marno21 wrote: » Can you provide a source for this statement please.
Carol25 wrote: » In response to Ruhanna: This is just going around in circles, you’re not offering any concrete proposals re public transport options. You’re making out building a road is ‘destroying the tranquility of the area’. Galway is a city, it’s not a nature reserve and the previous plan for the bypass further out avoiding home demolition was denied as I’m sure you’re well aware. You’ve just posted up a random picture of a bus and cars in traffic as your ‘example’ of a public transport solution without offering a single detail re times, roads, lanes, destinations. What’s more important to note however is the picture you’re using is a picture of a good road, with two lanes of traffic and a huge bus lane area, are you aware there isn’t a single road in Galway able to free up that kind of space. There’s barely room for one lane each way, never mind two. As I’ve already stated, Galway City’s roads are not fit for purpose. Building the road in the picture you’ve provided looks to have improved the availability of public transport in that random area, food for thought. No one wants the bypass to ‘travel faster’, they want two get from a to b. Hospitals, ambulances, people in all sorts of situations. Are you aware a huge amount of people travel into Galway City daily to UHG from as far away as Donegal and other areas for Cancer treatments and other conditions as Galway is the designated ‘centre of excellence’ for the West. And guess where the hospital is located, across the river that doesn’t have enough bridges. Those people don’t have a menu of public transport services to choose from either. I agree planning is poor, foresight is shocking, and public transport options should be developed. However Galway needs more infrastructure to achieve this. I’m done with this argument. As they say on Dragons Den, I’m out.
Ruhanna wrote: » What is the primary purpose of the city's roads? Moving county dwellers in their driver-only cars from A to B and back? Because the rurban commuter cohort, thanks to Galway County Council's stupid "planning" policies over decades, are huge contributors to the city's traffic congestion. You are not stuck in traffic, you are traffic. Are you saying modern cars are not comfortable? What are you driving, a Lada? You didn't refute anything with regard to short distance driving in Galway. The fact remains, because the data have been there for years, that a significant proportion of journeys in the city are over short distances. The thousands of county drivers entering the city after their long drives from rurban developments spread over a very large commuter catchment meet thousands of city drivers travelling relatively short distances and the resultant mess is called "permanent gridlock" or some such. It's this chaotic and unsustainable mosaic of travel patterns that gives rise to demand for a so-called "bypass", which may ease congestion in the short term but which will not fix the core problems in the long term and will probably make things worse (see the story of the M50). Our stupid and unsustainable planning policies have led to many thousands of people transplanting themselves to the countryside, many of whom moved out to have "an urban-type home while avoiding the cost of city living" as mentioned in a link posted earlier. Can they be transplanted back? Unlikely. Our "planning" policies over decades have gifted us a legacy of unsustainable transport and infrastructure problems that will last for decades more. An urban motorway costing hundreds of millions of Euro is probably only the start of it. Private cars, regardless of trip purpose, are massively inefficient. If you want to make the worst possible use of finite space, then the private car is the ideal way to do it. Look at the picture above. Is either lane "shut down"? Which mode of transport illustrates the most efficient use of available resources? A better question might be: what are the social implications of our rurban settlement patterns, which is one major source of the seemingly insatiable demand for more road construction? As stated earlier, probably more than once, 40% of car trips don't cross the river at all. Shifting a chunk of those trips to modes other than massively space-inefficient single-occupant private cars would go a long way to relieving congestion on the river crossings. Likewise, eliminating cross-river trips (such as with Park & Ride, and making much more efficient use of bridges (such as by mode-shifting to public transport especially) would also make much better use of existing infrastructure at much lower cost. The "miles and miles of tailbacks" are primarily composed of single-occupant cars (90% in Parkmore, according to a Council engineer). Mandatory? Do you have some sort of ideological objection to transport planning and measures to control private car use? Speaking of which, do you think that the County Council's construction of a motorway within the City Council's administrative area should be mandatory, to the extent that 40 family homes should be demolished, the relative tranquility of numerous other homes destroyed or diminished, and the property of an even larger group compulsorily acquired, divided or restricted, just so that county car commuters can drive faster?
WillieMason wrote: » can you give examples of these cities? so i can compare them to galway?
WillieMason wrote: » Where is this picture taken?
Geuze wrote: » Population = 220,000 Tram network, and buses.
Ruhanna wrote: » You're out, without properly addressing any of the core issues, and while failing to comprehend a key point about efficient use of finite road space. It's all about geometry, but it seems that in Galway committed car commuters (perhaps most especially those in the county who have made their rural bed and now have to lie in it, no matter what happens) just cannot grasp the fundamentals of travel mode as it relates to road capacity.
WillieMason wrote: » Thanks for the examples much appreciated. Have you any examples of coastal cities similar to Galway i can check out?
WillieMason wrote: » I think its solutions she wants everyone knows the problems
Sam Russell wrote: » Last Saturday, I drove from Athenry to Terryland and back. It was interesting because the traffic was not too bad, but I noticed the inordinate delay at the various traffic lights on the four or so junctions. They are complex and use sequencing that is very inefficient and give rise to tailbacks on the major route. There is also the Coolagh roundabout which also gives rise to problems. Now, I am not a traffic engineer, but looking at the map, it would appear to me there is plenty of space available to widen the N6 (Bothar Na dTreabh) to allow extra lanes, slip roads and bus lanes where appropriate. The main aim should be to make the N6 free flow as much as possible, and to widen or duplicate the Centenial bridge, again there is space to do so. Bus transport along the N6 is notable by its absence. Park and rides are also absent. Do the small things first.
Ruhanna wrote: » Or four, in our case: drive, cycle, walk, use public transport. And yes, we pay tax the same as everybody else does.
Cookiemunster wrote: » That's great for you, but many people live where they can afford, which usually isn't near where they work. Public transport is great in densely populated areas, but unfortunately nowhere in Ireland is densely populated (not even Dublin). Until we start building up in the center of cities and get people to live there, rather than sprawling out then no amount of public transport is going to resolve the traffic issue.
Sam Russell wrote: » Mod: Can we get back on topic. General discussion of tax, motor tax, sprawl, etc are off topic. Discussion on whether Galway Ring road is needed should be put in that thread. Off topic stuff will be moved or deleted depending on whether there is a thread for it.
Zzippy wrote: » Bothar na dTreach could possibly be widened, which would create additional space for bus and cycle lane infrastructure, if you're not going to assign existing lanes for those, which IMO should be the first order of business. You can't widen/duplicate the Quin bridge, however, without taking out significant property interests on the western side, and even if you did, you're still funnelling additional traffic quicker into the bottleneck that is Seamus Quirke Road, which cannot be widened further. Even if you assumed a lot of that traffic is heading for the N59, there is no space for slip roads to create a free flow junction, and traffic will still grind to a halt and back up to Terryland.
Ruhanna wrote: » Why so much emphasis on "widening"? The capacity of the Seamus Quirke Road at present (car lanes + bus/bike lanes + bike paths/lanes + footpaths) would be reduced if any of the existing space was reallocated to create another car lane. The SQR is not a bottleneck. Where people travelling by bike or bus encounter bottlenecks on that side of town is on the Western Distributor Road and on the Deane and Browne roundabouts. There is a 100% bottleneck for public transport on the Quincentenary Bridge, in the sense that there is no bus lane. So bus service providers don't use it. There are four lanes (two in each direction) on the Quincentenary Bridge. Reallocating space to bus lanes, implementing bus priority measures at junctions and providing a connected off-road cycle route (with junction priority) on the whole length of the existing N6 Ring Road would increase capacity, not reduce it.
Zzippy wrote: » The sheer number, proximity and sequencing of traffic lights on SQR means it certainly is a bottleneck, particularly at busy times.
what_traffic wrote: » Different bottleneck, maybe bottleneck for a single car user at peak times, but for the person walking, cycling or bus.... Only time they experience the bottleneck is when trying to cross the main SQR/BOD road.
Sam Russell wrote: » I am guilty of going off-topic myself. I intend to sort this out when I get time. When I sort it out, I will post specific guidelines. I will try and do so over he wekend.
Zzippy wrote: » My point was in reply to someone who suggested widening the N6 and BnaT for car traffic, to show that doing so would only funnel traffic faster to SQR which is a bottleneck for cars, and would make very little difference to commute times. I was not advocating for it.
Ruhanna wrote: » Pending those guidelines, I would like to offer a general opinion. I appreciate that the general rule, on Boards and in life, is to be civil. Fair enough, lack of civility should be discouraged and/or sanctioned. I also understand that Boards is structured in a vertical or linear fashion, ie forums generate their own topics, topics generate threads, and threads generate discussion that is meant to be on-topic. Likewise I also understand and appreciate that Moderators are volunteers and that their voluntary work may become a real pain (to them) if uncivil behaviour or unwanted discussion leads to their being bombarded with Reports. However, incivility is a generic misbehaviour not unique to any one forum or topic (and for which there are effective sanctions, presumably) whereas that which may be called 'unwanted' discussion might be more contested, subjective and situation-specific. 'Vertical' Boards discussions are one thing, real life is another. In relation to "M6 - Galway City Ring Road [planning decision pending]" the proposed project is a really big deal in Galway: 40 homes are to be demolished, many more properties are to be indirectly affected, and formerly quiet neighbourhoods will be changed forever, eg by traffic noise. Likewise the transport and planning environment will be drastically altered, for at least another 25 years. The changes that will inevitably follow the construction of the proposed motorway, for good or ill, will probably last for decades. People are bound to have opinions on such a major project. I would argue that citizens ought to have an opinion on it, and that they should be allowed to express them. All the more so since the project is currently in the planning decision process, which means that people's opinions are being officially sought too. How do we know what we think until we hear what we say? Of course we are all entitled to our opinion, but not our own facts. Boards is a private forum, which is fair enough. However, every member should be treated fairly and impartially (civility works both ways). I would argue that a thread split (ie N6 GCRR Planning Decision Pending versus N6 GCRR Is It Really Necessary?) risks creating an artificial divide that would not be impartial. In other words, a pre-existing group on Boards who would like to take the construction of the N6 GCCR for granted would simply want to continue discussing the proposal as if its merits were inherent and self-evident and that any contrary view is just vexatious and likely to cause derailment (a euphemism, in my opinion, for people continuing to express views that certain other people don't like). I would suggest, for example, that people who would favour a thread split are more likely to be those that have already indicated a strong preference for the N6GCCR, while those who are supposedly "derailing" discussion are those who are less than convinced or maybe even strongly opposed. In other words, a thread split would be a subjective divide in which "N6 GCRR Planning Decision Pending" risks being about manufacturing consent for a foregone (mainstream) conclusion while "N6 GCRR Is It Really Necessary?" is about sidelining dissent and quarantining unpopular opinions in a separate place where certain people won't have to see them. Rant over.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62877c35768f143f69acd7bb6cd43f3c.svg)
