N6 - Galway outer bypass: Is it needed?

L1011 · 21-04-2013 11:18PM

Removing the entirity of school, college, university, staff of those and a significant proportion of work traffic is removing a hell of a lot more than 5%, nor can you even pretend this is 'modifiable' behavior

You seem to have decided for yourself that I'm opposed to other traffic measures when I'm not. I just live in the real world where it's obvious they won't ever negate the need for a bypass - which is what this thread is about

markpb · 22-04-2013 09:26AM

MYOB wrote: »

Removing the entirity of school, college, university, staff of those and a significant proportion of work traffic is removing a hell of a lot more than 5%, nor can you even pretend this is 'modifiable' behavior

Really - why would he have to pretend? The Mater Misericordiae hospital in Dublin started a mobility management plan to reduce the congestion and parking problems they were experiencing. It resulted in 30% less staff cars entering the campus and 16% less traffic overall.

That's a single company acting almost entirely on their own and without any changes to the surrounding public transport or road infrastructure.

L1011 · 22-04-2013 09:46AM

markpb wrote: »

Really - why would he have to pretend? The Mater Misericordiae hospital in Dublin started a mobility management plan to reduce the congestion and parking problems they were experiencing. It resulted in 30% less staff cars entering the campus and 16% less traffic overall.

That's a single company acting almost entirely on their own and without any changes to the surrounding public transport or road infrastructure.

The fact that this isn't a single company is the bulk of why this is fantasy.

The Mater didn't have to do much to persuade people to not drive in, traffic in the area is still very poor unless you have either blue lights or Dublin Bus written on the side of your vehicle and parking was, at the time, near unobtainable.

I'd like to see if those figures still hold up now that parking is, while not abundant, significantly easier to get.

monument · 22-04-2013 10:16AM

MYOB wrote: »

The fact that this isn't a single company is the bulk of why this is fantasy.

The Mater didn't have to do much to persuade people to not drive in, traffic in the area is still very poor unless you have either blue lights or Dublin Bus written on the side of your vehicle and parking was, at the time, near unobtainable.

I'd like to see if those figures still hold up now that parking is, while not abundant, significantly easier to get.

Don't have info on the Mater alone but... The genral trend in Dublin is increased use of cycling despite the downturn and less congestion.

Iwannahurl · 22-04-2013 12:18PM

MYOB wrote: »

Removing the entirity of school, college, university, staff of those and a significant proportion of work traffic is removing a hell of a lot more than 5%, nor can you even pretend this is 'modifiable' behavior

You seem to have decided for yourself that I'm opposed to other traffic measures when I'm not. I just live in the real world where it's obvious they won't ever negate the need for a bypass - which is what this thread is about

Earlier memo to self (re s**** m**) still in circulation.

Er, did I say anything about removing the "entirety" of school, college and university traffic?

The fact remains: Galway City traffic is noticeably lighter when the schools are off. And of course it's modifiable behaviour: people behave one way during term time and another when schools are off.

With regard to the 5% figure I quoted earlier, the point is that the non-linear relationship of traffic volume to congestion indicates that relatively small changes can have big effects.

I live in the real world where I am not dependent on the car for the school run, and in my real world I routinely pass long lines of stationary or slow-moving cars travelling the same distance as me to the same schools (as I did again this morning). Many of them won't be there come the summer, and the average speed on the same route will be noticeably higher.

I don't know what the actual reduction in traffic volume is when schools are off, but it is self-evident that the congestion-alleviating effect occurs due to behaviour change and not to fixed environmental factors.

There are many ways to modify behaviour around car use in the absence of a bypass, and were such measures introduced in a determined, integrated and strategic fashion, it may well be possible to achieve a 'schools-are-off' level of congestion relief all year round.

We should be doing it anyway, of course, since behaviour change around car use is compatible with a number of other objectives in the areas of, for example, environmental policy and public health.

I haven't decided for myself that you are opposed to measures that prioritise modes of travel other than the private car. However, I did request, and am still waiting for, some more insight into your use of the phrase "petty and vindictive" in that context.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CX_Krxq5eUI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Suugn-p5C1M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8G7ViTTuwno

L1011 · 22-04-2013 06:52PM

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Earlier memo to self (re s**** m**) still in circulation.

You, having invented a different reading of a statement of mine which you still continue to argue against, really have to reevalulate yourself before you continue crying strawman. Because you appear to be the king of stuffing them.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Er, did I say anything about removing the "entirety" of school, college and university traffic?

Yes. You said that it was all this traffic was behaviour modifiable.

"The marked and well-recognised reduction in congestion when the schools are off is ample evidence that much of Galway City's traffic congestion is due to modifiable behavioural factors "

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The fact remains: Galway City traffic is noticeably lighter when the schools are off. And of course it's modifiable behaviour: people behave one way during term time and another when schools are off.

Well, yes, of course they behave differently - as they are not undertaking the trips they were previously taking at all for the most part. This is clearly not something that can be relied on to reduce traffic.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

With regard to the 5% figure I quoted earlier, the point is that the non-linear relationship of traffic volume to congestion indicates that relatively small changes can have big effects.

So do you now accept that "5%" has no relation to Galway seeing as we've already had more than of a reduction?

Iwannahurl wrote: »

However, I did request, and am still waiting for, some more insight into your use of the phrase "petty and vindictive" in that context.

If you read the post as written rather than trying to put a spin on it to argue against, you'll see what's meant.

Iwannahurl · 22-04-2013 10:01PM

To engage in 'debate' on Boards is often to enter some sort of nonsense world invented by a poor imitator of Lewis Carroll.

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't, till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,' " Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less."

MYOB wrote: »

You, having invented a different reading of a statement of mine which you still continue to argue against, really have to reevalulate yourself before you continue crying strawman. Because you appear to be the king of stuffing them.

My s**** m** can beat up your s**** m**.

MYOB wrote: »

You said that it was all this traffic was behaviour modifiable.

Compare the above with what I actually wrote, and which you even quoted above:

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The marked and well-recognised reduction in congestion when the schools are off is ample evidence that much of Galway City's traffic congestion is due to modifiable behavioural factors and not unavoidable structural deficits.

MYOB wrote: »

Well, yes, of course they behave differently - as they are not undertaking the trips they were previously taking at all for the most part. This is clearly not something that can be relied on to reduce traffic.

I don't want to risk drawing yet more belligerent and incestuous s**** m** into this 'debate', but this appears to be what the above is saying:

1. When schools are off traffic congestion is alleviated because a significant number of motorists are not undertaking trips they were previously taking during term time.

2. This is not something that can be relied on to reduce traffic.

MYOB wrote: »

So do you now accept that "5%" has no relation to Galway seeing as we've already had more than of a reduction?

No, the 5% figure was quoted in its context, with link provided.

MYOB wrote: »

If you read the post as written rather than trying to put a spin on it to argue against, you'll see what's meant.

I still don't know what you meant, But nor do I care any more at this stage.

L1011 · 22-04-2013 10:11PM

Iwannahurl wrote: »

To engage in 'debate' with certain posters on Boards is to enter some sort of nonsense world invented by a poor imitator of Lewis Carroll.

It certainly feels that way sometimes. A nonsense world inhabited by strawmen invented by a scarecrow manufacturer.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Compare the above with what I actually wrote, and which you even quoted above:

What that reads as is you saying that the school/uni/etc traffic was "much of" Galway's traffic problems, and that this was behaviour modifiable. Two separate statements.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I don't want to risk drawing yet more belligerent and incestuous s**** m** into this 'debate', but this appears to be what the above is saying:

1. When schools are off traffic congestion is alleviated because a significant number of motorists are not undertaking trips they were previously taking during term time.

2. This is not something that can be relied on to reduce traffic.

No, what it is saying is that you cannot expect to be able to alleviate traffic by entirely removing trips from the system, when those trips cannot be removed.

You can "behaviour modify" some people in to taking other modes of transport, but until we invent teleporters, you can't just delete the trips from existence.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

No, the 5% figure was quoted in its context, with link provided.

Despite the fact that its obvious that it doesn't apply to Galway and was hence utterly superfluous.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I still don't know what you meant, But nor do I care any more at this stage.

Its extremely obvious what I meant to someone who does not want to try and find a specific meaning in it.

Iwannahurl · 23-04-2013 12:10AM

MYOB wrote: »

What that reads as is you saying that the school/uni/etc traffic was "much of" Galway's traffic problems, and that this was behaviour modifiable. Two separate statements.

No, what it is saying is that you cannot expect to be able to alleviate traffic by entirely removing trips from the system, when those trips cannot be removed.

You can "behaviour modify" some people in to taking other modes of transport, but until we invent teleporters, you can't just delete the trips from existence.

The reason I mentioned the well-recognised phenomenon of school-related traffic at all is that its absence, during the summer especially, even with the tourist influx, reveals that traffic congestion is cyclical and dependent on motorist behaviour, not on fixed environmental factors.

As the videos I posted earlier make clear, it is quite possible, through various means as applicable/appropriate/feasible, to modify motorist behaviour in order to achieve a reduction in traffic congestion on the same physical infrastructure (as illustrated by the rice-funnel analogy).

GCOB proponents argue that another 'funnel' is needed (a supply-side response), whereas alternative-solution advocates argue that, with the right demand-side measures in place, traffic on the same infrastructure can be managed in such a way as to reduce congestion to acceptable or even just bearable levels (as it is when the schools are off, for example).

To simply assume as a given that a sufficient number of car trips "cannot be removed" in order to achieve a 'schools-are-off' level of congestion reduction is to beggar the question.

To repeat: the reality is that such a level of congestion reduction already does occur in Galway City, and is clearly possible absent a bypass.

The challenge then becomes: how can that effect be replicated across the entire roads network, for all or most sources of traffic (including schools), all year round?

Traffic enters and crosses the city from a variety of sources and for a variety of reasons. It's not a natural phenomenon, and it occurs due to human behaviour and people's choices. An increase in road supply, ie a bypass, would tend to alter that behaviour and influence those choices in the direction of more car use, not less. Behaviour modification, under the broad banner of Transportation Demand Management, would strive for the opposite effect.

There are a range of measures that can be used to reduce car use, deter unnecessary car trips and incentivise modal switch to public transport, cycling or walking. I would suggest that, by reducing the level of car use across all sectors, it ought to be possible to achieve a congestion-alleviating effect as good as, or better than, that which already occurs due to the elimination of school traffic at certain times.

If you don't accept this basic premise, what policies, strategies, evidence or examples can you point to which demonstrate that Transportation Demand Management in its various forms is neither feasible nor effective?

Citations or links please, not unsubstantiated opinion.

monument · 23-04-2013 12:33AM

Iwannahurl wrote: »

To engage in 'debate' with certain posters on Boards is to enter some sort of nonsense world invented by a poor imitator of Lewis Carroll.

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't, till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,' " Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less."

Deal with the points and not the poster.

L1011 · 23-04-2013 07:45AM

You're changing what I said to create a point to argue against again, by the way. I never said anything about car trips being removed, I said trips. The entire journeys do not exist in summer. Argue against that rather than the position you're inventing - which is the actual definition of a strawman, not what you seem to believe that means.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

To repeat: the reality is that such a level of congestion reduction already does occur in Galway City, and is clearly possible absent a bypass.

The reality is that only occurs when a significant amount of traffic is entirely removed from the system and not replaced by anything at all, and there is absolutely nothing to suggest that the same could be achieved when the same amount of journeys have to be undertaken - other than your own:

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Citations or links please, not unsubstantiated opinion.

When its entirely your unsubstantiated opinion that as many trips can be modal-shifted as are entirely removed during the summer?

We're being told here that "simple" measures will suddenly manage to remove 20%+ of all car traffic, when its quite clear that what measures have been done, e.g. new bus lanes, haven't removed even a fraction of that.

Iwannahurl · 23-04-2013 09:52AM

MYOB wrote: »

The reality is that only occurs when a significant amount of traffic is entirely removed from the system and not replaced by anything at all, and there is absolutely nothing to suggest that the same could be achieved when the same amount of journeys have to be undertaken - other than your own:

When its entirely your unsubstantiated opinion that as many trips can be modal-shifted as are entirely removed during the summer?

We're being told here that "simple" measures will suddenly manage to remove 20%+ of all car traffic, when its quite clear that what measures have been done, e.g. new bus lanes, haven't removed even a fraction of that.

The school-are-off experience shows what could be potentially achieved by removing a major source of traffic congestion. Actually the source of traffic congestion: too many cars and too much car use.

Achieving the same level of traffic reduction by other means -- including modal switch to public transport, cycling and walking -- would not "replace" that traffic.

Galway City doesn't yet have an integrated, multi-sectoral, strategic Transportation Demand Management programme. Stretches of QBC or cycle lane here and there do not a TDM strategy make, and therefore you cannot point the finger at such piecemeal measures and claim that TDM would not work. However, as it happens they do make a positive difference. The SQR QBC, short and all as it is, has enabled a greater frequency of buses from Knocknacarra. The Parkmore route is one of the most successful in the country, according to BE.

We don't yet have a TDM in Galway City. What we have is deeply-rooted car dependence and Bypass dependence, exacerbated by populist politics, ineffective and unaccountable local government, and ignorant notions that there is "no room" for bus users, pedestrians and cyclists.

Evaluations of TDM have shown it can work, as has the experience of many European cities where it was long ago realised that continued car traffic growth was unsustainable (see James Wickham's book Gridlock, 2006).

See also:

http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/data/files/publications/fairness_car_dependant.pdf

http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/files/car_dependency_scorecard_2.pdf

I'm still waiting for you to point to an iota of evidence that TDM could not be used to significantly alleviate Galway City's traffic congestion, in the absence of a bypass. In any case, the reality is that the GCOB will not be built for several years, and the indications from the NRA is that it may never be built, so TDM has to be seriously considered.

In the meantime, I'm making my own choices, and what I'm thinking as I squeeze past all those car drivers clogging up the roads, roundabouts and even footpaths at peak time is: you are the traffic jam, not me.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-98-percent-of-us-commuters-favor-public-tra,1434/

L1011 · 23-04-2013 10:10AM

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I'm still waiting for you to point to an iota of evidence that TDM could not be used to significantly alleviate Galway City's traffic congestion, in the absence of a bypass.

You're the one proposing the idea, and yet all you can compare it to is "when the schools are out", despite not even being able to quantifty how much of a traffic reduction this is or how it would even be possible to obtain this. You aren't providing any evidence to begin with yet start demanding it from others.

Quoting Lewis Carroll, slamming up Youtube videos that explain how road capacity is calculated and putting up pathetic cartoons doesn't prove your point either. Its like reading a Junior Cert CSPE book - all good intentions, zero ideas and zero content of use.

When you can come back and show that TDM will actually remove the need for a bypass, let us know. That is the topic of the thread and you haven't even managed to brush against it.

Iwannahurl · 23-04-2013 10:12AM

MYOB wrote: »

zero ideas and zero content

All posted by me earlier, and ignored by you:

http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/

http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/ump/07%20SEATTLE%20Best%20Practices%20in%20Transportation%20Demand%20Management.pdf

http://www.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/7997_93169_GTZ_TDM_Armin_Wagner.pdf

http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/data/files/publications/fairness_car_dependant.pdf

http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/files/car_dependency_scorecard_2.pdf

There is no Bypass, and there may never be one.

The lack of same ensures that you can keep telling yourself how right you are as you sit in stalled traffic for the next ten years.

L1011 · 23-04-2013 10:19AM

Iwannahurl wrote: »

There is no Bypass, and there may never be one.

The lack of same ensures that you can keep telling yourself how right you are as you sit in stalled traffic for the next ten years.

There is no TDM either. Telling people that something that doens't exist and is utterly unquantified can prevent the need for a bypass that a competent roads authority has deemed entirely necessary doesn't wash.

L1011 · 23-04-2013 10:21AM

Iwannahurl wrote: »

All posted by me earlier, and ignored by you:

http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/

http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/ump/07%20SEATTLE%20Best%20Practices%20in%20Transportation%20Demand%20Management.pdf

http://www.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/7997_93169_GTZ_TDM_Armin_Wagner.pdf

Not ignored. Discounted, as not one of these has anything to do with Galway. You have zero evidence that there would be any impact at all in Galway, let alone making traffic move to a level that would negate the need for a bypass.

All we have to date is actual proof on the ground that expensive and disruptive measures such as bus lanes haven't done a single thing.

You are relying on the fact that removing an absolutely huge amount of traffic makes the delays in Galway just about acceptable. It is dreamland to even hope that you could remove that much traffic.

Iwannahurl · 23-04-2013 10:29AM

MYOB wrote: »

Not ignored. Discounted, as not one of these has anything to do with Galway. You have zero evidence that there would be any impact at all in Galway, let alone making traffic move to a level that would negate the need for a bypass.

All we have to date is actual proof on the ground that expensive and disruptive measures such as bus lanes haven't done a single thing.

You are relying on the fact that removing an absolutely huge amount of traffic makes the delays in Galway just about acceptable. It is dreamland to even hope that you could remove that much traffic.

Did you actually even glance at the content, and appraise the various TDM strategies? Or did you just search the documents for "Galway" and "discount" TDM when you didn't see us specifically mentioned?

Referring to QBCs as "disruptive" is a neat example of the car-centric thinking that characterises the populist politics of traffic and transportation in Galway.

Part of the same mind-set that there is "no room" for high occupancy travel modes, since the People That Matter have first dibs on all the space available.

L1011 · 23-04-2013 10:33AM

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Did you actually even glance at the content, and appraise the various TDM strategies? Or did you just search the documents for "Galway" and "discount" TDM when you didn't see us specifically mentioned?

Yes. None of them even appear to look like they could reduce traffic by the huge amount required in a city the size and shape of Galway to have any impact at all.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Referring to QBCs as "disruptive" is a neat example of the car-centric thinking that characterises the populist politics of traffic and transportation in Galway.

It was the construction which was disruptive - hugely so.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Part of the same mind-set that there is "no room" for high occupancy travel modes, since the People That Matter have first dibs on all the space available.

There was room, it hasn't reduced the existing room on the road, but it has effectively done bog all for the massive amount of time and money invested in it.

Iwannahurl · 23-04-2013 10:38AM

MYOB wrote: »

Yes. None of them even appear to look like they could reduce traffic by the huge amount required in a city the size and shape of Galway to have any impact at all.

Really? Can you elaborate a bit on your TDM assessment process vis-a-vis Galway's traffic and transportation situation?

Examples please.

MYOB wrote: »

It was the construction which was disruptive - hugely so.

Omelettes, eggs etc. Mind you, never bothered me...

L1011 · 23-04-2013 10:44AM

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Really? Can you elaborate a bit on your TDM assessment process vis-a-vis Galway's traffic and transportation situation?

Examples please.

Galway has a widely dispersed commuter zone, no light rail or realistic potential to get one, one heavy rail line that ends on one side of its river and no realistic potential to return to the other side (although it would be fantastic if it did, even if the route was just restored as a cycleway would be of benefit I imagine). It also has a major imbalance between housing and industrial/commercial areas in relation to its layout across the river. Two educational facilities and a major health facility which serve a massive geographical area. There is also a significant amount of crossing traffic which cannot be removed at all.

None of the fluffy examples have anything close to this level of complexity. Australian and US cities that are under 200 years old with wide streets and planned suburbs don't compare. European capitals with extensive tram systems don't compare.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Omelettes, eggs etc. Mind you, never bothered me...

Uneaten omelette maybe.

Certainly looked like it'd have caused as much disruption for a cyclist - or did you just not have to go to that part of the city much?

Iwannahurl · 23-04-2013 11:10AM

That's a description of Galway City, not an assessment of why a Galway-specific TDM strategy could not be effective.

L1011 · 23-04-2013 11:14AM

Iwannahurl wrote: »

That's a description of Galway City, not an assessment of why a Galway-specific TDM strategy could not be effective.

Just as your examples provide no assessment of how it could be.

Con Logue · 23-04-2013 11:25AM

MYOB wrote: »

Just as your examples provide no assessment of how it could be.

Are you saying build the bypass and ignore the structural issues in Galway's expanding hinterland?

L1011 · 23-04-2013 11:27AM

Con Logue wrote: »

Are you saying build the bypass and ignore the structural issues in Galway's expanding hinterland?

No. I'm not going over this again.

Con Logue · 23-04-2013 11:34AM

MYOB wrote: »

No. I'm not going over this again.

Fine.

yer man! · 23-04-2013 11:44AM

This is getting confusing now, there's a lot of good points being brought up here. There's a clear "pro-bypass" and a "we can do without" thing going on, well that's what I can gather from it anyway. I'm a firm advocate for public transport and I think in order for public transport to improve it needs the bypass, both would depend on each other. Nobody can deny that the car will not be obsolete anytime soon and that you cannot get 99% of people to take to bus, you just can't, accept that, there will always be a need for cars owing to the dispersed housing and the like. Public transport facilitates people moving in urban areas, it's the only way it makes money, in Galway that means moving people about the city, grand. Long distance travelling will rely on the car, it's not feasible to have buses running everywhere, bus eireann is a prime example (only making money on Urban routes, intercity routes), most people in the countryside wouldn't use the bus if it stopped outside their house and went every 15 minutes, they have cars and they want to use them, it's much more convenient. By having a bypass you get all those people who want/have to use cars (please for the love of god accept that they need to use cars to be efficient for where they live and need to go to) they get to bypass the city leaving more road space in the city. By penalising anybody who wants to drive in the city you can get more people to use a public transport system or cycle and allow both of these to improve with all the space you now have created. I can understand ( I think ) what Iwannahurl is saying is that by getting city traffic to use public transport or cycle you could allow the long distance traffic to use the free space created in the coty network, but what's going to force city traffic to use public transport that won't penalise those who need to use a car.

Summary: Get those who need to use a car out (on a bypass) those that don't need to use a car (on public transport/cycling on freed up city space)

Richard Logue · 23-04-2013 12:01PM

MYOB wrote: »

No. I'm not going over this again.

Your original message is completely lost due to your need to score points tbh.

L1011 · 23-04-2013 12:10PM

Richard Logue wrote: »

Your original message is completely lost due to your need to score points tbh.

Defending myself against misrepresentations is not 'scoring points"

yer man! · 23-04-2013 12:18PM

This is why we can't have nice things!!!

markpb · 23-04-2013 12:26PM

yer man! wrote: »

This is getting confusing now, there's a lot of good points being brought up here. There's a clear "pro-bypass" and a "we can do without" thing going on, well that's what I can gather from it anyway. I'm a firm advocate for public transport and I think in order for public transport to improve it needs the bypass

There's a third camp of people who say that the bypass isn't going to happen anytime soon and that GCC should do whatever they can to alleviate the traffic in the meantime. It's possible that they'll be so successful that the bypass won't be needed but that's not relevant right now.

N6 - Galway outer bypass: Is it needed?

Comments