Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

M6 - is the Galway Bypass necessary? (thread split)

12357…11

Comments

  • #122
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,523 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    1. Link to the R336 location on Google Maps please.

    Would be seen as the very end of what is the current patched together "ring road", albeit more traffic would use the Kingston Road to access the R336 from it.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    2. Your insight is unreliable.

    Clearly not.

    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    3. It's the Quincentenary Bridge, officially.

    And you attack people for pedantry...
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    4. "The road named Bothar na dTreabh gets nowhere near the Quincentennial Bridge." Really? According to Google Maps, approx 750 metres from the Pillo Hotel at the roundabout opposite the Menlo Park Hotel (beginning of Bothar na dTreabh) to the Galway Shopping Centre (at the magic roundabout just before Quincentenary Bridge).

    ...which can be fifteen minutes drive in rush hour... its nowhere near in terms of traffic.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    5. I have already posted a link to a newspaper article in which a Galway TD emphatically states that the GCOB is also needed to take traffic out of the city in order to facilitate new development in the harbour area. The Ceannt Station element of that plan on its own includes 2055 car parking spaces. How will that not induce traffic?

    The GCOB won't take *any* traffic out of the harbour area as it does not serve traffic going anywhere near it. This is blatantly clear to anyone who's actually been in Galway for more than a weekend.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    6. Road safety campaigning and GCOB scepticism are not mutually exclusive. As someone else has argued in this thread, I think, removing traffic with a bypass could make the city streets more dangerous for vulnerable road users if it led to higher free speeds on average.

    Bring in your beloved enforcement then. Its not even a fraction of a valid argument against the bypass.

    And if removing traffic would make the city streets more dangerous for cyclists why are you for, erm, removing traffic by means of public transport to make it more condusive to cyclists? Talking out of both sides of your mouth. Can't have it both ways.

    Will removing traffic make it safer or more dangerous? Pick a viewpoint and stop trying to represent both.


  • #123
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    James Nix paper attached.

    Attachment not found.


    Thanks for the doc, I'll consider both posts properly after work and get back to you.

    Without having read the document, there's one item that I never hear mentioned when people mention one off housing in Co. Galway, it's an area with historically low urban populations, so it's not like the concept is a new one. But please don't trust me on that, check the census figures.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    EDIT: A thought occurs. If planning for a bypass started in 1999, fifteen years after the new bridge opened, may this is an indicator that the "ring road" had already been swallowed up with traffic generating development and that they already knew what they were doing "planning" wise was not going to be salvageable.

    I never remember it being referred to as a "ring road" until they pedestrianized Shop Street (approx 1999/2000), creating the "inner ring" and "outer ring" roads and only then on road signs (are those road signs still up, not on Eyre Sq any more at any rate).

    At any rate I object to the use of "ring road" as the name implies that it is an outer route. This road goes within a few minutes walk of Eyre Square. Also, with the exception of the last section between Briarhill & Doughiska, the so called "Galway Ring Road" passes through business & residential areas that existed before the road was built.

    Now, if you would, consider that the dual carriageway between Briarhill and Doughiska was opened in 95/96 to complete this relief road. They started planning for the bypass in 1999 based on the NRA's road needs survey (where the concept of the national dc/motorway network came from). To me that's an attempt at forward planning to rectify problems that have not been fully resolved by the measures taken. No doubt you'll disagree on most if not all of this.

    You keep saying things like "if planning for a bypass started in 1999" - it did, I'm not the only person in Galway whose family had the brochure with the proposed routes posted out to our house in the early part of the last decade.

    Here's another item for you to consider, taken from Retail Strategy for Galway City published in 2002:
    Galway City has a County -wide catchment area in particular for comparison shopping. This dominant position of Galway is confirmed and the dependence of towns even as far away as Clifden on the services provided in Galway is indicated. This is clear also from the results of the floorspace survey (section 3).

    The county towns predominantly function as providers of day to day shopping
    requirements. Shoppers to these towns come from the immediate catchment with the exception of Loughrea, which appears to have a marginally wider catchment coming from the South- East of the county.

    Traffic congestion and poor car parking facilities were identified as a problem everywhere but in particular in Loughrea and Athenry. This has a strong negative impact in County towns especially where most shoppers are car borne.


  • #124
    KevR
    Registered Users Posts: 3,110 ✭✭✭KevR


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    EDIT: A thought occurs. If planning for a bypass started in 1999, fifteen years after the new bridge opened, may this is an indicator that the "ring road" had already been swallowed up with traffic generating development and that they already knew what they were doing "planning" wise was not going to be salvageable.

    Can anyone put a percentage figure on the expansion of Galway City's road network 1991-2006??

    I think we can safely assume that it hasn't expanded by 42.4% !!!!!!!

    There is no denying that there have been some very bad planning decisions in Galway City and County over the years but the fact still remains that population growth in Galway City (and County) has been huge and that increases in road capacity have been shockingly low in comparison.
    Population (1991-2006)
    • Ireland has experienced a population growth of 20.3% over the past fifteen years and the West Region has grown by 20.8%. Galway City’s population, by contrast, has grown by 42.4% over the same period, the forth largest growth experienced overall and the fastest growth experience of any county outside the Greater Dublin Area.

    • The fastest growing EDs within Galway City are Barna (187.3%), Ballybaan (133.4%), Ballybrit (125.5%), Eyre Square (111.2%) and Castlegar (107.8%), all of which more than doubled their population.

    • Only few areas registered a population decline, including Newcastle (-35.2%), Renmore (-27.5%), Mervue (-26.4%), Lough Atalia (-17.7%) and Nuns Island (-14.6%).
    https://www.pobal.ie/WhatWeDo/Deprivation/Publications/1.1.26%20Area%20Profile%20-%20Galway%20City%20report.pdf


  • #125
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    KevR wrote: »
    Can anyone put a percentage figure on the expansion of Galway City's road network 1991-2006??

    In that timeframe there were 2 roads built that I can think of: the Western Distributer Road through Knocknacara & the Ballybrit & Doughiska dual carriageways (I'm ignoring the Doughiska to Oranmore because it's not in the city, the digital roundabout at Ballybane was opened before '91 IIRC). That's maybe 7km of roads.

    Edit: possibly Bothar Ui Hehir (Tuam Rd to College Rd/Foster St) as well

    Meanwhile we've lost O'Briens Bridge to Westbound traffic due to the pedestrianization of Shop St.


  • #126
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/43700/city-outer-bypass-to-be-included-in-new-national-development-plan
    The Galway City Outer Bypass will form part of the new National Development Plan, the contents of which are due to be revealed in October, it was confirmed last night.

    Several major roads projects are expected to be omitted from the new capital expenditure programme as the department seeks to scale back its plans in line with the present economic circumstances. However, Galway West TD Brian Walsh received confirmation from the Minister for Transport Leo Varadkar last night that he is prepared to include the Galway City Outer Bypass as a priority in the new programme.

    It is understood that the proposed outer bypass was one of the highest-ranking roads project in the State in terms of cost-benefit analysis conducted by the Department of Transport in relation to every proposed roads currently under consideration by the Government.

    Welcoming the commitment from Minister Varadkar, Dep Walsh said the inclusion of the bypass in the new National Development Plan would “pave the way” for the project to be expedited pending a decision from the European Court of Justice, following a referral from the Supreme Court for a preliminary ruling on matters concerning EU Law.

    “I recently wrote to the Minister seeking reaffirmation that the bypass was still a priority for the Government in spite of the fiscal constraints and I am delighted with his response,” he said.

    “The chaotic traffic congestion of recent weeks has served to highlight that the need for an outer bypass has never been greater and the inclusion of the project in the new plan signals that the Government remains committed to making it a reality.”

    Dep Walsh said the reason the bypass has been in the pipeline for more than 14 years is due to a lack of “political will to bring it to fruition”.

    “The bypass is not only critical from the point of view of alleviating traffic congestion but it is also integral to facilitating the redevelopment of Galway Harbour,” he said, “because access is going to be a major consideration in deciding whether planning is granted in respect of that project


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    MYOB wrote: »
    "Bother na dTreabh" is the DC/part of the S4 section (N18 to N84) of the existing route only, IWH. Its about half of the entire ring road, nothing more.

    The NRA and indeed everyone except you it appears recognise the rest (N84 to R336) is unsalvagable. This includes the Corrib crossing which is the entire need for the outer bypass!

    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    N84 to R336? Sorry, I find that a bit confusing. According to the Google map I'm looking at, the N84 is the Headford Road and the R336, in the relevant part of the city, is called the Tuam Road locally (closer to town, well before it becomes the N17).


    MYOB wrote: »
    The R336 at the locaiton I'm referring to is the road to Connemara. If you know the 'ring road' you'll know exactly what I mean. More insight that you don't actually know Galway at all.

    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    1. Link to the R336 location on Google Maps please.

    MYOB wrote: »
    Would be seen as the very end of what is the current patched together "ring road", albeit more traffic would use the Kingston Road to access the R336 from it.




    This is getting surreal! :D

    Having claimed "insight" into my alleged lack of knowledge of Galway City, having made the clearly inaccurate statement that "the road named Bothar na dTreabh gets nowhere near the Quincentennial Bridge", and having attempted to wriggle out of that last gaffe by claiming that since it takes as much as "fifteen minutes drive in rush hour" it is therefore "nowhere near in terms of traffic" (hilarious!) you now appear to be saying, as your last link above suggests, that the rather ancient and venerable Salthill Road up past the diving tower at Blackrock is somehow part of a "ring road" deemed "unsalvageable" by the NRA?! I don't geddit... :confused:


  • #128
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,523 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    This is getting surreal! :D

    Having claimed "insight" into my alleged lack of knowledge of Galway City, having made the clearly inaccurate statement that "the road named Bothar na dTreabh gets nowhere near the Quincentennial Bridge", and having attempted to wriggle out of that last gaffe by claiming that since it takes as much as "fifteen minutes drive in rush hour" it is therefore "nowhere near in terms of traffic" (hilarious!) you now appear to be saying, as your last link above suggests, that the rather ancient and venerable Salthill Road up past the diving tower at Blackrock is somehow part of a "ring road" deemed "unsalvageable" by the NRA?! I don't geddit... :confused:


    No, I'm saying that the "ring road" ends AT the R336 not that the R336 was any part of it. Which you'd know if you were doing something other than relying on maps, which its clear you are from thinking I was referring to the Tuam Road...

    The GCOB as planned will also end at the R336, again, you'd know this if you knew what it was you were arguing against.

    And that for a driver, when you're at the end of Bothar na dTreabh, you're a massive driving time from the Quin bridge. Seeing as Galway is quite small, this is a perfectly valid definition of "nowhere near"

    Getting desperate now are you IWH?


  • #129
    citycentre
    Registered Users Posts: 262 ✭✭citycentre


    Iwannahurl, I'd suggest you stop digging as you are showing up how little you know about the road network in Galway. None of the points that you have quoted from MYOB need any explanation or are in any way inaccurate. Your glib, pedantic and nonsensical pointscoring shows clearly that you will cling to your own narrow agenda at the expense of any other opinion or viewpoint.

    Galway needs the outer bypass. It also needs a proper public transport system, a decent cycling network and increased pedestrianization of the city centre. There will be no modal shift to public transport or cycling until the road network allows these modes to actually work properly. The outer bypass is clearly -nay ridiculously - obviously part of the overall solution, not something that will add to the problems.

    No matter what the cycling evangelists say, the general populace will not be shifting en mass to their bikes. I say this as someone who doesn't even own a car, who cycles everywhere but also as someone in the architecture and planning field who is extremely familiar with the road layouts, demographics and transport "culture" we are dealing with.

    I honestly think that anyone arguing against the provision of the outer bypass is delusional. As a result I wasn't remotely surprised to hear that Cllr. C. Connolly was arguing strenuously against it at the recent council meeting about the recent traffic problems. Glad to hear that its provision is near top of the list in terms of priorities despite the pathetic, timewasting legalistic roadblocks that have been thrown up against it.


  • #130
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    MYOB wrote: »
    And you attack people for pedantry...

    The GCOB won't take *any* traffic out of the harbour area as it does not serve traffic going anywhere near it. This is blatantly clear to anyone who's actually been in Galway for more than a weekend.

    Bring in your beloved enforcement then. Its not even a fraction of a valid argument against the bypass.

    And if removing traffic would make the city streets more dangerous for cyclists why are you for, erm, removing traffic by means of public transport to make it more condusive to cyclists? Talking out of both sides of your mouth. Can't have it both ways.

    Will removing traffic make it safer or more dangerous? Pick a viewpoint and stop trying to represent both.



    1. Pedantry: context, dear boy, context. You have repeatedly engaged in ad hominem argument, attempting to suggest that I have no knowledge of Galway City and by implication that I do not have valid opinions on the GCOB. You then refer to the Quincentenary Bridge as the Quincentennial. Of course any person who really knows Galway would know that, so obviously you're blah blah etc.

    2. We appear to be talking at cross purposes regarding the purpose and likely effects of the GCOB. "The GCOB won't take *any* traffic out of the harbour area as it does not serve traffic going anywhere near it." You have made the point more than once before that its function is as a bypass pure and simple:
    MYOB wrote: »
    Those heading in to the city aren't going to get much benefit but the bulk of them who are heading to anywhere but the city are.

    Any traffic improvements for the city are nearly entirely unconnected to the bypass - and QBCs, cycle facilities etc are definitely part of the mix required for the city.

    The bypass is needed as a bypass. Not a relief road for the city, it already has that, except its expected to carry masses of traffic around the city.


    Are you arguing from a purely technical or engineering perspective here, rather than a political one?

    Fair enough, the proposed road may be needed and specced as a bypass, and there may be an excellent business case for why it will be of economic benefit to the West, but I assure you that locally it is being widely touted as something like a relief road!

    The good burghers of Knocknacarra are being promised that they will be able to reach Carnmore Airport in fifteen minutes, the One-Off Brigade want to drive from Boleybeg to Ballsbridge in two-and-a-half hours, the frustrated car commuters just want it so they can avoid bottlenecks like the Bodkin Roundabout, the GTU claim it's an essential element of a citywide transportation strategy, the developers and their TD/Councillor friends are insisting that it's needed to make the (traffic generating) Harbour/Ceannt Station redevelopment possible, and the speculators are (or were, and will be again) salivating about the prospects for rezonings along the route.

    What I have been trying to say all along is not that a bypass per se is an intrinsically bad idea. Rather, it is a major piece of infrastructure that has been identified as of strategic importance, but which may well be abused or simply function sub-optimally because of ... overuse, perhaps?

    It appears that you have a clear idea of what the GCOB is intended to do. My position is that there is a strong likelihood that it will be used for other purposes. I don't want the GCOB to become a means of filling up the city again with traffic-generating commercial and residential development. Neither do I want it to facilitate more sporadic and uncoordinated development in rural areas. I genuinely believe that the GCOB carries to the potential to do both. Local GCOB proponents agree with this view; it's just that they don't see it as a bad thing.

    3. The alleged benefits of GCOB-related traffic reduction. This is an example, IMO, of where the sales rhetoric of GCOB proponents may not match reality. Galwaycyclist already explained this perspective, based on years of experience and not on assumptions.


  • #131
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    MYOB wrote: »
    No, I'm saying that the "ring road" ends AT the R336 not that the R336 was any part of it. Which you'd know if you were doing something other than relying on maps, which its clear you are from thinking I was referring to the Tuam Road...

    The GCOB as planned will also end at the R336, again, you'd know this if you knew what it was you were arguing against.

    And that for a driver, when you're at the end of Bothar na dTreabh, you're a massive driving time from the Quin bridge. Seeing as Galway is quite small, this is a perfectly valid definition of "nowhere near"

    Getting desperate now are you IWH?


    The proposed GCOB route ends much further out along the coast the R336. You posted a link to Upper Salthill. Why?

    Your "nowhere near" semantics are risible. It was clear that the discussion of the locations was geographic, until you suddenly switched to a time reference, post hoc.

    And no, I ain't getting desperate. Please refrain from these ad hominem arguments.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,523 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    1. Pedantry: context, dear boy, context. You have repeatedly engaged in ad hominem argument, attempting to suggest that I have no knowledge of Galway City and by implication that I do not have valid opinions on the GCOB. You then refer to the Quincentenary Bridge as the Quincentennial. Of course any person who really knows Galway would know that, so obviously you're blah blah etc.

    Using the more commonly used name locally shows a lack of local knowledge HOW exactly? Ridiculously poor attempt at points scoring, again.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Are you arguing from a purely technical or engineering perspective here, rather than a political one?

    Technical. The politician is the one claiming it for a political purpose, clearly, and he is the one you've quoted more than once to try and defend your position...
    Iwannahurl wrote: »

    Fair enough, the proposed road may be needed and specced as a bypass, and there may be an excellent business case for why it will be of economic benefit to the West, but I assure you that locally it is being widely touted as something like a relief road!

    Political, again. The main touter was let go by those he was touting to which suggests that the people aren't that stupid and actually know what its purpose is.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    and their TD/Councillor friends are insisting that it's needed to make the (traffic generating) Harbour/Ceannt Station redevelopment possible, and the speculators are (or were, and will be again) salivating about the prospects for rezonings along the route.

    Councils live on development levys (and motor tax). When we have property taxation this can be fixed, hopefully, once and for all
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    What I have been trying to say all along is not that a bypass per se is an intrinsically bad idea. Rather, it is a major piece of infrastructure that has been identified as of strategic importance, but which may well be abused or simply function sub-optimally because of ... overuse, perhaps?

    You do know what the capacity of a motorway grade dual carriageway is, right? Overuse is not something for the next 40 years.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    I don't want the GCOB to become a means of filling up the city again with traffic-generating commercial and residential development. Neither do I want it to facilitate more sporadic and uncoordinated development in rural areas. I genuinely believe that the GCOB carries to the potential to do both. Local GCOB proponents agree with this view; it's just that they don't see it as a bad thing.

    Address that through the planning system then, rather than delaying a bypass which is costing the economy millions and indeed costing lives (there have been numerous deaths on the Quincen[ ] bridge over the years)
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    3. The alleged benefits of GCOB-related traffic reduction. This is an example, IMO, of where the sales rhetoric of GCOB proponents may not match reality. Galwaycyclist already explained this perspective, based on years of experience and not on assumptions.

    That is someone else who is talking out of both sides of their mouth.

    You cannot be for potentially reducing traffic by means of modal shift and yet against potentially reducing traffic by means of a bypass without being a complete and utter hypocrite. You didn't address this I see.


  • #133
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,523 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    The proposed GCOB route ends much further out along the coast the R336. You posted a link to Upper Salthill. Why?

    Because, if you follow the road on the map, you'll see that that is the end of the route of the existing "Ring road". You wanted to see where on the R336 the ring road ended and now you're going off on a tangent when shown it.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Your "nowhere near" semantics are risible. It was clear that the discussion of the locations was geographic, until you suddenly switched to a time reference, post hoc.

    There was nothing to indicate, suggest or require that the discussion refer to geographic particularly as we were talking about traffic at the time. Traffic conditions do not depend on crow flies distances like you appear to be doing.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    And no, I ain't getting desperate. Please refrain from these ad hominem arguments.

    Clearly you are.


  • #134
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    citycentre wrote: »
    Iwannahurl, I'd suggest you stop digging as you are showing up how little you know about the road network in Galway. None of the points that you have quoted from MYOB need any explanation or are in any way inaccurate. Your glib, pedantic and nonsensical pointscoring shows clearly that you will cling to your own narrow agenda at the expense of any other opinion or viewpoint.

    Galway needs the outer bypass. It also needs a proper public transport system, a decent cycling network and increased pedestrianization of the city centre. There will be no modal shift to public transport or cycling until the road network allows these modes to actually work properly. The outer bypass is clearly -nay ridiculously - obviously part of the overall solution, not something that will add to the problems.

    No matter what the cycling evangelists say, the general populace will not be shifting en mass to their bikes. I say this as someone who doesn't even own a car, who cycles everywhere but also as someone in the architecture and planning field who is extremely familiar with the road layouts, demographics and transport "culture" we are dealing with.

    I honestly think that anyone arguing against the provision of the outer bypass is delusional. As a result I wasn't remotely surprised to hear that Cllr. C. Connolly was arguing strenuously against it at the recent council meeting about the recent traffic problems. Glad to hear that its provision is near top of the list in terms of priorities despite the pathetic, timewasting legalistic roadblocks that have been thrown up against it.


    Can you explain MYOB's link to Upper Salthill?

    My own "narrow agenda"? Do tell.

    There is no delusion in the following observations: (a) the GCOB is years away; (b) there are severe traffic congestion problems in the city that need fixing now; (c) there is a plan waiting in the wings that could be implemented sooner and at a fraction of the cost; (d) that plan, which would have to implemented properly of course, does not preclude a bypass at a later date.

    So you're all for the GCOB. Yippee, three cheers, slap on the back, take a bow. Now what? Rest on your smug laurels for the next, what, five years or more?


  • #135
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    MYOB wrote: »
    Clearly you are.


    Yes, dear. If you say so it must be true.


  • #136
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,523 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Can you explain MYOB's link to Upper Salthill?

    Are you still unwilling to scroll up the map, oh, three inches to see that that is where the ring road meets the R336?

    As I already said, most traffic for the R336 'cuts the corner' (as the road layout has the R336 turning 90 degrees through traffic lights) via the Kingston Road, as you'd expect, but seeing as the link was in response to you not having the vaguest idea what was meant by 'the section of the ring road from the N84 to the R336' I provided you with, amazingly enough, where the ring road meets the R336...

    And you're trying to use it as some attempt to claim you actually know Galway now. The irony. Of course, going on form, you'll ignore this explanation again and refer back to it at least twice more in a poor attempt to discredit me

    Are you going to deal with the "traffic reductions will help cycling / traffic reductions will endanger cycling" hypocrisy you've done on this thread now?


  • #137
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    MYOB wrote: »
    Technical. The politician is the one claiming it for a political purpose, clearly, and he is the one you've quoted more than once to try and defend your position...

    Political, again. The main touter was let go by those he was touting to which suggests that the people aren't that stupid and actually know what its purpose is.

    Councils live on development levys (and motor tax). When we have property taxation this can be fixed, hopefully, once and for all

    You do know what the capacity of a motorway grade dual carriageway is, right? Overuse is not something for the next 40 years.

    Address that through the planning system then, rather than delaying a bypass which is costing the economy millions and indeed costing lives (there have been numerous deaths on the Quincen[ ] bridge over the years)

    That is someone else who is talking out of both sides of their mouth.

    You cannot be for potentially reducing traffic by means of modal shift and yet against potentially reducing traffic by means of a bypass without being a complete and utter hypocrite. You didn't address this I see.


    The FG politician in question is not making those claims for mere political gain. The developers of the Harbour (and probably Ceannt Station) believe that they will not get approval unless access issues are sorted first, and they see the GCOB as essential to this. Therefore, logically, an influential group of people in the city seemingly expect the GCOB to take traffic out first before they can bring some more back again. That may not fit with the original rationale for the GCOB, but that is what some people are hoping for. I merely feared that was the case, but Brian Walsh TD confirmed it today.

    Frank Fahey was shamelessly using the GCOB to whip up populist support, easy to do among Galway car drivers these days. He was dumped because of a massive swing against FF, not because voters read the GCOB brochure a bit more carefully. In any case, they voted in new TD Brian Walsh, another GCOB salesman.

    Agreed: fiscal policy, decent planning legislation and responsible local government would tackle problems such as unsustainable rural development. However, this is Ireland so some pessimism in this regard is not unjustified. We have lots of shiny new motorways, but our political culture is still plodding along in the boreens (or stuck on a roundabout).

    When I am talking about overuse or misuse of the potential GCOB, I am referring mainly to knock-on traffic-related effects in its vicinity and in the city. You argue that it is pure bypass, whereas I am of the view that it will be a ring/relief road for many. Forty years? The previous "ring road" (to use the NRA's term) was DC at least in parts, was it not? It was in trouble within ten years.

    MYOB wrote: »

    Are you going to deal with the "traffic reductions will help cycling / traffic reductions will endanger cycling" hypocrisy you've done on this thread now?



    "You cannot be for potentially reducing traffic by means of modal shift and yet against potentially reducing traffic by means of a bypass without being a complete and utter hypocrite. You didn't address this I see."

    Oh dear. Reducing "traffic" by modal shift and reducing "traffic" with a bypass are not the same thing. That's not hypocrisy, it's logic.

    Bicycles are traffic. Walking is a mode of transport. Every motorist switching to cycling or walking is one less car. If motorised traffic, especially car traffic, was reduced by modal shift to cycling and walking, then the net effect would more bicycle and pedestrian traffic. More cycling and walking equals safer cycling and walking.

    On the other hand, if motorised traffic were reduced by means of a bypass, but if there was no modal shift for any reason but especially if the City Council failed to implement pro-cycling and pro-walking measures, then the result could well be continued real and perceived danger for cyclists and pedestrians. Free speeds could well be higher on average because of the less congested roads, and if cyclists and pedestrians still had to contend with roundabouts, substandard facilities, substandard lane widths, dangerous overtaking, lack of HGV management, lack of speed management etc then they may be no better off or maybe even worse off.

    Again, that is not an argument against the pure business case for a pure bypass. It is a healthy and realistic dose of scepticism, based on experience, regarding the possible true intentions of the GCOB salesmen.


  • #138
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    MYOB wrote: »
    Are you still unwilling to scroll up the map, oh, three inches to see that that is where the ring road meets the R336?

    As I already said, most traffic for the R336 'cuts the corner' (as the road layout has the R336 turning 90 degrees through traffic lights) via the Kingston Road, as you'd expect, but seeing as the link was in response to you not having the vaguest idea what was meant by 'the section of the ring road from the N84 to the R336' I provided you with, amazingly enough, where the ring road meets the R336...

    And you're trying to use it as some attempt to claim you actually know Galway now. The irony. Of course, going on form, you'll ignore this explanation again and refer back to it at least twice more in a poor attempt to discredit me


    I know Galway very well. Well enough not to routinely refer to the city's roads by their N or R designations (like the way some people say Quincentennial).

    But at this hour of the night I no longer have any idea what you're on about or why it even matters any more.


  • #139
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,523 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    When I am talking about overuse or misuse of the potential GCOB, I am referring mainly to knock-on traffic-related effects in its vicinity and in the city. You argue that it is pure bypass, whereas I am of the view that it will be a ring/relief road for many. Forty years? The previous "ring road" (to use the NRA's term) was DC at least in parts, was it not? It was in trouble within ten years.

    A DC with roundabouts has a capacity of a fraction of that of a motorway.

    It was in trouble before it was finished as it was undercapacity from day one. The plans for the GCOB were announced within years of the only even vaguely close to suitable version being finished at that; and the worst bits are S2 and S4, not DC.

    Again, if you knew Galway...

    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Oh dear. Reducing "traffic" by modal shift and reducing "traffic" with a bypass are not the same thing. That's not hypocrisy, it's logic.

    Bicycles are traffic. Walking is a mode of transport. Every motorist switching to cycling or walking is one less car. If motorised traffic, especially car traffic, was reduced by modal shift to cycling and walking, then the net effect would more bicycle and pedestrian traffic. More cycling and walking equals safer cycling and walking.

    On the other hand, if motorised traffic were reduced by means of a bypass, but if there was no modal shift for any reason but especially if the City Council failed to implement pro-cycling and pro-walking measures, then the result could well be continued real and perceived danger for cyclists and pedestrians. Free speeds could well be higher on average because of the less congested roads, and if cyclists and pedestrians still had to contend with roundabouts, substandard facilities, substandard lane widths, dangerous overtaking, lack of HGV management, lack of speed management etc then they may be no better off or maybe even worse off.

    Both will be removing motorised traffic from the city centre according to you, yet you still claim one is good and the other is dangerous. You can't talk your way out of having contradicted yourself completely and utterly; and you avoided even trying to until challenged again and again.

    More cyclists and pedestrians won't lower free speeds for the same amount of traffic.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Again, that is not an argument against the pure business case for a pure bypass. It is a healthy and realistic dose of scepticism, based on experience, regarding the possible true intentions of the GCOB salesmen.

    What you call 'scepticism', I call opposition based on a worry that it'll increase car usage, due to the fact that you are anti-car and nothing else, despite wrapping it up as being pro "road safety" and pro cycling.

    You oppose anything which could possibly benefit car traffic on whatever grounds you can think up at the time. Anyone can look over your posting history to see this clear as day.


  • #140
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,523 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    I know Galway very well. Well enough not to routinely refer to the city's roads by their N or R designations (like the way some people say Quincentennial).

    Yet not enough to not realise Google Maps has the road names wrong....
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    But at this hour of the night I no longer have any idea what you're on about or why it even matters any more.

    You finally scrolled up the map?


  • #141
    citycentre
    Registered Users Posts: 262 ✭✭citycentre


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    So you're all for the GCOB. Yippee, three cheers, slap on the back, take a bow. Now what? Rest on your smug laurels for the next, what, five years or more?

    More childish, inane nonsense. And you are calling me smug? Wow... The delusion doesn't end with the Outer bypass debate.

    The reality is that none of the wonderful, idealistic strategies you espouse have a hope in hell of working until the bypass is built. That is why it's still top of the priority list for infrastructure projects nationwide and why, as soon as the legal hurdles are cleared, it's construction will be commenced immediately. All of your irrelevant chitchat about rezoning, one off housing, distributors etc. fails to mask a clear and tiresome anti-road, anti-car bias.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    James Nix is a blithering idiot ........also being far too closely aligned to those sociopathic greens in an taisce as well as being associated with the chief time and money waster Sweetman. A right axis of weasels he finds himself in company with. :(

    Nix refers to all classes of modern road as "motorways", most especially when they are not motorways and not designed as motorways. Arrant muppetry.

    I don't even bother reading the rest, it is simply an taisce/green cant. Find some other source willya.


  • #143
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    James Nix is a blithering idiot ........also being far too closely aligned to those sociopathic greens in an taisce as well as being associated with the chief time and money waster Sweetman. A right axis of weasels he finds himself in company with. :(

    Nix refers to all classes of modern road as "motorways", most especially when they are not motorways and not designed as motorways. Arrant muppetry.

    I don't even bother reading the rest, it is simply an taisce/green cant. Find some other source willya.



    citycentre wrote: »
    More childish, inane nonsense.







    .


  • #144
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    citycentre wrote: »
    More childish, inane nonsense. And you are calling me smug? Wow... The delusion doesn't end with the Outer bypass debate.

    The reality is that none of the wonderful, idealistic strategies you espouse have a hope in hell of working until the bypass is built. That is why it's still top of the priority list for infrastructure projects nationwide and why, as soon as the legal hurdles are cleared, it's construction will be commenced immediately. All of your irrelevant chitchat about rezoning, one off housing, distributors etc. fails to mask a clear and tiresome anti-road, anti-car bias.




    Being "right" about the GCOB doesn't help the current situation one bit.

    The bypass is years away, and you know it.

    It seems we are to infer that you, unlike GCOB sceptics, are pragmatic and rational about these things.

    So, please educate us idealistic and deluded ones: what do we do in the meantime?


  • #145
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    So, please educate us idealistic and deluded ones: what do we do in the meantime?

    Wear a high vis and a flashing light.!


  • #146
    what_traffic
    Registered Users Posts: 4,865 ✭✭✭what_traffic


    What will the toll rates be - if its built? Heard Brian Walsh TD say on Keith Finnegans show (from the FG think-in at the Radission) last Tuesday say it will be a tolled road if its built.


  • #147
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    MYOB wrote: »
    Both will be removing motorised traffic from the city centre according to you, yet you still claim one is good and the other is dangerous. You can't talk your way out of having contradicted yourself completely and utterly; and you avoided even trying to until challenged again and again.

    More cyclists and pedestrians won't lower free speeds for the same amount of traffic.

    What you call 'scepticism', I call opposition based on a worry that it'll increase car usage, due to the fact that you are anti-car and nothing else, despite wrapping it up as being pro "road safety" and pro cycling.

    You oppose anything which could possibly benefit car traffic on whatever grounds you can think up at the time. Anyone can look over your posting history to see this clear as day.



    It seems you are determined to tell me what I am, know and think regardless of what I say or regardless of what evidence I present to support the key points I make. Anyway, I have little interest or time to pursue the ad hominem approach you seem to favour, so I'll leave you to it.

    By the way, can you indicate whether you are an civil/roads engineer or some such? You seem to focus on these aspects of the GCOB (eg emphasising its design function as a bypass) whereas I am more concerned about local outcomes, local politics and local policies as well as broader issues such as orderly spatial planning and sustainability.

    It is clear to me, and to high profile advocates of the bypass, that a key objective of the GCOB is to pave the way for massive new development in the city centre. Correct me if I am wrong, but you have either denied that is the case, dismissed it as irrelevant or ignored it because the bypass is "needed as a bypass", and "any traffic improvements for the city are nearly entirely unconnected to the bypass".

    Brian Walsh TD, a former board member of the Harbour Board (and possible current director of the Harbour Company -- I am still trying to confirm that) has stated categorically that the GCOB is needed to make the ambitious harbour development plan possible.

    The Galway Port Development Plan, which is due to go on public display later this month, states that current restrictions on port size are hampering the core business of the port and also preventing enhancement and growth for generating entirely new business.

    New business envisaged for the port includes a 250-berth marina and a significant number of visits from cruise vessels. They cite the examples of Dublin (80 cruise liners, 120000 passengers and crew) and Cork (40 cruise vessels, 45000 visitors). The expanded facilities would also allow the holding of major national and international events, such as the highly successful (and enjoyable) Volvo Ocean Race stopover, which attracted a total of 650,000 visitors to the city.

    In the absence of a "master plan" for this area of Galway City, which would have to address traffic and transportation issues, it is conceivable that the Port Development Plan and the Ceannt Station Redevelopment could proceed independently of each other. This is what Noel Grealish TD had to say last year about that possibility:
    “The impression I got from CIÉ at the meeting was they want to go alone rather than with the Harbour Board. There’s nothing to stop them going alone but I don’t accept that they should. These two projects will have major implications for the whole city but particularly for transport, access in and out of the city and traffic."
    Emphasis added by me.

    MYOB, my impression is that you have good technical/engineering knowledge of strategic infrastructure like the GCOB.

    Looking just at the above two plans (they being by far the largest infrastructural developments proposed for the city, apart from the proposed bypass itself) can you give your opinion regarding (a) what relevance the Galway City Outer Bypass has to such massive development proposals, and (b) the likely traffic generation effects of the major developments.

    ******

    With regard to traffic reduction effects, cycle safety etc, it is self-evident that reducing motorised traffic through significant modal shift and extensive pro cycling/walking measures is not the same as reducing motorised traffic by constructing a bypass and then leaving the same number of cyclists/pedestrians to fend for themselves in an otherwise unchanged urban environment, especially with more traffic-generating development being proposed. If you believe otherwise, then so be it.

    ******

    "You are anti-car and nothing else". Please don't say that to Betsy. She's sitting in the driveway outside and is very sensitive.


  • #148
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    what_traffic wrote: »
    What will the toll rates be - if its built? Heard Brian Walsh TD say on Keith Finnegans show (from the FG think-in at the Radission) last Tuesday say it will be a tolled road if its built.


    Tolls on a bypass? Dodgy.

    @what_traffic: you seem to be knowledgeable about cycling matters. can you comment on the dispute between MYOB and me on this point:

    "You cannot be for potentially reducing traffic by means of modal shift and yet against potentially reducing traffic by means of a bypass without being a complete and utter hypocrite. You didn't address this I see."

    If you follow the argument through the relevant post you will see that I do not regard the two scenarios as equivalent. According to MYOB this means I am just a hypocrite.


  • #149
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    Wear a high vis and a flashing light.!




    Engineering degree?


  • #150
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Engineering degree?

    No , it is called visibility. If I splatter a cyclist that I simply did not see my conscience is clear. Does one need a degree to acquire common sense nowadays.

    Build the bypass and see what we can do with the alt.greeny sh1te after the bypass is buiilt. There should be road space for buses and trams and bicycles then. For now there ain't in Galway. Way it is.

    tinkering with a zero sum game is a zero sum game, look up "zero sum game" before you decide you need an engineering degree!!!


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    No , it is called visibility. If I splatter a cyclist that I simply did not see my conscience is clear. Does one need a degree to acquire common sense nowadays.

    Build the bypass and see what we can do with the alt.greeny sh1te after the bypass is buiilt. There should be road space for buses and trams and bicycles then. For now there ain't in Galway. Way it is.

    tinkering with a zero sum game is a zero sum game, look up "zero sum game" before you decide you need an engineering degree!!!




    Way it is in Galway is that many motorists who participate in the traffic chaos every day won't stop whining about way it is.

    Way it is guess traffic must just be other people.


Advertisement