter tickets. Dude....where's my bus lane".

It would be funny if it wasn't true.

A lot of people who rely on public transport cannot afford to purchase and run their own car.

Iwannahurl

Public transport users, such as those on buses held up in traffic not of their making, are also paying the price of others' car use, even though they are contributing nothing to traffic congestion and are in fact alleviating it.

It is of course entirely a car-centric view to regard public transport users (as well as cyclists and pedestrians) as getting in the way and as some sort of burden on motorists or on the State.

From behind the steering wheel, and from behind the desk of bean counters serving a particular ideology, public transport is seen as a cost to be minimised or even eliminated if at all possible, rather than as a service to be provided (and valued as a means to help achieve other objectives such as increasing the efficiency of road infrastructure, improving road safety and lowering per capita GHG emissions).

Iwannahurl

dubhthach wrote: »

• Quincentenary Bridge: 36,000 vehicles/day
• Salmon Weir Bridge: 19,000 vehicles/day
• Wolf Tone Bridge: 22,000 vehicles/day
• O’Briens Bridge: 9,000 vehicles/day

According to the N6GCTP project manager, 58% of trips across the river are entirely within Galway City, which I guess gives us the following intra-city numbers:

Quincentenary Bridge: 20880
Salmon Weir Bridge: 11020
Wolf Tone Bridge: 12760
O’Briens Bridge: 5220

I'd be very interested to know what are the various generators for that total of c. 50,000 daily trips within the city.

foramoondance

Iwannahurl wrote: »

According to the N6GCTP project manager, 58% of trips across the river are entirely within Galway City, which I guess gives us the following intra-city numbers:

Quincentenary Bridge: 20880
Salmon Weir Bridge: 11020
Wolf Tone Bridge: 12760
O’Briens Bridge: 5220

I'd be very interested to know what are the various generators for that total of c. 50,000 daily trips within the city.

Thanks for the link to the presentation. I don't see any NRA traffic counts for Galway City and nothing on Galway City Council website. Reading back on this thread, they used to be there. Did anyone download them while they were available ?

Iwannahurl

It was dubhthach who posted the traffic counts.

The Chief Executive of Galway County Council was on Galway Bay FM this morning. If I understood him correctly, he said they have already concluded that
a new road/route must be part of the ultimate solution.

On what basis, I wonder. Has anyone here seen the studies?

This conclusion seems to have been made already, before the public consultation has concluded or even properly begun. In which case, what is the "consultation" process for?

dubhthach

Iwannahurl wrote: »

According to the N6GCTP project manager, 58% of trips across the river are entirely within Galway City, which I guess gives us the following intra-city numbers:

Quincentenary Bridge: 20880
Salmon Weir Bridge: 11020
Wolf Tone Bridge: 12760
O’Briens Bridge: 5220

I'd be very interested to know what are the various generators for that total of c. 50,000 daily trips within the city.

I don't know if you can apply that logic exactly on some of those bridges, for example O'Briens Bridge is hardly gonna be used for traffic not originating in the city (or ending in city). The presentation has some interesting figures in general for example on peak times:

• Morning Peak 8.00 – 9.00 8,000 vehicles cross cordons
• Evening Peak 5.00 – 6.00 7,000 vehicles cross cordons

Other titbits:

• Commuting Accounts for 30 - 35% of trips and km travelled by private car
• Shopping, leisure, visiting account for the rest

• 50% of people travel 9km or more to work
• Accounting for over 80% of the total km travelled to work

• Average distance to work is 15.8km
• Average distance to work in 1991 was 7.7km

• 50,000 City residents travel to work/education every day
• 51.6% of these travel less than 4 km
• 52.5% of the City Residents group travel to work/education by car
• Average weekday inbound traffic flow across cordons is 62,200
• Average weekday outbound traffic flow across cordons in 62,190

Your personal favourite would probably be this one,

• 200,000 driven/drive less than 4.5km to school

what_traffic

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The Chief Executive of Galway County Council was on Galway Bay FM this morning. If I understood him correctly, he said they have already concluded that
a new road/route must be part of the ultimate solution.

On what basis, I wonder. Has anyone here seen the studies?

This conclusion seems to have been made already, before the public consultation has concluded or even properly begun. In which case, what is the "consultation" process for?

Was this the Keith Finnegan Show or Galway Bay FM News?

Iwannahurl

dubhthach wrote: »

Your personal favourite would probably be this one,
200,000 driven/drive less than 4.5km to school

That's national, of course, although at times if feels like it applies to Galway specifically. It's an old presentation too, so I'll bet the number has gone up, especially in Waterford.

This bit caught my eye: "Too many cars for the existing network".

The cheapest and most sustainable solution is fewer cars and a more efficient network. However, the former Director didn't pursue that option until (afaik) mandated to do so, or prompted to do so by having the money carrot dangled, and for years predicated any major interventions on getting a bypass. The usual story.

The last slide reminded me of Sir Humphrey and his reference to Ministers making "courageous decisions". The former Director was a master of scaring off Councillors by referring to the unpopularity of certain traffic management measures, most especially those affecting motorists' freedoms and privileges. That said, the N6 modifications (eg Bodkin roundabout removal) were made under his supervision and against a lot of opposition.

Iwannahurl

what_traffic wrote: »

Was this the Keith Finnegan Show or Galway Bay FM News?

Keith Finnegan.

Podcast available now: http://galwaybayfm.ie/keith-finnegan-show-tuesday-24th-february/

Interview starts immediately after Keith's general intro. About six minutes in, the CE says something about Smarter Travel etc not being enough, and that "some sort of road-based solution" has already been deemed necessary.

Can somebody please parse and analyse the relevant bits. Is the CE really saying that a new road/bridge is a foregone conclusion? In which case, is the public merely being asked to choose their favourite colour?

what_traffic

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Keith Finnegan.

Podcast available now: http://galwaybayfm.ie/keith-finnegan-show-tuesday-24th-february/

Interview starts immediately after Keith's general intro. About six minutes in, the CE says something about Smarter Travel etc not being enough, and that "some sort of road-based solution" has already been deemed necessary.

Thanks Iwannahurl.
So basically after the CE studied the following two leaflets he came up with that solution?

http://www.n6galwaycity.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/PC2_Board-5-Possible-Public-Transport-Component-of-the-Transport-solution.pdf
and
http://www.n6galwaycity.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/PC2_Board-7-Possible-Components-of-the-Transport-Solution.pdf

Can ya blame him really? :rolleyes:
Why so little information is been shared is the real scandal here? Perhaps there is no such information in the first place?

foramoondance

Did anyone download the detailed traffic count information when it was originally available on the Galway City Council website (its not there any more) ?

Iwannahurl

what_traffic wrote: »

Thanks Iwannahurl.
So basically after the CE studied the following two leaflets he came up with that solution?

http://www.n6galwaycity.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/PC2_Board-5-Possible-Public-Transport-Component-of-the-Transport-solution.pdf
and
http://www.n6galwaycity.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/PC2_Board-7-Possible-Components-of-the-Transport-Solution.pdf

Can ya blame him really? :rolleyes:
Why so little information is been shared is the real scandal here? Perhaps there is no such information in the first place?

I've been doing some digging, but perhaps I'm not so good at putting the excavated pieces together into a coherent pattern.

My understanding is that a Galway-specific "multi-modal transport model" has been/is being devised, based on the NTA's National Trip End Model.

Here's the only mention on Google of the Galway version: https://ie.linkedin.com/pub/benjamin-loreille/99/884/954

Cakewheels

what_traffic wrote: »

Thanks Iwannahurl.
So basically after the CE studied the following two leaflets he came up with that solution?

http://www.n6galwaycity.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/PC2_Board-5-Possible-Public-Transport-Component-of-the-Transport-solution.pdf
and
http://www.n6galwaycity.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/PC2_Board-7-Possible-Components-of-the-Transport-Solution.pdf

Can ya blame him really? :rolleyes:
Why so little information is been shared is the real scandal here? Perhaps there is no such information in the first place?

Has anyone made any attempts to access more of the information yet? This may be a ridiculous thought but might there be any possibility of doing so under Access to Information on the Environment or FOI?

Another interesting thought is that when the CE was challenged on the radio about whether this was really a consultation at all, he said he was interested in getting 'information' from the public in case anything had been missed. He was referring mainly to things that would be affected by a new road such as heritage structures, but I presume it would be possible to send him structured 'information' on the nature of the traffic problems (eg. the schools problem documented above) and on a menu of options for increasing use of sustainable transport modes.

antoobrien

loughgill wrote: »

on the nature of the traffic problems (eg. the schools problem documented above) and on a menu of options for increasing use of sustainable transport modes.

The problem with Galway's schools is that they open at 9am, when many businesses open to staff. Then just when the business day is starting we add 20%* of the potential city commuting pool to the roads & paths in a short period of time.

I'd be interested in knowing what the people that try to dismiss Galway's problem as being a morning school-run issue on what is the cause of the year long evening rush problems, which starts after the end of the the afternoon school runs (Friday excepted, when the factories and many non services/retail business close early).

*According to the 2011 census there are ~45,000 commuters (education & work) in Galway city & suburbs. Approximately 10,000 of those are 1st & 2nd level students (well they're aged between 5 & 18).

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

The problem with Galway's schools is that they open at 9am, when many businesses open to staff. Then just when the business day is starting we add 20%* of the potential city commuting pool to the roads & paths in a short period of time.

I'd be interested in knowing what the people that try to dismiss Galway's problem as being a morning school-run issue on what is the cause of the year long evening rush problems, which starts after the end of the the afternoon school runs (Friday excepted, when the factories and many non services/retail business close early).

The overall problem is that too many people are using cars for just about everything, most especially to travel to work and education.

I'm not aware of anyone attempting to "dismiss" the traffic congestion and car dependence problem as being "a morning school-run issue".

What the morning school run, the school holidays and the recent secondary teachers' strikes reveal is that school traffic on its own makes a significant difference to traffic volume and traffic congestion throughout the city. That is undeniable. And it's not just me saying it. On page 8 of today's Galway Independent, NUI Galway's Dean of Engineering, Prof Gerry Lyons, points to the "easing" of traffic during the school mid-term, and reportedly says that with proper planning we could achieve the same effect year-round. TTBOMK Prof Lyons believes a bypass is not needed, and he is one of the prominent N6 Action Group committee members opposing all six proposed routes.

The key point about school traffic is that it illustrates what can be achieved when one -- just one -- source of traffic is reduced (secondary schools off) or eliminated (all schools off).

One major step in managing Galway's traffic, regardless of a bypass, is therefore to deal with school travel.

The same principles could be applied to the two Third Level institutions. Workplace travel could also be tackled in like manner, with particular emphasis on large employers in the city centre and in key locations such as Parkmore and Ballybrit.

Where in the documentation of the "N6 Galway City Transport Project" is any of this addressed in detail? Where are the proposed "alternative solutions" to deal with school travel? How much of the supposed €500-750 million budget is to be spent on, say, the provision of a school bus service?

What effective action has been taken in the last 30-50 years to deal with school travel? Can you identify one initiative, or even just one school, where an effective Travel Plan has been devised and implemented, in the past couple of decades?