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

N6 - Galway outer bypass: Is it needed?

13567…19

Comments

  • #62
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,742 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    I've only ever been to Galway twice, if I'm correct, the first time for a week, the second time for a weekend. I think I passed through another two times. The map I bought in 1986 showed little development beyond Bishop O'Donnell Road, Seamus Quirke Road, Sean Mulvey Road and the other roads that feed the Quincentennial Bridge. That means the west side of Galway has doubled in area in 28 years. I suspect car use has much more than doubled in that time.

    No substantial business wants to set up on the west side of Galway, simply because they want to get their products to somewhere else, other than the west side of Galway and links are much better on the east side.

    Connemara development patterns are part of the problem http://maps.osi.ie/publicviewer/#V1,511751,722450,6,3 - I suspect many of those people work on the east side of Galway City, but given the dispersed settlement pattern, public transport is impractical.

    I would fear that if the bypass was built, that the west side of Galway would continue to grow unsustainably, as the councils would point to the massive capacity available, with the section of road from the new bridge to the Spiddal road becoming a prime target for misuse and development, Of course, there is the well known maxim that car use expands to fill all available road space.

    I think that the councils were also motivated by the concept of 'someone else will be paying for this road'.

    I think future development should be concentrated on the east side of the city, with residential, office development and any heavy industry (unlikely) concentrated on the railway, with other employment near the main roads network. The main roads should be protected from ribbon development and out-of-town shopping

    Currently, the only meaningful population density is from Salthill to College Road. Population density in much of the city dropped from 2006 to 2011. It would be useful for future development to be medium density in-fill development.

    The councils and Garda need to get serious about parking enforcement. Parking charges are needed for all parking. Just like in other places, large traffic generators need to put in place workplace management plans and the like, possibly using paid parking to fund park and ride services.

    I wonder if a fifth lane could be added to Quincentennial Bridge by removing the cycle paths and providing a more pedestrian and cyclist suitable bridge (like connecting to Dyke Road and Distillery Road and having a premium cycle network), whether on the same structure or in a parallel on. This could be used to provide a central bus lane (it won't need bus stops), possible with tidal controls.

    I think a one-way system on College Road to allow bus lanes is, at first appearance, attractive. However, as we know from Dublin, large one-way systems become very cyclist and pedestrian unfriendly and there is the risk it would merely encourage more people to drive.

    Just because London has a motorway orbital, doesn't mean Galway needs one.

    I think mandatory greenbelt around the city and along the coast would be useful.


  • #63
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    In the current car centric setup of Ireland yes.

    A societal move away from the obsession with car to PT and cycling would easily solve the need for it.

    Not really no, given the fact that half the workers in Galway are from outside the city and suburbs cycling is impractical for them and we'd need to put a Dublin bus style network across an area that is 7 times bigger than Co Dublin to provide PT alternatives.

    The simple fact of the matter is that no factory will locate on the west of the corrib because of the difficulty in getting people in and goods out, negating any possibility of balanced development.


  • #64
    lucernarian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,236 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    Victor wrote: »
    I would fear that if the bypass was built, that the west side of Galway would continue to grow unsustainably, as the councils would point to the massive capacity available, with the section of road from the new bridge to the Spiddal road becoming a prime target for misuse and development, Of course, there is the well known maxim that car use expands to fill all available road space.

    I think that the councils were also motivated by the concept of 'someone else will be paying for this road'.

    I think future development should be concentrated on the east side of the city, with residential, office development and any heavy industry (unlikely) concentrated on the railway, with other employment near the main roads network. The main roads should be protected from ribbon development and out-of-town shopping
    They don't seem like arguments against an orbital bypass as things stand. The solutions to bad planning and inappropriate development involve attempts to reform local government there, the direction of govt. money at projects which reverse historic trends and also the provision of infrastructure to encourage sustainable development, not development dictating future infrastructure needs.

    The outer bypass seems separate to those points in my mind for two key reasons. Firstly, strategic road users (particularly freight and goods vehicles) would also be better and more safely catered for by being kept off a road that has substantial local usage, by bicyclists, pedestrians and car users alike. It is proposed as a national route, after all.

    Also, it seems that the specifics here point to a complete overburdening of existing infrastructure and even in the case of the most optimistic prospects of modal shifts to more sustainable transport, it doesn't change the fact that most people until recently lived on one side of the river and worked on the other.

    I don't remember comparable road projects arousing the same level of controversy as this one in the C&T and Infrastructure forums. Are there reasons to suggest that the Waterford Bypass was a more appropriate solution to its traffic problems than the GCOB is for Galway?

    The idea you mention of changes being made to the QB is an interesting one. It would be expensive however and it seems that many of the congestion problems stem from the capacity of road junctions, not just of the QB itself. Even a 6-lane QB would still suffer from congestion if all traffic meets the same junctions as they currently do. A separate pedestrian/cyclist bridge would offer greater safety and a possibly more direct route for those users at least.


  • #65
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    A statement such as "many of the congestion problems stem from the capacity of road junctions" again misses a fundamental point, imo.

    Where road space is finite, as it inevitably is on a planet that is itself finite, the real problem in our society is that there are too many cars not that junctions are too small.

    If you increase the size of the junction, or add more lanes leading to that larger junction, you will create the conditions which, sooner or later, generate more traffic and induce more travel so that you're eventually back where you started or worse.

    There is a populist demand from individuals and vested interests for a bypass in Galway, imo, because a large number of “people who want, need, prefer or like to use the car” would chew their own arm off rather than use any other mode of travel.

    The economics of our car-dependent and car-centric culture are such that any mention of changing priorities is, for some, like a red rag to a bull.

    When I mention on Boards the barriers faced by my child cycling to his creche at the age of three-and-a-half, this is sneered at as moaning about "first world problems". But ask adult drivers to leave their car and cycle and all of a sudden the deterrents, such as rain, are insurmountable.

    Advocate more public transport services rather than yet more car-dependent and traffic-generating development and the sarcastic response from some is that if they used the buses they'd have to sit beside those "w*ankers" who advocate public transport!

    Demand safer and more convenient facilities for pedestrians, including children walking to school, and you're told that there is "no room" and that "common sense" dictates that motorists must drive up on footpaths whenever they feel the need.

    This is the political economy and cultural context in which the GCOB is being proposed, and there is no good reason to believe that the bypass would be anything more than a boost for business as usual. Or worse, like an addict switching from smoking heroin to mainlining it.

    It is routinely claimed that many if not most motorists in Galway have "no choice" but to drive, and that the volume of traffic crossing the city West to East and vice versa is justification enough for the GCOB.

    However, is that really the case? Why is it that traffic is generally much lighter in the summer (apart from extremely busy events such as the Galway Races) even with the influx of tourists?

    It is an observation commonly made that traffic is much more bearable when schools are off. Here's a thread in the Galway City forum dated 1st September 2008, by way of example: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055368765

    Yesterday, at short notice, I had to do the school run, and without thinking I made the stupid mistake of taking the car. Naturally I ended up stuck in traffic, and the trip took me twice as long as normal. While sitting in the pointless jams, grinding through several clogged-up roundabouts, I imagined that if you were to survey all the drivers sitting in the stalled or slow-moving traffic you would most likely find a majority of them favouring a bypass as the "solution"' to "Galway's traffic woes". We arrived at the school much later than usual, having walked the last stretch, from a legal parking spot, past lines of cars parked up on footpaths, impeding junctions etc. No doubt those motorists abandoning their cars in that manner, to save themselves and their children walking a few metres, would also agree with the view that there is "no room" for pedestrians and cyclists, and therefore it's only "common sense" to take over not just the roads and junctions but the footpaths as well.

    I had to do the school run again today, but this time I knew in advance. It was lashing rain, but having had the painful reminder the previous day, I took the bike. On the way there I was overtaken by a motorist driving at, by my conservative estimate, more than twice the posted speed limit -- on a seriously wet road. Inevitably I caught up with him at the next roundabout, where he was stuck in the usual chaotic jam, and I looked in his window with the intention of asking him whether he knew the speed limit on the stretch of road where he just passed me. It turned out he was the father of a child at the same school, and perhaps one of those "decent people" (ie motorists) whose casually illegal behaviour AGS and the City Council decline to deal with for reasons apparently to do with not wanting to upset the People That Matter. On this occasion, discretion was the better part of valour and I moved quickly on.

    Very quickly indeed, as I would expect when travelling by bike in such conditions. I reached the school in half the time it took by car the previous day, despite the heavy rain and heavier traffic. Clogged roundabouts, car-filled carriageways and flowing surface water notwithstanding, my mode of travel ensured that I was well on my way home before Mr Decent Speeder had even reached the school.

    These are the repeated experiences, and the recurring traffic and transport circumstances, which convince me that much of the "need" for the GCOB emanates from a purely car-centric perspective.

    One attitude seems to be that pedestrians, cyclists and bus users can be "entertained" (to borrow a term from one of the City Council's consultant engineers) once motorists have their bypass.

    I disgree. What I want to see is a serious, integrated, multi-agency strategy to reduce car-dependence and car use, before the bypass is built. When such a strategy has been implemented, targets are met and the various statutory bodies have demonstrated both a willingness and an ability to deliver, then the GCOB can go ahead.

    There is nothing to be lost. There isn't going to be a bypass for several years yet, if ever, so why wait?

    In any case, maybe the traffic tide is turning at last: Blueprint for urban areas puts cars at bottom of hierarchy.

    /bypass?


  • #66
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,742 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    antoobrien wrote: »
    The simple fact of the matter is that no factory will locate on the west of the corrib because of the difficulty in getting people in and goods out, negating any possibility of balanced development.
    By "balanced development", do you mean equal amounts of development on each side of the Corrib?

    This would be neither desirable or practical and not fit the usual meaning of "balanced development".


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    lucernarian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,236 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    You're portraying the bypass as being contrary to the interests of cyclists and pedestrians. I don't see how or why that would be the case, especially when the removal of traffic from city centre areas would free up space to the users who need it most.

    I don't at all accept the contention here:
    If you increase the size of the junction, or add more lanes leading to that larger junction, you will create the conditions which, sooner or later, generate more traffic and induce more travel so that you're eventually back where you started or worse.
    I see no reason why an appropriate management of road resources after the bypass is built could not ensure that all the capacity gains are enjoyed by cyclists, pedestrians and public transport only. I know GCC have a poor track record at doing this but that doesn't really take away from the need for a new river crossing or outer bypass. All that the poor planning and bad past decisions highlight is the need for better local Govt. in Galway, not that a bypass shouldn't be built.


  • #68
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    To_be_confirmed wrote: »
    All that the poor planning and bad past decisions highlight is the need for better local Govt. in Galway, not that a bypass shouldn't be built.




    Did I say the GCOB shouldn't be built? :)


  • #69
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,110 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Did I say the GCOB shouldn't be built? :)

    You've been extremely careful in avoiding actually saying it, but the entire body of your posts on the subject entirely equals it. You don't want it built.

    This ridiculous charade we have on here of opponents to something pretending they're not against it is pointless in the extreme


  • #70
    lucernarian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,236 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Did I say the GCOB shouldn't be built? :)
    It seems that you regard other measures being taken to reduce road usage as a priority before the bypass should be built. In theory, that doesn't mean that one is opposed to building a bypass but in reality it does. If you were in favour a proposal like the GCOB or a related proposal, the "priority" of building the road vs introducing other traffic and modal use measures wouldn't matter so much. In other words, all the measures that have been mentioned heretofore would be supported, including the construction of the bypass.

    What would be the point in campaigning for other measures to be taken in lieu of building the GCOB, apart from recognition of the fact that its construction would be delayed? If anyone recognises that it needs to be built sooner or later, why would anyone offer up reasons for why it shouldn't be constructed? Like I said before I think the GCOB is necessary for thorough implementation of pro-cyclist and pedestrian measures and the two issues go hand-in-glove.

    So do you think it should, or shouldn't be built?


  • #71
    TINA1984
    Closed Accounts Posts: 372 ✭✭TINA1984


    Victor wrote: »
    Just because London has a motorway orbital, doesn't mean Galway needs one.

    This is a point lost not just on the good burghers of the Galway commuter belt, but applicable to other Irish towns masquerading as 'cities' as well.

    Between the GCOB & the M17/18 build, the state is committing enormous sums of money via various financial mechanisms to, in essence, facilitate the long-distance commuting habits of a small urban area with a large dispersed population spread out over the sparsely populated west of Ireland.

    Yes we know about the the need for a 'network' to be built and the importance of ease of access HGV traffic, tourist traffic, ambulances etc, but let's not kid ourselves, the GCOB and the M17/18 will be primarily used by people coming from their small village or one-off somewhere in the deep countryside, to their place of work somewhere in the Galway urban area.

    AS outlined more eloquently by other posters, Galway CC needs to learn something about land use and transportation strategies, and implement them in a strict manner over a long period before any promises of funding for the GCOB are forthwith. That means clamping down on one-off housing, haphazard development & concentration any new development in the Galway urban area itself or its dormitory towns.

    Then and only then should the case for GCOB be considered. Even then we should consider best practice from the continent in assessing whether or not it should be built. Afterall, do towns with similar population profiles in the UK or on the continent have similar bypasses built? from what I can tell, no they generally don't. Where they do, its a generally functional single carriageway no-frills bypass constructed as opposed to a fancy design like the GCOB complete with dual-carriageway & grade-seperated junctions.

    Chances of any of that happening given what we know about the profile of west of Ireland politicians and the people who elect them? Zilch. In Ireland we're great at championing for the provision of infrastructure, but not so great when it comes to championing best use of it. The GCOB, if built, is destined to become another clogged up artery if old habits don't change on behalf of the locals and their local government.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Victor wrote: »
    By "balanced development", do you mean equal amounts of development on each side of the Corrib?

    This would be neither desirable or practical and not fit the usual meaning of "balanced development".

    No a 50-50 split is not practical, however as it often stated the "problem" is that the majority of the workforce is in the west, the jobs the east with a river between them, so in this case it refers to facilitating jobs in the west. That means factories, which means goods access.

    There are more than one set of problems with development in Galway though, the situation & access to schools & public hospital facilities - which are mostly West of the river, are also problems.

    You made a point earlier about housing developments in the East, there are plans for at leas two new towns/villages near the city boundary that are under discussion in the county development plans since at least 2003 (one is a joint effort with the city council, the other is county council). But some of the loudest anti bypass voices are also against these developments because auctioneers were consulted on how to lay out one of the new areas.

    The railway area is totally unsuited to large scale development due to it's proximity to the sea and limited space around it between Oranmore & Galway.


  • #73
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    TINA1984 wrote: »
    but let's not kid ourselves, the GCOB and the M17/18 will be primarily used by people coming from their small village or one-off somewhere in the deep countryside, to their place of work somewhere in the Galway urban area.

    Proof please, given that census statistics indicate otherwise.


  • #74
    TINA1984
    Closed Accounts Posts: 372 ✭✭TINA1984


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Proof please, given that census statistics indicate otherwise.

    How does the census indicate which people will or will not use roads that haven't yet been built?

    But let's humour you anyway, where do you think a huge portion of traffic on other urban bypasses - the M50, the N40 - come's from? Do you reckon its primarily urban and intercity traffic on these roads? are you of the opinion that the large, primarily rural, commuting belts of the Greater Dublin area and the Cork Metropolitian area contribute nothing to these traffic flows?

    You'd be very naive indeed to think such a thing, or that a significant porportion of traffic on any GCOB would not be long distance commuters emananting from the bowels of Connaght.

    While we're on the census, all the census' from the past 2 decades show that strong population growth has generally occurred in the rural area's surrounding Irish cities - Co. Galway in this instance, several counties surrounding Dublin, Co. Limerick/Clare & Cork in the midwest and the south - Whilst population growth in the cities themselves has either been modest or stagnant in comparison.

    Now you can play dumb here and pretend that all this population growth is just incidental, and has nothing to with Irish local adminstration implementing a lazy planning regime wholly reliant on the car.

    however its quite clear that the county councils surrounding Irish urban area's have shown a willingness to facilitate enormous large amounts of one-off housing and haphazard development in rural area's within commuting range of their nearest cities. Thus puncturing any real attempts at taking people out of their cars.

    That's why very little people in Co. Galway use the WRC to get into Galway, instead they are all sitting in their cars next to the WRC & Dublin line's, patiently waiting for a road to be built instead.


  • #75
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,110 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    I think crap timings - both timetable and run times - as well as poor station positioning and lack of stations entirely in some cases are the reason people don't use the wrc.

    It also ends east of the river


  • #76
    TINA1984
    Closed Accounts Posts: 372 ✭✭TINA1984


    MYOB wrote: »
    I think crap timings - both timetable and run times - as well as poor station positioning and lack of stations entirely in some cases are the reason people don't use the wrc.

    It also ends east of the river

    Imagine a bizarre parallel Ireland, a land where thanks to strict planning laws, small towns & villages like Craughwell, Tuam, Athenry & Gort were designated as hubs for housing and economic growth within the Galway metro area, and were blossoming as a result.

    Instead of the WRC being an irrelevance like it is now, and the M17/18 forever destined to have low AADTs primatily composed of people coming fron the country into Galway, the good burghers of these towns would be crying out for decent road and rail connections into a Galway city that hasn't been blitzed by lazy development west of the river.

    In that instance, the WRC phases 1&2 as well as sections of the N17/18 would be truly deserving of an upgrade, CBA's for these projects would definitely be positive. But as I said thats in a bizarro-fantasy world.


  • #77
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    TINA1984 wrote: »
    While we're on the census, all the census' from the past 2 decades show that strong population growth has generally occurred in the rural area's surrounding Irish cities - Co. Galway in this instance

    Not really the city population is 50% bigger than it was in 1991, the county population is only 35% bigger and much of that is near/around towns and villages, whcih is not reflected properly due to estates being built outside the town boundaries (this happened in Tuam). There are several villages that were not in the census in 1991, that are in more recent censuses (e.g. Claregalway & Corofin don't appear in earlier census information).

    I'd bet you'd be surprised to hear that (leaving the city out of it) the "urban" population of Co Galway has been steadily rising over the past 20 years. There has been a lot of growth in places like Claregalway, Athenry, Oranmore, Clarinbridge, Turloughmore/Lackagh, Tuam etc on the East, Moycullen & Bearna on the west and others (these are just the places I have had reason to visit in the past few years, there are more areas that I could mention that have estates that were not there 20 years ago).
    TINA1984 wrote: »
    That's why very little people in Co. Galway use the WRC to get into Galway, instead they are all sitting in their cars next to the WRC & Dublin line's, patiently waiting for a road to be built instead.

    The WRC is not used by commuters because it is simply unusable as a commuter route. It's no good to anybody not starting work after 9am (9.30 if you don't work within 1km of the station), and many many factories start at 8am or earlier, making it particularly useless for many factory workers who start at 8 or earlier.

    As for social use, if you want to go from Craughwell to watch the connacht rugby match on Friday night, it's not possible to do so both ways by train as the last train out of Galway is 6.35pm. That's a timetable issue rather than an indication of the potential utility of the line. If they ever fix that and it's not used, then we can discuss how the people of south Galway ignore it.

    TINA1984 wrote: »
    the M17/18 forever destined to have low AADTs

    The N17 at Claregalway carries > 20k trips per day, about half of which are going to Galway. The N18 at Clarinbridge (Kilcolgan to be exact) carried an average of 16k per day so far this year. With AADTs of 9-10k south of Gort and census information stating that clare & Limerick are not large contributors to the city employee pool, it appears that a fair amount of this traffic is not necessarily bound for Galway.

    It's worth noting that both the N17 & N18 are above capacity for a 2 lane road, one of the benefits of the M17/18 is to make medium and long distance bus journeys predictable, which is one of the things required to allow people to believe that not using the cars is an option (as has been seen on the Galway-Dublin routes).


  • #78
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    MYOB wrote: »
    You've been extremely careful in avoiding actually saying it, but the entire body of your posts on the subject entirely equals it. You don't want it built.

    This ridiculous charade we have on here of opponents to something pretending they're not against it is pointless in the extreme




    I've been extremely careful to say what I mean. My position on the proposed GCOB, and on the policy background/cultural context for the alleged "need" for the bypass, is set out in numerous posts on Boards.

    If other posters are unwilling or unable to address what I've actually written, as opposed to what they like to think I think, what can I do? C'est la vie en Boards.

    I'm trying not to mention the str*w word, Mods, really I am! ;)


  • #79
    lucernarian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,236 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    I've been extremely careful to say what I mean. My position on the proposed GCOB, and on the policy background/cultural context for the alleged "need" for the bypass, is set out in numerous posts on Boards.

    If other posters are unwilling or unable to address what I've actually written, as opposed to what they like to think I think, what can I do? C'est la vie en Boards.

    I'm trying not to mention the str*w word, Mods, really I am! ;)
    I did ask you this earlier in a post today. Could you clarify for the sake of posterity, are you currently in favour or against the construction of the N6 GCOB as planned?


  • #80
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,110 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    I've been extremely careful to say what I mean. My position on the proposed GCOB, and on the policy background/cultural context for the alleged "need" for the bypass, is set out in numerous posts on Boards.

    If other posters are unwilling or unable to address what I've actually written, as opposed to what they like to think I think, what can I do? C'est la vie en Boards.

    I'm trying not to mention the str*w word, Mods, really I am! ;)

    If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

    You cry strawman whenever you can't challenge an argument, and then you retreat behind a front to try and disassociate yourself from your own position. You're telling me to read your posts to see your position - that's where I'm getting it from. You are against the bypass, no two ways about it.

    That said, I can't even see why you're trying to do it - this pretence that you're not against the bypass actually seriously harms your debating position. Your position is nowhere close to Devil's Advocate, so stop trying to be one.


  • #81
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,110 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    TINA1984 wrote: »
    Imagine a bizarre parallel Ireland, a land where thanks to strict planning laws, small towns & villages like Craughwell, Tuam, Athenry & Gort were designated as hubs for housing and economic growth within the Galway metro area, and were blossoming as a result.

    Instead of the WRC being an irrelevance like it is now, and the M17/18 forever destined to have low AADTs primatily composed of people coming fron the country into Galway, the good burghers of these towns would be crying out for decent road and rail connections into a Galway city that hasn't been blitzed by lazy development west of the river.

    In that instance, the WRC phases 1&2 as well as sections of the N17/18 would be truly deserving of an upgrade, CBA's for these projects would definitely be positive. But as I said thats in a bizarro-fantasy world.

    The WRC opened after the housing market had crashed. Meaning that there would have been far less reason to move to those areas, and its quite difficult to force someone to buy/rent a house in an area they don't want.

    Additionally, none of this would prevent the need for Galway to have a river crossing that did not bring traffic that has no reason to be there within spitting distance of the city centre. You'd possibly get the traffic levels down to requiring a slightly cheaper road, but you'd still need one.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,742 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Did I say the GCOB shouldn't be built? :)
    MYOB wrote: »
    You've been extremely careful in avoiding actually saying it, but the entire body of your posts on the subject entirely equals it. You don't want it built.

    This ridiculous charade we have on here of opponents to something pretending they're not against it is pointless in the extreme
    In fairness, if someone is looking for a few hundred million to build the bypass and there are other projects competing for that money, then the test for allowing that money should be quite high, especially when other measures would much reduce the need for the need for the bypass at a cost of a few tens of millions.


  • #83
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,110 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Victor wrote: »
    In fairness, if someone is looking for a few hundred million to build the bypass and there are other projects competing for that money, the the test for allowing that money should be quite high, especially when other measures would much reduce the need for the need for the bypass at a cost of a few tens of millions.

    The case has long since been proven, except to those who present random things as if they weren't their opinion, or who want to ensure we stay in a constant cycle of "are we sure? are we really sure?"

    The main reasons that we appear to have remaining opposition is from people who want to "punish" Galway for its planning history, or who are deeply scared that the bypass will be so effective as to ensure that GCC does not bother with any other anti-car measures in future.


  • #84
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,535 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    the real problem in our society is that there are too many cars not that junctions are too small.
    Says you!
    If you increase the size of the junction, or add more lanes leading to that larger junction, you will create the conditions which, sooner or later, generate more traffic and induce more travel so that you're eventually back where you started or worse.
    Agreed on that point. Trying to facilitate East-West traffic (e.g. Connemara-Dublin, Salthill-Athlone etc) by providing more traffic capacity in the city centre is counterproductive on every possible level. That's why the bypass is needed - to serve long distance traffic.
    There is a populist demand from individuals and vested interests for a bypass in Galway, imo, because a large number of “people who want, need, prefer or like to use the car” would chew their own arm off rather than use any other mode of travel.
    Populist? Don't you mean democratic?
    Demand safer and more convenient facilities for pedestrians, including children walking to school, and you're told that there is "no room" and that "common sense" dictates that motorists must drive up on footpaths whenever they feel the need.
    I could agree with that if it was not for your ideological axe to grind.

    Hypothetically speaking say a new school were planned to be built or an old one severely retrofitted. Say also that the plans included a well designed parents waiting area for those picking up their children by car. Well designed as in it's secondary to bus pickup, pedestrian, and promotes the safety of the children while providing parents with a legal place to wait for their children.

    You would oppose that because of your ideological, anti-democratic axe grinding, then when the school was built without the waiting area, you would bitch and moan about illegal parking.
    would also agree with the view that there is "no room" for pedestrians and cyclists, and therefore it's only "common sense" to take over not just the roads and junctions but the footpaths as well.
    Again, I could accept this if your posting history showed that you favoured solutions that worked for all road users including motorists. But it shows the exact opposite.
    To_be_confirmed wrote: »
    I did ask you this earlier in a post today. Could you clarify for the sake of posterity, are you currently in favour or against the construction of the N6 GCOB as planned?
    Take it from me - you are more likely to end up on IWHs "Ignore" list than to get a Yes or No answer to a simple question. It's pathetic.

    https://u24.gov.ua/
    Join NAFO today:

    Help us in helping Ukraine.



  • #85
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,742 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    SeanW wrote: »
    Populist? Don't you mean democratic?
    Fianna Fáil? Only slightly democratic - they only introduced one man, one vote last year.


  • #86
    lucernarian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,236 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    Victor wrote: »
    In fairness, if someone is looking for a few hundred million to build the bypass and there are other projects competing for that money, then the test for allowing that money should be quite high, especially when other measures would much reduce the need for the need for the bypass at a cost of a few tens of millions.
    Here's the crux. I'm still searching for a way to avoid the need for building this expensive bridge or failing that, some other very expensive method of easing Galway's congestion problems (this doesn't just apply to cars) to the same extent as the GCOB would allow (again, in tandem with other far-reaching moves to ease the traffic situation and improve use of alternative modes of transport.

    Have we seen anything that can comprehensively eliminate the need for a bypass while ensuring that all road users (even a certain level of car usage) can benefit from that alternative(s) to the same extent? I don't think so, though I do agree that the ideas you posted earlier would help. But these points have been made before and may be made again with no real difference, so why are people again thrashing out the need for this bypass when there's already been good evidence shown that the bypass is needed no matter how many cost-effective alternatives are put in place? There wasn't the same level of hand-wringing going on when the Waterford bypass was discussed.

    I don't own a car and I don't live in Galway and but visit it annually. From my use of bus transport and shared journeys in cars, the need for another bridge crossing somewhere in Galway seems as clear to me as a need for better cycling access and pedestrian access and bus lanes (please GCC, more bus lanes!!) across the current "orbital" route. And a need for better planning too.

    I think a sense of balance and fairness has been ebbing away since this court case cropped up and the last 50 posts in this thread have been no exception, from all sides. :(


  • #87
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    Victor wrote: »
    In fairness, if someone is looking for a few hundred million to build the bypass and there are other projects competing for that money, then the test for allowing that money should be quite high, especially when other measures would much reduce the need for the need for the bypass at a cost of a few tens of millions.

    Of course in some cases we are not even talking about tens of millions. We are talking about;
    • spending a couple of thousand (at most) to knock a wall here and there
    • a few buckets of cement to put in a ramp here and there,
    • Removing a kissing gate or two in various locations
    • putting up a 200 euro sign granting cyclists an exemption from a one-way street.
    • A couple of thousand to close a rat run with a bollard here or there.
    • Putting in bike parking in a small university city where there is a city centre car parking space for every 23 residents but cycle parking space only for every 400 residents.

    It is disingenous to ask people to accept claims that the bypass will improve conditions for walking and cycling in a city where the officials calling for the bypass behave in a consistently hostile manner towards cyclists and pedestrians.


  • #88
    lucernarian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,236 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Of course in some cases we are not even talking about tens of millions. We are talking about;
    • spending a couple of thousand (at most) to knock a wall here and there
    • a few buckets of cement to put in a ramp here and there,
    • Removing a kissing gate or two in various locations
    • putting up a 200 euro sign granting cyclists an exemption from a one-way street.
    • A couple of thousand to close a rat run with a bollard here or there.
    • Putting in bike parking in a small university city where there is a city centre car parking space for every 23 residents but cycle parking space only for every 400 residents.

    It is disingenous to ask people to accept claims that the bypass will improve conditions for walking and cycling in a city where the officials calling for the bypass behave in a consistently hostile manner towards cyclists and pedestrians.
    You see, describing it as disingenous more or less tars all the posts made to that effect with the one brush and it's only going to lead to yet more squabbles and recriminations. I have not always had a clean bib in that respect but I can hold my hands up if I erred. The way it's phrased, e.g. "accept claims that the bypass will improve conditions for walking" makes it sound like there is an alternative hypothesis that states that building the GCOB would do nothing to improve walking or cycling in Galway City. That beggars belief! To make just one example of this, I find it difficult to cycle around where I live Dublin because of traffic congestion, not so much because of the lack of bus lanes or cycle priority measures which nonetheless are inadequate in Dublin.

    I don't claim that the GCOB is the only way of reducing congestion and improving conditions for other road users in Galway. I would support the view that it is a necessary way as part of those measures to improve conditions for others, in the longer term. Therefore I don't see a reason to oppose it on those grounds. Purely because GCC consists of a bunch of incompetents does not mean that the GCOB project should be abandoned pending other road measures.


  • #89
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    To_be_confirmed wrote: »
    You see, describing it as disingenous more or less tars all the posts made to that effect with the one brush and it's only going to lead to yet more squabbles and recriminations. I have not always had a clean bib in that respect but I can hold my hands up if I erred. The way it's phrased, e.g. "accept claims that the bypass will improve conditions for walking" makes it sound like there is an alternative hypothesis that states that building the GCOB would do nothing to improve walking or cycling in Galway City. That beggars belief! To make just one example of this, I find it difficult to cycle around where I live Dublin because of traffic congestion, not so much because of the lack of bus lanes or cycle priority measures which nonetheless are inadequate in Dublin.

    I don't claim that the GCOB is the only way of reducing congestion and improving conditions for other road users in Galway. I would support the view that it is a necessary way as part of those measures to improve conditions for others, in the longer term. Therefore I don't see a reason to oppose it on those grounds. Purely because GCC consists of a bunch of incompetents does not mean that the GCOB project should be abandoned pending other road measures.

    If we were analysing any other city yours would be a reasonable position.

    The problem in Galway is that you are not dealing with reasonable people. It is entirely possible for the officials involved to both build the bypass and continue to make conditions for walking and cycling as a form of transport worse.

    I once sat at a council meeting where the then acting Galway City Manager explained to the elected council that just because they were putting in bus lanes it did not necessarily mean they wanted more people to use public transport.


  • #90
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    To_be_confirmed wrote: »
    I don't claim that the GCOB is the only way of reducing congestion and improving conditions for other road users in Galway.

    But you see there are key people who are effectively claiming this. Joe Tansey, the head of the city transport unit, was trenchantly opposed to putting in bus lanes on the Seamus Quirke Road unless the bypass was built first. It was forced on him by the elected council. We now have a direct bus service from Knocknacarra to Ballybrit industrial estate running every 20 minutes.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    TINA1984
    Closed Accounts Posts: 372 ✭✭TINA1984


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Not really the city population is 50% bigger than it was in 1991, the county population is only 35% bigger and much of that is near/around towns and villages

    Your point on population increases as a rebuttal to my point actually enhances it.

    Let's do the math here: Taking Galway Citys population as 75k and Co. Galways as 175k. A 50% increase to 75k is ~37k population increase in the city. The County experienced a 35% increase means the county experienced an increase of ~60k people in the time period you mentioned. Which fits in neatly with my original point that the main urban area's in the state saw more growth in its rural hinterlands then in the cities themselves.

    In the absence of any kind of meaningful LUTS strategy by local administration, and their fondness for granting PP for one-off housing and estates on the periphary of villages & towns, I'm going to presume that most of that 60k extra people in the county has been spread across the Co. Galway area surrounding the city in a haphazard disjointed manner in the small villages, towns and countryside of rural Co. Galway.
    antoobrien wrote: »
    I'd bet you'd be surprised to hear that (leaving the city out of it) the "urban" population of Co Galway has been steadily rising over the past 20 years. There has been a lot of growth in places like Claregalway, Athenry, Oranmore, Clarinbridge, Turloughmore/Lackagh, Tuam etc on the East, Moycullen & Bearna on the west and others (these are just the places I have had reason to visit in the past few years, there are more areas that I could mention that have estates that were not there 20 years ago).

    Again you're ably demonstrating my point on the the non-existant planning policies in place which lead to poor population densities and a dependance on the car as the only means for travel. you've listed over half a dozen different places within the Galway 'metro' area which have experienced some population growth, but that not that much which can sustain nothing more then a rather limited, basic public transport infrastructure. As such car dependency is a given.

    It'll be as much outlying areas in the West as it will the towns and villages near Galway city which will be the net benficiaries of any GCOB & M17/18. It'll be possible to live even further away from Galway city and 'commute' - AKA driving a car - in then it is now. Farmers and other landowners in the deepest west must be salivating at the prospect of their construction!
    antoobrien wrote: »
    The WRC is not used by commuters because it is simply unusable as a commuter route....


    As for social use, if you want to go from Craughwell to watch the connacht rugby match on Friday night, it's not possible to do so both ways by train as the last train out of Galway is 6.35pm. That's a timetable issue rather than an indication of the potential utility of the line. If they ever fix that and it's not used, then we can discuss how the people of south Galway ignore it.


    The WRC, as far as I can see, isn't used much because most Co. Galway commuters live nowhere near a WRC station, indeed it appears most Co. Galway commuters don't live near any reasonable public transport infrastructure full stop! Let's face it, the WRC timetable is as good as its going to get as it is what it is, a slow inter-city line with limited commuter demand at either end of the line and sparsely populated bits in between Athenry & Ennis.

    Remember that bizarre fantasy land I mentioned earlier? the one where I dreamt that a proper LUTS strategy was implemented? In that fantasy scenario the case for both phase's 1 & 2 of the WRC, as well both bits of the M17 & 18 would've been overwhelming if Galway local administration had got its arse in order and concentrated development in the city itself and in one or two nodes in the metro area.
    antoobrien wrote: »
    The N17 at Claregalway carries > 20k trips per day, about half of which are going to Galway. The N18 at Clarinbridge (Kilcolgan to be exact) carried an average of 16k per day so far this year. With AADTs of 9-10k south of Gort and census information stating that clare & Limerick are not large contributors to the city employee pool, it appears that a fair amount of this traffic is not necessarily bound for Galway.

    ]It's worth noting that both the N17 & N18 are above capacity for a 2 lane road, one of the benefits of the M17/18 is to make medium and long distance bus journeys predictable, which is one of the things required to allow people to believe that not using the cars is an option (as has been seen on the Galway-Dublin routes).

    Your citation of N17/18 AADTs again shows the chronic level of one-off housing and dispersed population settlement inherent in the Co. Galway countryside. There is very little in the way of urban area's north of ClareGalway and south of Gort, yet every morning and every evening these places seize up with traffic. Where are those 10k traffic movements a day that aren't going to Limerick or the Northwest coming from?


Advertisement