N6 - Galway outer bypass: Is it needed?

antoobrien wrote: »

It's a red herring because if there was an ounce of truth to it the evening rush should be orders of magnitude lighter, seeing as how it starts after the school run finishes..

It's not, if anything the evening rush is longer and more severe than the morning rush, but hey lets ignore the fact that the schools have almost no effect on this.

It is widely recognised that during the summer, when tourist influx peaks, traffic flow both within and through Galway City, including that infernal triangle, is markedly improved. That's why major roadworks are done during the summer months, and it's also why there is gridlock when school-related traffic descends on the city in August, as parents and their kids scramble to buy uniforms and books.

http://www.galwaynews.ie/21133-city-council-denies-roadworks-sole-cause-traffic-chaos

Can you please address, with reference to independent sources, these two main points:

1. That even small reductions in traffic volume can bring about a significant improvement in traffic flow, viz. reducing traffic volume from 2,000 to 1,800 vehicles per hour (a 10% reduction) shifts a roadway from Level of Service E to LOS D. See visual depiction of LOS below.

2. That throughput can be maximised on the same roads network, or through the same bottleneck/pinchpoint, by rigorous traffic management, as per the Washington State Department of Transportation rice funnel analogy.

The fundamental principle is that the same infrastructure can become highly inefficient due to lack of active management or made highly efficient through TDM.

Is that principle valid or is it not? If not, can you point to authoritative sources to support such a conclusion? Links etc please.

1st step - We need to KILL car traffic in Galway. Traffic in itself is not a problem.
I agree with IWH - "Modal shift " is the first step in that process.
Pedestrians, Cyclists, Public Transport User's need to be accomodated(in that order) above Private Car Motorists. Car parking and road space in the city centre will need to re-allocated.
Many permability issue's for pedestrians and cyclists would have zero affect on motorists; but would create short cut's and car traffic free routes for Pedestrians and Cyclists.

what_traffic wrote: »

1st step - We need to KILL car traffic in Galway. Traffic in itself is not a problem.
I agree with IWH - "Modal shift " is the first step in that process.
Pedestrians, Cyclists, Public Transport User's need to be accomodated(in that order) above Private Car Motorists. Car parking and road space in the city centre will need to re-allocated.

So you are advocating a "modal-shift only" solution.

Question: say I am from the Midlands and I want to get to Salthill. How will your strategy help?
Or say Joe Public lives in Spiddal and wants to go to Athlone. How will your strategy help - assuming for the sake of argument that the bypass is on the long finger.

SeanW wrote: »

So you are advocating a "modal-shift only" solution.

Question: say I am from the Midlands and I want to get to Salthill. How will your strategy help?
Or say Joe Public lives in Spiddal and wants to go to Athlone. How will your strategy help - assuming for the sake of argument that the bypass is on the long finger.

There will be substantially less city-generated short distance car travel. Therefore this frees up system capacity for other kinds of trips including other kinds of car trips.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

There will be substantially less city-generated short distance car travel. Therefore this frees up system capacity for other kinds of trips including other kinds of car trips.

But remember that for any traffic removed (by "encouragement" more like force I might add) a corresponding amount of road space is taken away from motorists. That's the plan. So even if heaps of traffic are removed, there will be no net improvement in traffic speed. Additionally, IWH wants a dramatic clampdown on speeding - also to help motorists no doubt :rolleyes: - and reduced speed limits, having taken and clearly expressed the view that the current roads forming the N6 in Galway are not suitable for high speed long distance traffic.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It is widely recognised that during the summer, when tourist influx peaks, traffic flow both within and through Galway City, including that infernal triangle, is markedly improved. That's why major roadworks are done during the summer months, and it's also why there is gridlock when school-related traffic descends on the city in August, as parents and their kids scramble to buy uniforms and books.

Ah so things like people chaning their routines over June & July for holidays and different working hours have absolutely no effect.

Face it, if schools were the problem then there'd be no traffic jams at 6.45 on a Friday evening on SQR.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

http://www.galwaynews.ie/21133-city-council-denies-roadworks-sole-cause-traffic-chaos

You might have seen the same claims in the papers last week about last Tuesday night. In this case they'd have been right.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Can you please address, with reference to independent sources, these two main points:

1. That even small reductions in traffic volume can bring about a significant improvement in traffic flow, viz. reducing traffic volume from 2,000 to 1,800 vehicles per hour (a 10% reduction) shifts a roadway from Level of Service E to LOS D. See visual depiction of LOS below.

Can you show anywhere where this is actually true.

We are only guessing, based on national figures that there has been a 10% drop in traffic. You yourself have claimed that there is more traffic in Galway.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

2. That throughput can be maximised on the same roads network, or through the same bottleneck/pinchpoint, by rigorous traffic management, as per the Washington State Department of Transportation rice funnel analogy.

That rice funnel analogy is flawed because it's a single entry single route system. Show me a transport system in the work that works that way. The only reasons such rubbish appeals to you is that it suits your argument, not that it's in any way practical.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The fundamental principle is that the same infrastructure can become highly inefficient due to lack of active management or made highly efficient through TDM.

I'd love to see how TDM will solve the multiple crossing traffic flows we have - which is what causes the congestion.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Is that principle valid or is it not? If not, can you point to authoritative sources to support such a conclusion? Links etc please.

http://subregional.h-gac.com/images/Multimodal_level_of_service_1.jpg

Very shortsighted, so no not at all valid because it's looking at results not causes.

http://design.open.ac.uk/potter/documents/PotterpaperGCET.pdf

There is a tendency for TDM policies to focus only upon choice of travel mode, but this is
just one factor in the traffic/congestion generating mix. There are a group of factors that constitute transport demand. 1 .
These factors include the total number of trips, trip length, mode used and vehicle occupancy. Policies for reducing congestion also require a consideration of the location and time of travel.

Your TDM strategy chooses to cherrypick perceived problems that are at best minor irritations in the scheme of things.

monument

A warning to all:

Here on C&T general name calling / putting tags on people (ie motorist bashing, protesters, etc) is not allowed. The level of debate should be kept above snipping, and should focus on the point not the poster.

Please read the charter.

-- Moderator

SeanW wrote: »

But remember that for any traffic removed (by "encouragement" more like force I might add) a corresponding amount of road space is taken away from motorists. That's the plan. So even if heaps of traffic are removed, there will be no net improvement in traffic speed. Additionally, IWH wants a dramatic clampdown on speeding - also to help motorists no doubt :rolleyes: - and reduced speed limits, having taken and clearly expressed the view that the current roads forming the N6 in Galway are not suitable for high speed long distance traffic.

Uh not necessarily so - the relocation of car parking does not necessarily remove any road space in terms of traffic lanes. Reducing speeds by motor cars immediately increases road capacity for motor cars by reducing the headway needed between cars.

Long distance does not have to mean high speed. Galway itself from Ballybrit to Barna woods is only about 8km across. How is it hardship to drive at a reasonable speed for 8km?

SeanW wrote: »

So you are advocating a "modal-shift only" solution.

Question: say I am from the Midlands and I want to get to Salthill. How will your strategy help?
Or say Joe Public lives in Spiddal and wants to go to Athlone. How will your strategy help - assuming for the sake of argument that the bypass is on the long finger.

Nope - its the first step.

We also need to bring in resident's parking. For example - the streets in; the Claddagh, Woodquay, the West, Lower Salthill. Should only be for residents ONLY - not Pay and Display. And FYI I do not live in any of the above area's; live further out in the suburbs

antoobrien wrote: »

Can you show anywhere where this is actually true.

We are only guessing, based on national figures that there has been a 10% drop in traffic. You yourself have claimed that there is more traffic in Galway.

That rice funnel analogy is flawed because it's a single entry single route system. Show me a transport system in the work that works that way. The only reasons such rubbish appeals to you is that it suits your argument, not that it's in any way practical.

I'd love to see how TDM will solve the multiple crossing traffic flows we have - which is what causes the congestion.

Very shortsighted, so no not at all valid because it's looking at results not causes.

http://design.open.ac.uk/potter/documents/PotterpaperGCET.pdf

Your TDM strategy chooses to cherrypick perceived problems that are at best minor irritations in the scheme of things.

You appear to be refusing to engage with evidence or recognised principle, in order to defend a fixed position regarding the GCOB.

It is generally accepted, on Boards and IRL, that traffic congestion is markedly reduced in Galway City during the summer. The LOS for vehicles generally is much improved, and it is self-evidently possible to travel both within and through the city with much greater ease than at other times.

Clearly the congestion is caused not merely by "multiple crossing traffic flows" but by the volumes of traffic involved.

The rice-funnel demonstration is just an analogy, an attempt to illustrate the basic principle that throughput can be improved with TDM even if the infrastructure of interest stays the same.

You yourself have stated that "the real problem with the situation in Galway is that all the traffic is being forced into one small area", which you have called the Galway Triangle. According to yourself, "simple logistics dictate that this will eventually become a choke point."

antoobrien wrote: »

The benefit [of the GCOB] will be removing cars, vans & lorrys from the Galway Triangle (I'm claiming copyright on this) of Moneenagesha to HRR (aka Bodkin RAB) to Ballinfoyle (Kirwin RAB) that don't need to be there.

I've added this diagram to illustrate the point. 99% of the cross town traffic comes through one of the 4 junctions in this area (there are a couple of back roads that can be taken if you can find them)

There are approx 37,000 trips (18,000k two way trips) happening on QB daily in 2009 ... [and] about 60,000 trips coming from the Galway Metropolitan Smarter Travel Area.

In the 2006 census there were approx 9,500 two way journeys to work or school of 5-9km out of just over 50,000 recorded trips.

I'd expect at least half these to use the Bypass. (meaning a reduction of up to 10k trips going through the Galway Triangle).

We need to also consider the effect of the current traffic layout. It comes to a standstill on entering Galway due to the crossing traffic streams. The effect of this will be reduced by traffic going to the Woodquay area using the Bypass to go to the Ballindooley junction etc.

antoobrien wrote: »

The real problem with the situation in Galway is that all the traffic is being forced into into one small area, the Galway Triangle (copyright me, 2011).

All roads from the East of Galway lead to one of the 4 junctions within this triangle. It is almost impossible to avoid them if you are attempting to get
a) into the center of town or b) across the river

Simple logistics dictate that this will eventually become a choke point.

I'm not cherrypicking anything. I'm saying that serious attempts should be tried, using multifaceted TDM strategies, to reduce the volume of traffic going through the Galway Triangle (©) chokepoint in order to achieve a summer-season Level of Service for motorised traffic.

Based on the numbers you quote above, are you saying TDM could not in any circumstances achieve a reduction in traffic that "doesn't need to be there" to an extent that would produce the desired LOS? If not, why not?

Iwannahurl wrote: »

You appear to be refusing to engage with evidence or recognised principle, in order to defend a fixed position regarding the GCOB.

I'm going by the evidence that my own eyes provide me with day in day out. How much more evidence do you want?

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Clearly the congestion is caused not merely by "multiple crossing traffic flows" but by the volumes of traffic involved.

Okay then, what causes the traffic on the Tuam Rd to regularly back from the N17/N6 junction back past Liosban/Riverside and through cemetery cross in the evening and often well past Castlegar church going in the way? It couldn't be the fact that there's a crossing traffic stream, could it?

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The rice-funnel demonstration is just an analogy, an attempt to illustrate the basic principle that throughput can be improved with TDM even if the infrastructure of interest stays the same.

Have you ever read anything on on systems dynamics? If you had you'd realise why this oversimplification aimed at people who can't understand complex reasoning is insulting.

Using a single entry single exit funnel shows just how divorced from reality the concept you are trying to push is.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

You yourself have stated that "the real problem with the situation in Galway is that all the traffic is being forced into one small area", which you have called the Galway Triangle. According to yourself, "simple logistics dictate that this will eventually become a choke point."

I know this, I stated it. TDM won't change that fact because TDM will not change the physical layout, which is the major constraining factor on traffic in Galway.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I'm not cherrypicking anything.

Of course you are, how else are we still bogged on the notion that somehow think that bypass only is an option when nobody (pro-bypass) is saying that it its.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I'm saying that serious attempts should be tried, using multifaceted TDM strategies, to reduce the volume of traffic going through the Galway Triangle (©) chokepoint in order to achieve a summer-season Level of Service for motorised traffic.

Whose copyright is that, I've claimed it first and you've no permission to use it;)

In order to show that your strategy has any validity - and the fact that even in the "lighter" summer traffic that backs up from the N17/N6 through cemetery cross most evenings shows that the traffic is not aas light as perceived - you'll have to show an understanding of where the traffic is going. Then you can try controlling the demand. The use of the 4km bubble rubbish and the harping about P&R which is proven to be useless in Galway except as a way of helping shoppers not have to look for parking, shows that you have no understanding of where traffic is flowing in Galway.

Want TDM, you have to understand what the traffic is doing.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Based on the numbers you quote above, are you saying TDM could not in any circumstances achieve a reduction in traffic that "doesn't need to be there" to an extent that would produce the desired LOS? If not, why not?

It's quite simple really, your TDM solution is to reduce capacity across the board, roads & junctions e.g. the "solution" providing a bus lane on the QB without adding an extra road lane, which will halve the capacity of the road. Any such solution will cause extra delays on the very junctions we don't want the people in the target group to be using in the first place.

antoobrien wrote: »

I'm going by the evidence that my own eyes provide me with day in day out. How much more evidence do you want?

Okay then, what causes the traffic on the Tuam Rd to regularly back from the N17/N6 junction back past Liosban/Riverside and through cemetery cross in the evening and often well past Castlegar church going in the way? It couldn't be the fact that there's a crossing traffic stream, could it?

IWH - why don't you get it? its anecdotal evidence!

antoobrien wrote: »

In order to show that your strategy has any validity - and the fact that even in the "lighter" summer traffic that backs up from the N17/N6 throughcemetery cross most evenings shows that the traffic is not aas light as perceived - you'll have to show an understanding of where the traffic is going. Then you can try controlling the demand. The use of the 4km bubble rubbish and the harping about P&R which is proven to be useless in Galway except as a way of helping shoppers not have to look for parking, shows that you have no understanding of where traffic is flowing in Galway.

P&R is not rubbish - its the way it's being rolled out. Galway Chamber of Commerce are learning the hard lesson on this. They have a Park and Ride at the Old Airport - but it's not working as nobody is using it due to the huge availablilty of parking in the City Centre.

Map of Galway City:
http://www.galwaycity.ie/AllServices/RoadsandTraffic/ParkingintheCity/PublicCarParks/TheFile,1750,en.jpg
Look at the figures from the following links:
http://www.galwaycity.ie/AllServices/RoadsandTraffic/ParkingintheCity/Multi-StoreyCarParks/

Multi Story Car Parks
Location and Number of Spaces of Multi Storey Car Parks in Galway City

LocationNumber of Spaces
Jury's 348
Harbour 114
Eyre Square Centre 452
Radisson 260
Fairgreen House 400
Roches Stores 580
Hynes Yard 480

City Council Car PARKS (Galway City Council make a lot of money from Car Parking)
http://www.galwaycity.ie/AllServices/RoadsandTraffic/ParkingintheCity/PublicCarParks/

Gaol Rd/Cathedral 161 Long Term Car Park
Dyke Road 556 Long Term Car Park
College Road(Sportsground) 42 Long Term Car Park
Bowling Green/Newtownsmith 40 Short Stay Car Park
Mill St 82 Short Stay Car Park

Aard

It seems that everybody's colours are nailed fast to their respective masts, and that nobody is willing to budge. Perhaps a more fruitful discussion than whether or not a bypass is needed would be: if and when (at some point in the future) a bypass is needed, where should it go, where should the interchanges be, and how should demand for the future bypass be managed to ensure maximum throughput at peak hours.

These decisions will have to be made at some point and will have a huge impact on the future economy and spatial development of Galway. Improving bicycle infrastructure, for example, means nothing if the future bypass ends up encouraging mass greenfield development and the suburbanisation of retail activity. Non-drivers should be very interested in the design and location of urban roads, and not just in the sense of whether-or-not they go ahead. It's not an either-or in many cases, and sometimes non-drivers shoot themselves in the foot by refusing to engage with the design debate. A well-designed urban dual carriageway can have just as many knock-on benefits for non-drivers as it does for drivers. Perhaps a new full-on motorway isn't the solution - is there any scope to fully grade-separate the N6/R338? Would building a new motorway with interchanges on the outskirts create further suburbanisation and car-dependence? These are questions, among many others, that need to be explored by both sides.

what_traffic wrote: »

Nope - its the first step.

I will admit some intellectual laziness here in that I am, to a certain extent, lumping you, monument and Iwannahurl in the same category of anti-bypass posters advocating at best a modal-shift first strategy.

That said, I simply don't believe you. Because you have given me no reason to believe you, and in the case of Iwannahurl, you are incapable of givng me a reason to believe you, given a clear and demonstrable history of being hostile to motorists. Iwannahurls aparent claim that his TDM etc strategies have the primary and intended effect of making things better for motorists as a key objective is something that I can prove to be absolutely, utterly, totally false by simply trawling his/her post history in particular interactions that I have had with him/her.

If you expect me to believe that your view is not more motorist bashing dressed up in a new package, to my mind you need to categorically and unreservedly condemn Peter Sweetman and any other serial-objectors to road projects. You would also gain credibility by distancing yourself from IWH, for reasons that I can provide in great detail if required. You should also clearly demonstrate how the bypass fits in with your plan, indeed is an important part of it.

We also need to bring in resident's parking. For example - the streets in; the Claddagh, Woodquay, the West, Lower Salthill. Should only be for residents ONLY - not Pay and Display.

Are you sure about that? Salthill by the Promenade, between the prom itself, the leisure complex and the casinos, is a major draw for tourists and daytrippers. Given that, I fail to see what would be accomplished by a ban on non-resident parking.

markpb

SeanW wrote: »

I will admit some intellectual laziness here in that I am, to a certain extent, lumping you, monument and Iwannahurl in the same category of anti-bypass posters advocating at best a modal-shift first strategy.

I wouldn't call it intellectual laziness, I'd call it an inability to debate the topic at hand. Your entire post picks on posters you disagree with and tries to sideline them. You say that someone must be wrong if they disagree with you. With the exception of the last two lines, all you did was tell the poster that they must agree with your opinion before you'll discuss it with them. If you don't want to listen to contrary opinions, why are you posting here?

Re intellectual laziness - there is nothing intellectual about it. It's just old fashioned laziness.

SeanW wrote: »

Are you sure about that? Salthill by the Promenade, between the prom itself, the leisure complex and the casinos, is a major draw for tourists and daytrippers.

I know your from Cork/Longford - but what you describe above is not Lower Salthill. I'm not taking about the village (which has surface car parks) and On Street Pay and Display. I am referring to Lower Salthill. Whitestrand Rd/Av, Salthill Road Lower; the residential parts of the village which are on the City side of the village. It's not banng non-resident parking - it's providing resident's with street parking and stops non resident car based traffic using residential streets as through roads to get to this parking.

markpb wrote: »

I wouldn't call it intellectual laziness, I'd call it an inability to debate the topic at hand. Your entire post picks on posters you disagree with and tries to sideline them.

No, mainly one poster who I have very good reason to "pick on" if you examine their posting history.

You say that someone must be wrong if they disagree with you. With the exception of the last two lines, all you did was tell the poster that they must agree with your opinion before you'll discuss it with them. If you don't want to listen to contrary opinions, why are you posting here?

Here's the thing: I'm not a total 'petrolhead,' I also like things like public transport, cycling facilities, proper provisions for pedestrians etc. The problem that I have here is that some people are talking about what appears to be a modal-shift only plan, that barely makes any reference to the bypass at all, which is supposed to be the topic of the thread.

At best, it's talking about solutions to one problem when the bypass is to solve other problems. By all means have more buses, cycle tracks and better pedestrian facilities and the like, but this strikes me as a different problem to the fact that through traffic not needing to be there is being funneled through the above mentioned "Galway triangle."

So on the one hand, you have a bypass planned to get long distance traffic out of the "Galway triangle" that has no reason to be there and on the other, people talking about better provisions for cyclists and pedestrians. I agree with both, but consider them independent problems of equal importance. But if extreme measures like slowing down traffic even more and taking heaps of road space from motorists are part of the plan, then a "bypass first" or "bypass and other measures at the same time" approach begins to look a lot more reasonable.

I am referring to Lower Salthill. Whitestrand Rd/Av, Salthill Road Lower; the residential parts of the village which are on the City side of the village.

Fair cop

Aard wrote: »

It seems that everybody's colours are nailed fast to their respective masts, and that nobody is willing to budge. Perhaps a more fruitful discussion than whether or not a bypass is needed would be: if and when (at some point in the future) a bypass is needed, where should it go, where should the interchanges be, and how should demand for the future bypass be managed to ensure maximum throughput at peak hours.

These decisions will have to be made at some point and will have a huge impact on the future economy and spatial development of Galway. Improving bicycle infrastructure, for example, means nothing if the future bypass ends up encouraging mass greenfield development and the suburbanisation of retail activity. Non-drivers should be very interested in the design and location of urban roads, and not just in the sense of whether-or-not they go ahead. It's not an either-or in many cases, and sometimes non-drivers shoot themselves in the foot by refusing to engage with the design debate. A well-designed urban dual carriageway can have just as many knock-on benefits for non-drivers as it does for drivers. Perhaps a new full-on motorway isn't the solution - is there any scope to fully grade-separate the N6/R338? Would building a new motorway with interchanges on the outskirts create further suburbanisation and car-dependence? These are questions, among many others, that need to be explored by both sides.

With respect, I think in broad terms that is beggaring the question.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that the above assumes that a bypass is inevitable (eg no alternatives in the context of IROPI) and that the main issues to be debated are questions of design, LOS and effects on urban development.

I heartily agree that the last one needs debating, because I believe new roads generate traffic in the long run, but I do not accept that there are no alternatives to a bypass.

My colours are not nailed fast to any particular position on the proposed bypass itself. My basic contention is that a GCOB per se could potentially serve to facilitate increased car use around, through and within the city.

Many GCOB proponents see this as inherently A Good Thing, but that is not a perspective I share, whether as a motorist, cyclist, pedestrian, bus user or parent with children who would do better in a less car-dependent future.

I've already referred to the situation in Waterford, bypassed in 2009 iirc, where (as far as I can see from a quick check of the Census figures) the proportion of people walking to work decreased from 16% in 2006 to 15% in 2011. Bus use dropped from 4% to 3%, while the number of car passengers decreased from 9% to 8%. Meanwhile, the proportion of people driving to work increased by five percentage points, from 58% to 63%. I haven't looked at the travel to education figures for Waterford City.

I do not want this for my kids. I do not want them to have to go to school in a city where the streets -- and footpaths -- around their school continue to be choked with cars. I do not want them to have to continue to play in streets where the roadway and footpaths are choked with cars. I do not want them to have to cycle or walk to their friends' houses or to shops and amenities along roads where speeding is endemic and there are no pedestrian crossings.

A bypass will not make any of that go away.

If anything it could make it worse. At the moment traffic congestion is, ironically, the biggest deterrent to increased car use. It certainly deters me. At least on traffic-choked roundabouts, for example, it's possible to thread through all the stationary or slow-moving cars, whether as a pedestrian or cyclist. At least when the road is jammed with traffic most cars are slow-moving, and can only speed in one direction (ie on the uncongested side).

On the other hand, TDM seeks to address all those issues in a sustainable way and in a strategic manner that seeks to integrate with other more sustainable transportation and urban planning goals. See also http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056914997

If we assume that 2019 is the earliest that a bypass will materialise, then the status quo is not an option for the next six years or so, and in fact provides the motivation for making serious attempts at TDM.

That process is already under way, however piecemeal and uneven. The removal of roundabouts is an example of the way in which there is now an increased emphasis on traffic management rather than just catering (unsustainably) for cars. Such measures are far from perfect and are insufficient in my view, but it is also not coincidental that some of the main advocates of a bypass on here are also opponents of roundabout removal.

Both Galway City and County Councils are heavily reliant on a Bypass as part of their supposed strategy to develop more sustainable traffic and transportation policies. Making significant and effective attempts to do the latter prior to the construction of the former would be an excellent way for them to show that their intentions are both serious and honest. I'll believe it when I see a lot more of it.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

new roads generate traffic (bad)
...
serve to facilitate car use (bad)

traffic congestion is ... the biggest deterrent to increased car use

sustainable

unsustainably

sustainable

See what I mean?

Iwannahurl wrote:

I do not want this for my kids
...
A bypass will not make any of that go away.

Thank you for proving my point so cogently yet again. The bypass will indeed not make any of that go away because it's not supposed to. It's designed to solve a different problem, partly independent of the ones you outlined.

SeanW wrote: »

See what I mean?

Thank you for proving my point so cogently yet again. The bypass will indeed not make any of that go away because it's not supposed to. It's designed to solve a different problem, partly independent of the ones you outlined.

I think you have arrived at the same point that the bypass sceptics here keep having to point out. The bypass will not fix various obvious problems with the management of the city that need fixing now.

In fact as others have pointed out, a by-pass if used in combination with existing roads management and policing practices, will likely make existing long-established problems worse.

For some reason for years various interests have tried to make a by-pass "the price to be paid" before we can have any "progress" in improving conditions in the city.

During the discussions regarding the 2004-2011 City Development Plan, Joe Tansey, the official who now heads the city transport unit, was trenchantly opposed to having bus lanes on the reconstructed Seamus Quirke Road. He insisted that it would not be appropriate to put in bus lanes unless a by-pass was built first. Our elected councillors faced him down and voted to put in bus lanes anyway.

Now we finally have the bus lanes and we finally have the beginnings of a decent bus service from Knocknacarra to the industrial zone in Ballybrit. There is a direct bus every 20 minutes during peak hours and people are starting to use it. There is still no bus service crossing the bridge but its a start.

The sky has not fallen, the earth has continued to move in its orbit.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

For some reason for years various interests have tried to make a by-pass "the price to be paid" before we can have any "progress" in improving conditions in the city.

During the discussions regarding the 2004-2011 City Development Plan, Joe Tansey, the official who now heads the city transport unit, was trenchantly opposed to having bus lanes on the reconstructed Seamus Quirke Road. He insisted that it would not be appropriate to put in bus lanes unless a by-pass was built first. Our elected councillors faced him down and voted to put in bus lanes anyway.

Well now, that's interesting. I knew that Galway City Council had originally sought a very different SQR (eg lots of roundabouts) and had to be forced to adopt a different approach. However, I was not aware, or perhaps had completely forgotten, that they tried to use the proposed bypass as a bargaining counter.

I strongly suspect that both local authorities in Galway have been perversely happy with the growing traffic chaos over years, as in their eyes it copperfastens the case for a bypass.

Likewise a bypass has often been proposed (on Boards anyway) as the solution to deficiencies such as lousy bus services, poor cycling facilities etc.

If I can borrow from The Onion, perhaps it's the case that 98% of bypass advocates favour public transport, cycling and walking for others.

Once a GCOB is constructed, the political imperative for better public transport, cycling infrastructure, TDM, speed management, parking controls etc would substantially diminish, imo.

If that's not a realistic assessment, are we supposed to believe that the thousands of motorists currently clamouring for a bypass as the answer to both traffic gridlock and inadequate public transport etc will, once the bypass is built, continue to put pressure on their local and national politicians for better bus services, more cycle lanes, pedestrian crossings etc?

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Well now, that's interesting. I knew that Galway City Council had originally sought a very different SQR (eg lots of roundabouts) and had to be forced to adopt a different approach. However, I was not aware, or perhaps had completely forgotten, that they tried to use the proposed bypass as a bargaining counter.

Ok, so on the one hand you accuse Galway CC of using the bypass as a bargaining chip. Fair enough.

Were a bypass to be built, the political imperative for better public transport, cycling infrastructure, TDM, speed management, parking controls etc would substantially diminish, imo.

Now, the naked agenda pushing and blatant hypocrisy in here is just breathtaking. Even by your standards - and that's not easy!

Translation from IWHspeak to English wrote:

Not only am I clearly terrified that the bypass would do its job and be successful, but I'm also using it as a bargaining chip to force my agenda of "sustainability" to keep everyone stuck in traffic until I GET MY WAY because it appears I want people to suffer needlessly unless they knuckle under and admit that my solutions are the only ones.

And then with a straight face I accuse other people of using the bypass as a bargaining chip while doing it myself ...

You couldn't make it up.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

In fact as others have pointed out, a by-pass if used in combination with existing roads management and policing practices, will likely make existing long-established problems worse.

So ... if a bypass takes traffic out of the city (which IS the objective) that could make things worse on the roads in the city itself? That's a bit claiming that the Dublin Port Tunnel was a bad idea because it could lead to worse problems on the Quays.

The sky has not fallen, the earth has continued to move in its orbit.

And people continue to waste time needlessly going through urban areas they don't need to be going through - to the detriment of all concerned - because of anti-road campaigners like Peter Sweetman, and other eco-leftist groups nationwide like Save Newgrange and what they're doing to the people of Slane.

SeanW wrote: »

So ... if a bypass takes traffic out of the city (which IS the objective) that could make things worse on the roads in the city itself? That's a bit claiming that the Dublin Port Tunnel was a bad idea because it could lead to worse problems on the Quays.

Yes the Dublin Port Tunnel could conceivably made things worse if it had not been accompanied by a very clear vision for what is to happen with traffic in Dublin City Centre. A case in point being that the Port Tunnel was accompanied by a HGV ban on the Quays. It is not the Port Tunnel that has had the transforming effect but the HGV ban. The tunnel was one way of enabling the HGV ban but there may have been others.

In Galway, at official level there has been a studious absence of the same level of engagement. In the discussions around the recently adopted Walking and Cycling Strategy there was an outright refusal to include a HGV management strategy - despite that being a key measure in the National Cycling Policy Framework - coming above infrastructural interventions. In Galway there is official refusal to engage with key issues that were addressed and dealt with in Dublin.

And people continue to waste time needlessly going through urban areas they don't need to be going through - to the detriment of all concerned - because of anti-road campaigners like Peter Sweetman, and other eco-leftist groups nationwide like Save Newgrange and what they're doing to the people of Slane.

No the primary reason people are wasting time going through urban areas they don't need to go through is incompetent planning, traffic management and policing. Throwing more roads at that mixture is like trying to put out a fire by pouring petrol on it.

what_traffic wrote: »

P&R is not rubbish - its the way it's being rolled out.

It is rubbish and won't help relieve the problem that the bypass is aimed at addressing and the list of carparks you've given proves it. Every last one of those car parks are in the city center, the bypass is not supposed to be interacting with traffic that has these destinations as their endpoint. To get to almost all of those locations (the dyke being the only realistic exception), one would more than likely be best off to ignore the bypass.

Another reason why your P&R argument is tosh is that the day rate for all those carparks is either the same or higher than the cost of the P&R, so the question is why isn't the P&R being used?

The coach station is at the fairgreen, so it's not like it's not targetting the audience you think they should be. It's not convenience or timing, peak usage was when it was most frequent.

The reason is the same reason as the Christmas one isn't used by workers - it's not going where the people really need to go.

P&R systems work when they are providing a service to locations that people want to go to. It's clear that the P&R system in Galway is being proposed by people that fundamentally do not understand the traffic dynamics involved - as the serial rejection of P&R by workers since the inception of the Christmas P&R shows.

If P&R is to replace a bypass, a system is needed that to make the N6 corridor & SQR to Salthill only for use by traffic whose intended destination is not within the city boundary. This goes against the intended design of the road, because like it or not, it brings the road through residential and industrial areas that existed before the QB & N6 routing was even dreamed up - making the misuse of the word bypass in the description of the existing road extremely disingenuous.

monument

EVERYBODY:

Cut the talk of rubbish, tosh, laziness etc etc.

Also cut out the translations.

No need for any of this.

antoobrien wrote: »

Another reason why your P&R argument is tosh is that the day rate for all those carparks is either the same or higher than the cost of the P&R, so the question is why isn't the P&R being used?

The coach station is at the fairgreen, so it's not like it's not targetting the audience you think they should be. It's not convenience or timing, peak usage was when it was most frequent.

Can you provide quotes from myself to back up some of these points you make here?

what_traffic wrote: »

Can you provide quotes from myself to back up some of these points you make here?

The one quoted, your contributions to this thread arguing for the removal of parking from a certain city centre location - your argument targets parking in general, the post in question is specifically about city centre parking.

The car parks you mentioned total about 3,500 spaces, if they were all used by workers (we know they are not) that's about 5% of the total commuting traffic.

Trips of 5km or greater in Galway indicate trips across the river, not to the city centre, that gives approx 13k. That's 3-4 times the capacity of parking spaces in the city centre area, indicating that the trips in Galway do not centre themselves around the city centre area. But then these aren't the targets of a P&R are they? It's people coming from a line east of the N18.

You're addressing a problem that has little/nothing to do with the reasons for/against the provision of a bypass aimed at taking the long distance traffic out of the roads that lead to the city centre.

antoobrien wrote: »

The one quoted, your contributions to this thread arguing for the removal of parking from a certain city centre location - your argument targets parking in general, the post in question is specifically about city centre parking.

Your trying to put word's in my mouth. So you cannot specifically point to any quotes that I have previously made?

All I said was: "P&R is not rubbish - its the way it's being rolled out." many of the points you make about the current P&R at Galway Airport I agree. These are the reason's it is failing.

You say

antoobrien wrote: »

The coach station is at the fairgreen, so it's not like it's not targetting the audience you think they should be.

Where do I discuss this "audience" ?