To_be_confirmed wrote: » There wasn't the same level of hand-wringing going on when the Waterford bypass was discussed.
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?
To_be_confirmed wrote: » I don't think the existing N6 can be called a bypass when it passes so close to the city centre and surrounded by the admittedly bad planning decisions which are plain for all to see. [...] But those are fair points concerning Waterford. [...]
galwaycyclist wrote: » 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.
Iwannahurl wrote: » I have set out my position in the main GCOB thread and in other threads/forums, so I don't propose to rehash it here if at all possible. I don't have time just now to find my early posts in the long-running Roads thread on the subject, but this post is a good intro. You can start here and works backwards if you feel like it: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75477883&postcount=485 Much more recently, TINA1984 very articulately expresses a view on the GCOB that I would support.http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84192601&postcount=71
TINA1984 wrote: » Your point on population increases as a rebuttal to my point actually enhances it.
TINA1984 wrote: » 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.
TINA1984 wrote: » 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.
TINA1984 wrote: » 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.
TINA1984 wrote: » 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!
TINA1984 wrote: » 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.
TINA1984 wrote: » 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.
TINA1984 wrote: » 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.
Iwannahurl wrote: » 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.
Iwannahurl wrote: » 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
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.
antoobrien wrote: » While I was out at the end of the morning rush there was no road east of the river where it was possible to reach 100km/h due to the levels of traffic (including the BNT). What alternative reality were you cycling in? Your "conservative" estimates of speeds are skewed by the observation bias caused by the fact that you are travelling a much slower speed. While it looks extremely fast, the difference is almost never as severe as received.
Not really, if you dig into the figures you'll find that the urban areas are growing far faster than the rural one offs, which some people would have us believe are the problem.
Utter fail, south of Gort on the M18 is Crusheen Co Clare. I suggest you stop tring to find solutions base on maps and bad research
galwaycyclist wrote: » Your post confirms one of the key arguments against the bypass. In the absence of an effective national police service it is the traffic congestion that is keeping a lid on traffic speeds in the city. Take away that congestion and you make the roads more dangerous. If you want to see support for the bypass then show us a city-wide enforced speed management plan first (something that the city officials worked strenuously to keep out of the Walking and Cycling Strategy) The danger posed by speeding cars is proportional to the square of the speed. The impact energy involved in an impact at 60km/h is substantially higher than that at 50km/h. For a pedestrian the "survivability" drops from around 50% to 10%.
Aidan1 wrote: » Not fail, win. In fact, it's a good example of the nature of the problem. According to the CSO figures, 1,098 workers commuted into Galway from Mayo on a daily basis, and 457 workers from Clare (p.23 at the link below).
Am no utter fail
To_be_confirmed wrote: » This is a counterintuitive suggestion, to say the least. That congestion and higher traffic volumes could make roads safer and easier to navigate by other road users? My experiences in Dublin has been markedly different. Unless there is some aspect of separation and enforcement applied, I can't see how congestion can help cyclists. I'm sick of cycling around Dublin in peak traffic while I have to take a line away from footpaths to avoid people and then have Mr. Motorist yell and beep at me for trying to cycle safely and also obey the rules of the road. I would never cycle down the quays in Dublin if the port tunnel hadn't been built. I find that the mere presence of trucks are an inevitable and severe risk to the safety of cyclists and the experience of Dublin in the last decade or two would bear this out. Do trucks and other large vehicles form a big part of the traffic currently using the QB and Seamus Quirke road?
Aidan1 wrote: » *Bangs head on table*
Aidan1 wrote: » Here's a thought experiment for you. We have a situation whereby people now choose to commute, on a bad and busy road, headlong into serious traffic. What will happen if and when the road is dramatically improved, and the GCOB is built, and in the absence of any measures to better plan housing development? Again, the M18 from Clare is just one example - the M17/M18 will reduce commuting times from a broad swath of rural Galway. Are you seriously suggesting that there will be no effect on the spatial pattern of development because of this? Also, you wanted figures on housing sprawl in the commuting zone for Galway. You now have them, showing both the nature and extent of the problem. Any comment?
Aidan1 wrote: » Just because it's becoming less of a problem doesn't mean that it's not still a problem! Lets talk figures - "of the 20,560 persons commuting into the city 17,932 (87%) lived in Galway county ... Oranmore was the main feeder town for the city (1,211), followed by Athenry (597), Bearna (455) and Maigh Cuilinn (361). (from the CSO - link below". Or, in other words, if you take the top three satellite towns feeding Galway, about 8% of the commuting population come from there. The rest comes from everywhere else
galwaycyclist wrote: » Your post confirms one of the key arguments against the bypass. In the absence of an effective national police service it is the traffic congestion that is keeping a lid on traffic speeds in the city.
galwaycyclist wrote: » Take away that congestion and you make the roads more dangerous. If you want to see support for the bypass then show us a city-wide enforced speed management plan first
Any kind of cursory glance of the historical records will show that the "dispersed" natured of "development" is a myth.
galwaycyclist wrote: » The Port Tunnel in Dublin had that effect because a decision was made to exclude HGVs from the city. The Shannon Tunnel in Limerick has not had anything like that effect because it is tolled and because there was no strategy for keeping inappropriate traffic out of the city. In Galway, the city officials fought to keep a HGV management strategy out of the Walking and Cycling Strategy. At a recent meeting a city engineer indicated that sludge lorries from Mutton Island were being directed out Threadneedle Road (Where there are two secondary schools and two nearby primary schools) during school travel times. When challenged on this his reply was that it was no different to sending Roadstone lorries out the same route.
antoobrien wrote: » You got that from "you can't accurately guestimate the speed speed of a fast moving object from a slower one", well done.:rolleyes:
antoobrien wrote: » While I was out at the end of the morning rush there was no road east of the river where it was possible to reach 100km/h due to the levels of traffic (including the BNT). What alternative reality were you cycling in? [/URL]?
Aidan1 wrote: » Half right. Economic activity (manufacturing, services, higher order retail) has become urban focused (and thus less dispersed), but housing development has not, or at least not even nearly to the same extent. Instead, it has been allowed spread out over continued across the entire county as it always has.
Aidan1 wrote: » This has a load of downsides, even aside from the service and infrastructure provision question. The housing bubble was at it's most bubbly in those areas as the focus on construction activity completely distorted the local economy, and the effect of the collapse has been at it's worst in the outer periphery of the peri-urban region. Again, proper spatial planning would have prevented the worst of this.
antoobrien wrote: » All of those are good arguments to having a minimum of bypass with a HGV free toll (e.g. DPT). The Limerick & Waterford bypasses show the folly of tolling full bypasses. Just as a matter of curiosity, what's your alternative route for the HGVs that should avoid schools, since pretty much every major road in Galway has a school nearby?
galwaycyclist wrote: » No I got it from this Careful now Anto your straw men are starting to show.
galwaycyclist wrote: » I would have thought it was obvious. If a road is clearly a school route then during school travel times 8:30-9:30 and 15:00 to 17:00 you don't get to use it in a HGV.
galwaycyclist wrote: » Not counterintuitive at all. There is a reason why rural collisions are more likely to be fatal - it is because the impact energies are higher. That road deaths fall with congestion is a widely reported effect. I didnt say it was necessarily easier - but congested lower speed traffic is much less threatening than cars skimming by you at 60-70km/h. In some cases it may be easier. I would argue that, for cyclists and pedestrians, a roundabout that is locked up with traffic is less of a challenge than one where cars and trucks are taking a "racing line" through the junction at 60km/h or more. The Port Tunnel in Dublin had that effect because a decision was made to exclude HGVs from the city. The Shannon Tunnel in Limerick has not had anything like that effect because it is tolled and because there was no strategy for keeping inappropriate traffic out of the city. In Galway, the city officials fought to keep a HGV management strategy out of the Walking and Cycling Strategy. At a recent meeting a city engineer indicated that sludge lorries from Mutton Island were being directed out Threadneedle Road (Where there are two secondary schools and two nearby primary schools) during school travel times. When challenged on this his reply was that it was no different to sending Roadstone lorries out the same route. Do not judge the rest of the country by what happens in Dublin
To_be_confirmed wrote: » It was merely my opinion that I found it counterintuitive. You saying otherwise doesn't change this. Let's not fool ourselves, the perception among the population is that congestion and high traffic volumes makes pedestrian and bicycle movement less safe. Vehicle speed and congestion are not the exact same issue even though they overlap and this is particularly true in the case of Galway and the current QB arrangement. A congested Seamus Quirke might be safer than one where traffic may speed whenever it's empty but is it safer than a Seamus Quirke road which has less traffic AND is subjected to stringent speed controls and prioritisation of cycling and pedestrian-friendly measures? I don't think so.
antoobrien wrote: » So you're talking no access anywhere across the city to the any goods or passenger vehicle of 3,500kg laden weight between those times. Very good, carry on.
galwaycyclist wrote: » Where did I say anywhere? Mind those strawmen Anto
antoobrien wrote: » Not really, if you dig into the figures you'll find that the urban areas are growing far faster than the rural one offs, which some people would have us believe are the problem.
antoobrien wrote: » Ignoring that fact that that growth was mostly not in one offs, which is your original point.
antoobrien wrote: » I suggest you get hold of the Galway co development plans then. As for the "estates on the periphary of villages & towns", did it cross your mind that these are the only locations where there is space to do so effectively?
antoobrien wrote: » 4!=6. The metro area is Bearna-Moycullen-Claregawaly-Oranmore. The other twons and villages are outside (by several miles) the metro area, so stop with the rubbish please.
antoobrien wrote: » I suggest you go read the M17/18 thread, becuase you'll find that among other things the farmers have already been apid and there is open debate as to how useful the road is to commuters. This is especially true considering that less than 1,000 commuters come from clare & limerick to Galway, yet the N18 south of Gort (i.e. traffic from clare/Limerick) is 10k. That's long distance traffic, not commuting traffic.
antoobrien wrote: » No, it's because it very badly timetabled. There ar eplenty of letters to the editior in the lcoal papers deriding the fact that people can not use it to get to work early enough!
antoobrien wrote: » That is a fantasy land, considering there are - East of the river - the towns/Villages of Claregalway, Oranmore, Clainbridge, Craughwell, Loughrea, Tuam, Athenry, Headford, Ballinasloe, Gort, Portumna & Mounbellew covering an area about the size of Co Meath. They all have needs and they are seeing businesses being lost and not replaced because of attitudes like yours, whcih is causing more traffic problems for Galway as more people come to Galkway looking for jobs.
antoobrien wrote: » Utter fail, south of Gort on the M18 is Crusheen Co Clare. I suggest you stop tring to find solutions base on maps and bad research
antoobrien wrote: » If you have some proof that it is one offs that are causing this especially when the numbers in the aggregate town areas are increasing - please show it.
To_be_confirmed wrote: » I don't think the existing N6 can be called a bypass when it passes so close to the city centre and surrounded by the admittedly bad planning decisions which are plain for all to see.
To_be_confirmed wrote: » The rest of the bridges seem quite unsuited for long-distance traffic
But those are fair points concerning Waterford.
