Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

N6 - Galway outer bypass: Is it needed?

1…1314151719

Comments

  • #482
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Yes, in my view, quite dishonest.

    Well then I am glad that I don't share your "logic" because you are showing a fundamental lack of design know-how.
    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    The significant common thread of cities that manage their infrastructure sustainably is a decision to manage their infrastructure sustainably. Bypasses may be a component of policies to manage city infrastructure sustainably but they are not a "foundation".

    Okay, then lets do a though experiment. Lets remove the Stockholm (a favourite "sustainable" example) ring road. What happens?

    The approach roads get clogged up with traffic that is not trying to access areas on those routes but now have to use them in order to get to their intended destinations. This sounds eerily familiar, I wonder where we could have seen this before?
    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    The "foundation" is the starting premise that private car use must be restricted in favour of the common good. In order for the Galway bypass to be supportable it must rest on such a foundation.

    Your definition of common good is obviously very different from mine, because to me the common good includes providing/improving access to facilities, not removing it. Measures that restrict car use without practical alternatives will not help, they will make the situation worse - see the bus gate in Dublin for what happens when "sustainability" and practicality aren't in the same room when a project is touted.

    A solution that does not include a bypass of Galway is unsustainable because it will have the effect of further increasing the focus of traffic on the centre of the urban area, which is already unable to handle what it is getting.

    But hey, we don't like cars in Galway, so lets not build a road that will keep those vehicles that do not need to be in the main commercial area out of it. That will help us get our "sustainable" future right?

    The principle behind the proposed bypass is the same one behind those cities that you describe as sustainable - removing traffic from areas that is not the intended destination of said traffic. A very simple concept that is very fundamental to providing true sustainability of traffic.


  • #483
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,713 ✭✭✭SeanW


    But hey, we don't like cars in Galway, so lets not build a road that will keep those vehicles that do not need to be in the main commercial area out of it. That will help us get our "sustainable" future right?
    And that in my view is so deeply questonable about the bypass-skeptics side - it appears to be the view that "sustainability" is the only objective so it's OK to take actions that are extremely anti-motorist (such as congestion charging as advocated previously) without providing alternatives to those affected.

    It's the main reason that I do not believe the "modal shift first" plans are not "modal shift only" because the only focus is on motorist hostility, without providing alternative routes. Indeed it had been specifically inferred that the "facilitation of private motorists" was fundamentally bad and IIRC there was a fear expressed not that the bypass would backfire, but that it would work, peoples lives would be improved and then with no problem left to solve, there would be no impetus for dramatically reduced speeds and congestion charges and whatnot, which for some I believe is the final objective.

    There is little or nothing in any of your posts that would indicate you support a bypass under any circumstances and there has been zero condemntation of the individual who caused the bypasses current legal difficulties. Again, this makes me wonder whether your "modal shift first" plans are not really "modal shift only" plans?
    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Saying that one absolutely requires the other is, in my view, dishonest.
    Granted, it is not absolutely required, but when you advocate it you leave yourself open to a charge of anti-motorist extremism. If I understand correctly, your side is advocating large scale removals of road space from motorists, large scale reductions in parking, reductions in permitted speed allied with massive increases in enforcement, even possibly a London style congestion charge, but without providing an alternative for through traffic that's only going through the affected areas because there is no alternative - even though an alternative could be easily provided.

    Sometimes this is unavoidable, as with intra-city traffic. But in this case the topic is regional and long distance traffic for which there was a bypass planned, only scuppered because a serial-objector got lucky in the courts.
    If the bypass argument stands on its own two legs then why not let it stand on them?
    Ok, well as Iwannahurls post clearly demonstrates, the bypass will do two things, in and of itself.
    1. It will get traffic out of the urban areas it has no business in.
    2. It will free up road space within the bypassed area.
    What is done with the freed up road space is - in and of itself - an secondary, independent question. You could use it to add bus lanes and cycle tracks, etc (and this might not be a bad idea), you could use it to convert the existing roads into city streets with higher density development, or also you could use it to make access to the city easier for shoppers as the commercial interests seem to want - obviously this would boost the local economy. Or you could do a mix of all these.

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

    Help us in helping Ukraine.



  • #484
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,713 ✭✭✭SeanW


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    They may need cars to reach the city outskirts but the idea that they should then be facilitated to drive cars back and forth inside the city centre is ridiculous.
    Here's the thing, if you read Iwannahurls post you would see that many rural residents who go out for the day shopping have a choice between Galway and Athlone. Athlone does not have the same problems, because it has been bypassed. So shoppers have easy access to the place.

    What you are proposing (assuming that you are not proposing large scale interference in the running of Athlone town) is that shoppers in Roscommon and suchlike parts should have the choice between:
    1. Easy access to Athlone town (bypassed, so theres room for shoppers)
    2. A congested mess in Galway with speed traps everywhere, sky parking costs and a congestion charge, all avoidable only by using a BUS for park and ride.
    Hmmm ... which do you Joe Rós Commoner is going to choose?

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

    Help us in helping Ukraine.



  • #485
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    The apparent intent is not to rid the city of unnecessary motor traffic but to change the types of trip that predominate within the mix of motor vehicles.

    The intent it seems is not to manage car use but to further facilitate greater use of cars around and within the city.



    My reading of numerous posts in the various GCOB threads is that the rhetoric proclaims a bypass will simultaneously free up space for public transport, walking and cycling yet at the same time will facilitate car use within the city, all while having the remarkable property of not generating new traffic in Galway City or its 'rural' hinterland.

    Such miraculous infrastructure would be great value for €300 million.

    MYOB wrote: »
    Those heading in to the city aren't going to get much benefit [from the Galway City Outer Bypass] but the bulk of them who are heading to anywhere but the city are.

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

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

    SeanW wrote: »
    [The Galway City Outer Bypass] would benefit the city's tourism trade by making Salthill ... dramatically more accessible by providing tourists and daytrippers from the Midlands and West with a route less dependent on choked city streets


    In this regard I thinks it's instructive to look at what has happened in Waterford City. The Census travel statistics clearly show a move away from walking, cycling and public transport and towards car use. One detail I find interesting is that the proportion of adult car passengers decreased while the percentage of car drivers notably increased. Curious also that the number of children cycling to secondary school before the bypass was equal to the number driving their own cars, but by 2011 the secondary school drivers outnumbered their cycling peers by more than two to one. Still, we should acknowledge the four-fold increase in the number of children travelling to primary school by bike two years after the Waterford bypass opened. Absolute pessimism is not warranted, perhaps.


    264686.jpg

    Note: some CSO categories omitted for space reasons. All figures open to correction.


  • #486
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    SeanW wrote: »
    Here's the thing, if you read Iwannahurls post you would see that many rural residents who go out for the day shopping have a choice between Galway and Athlone. Athlone does not have the same problems, because it has been bypassed. So shoppers have easy access to the place.

    What you are proposing (assuming that you are not proposing large scale interference in the running of Athlone town) is that shoppers in Roscommon and suchlike parts should have the choice between:
    1. Easy access to Athlone town (bypassed, so theres room for shoppers)
    2. A congested mess in Galway with speed traps everywhere, sky parking costs and a congestion charge, all avoidable only by using a BUS for park and ride.
    Hmmm ... which do you Joe Rós Commoner is going to choose?


    Good lord but at the risk of pointing out the obvious of course Athlone should be the first choice of destination for people in Roscommon seeking retail services. The whole point of having a coherent spatial planning strategy is to locate goods and services close to the populations they serve.

    If you are suggesting that the Galway bypass is needed because shopkeepers in Galway object to Athlone having viable services for its rural periphery then that is a truly daft reason for having a bypass.

    Retail services etc exist to serve the adjacent population. Populations do not exist to service (selected) sources of retail services.


  • Advertisement
  • #487
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,122 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    SeanW wrote: »
    ut when you advocate it you leave yourself open to a charge of anti-motorist extremism

    That's just basic name-calling.

    How many times do I have to say cut it out? Don't answer that or reply to this!

    Read the charter please.


  • #488
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Good lord but at the risk of pointing out the obvious of course Athlone should be the first choice of destination for people in Roscommon seeking retail services. The whole point of having a coherent spatial planning strategy is to locate goods and services close to the populations they serve.

    If you are suggesting that the Galway bypass is needed because shopkeepers in Galway object to Athlone having viable services for its rural periphery then that is a truly daft reason for having a bypass.

    Retail services etc exist to serve the adjacent population. Populations do not exist to service (selected) sources of retail services.

    Just to add to this point. If there are commercial interests in Galway city who are calling for a bypass because they see it as a way of "sucking in" customers and retail services that are currently served by, and located in, Gort, Loughrea, Ballinasloe, Tuam, Athenry etc. then this would be a very very dumb reason to build a bypass and would do more damage than good.

    If this is what is going on then alarm bells need to be ringing in the various county towns.


  • #489
    serfboard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,708 ✭✭✭serfboard


    Shopkeepers in Galway would be the last people whose opinion I would ask about transport planning in Galway. It was they who held up pedestrianisation of Shop Street for years.

    Saw a YouTube video (don't have the link) of some town planner type fella walking around the city of Bergen in Norway. He says it's the same the world over - businesses reckon that without the two parking spaces outside their premises city centres will collapse. Of course, that's nonsense as we have seen in Galway.

    WRT Waterford, interesting statistics. Seems part 1 (bypass) has been done, but part 2 (using freed-up streets for more pedestrianisation/public transport) has not. Interesting though that more kids feel confident (or have permission) to cycle to school now that the bypass has been built.

    It's carrot and stick. IMO the carrot is the bypass and better bus and train services. The stick, to follow after, is reduced and/or more expensive car parking. However, under pressure from retailers, parking prices have been reduced in Galway (see "two parking spaces" above).


  • #490
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    antoobrien wrote: »
    The surest sign that the "reasoned objectors" are running out of ideas is when they start claiming "that other agendas are at work", the ultimate strawman argument.



    Perhaps.

    antoobrien wrote: »
    skewed analysis to support an agenda

    antoobrien wrote: »
    I automatically don't trust figures quoted by people that look like they have an agenda

    SeanW wrote: »
    a radical motorist-hating environmental-left agenda

    ?Cee?view wrote: »
    contrarian and negative agenda


    I guess the temptation is to accuse the other side in a debate of "having an agenda", the inference being drawn that others' arguments are disingenuous.

    Speaking for myself, I have no hidden agenda. I have stated my view clearly that there is a high risk that the GCOB could lead to more car use within Galway City, not less. That seems to have happened in Waterford, for example.

    OTOH, I would contend that GCOB advocates are either in denial about the potential traffic-inducing effects of a bypass, or else they accept at some level that it will occur but are either indifferent to that prospect or actually welcome it.


  • #491
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,713 ✭✭✭SeanW


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Good lord but at the risk of pointing out the obvious of course Athlone should be the first choice of destination for people in Roscommon seeking retail services. The whole point of having a coherent spatial planning strategy is to locate goods and services close to the populations they serve.

    If you are suggesting that the Galway bypass is needed because shopkeepers in Galway object to Athlone having viable services for its rural periphery then that is a truly daft reason for having a bypass.
    Presumably Galway should have an advantage in terms of size, therefore choice of shops and goods. Additionally, some peoples origin points may be equi-distant to both Athlone and Galway. I just used Co. Roscommon as an example. And yes, for some things you have to go to shopping to higher-order areas. E.g. Athlone, Galway as opposed to Ballygobackwards. And its reasonable to assume that Galway shopkeepers are going to want to get as much of this trade as they can.
    Iwannahurl wrote:
    SeanW wrote:
    [The Galway City Outer Bypass] would benefit the city's tourism trade by making Salthill ... dramatically more accessible by providing tourists and daytrippers from the Midlands and West with a route less dependent on choked city streets
    Wow - I didn't realise that helping tourists get to tourist attractions (like Salthill) was such a bad thing! If I read your post right, it seems keeping tourists and daytrippers stuck on the Headford Road and the R338 is a much better idea.
    My reading of numerous posts in the various GCOB threads is that the rhetoric proclaims a bypass will simultaneously free up space for public transport, walking and cycling yet at the same time will facilitate car use within the city, all while having the remarkable property of not generating new traffic in Galway City or its 'rural' hinterland.
    Only that's not what's being claimed:
    1. The bypass would get people from East of the City to points West much easier.
    2. Road space would be freed up, which could be used in various ways.
    Such miraculous infrastructure would be great value for €300 million.
    Yes indeed it is great value - for what it is actually expected to accomplish.

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

    Help us in helping Ukraine.



  • Advertisement
  • #492
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    SeanW wrote: »
    Presumably Galway should have an advantage in terms of size, therefore choice of shops and goods. Additionally, some peoples origin points may be equi-distant to both Athlone and Galway. I just used Co. Roscommon as an example. And yes, for some things you have to go to shopping to higher-order areas. E.g. Athlone, Galway as opposed to Ballygobackwards. And its reasonable to assume that Galway shopkeepers are going to want to get as much of this trade as they can.

    Perhaps - but it is neither reasonable, nor good public policy, to let Galway shopkeepers get this trade if it has negative effects on other town centres.

    Therefore as with other likely negative impacts that have been identified, mitigating measures are needed in advance before any bypass is constructed.

    This is one of the reasons why Galway City Council should have been merged with the County Council there is a need for careful consideration of how to prevent such negative outcomes for the county towns etc if the bypass goes ahead.


  • #493
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    serfboard wrote: »
    WRT Waterford, interesting statistics. Seems part 1 (bypass) has been done, but part 2 (using freed-up streets for more pedestrianisation/public transport) has not.

    Interesting though that more kids feel confident (or have permission) to cycle to school now that the bypass has been built.



    Using terms such as "Part 1" and "Part 2" suggests that Waterford City had/has a coherent plan for significant modal shift, with a bypass as a major component of the strategy. Is there any evidence for that?

    On what are you basing your comment that "more kids feel confident (or have permission) to cycle to school [in Waterford City] now that the bypass has been built"?


  • #494
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    On what are you basing your comment that "more kids feel confident (or have permission) to cycle to school [in Waterford City] now that the bypass has been built"?

    I'll jump in on this one. If it were a "bypass effect" I would expect to see it happen more for secondary schoolkids than primary children. (Older kids are much more likely to be let off on their own)

    However what has happened is that cycle use fell among secondary students and although there has been growth among primary kids (9 more cycling) overall cycling participation at National school level is vestigial at 0.22%.

    If I were to guess at what might have gotten 9 more kids cycling to primary school I would say the green schools program. The kids might all be from the same school.


  • #495
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Use determines function, as someone once said. So what is the function of the GCOB, according to some of its advocates?

    It seems the GCOB is needed to make room for public transport, walking and cycling in Galway City:
    antoobrien wrote: »
    What they should do about this is have a referendum of the people who live and work in Galway city & environs and ask US and NOBODY ELSE if a bypass should be built. If approved invite the environmental lobby to HELP BUILD a FULLY INTEGRATED TRANSPORT SYSTEM for galway - which is not possible without a bypass.
    Chris_533976 wrote: »
    Absolutely no public transport improvements can be achieved in Galway until the bypass is built. Through traffic HAS to be removed before road space can be freed up for bus lanes, cycle lanes, or god help us, tram lines. The bypass, ironically, will be the biggest boost to public transport overall in Galway. It wont SOLVE the traffic problem, granted, but it will remove enough of it to make public transport viable.
    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    Build the bypass and see what we can do with the alt.greeny sh1te after the bypass is built. There should be road space for buses and trams and bicycles then. For now there ain't in Galway. Way it is.
    Irish and Proud wrote: »
    [An outer bypass] would divert most through traffic away from the city, thereby freeing up existing road space for public transport use particularly during peak hours.


    Actually no, the Galway City Outer Bypass is needed as a bypass:
    MYOB wrote: »
    Those heading in to the city aren't going to get much benefit but the bulk of them who are heading to anywhere but the city are.

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

    The bypass is needed as a bypass. Not a relief road for the city, it already has that, except its expected to carry masses of traffic around the city.
    MYOB wrote: »
    Those who can feasibly cycle to work are not those who will benefit from the GCOB as has been pointed out over and over. The GCOB is a bypass for those who do not need to be in or forced around the outside of Galway City, not a relief road for those that do. If you take a look at the plans this becomes blindingly obvious so I suggest that you do.
    cafecolour wrote: »
    And just realized the point of a 'bypass' would not be for galwegians but folks going from Dublin to Clifden and the like.


    Then again, the Galway City Outer Bypass is needed for commuters and travellers entering or crossing the city, and for residents in the western suburbs of the city including those in Kingston Road, Bishop O'Donnell Road, Salthill and Knocknacarra:
    Chris_5339762 wrote: »
    It would also mean you can get from Knocknacarra to the Dublin road in 10 minutes almost guaranteed.
    cafecolour wrote: »
    Via the outer bypass you mean, or because the dublin road through the city should have that much less traffic?
    Chris_5339762 wrote: »
    Bypass will be 10 minutes approx. Well, more accurately it'll be about 18km from the Cappagh Road to the end of the bypass at the M6. Ok this does include the refused western part of the route but whatever new one they come up with cant be much longer. 100kmh limit (as the bypass wont be motorway) : works out at about 12 minutes. Not bad, anytime of day or night :)
    antoobrien wrote: »
    [The GCOB] is about moving large volumes of people around Galway city from both inside AND Outside the city area.
    antoobrien wrote: »
    I presume you're talking about cross town traffic to & from Knocknacara and environs. In fairness [the GCOB] will take this traffic away from the congested school & business areas.
    dubhthach wrote: »
    Of course the bypass proposal is suppose to stretch to Bearna and have a spur to Western Distributor road if it wasn't for that common as dirt Bog cotton. The spur to western distrubitor road would probably take a big chunk of the traffic originating in Knocknacarra. The Gaelgóirs would get on at Bearna.
    kiwipower wrote: »
    You also have the issue of people living in the Salthill/Knocknacarra and further west, working on the eastern side of the city. This is why the bypass of the city is essential.
    antoobrien wrote: »
    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).
    ?Cee?view wrote: »
    Ever hear of Kingston Road, Bishop O'Donnell Road, Knocknacarra, Barna, Spiddal, Cois Fharraige? All of these need the bypass now.


    We're assured the GCOB will take cars out of the city for everybody's benefit...
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    I dont know why cyclists are so against they bypass, considering it would take cars out and around the city out of the city, making it safer for cycling.


    ...and bring cars back into the city for everybody's benefit:
    KevR wrote: »
    A friend of mine had to pay a visit to the Galway Shopping Centre last week or the week before. It took her an hour to get back out of the Shopping Centre car park because traffic was so bad. The traffic is seriously damaging to the local economy. I don't know why anyone would want to come anywhere near Galway unless it was a matter of life and death. There are alternative towns which don't have crippling traffic.
    antoobrien wrote: »
    all we have heard to this point is opposition to the plans, mostly from people outside of Galway (almost totally invalid, they don't have to sit in traffic to get the shopping)
    SeanW wrote: »
    [The Galway City Outer Bypass] would benefit the city's tourism trade by making Salthill ... dramatically more accessible by providing tourists and daytrippers from the Midlands and West with a route less dependent on choked city streets
    SeanW wrote: »
    With the bypass in place taking medium and long haul through traffic will be gone, and there will be road/street space for shoppers coming in from outside the city who must use their cars. You could argue that this is not the most efficient use of freed-up road space and I'm certain that you would prefer more bus lanes, cycle lanes, traffic lights, lower speed limts and all the rest, but the reasoning from the commercial sector seems clear.


    And last but by no means least, the Galway City Outer Bypass is some sort of payback time for motorists:
    antoobrien wrote: »
    In a nutshell motorists through various taxes levies and duties in 2010 paid an extra €4 billion in taxes into the exchequer. that figure as a contributer is second only to income tax receipts (€11.5 B). The take from motor tax alone is €950m but the road maintenance (not to be confused with capital improvements, such as building roads or this insanity project), which is paid directly to the councils - not central government or the NRA - is about half that. Can I have my bypass now please?
    ?Cee?view wrote: »
    Why would one own a car other than to use it?
    veryangryman wrote: »
    Cars rock. Fact.


    Would the real Galway City Outer Bypass please stand up?


    .


  • #496
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    My reading of numerous posts in the various GCOB threads is that the rhetoric proclaims a bypass will simultaneously free up space for public transport, walking and cycling yet at the same time will facilitate car use within the city, all while having the remarkable property of not generating new traffic in Galway City or its 'rural' hinterland.

    Here's the answer to all that rubbish:
    Employed in Waterford 2006: 25,838
    Employed in Waterford 2011: 23,332
    Difference: 2,506

    Out of city commuters: drop: 1,039
    City based commuters drop: 1,467
    Decreases in workers walking, cycling and using PT: 1,078

    Sorry hurl, the bypass has clearly not caused the drop in in walking, cycling and bus use, the drop in employment has.


  • #497
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    I'll jump in on this one. If it were a "bypass effect" I would expect to see it happen more for secondary schoolkids than primary children. (Older kids are much more likely to be let off on their own)

    However what has happened is that cycle use fell among secondary students and although there has been growth among primary kids (9 more cycling) overall cycling participation at National school level is vestigial at 0.22%.

    If I were to guess at what might have gotten 9 more kids cycling to primary school I would say the green schools program. The kids might all be from the same school.

    I'd love to see where you're getting those figures, because the two tables I have been able to find show an increase from 30 5-12 years in 2006 to 100 in 2011.

    The small increase of 7 from 137 13-18 year olds cycling in 2006 is more in line with your figures.

    But then we should not be comparing 13-18 year old sections between periods, because the composition of the group changes completely. Instead we should be looking at the 5-12 and comparing it with the 13-18 section in the next census as a large portion of these children will be in the 13-18 section for the following census. And as it has been pointed out to me, people tend not to change their mode of transport.


  • #498
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    antoobrien wrote: »
    I'd love to see where you're getting those figures, because the two tables I have been able to find show an increase from 30 5-12 years in 2006 to 100 in 2011.

    The small increase of 7 from 137 13-18 year olds cycling in 2006 is more in line with your figures.

    But then we should not be comparing 13-18 year old sections between periods, because the composition of the group changes completely. Instead we should be looking at the 5-12 and comparing it with the 13-18 section in the next census as a large portion of these children will be in the 13-18 section for the following census. And as it has been pointed out to me, people tend not to change their mode of transport.

    Sorry Anto but you seem to be looking at the Galway figures. This is a discussion of the figures for Waterford that IWH posted up thread.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    <snip>
    In this regard I thinks it's instructive to look at what has happened in Waterford City. The Census travel statistics clearly show a move away from walking, cycling and public transport and towards car use. One detail I find interesting is that the proportion of adult car passengers decreased while the percentage of car drivers notably increased. Curious also that the number of children cycling to secondary school before the bypass was equal to the number driving their own cars, but by 2011 the secondary school drivers outnumbered their cycling peers by more than two to one. Still, we should acknowledge the four-fold increase in the number of children travelling to primary school by bike two years after the Waterford bypass opened. Absolute pessimism is not warranted, perhaps.


    264686.jpg

    Note: some CSO categories omitted for space reasons. All figures open to correction.


  • #499
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Sorry Anto but you seem to be looking at the Galway figures. This is a discussion of the figures for Waterford that IWH posted up thread.

    Ah cheers, can you edit the post to clarify that you are talking about waterford for clarity.


  • #500
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Here's the answer to all that rubbish:
    Employed in Waterford 2006: 25,838
    Employed in Waterford 2011: 23,332
    Difference: 2,506

    Out of city commuters: drop: 1,039
    City based commuters drop: 1,467
    Decreases in workers walking, cycling and using PT: 1,078

    Sorry hurl, the bypass has clearly not caused the drop in in walking, cycling and bus use, the drop in employment has.



    So let's see, if the drop in employment is the causal factor in the Waterford example, it has also led to an increase in the number/proportion of people driving to work (11794/58% in 2006 versus 11811/64% in 2011), an increase in the number of children travelling by car to primary school (3005/63% versus 3548/66%), an increase in the number of children travelling by car to secondary school (1446/45% versus 1742/50%) and an increase in the number of Third Level students driving to college (446/24.5% versus 784/30.5%)?

    Is that your theory? If so, can you elaborate on the supposed mechanism by which a drop in employment increases car use, in absolute and relative terms, as a means of travel to work, school and college?

    While you're at it, perhaps you could also expand a bit on your thought-provoking idea of a referendum restricted to "the people who live and work in Galway city & environs" regarding a road scheme that is supposedly intended for motorists from outside the area who actually want to bypass the city altogether? How would that work? Why would all those motorists who will be passing by not be allowed a vote? Or is it a just a vote about keeping them out, so they shouldn't be asked?
    antoobrien wrote: »
    What they should do about this is have a referendum of the people who live and work in Galway city & environs and ask US and NOBODY ELSE if a bypass should be built.


    In that regard, I'd be very interested to know also how both a restricted-plebiscite referendum and the proposed Galway City Outer Bypass would relate to "shopping":
    antoobrien wrote: »
    people outside of Galway ... don't have to sit in traffic to get the shopping

    The GCOB is a bypass, we're told, and any traffic improvements within the city will be "nearly entirely unconnected" with it. Meanwhile, people from outside Galway City don't have valid opinions on the subject because "they don't have to sit in traffic to get the shopping".

    So, is the GCOB about Connemara people "cut off" from the rest of the country due to lack of a bypass? Is it for external and visitor traffic trying to avoid the city? It it for drawing visitors to the city and Salthill? Is it for commuters in Kingston and Knocknacarra who want to get Parkmore? Is it about getting cars out of Galway, getting them into Galway, or both? Or is its main function to help us drive to the shops for the 'messages'?

    Could GCOB advocates get their story straight please? It's hard work trying to make sense of all the various conflicting notions regarding its intended function.


  • #501
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    So let's see, if the drop in employment is the causal factor in the Waterford example, it has also led to an increase in the number/proportion of people driving to work (11794/58% in 2006 versus 11811/64% in 2011), an increase in the number of children travelling by car to primary school (3005/63% versus 3548/66%), an increase in the number of children travelling by car to secondary school (1446/45% versus 1742/50%) and an increase in the number of Third Level students driving to college (446/24.5% versus 784/30.5%)?

    Is that your theory? If so, can you elaborate on what the supposed mechanism by which a drop in employment increases car use, in absolute and relative terms, as a means of travel to work, school and college?

    So a 20 car increase equates to a 5% modal share increase. 20 cars is a rounding error in 12,000 journeys.

    As for kids, lets look back at the past:
    Year | 5-12 | Passengers (incl vans) | %
    96 | 5312 | 2363+41=2404 | 45%
    02 | 4817 | 2872+10=2882 | 59%
    06 | 4791 | 3005+10=3015 | 63%
    11 | 5253 | 3509+07=3516 | 52.5%


    Hey wait a sec, that's a severe drop off in the % of car & van passengers between 2006 & 2011, despite an actual increase (that makes a mockery of your 5% increase for 20 cars in 12,000 work journeys).

    Now let's look at the cycling and bus figures over that time:

    Year | 5-12 | cycle | bus
    96 | 5312 | 38 | 449
    02 | 4817 | 9 | 356
    06 | 4791 | 3 | 242
    11 | 5253 | 12 | 275


    Your assertion that the bypass is responsible for increases/drops is not supported by the trend shown over the past 4 census enumerations, as it shows increasing car numbers


  • Advertisement
  • #502
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    While you're at it, perhaps you could also expand a bit on your thought-provoking idea of a referendum restricted to "the people who live and work in Galway city & environs" regarding a road scheme that is supposedly intended for motorists from outside the area who actually want to bypass the city altogether?

    Well that's actually a sop to the "reasoned objectors" who, among other things, want to cut down on parking on Galway but also don't believe that anybody living outside of the city boundary should have a say in the matter, despite having to enter the city.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    The GCOB is a bypass, we're told, and any traffic improvements within the city will be "nearly entirely unconnected" with it. Meanwhile, people from outside Galway City don't have valid opinions on the subject because "they don't have to sit in traffic to get the shopping".

    Go back and take a read of the bit you've quoted, that misinterpretation is so hilariously wrong that I can't begin to describe how foolish you look.

    Even then as usual you have removed tyhe context (talk about disingenuous) which is that the complaint is not about shoppers, but about posters complaining about it, when they freely admit that they're rarely in Galway at all.


  • #503
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    antoobrien wrote: »
    So a 20 car increase equates to a 5% modal share increase. 20 cars is a rounding error in 12,000 journeys.



    So, if I'm understanding you correctly, the 2006-2011 travel to work stats for car use in Waterford City can be explained by a "rounding error" whereas as the changes in the generally lower figures (in modal split terms) for PT, walking and cycling are "clearly caused" by the drop in employment?
    antoobrien wrote: »
    the bypass has clearly not caused the drop in in walking, cycling and bus use, the drop in employment has.


    And can you elaborate a bit on the text in red above?


  • #504
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Go back and take a read of the bit you've quoted, that misinterpretation is so hilariously wrong that I can't begin to describe how foolish you look.

    Even then as usual you have removed tyhe context (talk about disingenuous) which is that the complaint is not about shoppers, but about posters complaining about it, when they freely admit that they're rarely in Galway at all.



    Much of the context is here, including numerous excerpts from your musings on the general subject: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85750010&postcount=495

    Any chance you could fashion a Unifying Theory of the Galway City Outer Bypass to explain why there seems to be so many disparate views regarding its intended function?





    EDIT: Now I think I get it. Maybe.
    antoobrien wrote: »
    Go back and take a read of the bit you've quoted, that misinterpretation is so hilariously wrong that I can't begin to describe how foolish you look.

    Even then as usual you have removed tyhe context (talk about disingenuous) which is that the complaint is not about shoppers, but about posters complaining about it, when they freely admit that they're rarely in Galway at all.
    antoobrien wrote: »
    Besides, all we have heard to this point is opposition to the plans, mostly from people outside of Galway (almost totally invalid, they don't have to sit in traffic to get the shopping) or from people who stand to land (which I have some sympathy for, and landowners should be compensated appropriately, but not extortionately, which has happened on other schemes around Galway). So maybe its time for the supporters to register their support and we'll see if (as is my opinion) there many more supporters than objectors to the project

    So the opinions of people from outside Galway regarding the GCOB, whether they just want to use it to go shopping or for some other reason, are valid if they support the bypass but not otherwise? Is that your position on this particular issue?


  • #505
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    So the opinions of people from outside Galway regarding the GCOB, whether they just want to use it to go shopping or for some other reason, are valid if they support the bypass but not otherwise? Is that your position on this particular issue?

    No people that don't come to Galway that often (or at all as a few people have said). There are a fair few people on here that do show a good level of knowledge that are not from Galway (and clearly so) and come here on business regularly. Those people I would listen to.

    People who freely admit to only coming once in the past 10 years I'd ignore either way. Would you listen to their opinions if thy said they said that due to their one experience in Galway that we needed a bypass? I think not, but you show no problem in using their arguments to bolster your claims, so stop with the hypocrisy, it's just making you look pettier than usual.


  • #506
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,122 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    antoobrien wrote: »
    ...so stop with the hypocrisy, it's just making you look pettier than usual.

    Ok more than enough warnings -- enjoy a week ban.


  • #507
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    antoobrien wrote: »
    So a 20 car increase equates to a 5% modal share increase. 20 cars is a rounding error in 12,000 journeys.

    As for kids, lets look back at the past:
    Year | 5-12 | Passengers (incl vans) | %
    96 | 5312 | 2363+41=2404 | 45%
    02 | 4817 | 2872+10=2882 | 59%
    06 | 4791 | 3005+10=3015 | 63%
    11 | 5253 | 3509+07=3516 | 52.5%


    Hey wait a sec, that's a severe drop off in the % of car & van passengers between 2006 & 2011, despite an actual increase (that makes a mockery of your 5% increase for 20 cars in 12,000 work journeys).

    Now let's look at the cycling and bus figures over that time:

    Year | 5-12 | cycle | bus
    96 | 5312 | 38 | 449
    02 | 4817 | 9 | 356
    06 | 4791 | 3 | 242
    11 | 5253 | 12 | 275


    Your assertion that the bypass is responsible for increases/drops is not supported by the trend shown over the past 4 census enumerations, as it shows increasing car numbers



    The Census figures and/or system of arithmetic you're using do not seem to compute.

    With regard to the figures in red, (a) where does the figure of 5253 come from, and (b) are you saying that 3516 is 52.5% of 5253?

    The 2011 Census figures I am using refer to 5360 primary school children aged 5-12, of which 3554 travel to school by car or van. That's 66% of children aged 5-12 travelling to school by private motor vehicle, which is what I posted earlier.

    I don't understand how you have come up with the figure of 52.5%, or how you arrived at your conclusion ("a severe drop off in the % of car & van passengers between 2006 & 2011, despite an actual increase") or even what that is supposed to mean.

    Details aside, what the 2006-2011 Census stats for Waterford City show is indeed greater car use. I'm not saying the Waterford bypass is responsible for those changes, I'm saying it made no difference in terms of what is supposed to be local and national policy, ie Smarter Travel and all that.

    The trend is towards increasing car use, and the Waterford bypass did not alter that trend in a positive direction. What reason is there to believe that the GCOB will be any different?


  • #508
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Okay, then lets do a though experiment. Lets remove the Stockholm (a favourite "sustainable" example) ring road. What happens?

    The approach roads get clogged up with traffic that is not trying to access areas on those routes but now have to use them in order to get to their intended destinations. This sounds eerily familiar, I wonder where we could have seen this before?

    I am not sure why we are comparing Galway with a city with about the same population as Dublin. The problem with this is that in Stockholm the availability of alternative routes, extensive public transport etc clearly was not enough to prevent avoidable traffic using the city centre. So they had to bring in a congestion charge in 2007.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_congestion_tax

    Even where Swedish levels of infrastructure investment are available active demand management is needed to stop motor traffic growing to fill all the available capacity.

    antoobrien wrote: »
    Your definition of common good is obviously very different from mine, because to me the common good includes providing/improving access to facilities, not removing it. Measures that restrict car use without practical alternatives will not help, they will make the situation worse - see the bus gate in Dublin for what happens when "sustainability" and practicality aren't in the same room when a project is touted.

    A solution that does not include a bypass of Galway is unsustainable because it will have the effect of further increasing the focus of traffic on the centre of the urban area, which is already unable to handle what it is getting.

    If cars, and car management are allowed to dominate all the available road capacity then the alternatives are less practical. If greater effort goes into securing greater convenience for private motor traffic then the alternatives, receiving less effort, or being deliberately restricted, cannot compete.

    Stockholm proves that simply having a bypass does not prevent traffic being focused in a particular area.
    antoobrien wrote: »
    But hey, we don't like cars in Galway, so lets not build a road that will keep those vehicles that do not need to be in the main commercial area out of it. That will help us get our "sustainable" future right?

    The principle behind the proposed bypass is the same one behind those cities that you describe as sustainable - removing traffic from areas that is not the intended destination of said traffic. A very simple concept that is very fundamental to providing true sustainability of traffic.

    Galway already has a bypass of sorts that it is not even trying to use properly. Why, despite a bypass, has car dependency continued to grow in Waterford at a time of record unemployment and record fuel prices?


  • #509
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    I am not sure why we are comparing Galway with a city with about the same population as Dublin.

    [...]

    Galway already has a bypass of sorts that it is not even trying to use properly. Why, despite a bypass, has car dependency continued to grow in Waterford at a time of record unemployment and record fuel prices?



    Stockholm is worth mentioning because of their highly effective congestion charge. That's one important approach to TDM that needs serious consideration in Galway City, imv.

    Perhaps those thanking post #496 above might provide an answer to your question regarding Waterford? They could also suggest an explanation for why the drop in employment supposedly led to both a reduction in walking, cycling and bus use and increased car use in that bypassed city.
    antoobrien wrote: »
    the bypass has clearly not caused the drop in in walking, cycling and bus use, the drop in employment has.


    Perhaps these posters, and others who have been vociferous in their support for the GCOB in various threads and forums over a long period, could also respond to the question I posed earlier.

    It is evident that among GCOB enthusiasts there is a range of opinion, often conflicting imo, with regard to the intended use of the proposed bypass. Can any of them, individually or collectively, come up with a Unifying Theory of the Galway City Outer Bypass to tie together the many disparate views regarding its supposed function?

    I've never been totally comfortable with the title of this thread, but if the question "is the GCOB needed" is to be answered satisfactorily, it would be helpful if its advocates were ad idem about what it's supposedly needed for.

    .


  • #510
    starlit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,349 ✭✭✭✭starlit


    The city itself takes a while to get into and a bottleneck for traffic be handy to have a bypass but how you go about it could be tricky.


  • Advertisement
  • #511
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    While we're waiting for the Final Theory that explains and draws together all the disparate views of what the GCOB is supposedly needed for (e.g. simultaneously taking current traffic out and bringing new traffic in) the earlier comment about the Stockholm congestion charge prompts me to wonder how such a measure might work in Galway.

    Stockholm is built on a number of islands. This makes it a beautiful waterfront city but the disadvantage in terms of transportation is that north-south traffic has no alternative but to follow routes through or near the core of the city.

    Sounds familiar?

    The geography of Stockholm also lent itself to the implementation of the system: electronic toll gates are sited at 18 locations around the perimeter (see map below). My understanding is that the objective of the charge in Stockholm was to reduce congestion at peak times, typically the morning and evening rush hours.


    Karta_over_betalstationernas_placering.gif


    There was popular, political and media opposition to the plan when it was first proposed (it was described as "the most expensive and painful way to commit political suicide ever devised") but there was sufficient political will and leadership to ensure that a trial period was implemented. The trial was very successful, and a majority approved the plan in a subsequent referendum. Support for the congestion charge actually increased over time. Source: http://www.tmleuven.be/expertise/seminar/20111205_Stockholm.pdf

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


    The geography of Galway City also lends itself to a congestion charge, in my opinion. This might be a topic worth exploring in its own thread, but for the moment I would suggest that there is no technical reason why the existing four bridges across the Corrib could not function as electronic toll gates. This would not preclude the inclusion of a future bypass in such a system. Charges would be organised in a way that achieved the desired congestion-reducing effects across the entire network, as part of a wider integrated TDM strategy.


Advertisement