Outer City Bypass

what_traffic · 08-05-2015 3:33pm

WildWater wrote: »

You are being rather selective in your quote of my two contributions!

Selective? What part did I miss in your original contribution? Did I misunderstood the point which you were making? I
still disagree with your point that there will be Zero impact to the Dangan playing fields.

what_traffic · 08-05-2015 3:43pm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

ARUP's Associate Director was on Galway Bay FM this morning and referred to the road as an "expressway".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited-access_road

What is being proposed, then, is not an outer bypass but a limited-access high-speed road, with one of its declared primary objectives being to facilitate "ten thousand" people (ARUP's words, as used on GBFM) to drive from residential areas west of the city to employment areas in the east.

Strangely, and rather tardily, the ARUP Associate Director also now says that the National Transport Authority is on board, because the overall project is intended to develop public transport solutions also. Indeed, she has said two quite different things: the expressway is the "right solution" for Galway, and "we can't keep building more roads".

I am very puzzled by this, and perhaps someone here can square the circle, because I have been unable to get a satisfactory answer despite repeatedly posing the question.

ARUP appears to hold two seemingly contradictory positions: (1) the proposed expressway will make driving much easier for ten thousand west-east car commuters and (2) the project will also develop public transport solutions.

So that's €600 million for an expressway to make cross-city driving easier, and how many more millions for developing a public transport system intended to persuade commuters not to use their cars?

If it's not a zero sum game, what is it?

This is an unusual statement alright. "We can't keep building more roads"
Does this mean after this proposed road is built?

http://galwaybayfm.ie/keith-finnegan-show-friday-may-8th/

From 42.12 onwards is the interview with NRA and ARUP official.
It is about 25 minutes long

zarquon · 08-05-2015 4:01pm

gordongekko wrote: »

There are very few going from knocknacarra to parkmore daily via public transport

If there was a single route covering the greater knocknacarra to parkmore then it would be viable. This is not the case however.

There is no point crying for greater public transport use when the use of such facilities is insufficient and inconvenient. Currently it requires at least 2 buses to get to parkmore and one has to navigate right through the city centre at peak times. There is the 405 from Dunnes, but if you live as far as the cappagh road, it's still at least a couple of kms to the bus stop and even then you only get as far as ballybrit.

It seems to me the people crying for more cross city public transport use are those who don't need to avail of it to completely traverse the city, i.e living closer to work or indeed living right next to convenient bus stops such as the 405.

How many of the militant PT proponents here, live on ballymoneen/cappagh or further environs and work in parkmore/ballybrit? For me cycling is the only alternative for such a scenario and even then one has to shower afterwards. Try also carrying a suit, shirt, etc and not creasing it whilst cycling. Completly impractical.

At the very least i would hope that this new road will offer opportunities for new bus corridors along the quincentenniel bridge or indeed using the new road and served by bus routes covering at the very least ballymoneen and cappagh.

Also, it doesn't take a genius to understand that in order to increase potential for public transportation facilitation in a very cramped and condensed city, one has to remove as much unnecessary peripheral traffic as possible. Yet some are becrying this project which is designed to alleviate congestion and increase potential space for PT. Incredibly shortsighted of such people who let their emotions rule over their head, considering that some feel that anything with an internal combustion engine was spawned by satan. Of course who cares about those with medical difficulties and disabilities who rely on this proverbial spawn of satan for mobility. Such people should be happy to limp their way or wheel their chair to a bus stop up a hill and then change through multiple buses to get to a destination! The environment is more important than independent mobility for the medically challenged. God forbid one of our militant cyclists should ever become temporarily or permanently disabled - i'd bet they would use the new ring road with glee then and be thankful for the facility!

On another note, can anyone remember back to the 80's when the quincentenniel bridge plans were heavily opposed by NUIG who stated that the construction would have a detrimental and destructive impact on the University. 30 years later we can clearly see they were correct and that the University never recovered from the ensuing destruction - Oh wait, it thrived!! I'm sure they are right this time though. :rolleyes:

Mrs OBumble · 08-05-2015 4:07pm

gordongekko wrote: »

There are very few going from knocknacarra to parkmore daily via public transport

Partly because it's via Eyre Square. And partly because it's a change of bus.

There are a number who travel between Upper Knocknacarra (aka Rahoon) and Ballbane/Ballybrit industrial because there is a direct bus service.

And a smaller number who travel between Lower Knocknacarra and Ballybrit industrial on the existing once-a-day bus.

?Cee?view · 08-05-2015 4:10pm

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

There are a number who travel between Upper Knocknacarra (aka Rahoon)...

Don't open that can of worms

zarquon · 08-05-2015 4:18pm

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Partly because it's via Eyre Square. And partly because it's a change of bus.

There are a number who travel between Upper Knocknacarra (aka Rahoon) and Ballbane/Ballybrit industrial because there is a direct bus service.

And a smaller number who travel between Lower Knocknacarra and Ballybrit industrial on the existing once-a-day bus.

This is true, however for me, it's a 25 walk to the 405 and then 40mins to an hour in traffic as far as ballybrit. Then another 5 min walk after. All in somewhere between 70 and 90 mins with 3 KM of walking involved too. Alternative 15 mins in the car. It's not a difficult choice for me and those in the same position as me.

Iwannahurl · 08-05-2015 4:21pm

crusier wrote: »

does peter sweetman play hurling?

Cricket.

kippy · 08-05-2015 4:27pm

death1234567 wrote: »

There's way, way too many variables, if's, buts and maybes in that scenario for any CPO system anywhere, ever, to take into account. It's completely unrealistic to expect any scheme to be able to factor all of those variables, e.g. earning losses, attitude of banks, inflation, availability of another house etc., into some magic equation and leave you with an exact amount for a CPO that leaves you where you stand now. The reality of a CPO is that some people will do well out of it and it will suit them, they could downsize their house, get more money than their land is really worth, etc. and some people will lose out, e.g. they won't want to move, kids might have to change schools etc.

C'est La Vie.

That's a ridiculous attitude to take.

Obviously it's full of if's and but's but there are bound to be people in the exact or similar situation as described especially seeing how the past decade has panned out.
It is completely ridiculous for the state to leave a family far worse off as a result of a CPO. Unless the CPO calculation takes account of some of these variables you will have people in FAR worse situations than they are in.
Whatever about leaving people "better off", leaving them "far worse off" (ie a debt of X and no option of buying again) is something that should not be tolerated Now, perhaps CPO's take account of these - I have no experience in the area.

Iwannahurl · 08-05-2015 4:35pm

?Cee?view wrote: »

:rolleyes:

There is something in what you don't say.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

One-way systems are not conducive to cycling, and are also advised against in the Public Transport Feasibility Study because they are not suitable for bus routes.

Despite this Galway City is stuffed full of one-way streets, and more are being added every year.*

*None of which currently have exemptions for cyclists, despite expert advice dating back to 1979, legislation dating back to at least 1997, policy objectives in the City Development Plan, and national policy in relation to the promotion of cycling.

And of course you are silent (":rolleyes:") on the other crucial issues, such as the lack of School Travel Plans, a proper school bus services, non-implementation of two major reports on public transport, decades of land use and transport planning failures, etc etc.

This is par for the course. People who walk, cycle or take the bus are part of the solution, not part of the problem. But they are expected to wait until car commuters get their €600 million expressway first. In this context, notions such as two-way cycle lanes on one-way arterial routes are just empty aspirations.

Iwannahurl · 08-05-2015 4:40pm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Completely incorrect, and missing the point entirely.

People who walk, cycle and use public transport are already part of the solution, not part of the problem.

People who drive habitually are the problem, and by continuing to do so make sustainable solutions even harder to achieve.

gordongekko wrote: »

Rubbish

Such eloquent, erudite, tightly reasoned and monosyllabic argument leaves me speechless.

Iwannahurl · 08-05-2015 4:47pm

what_traffic wrote: »

This is an unusual statement alright. "We can't keep building more roads"

Does this mean after this proposed road is built?

http://galwaybayfm.ie/keith-finnegan-show-friday-may-8th/

From 42.12 onwards is the interview with NRA and ARUP official.
It is about 25 minutes long

Curious, isn't it?

Does she mean "let's just build this itsy bitsy teeny weeny expressway to fix the problems caused by decades of poor land use planning and failure to develop a sustainable transportation policy, and then we'll stop because we can't keep building more roads."

Somehow it reminds me of St. Augustine: "Lord, grant me chastity and continence, but not yet."

dubhthach · 08-05-2015 5:01pm

expressway? Last time I look the legal term is Motorway.

Bobeagleburger · 08-05-2015 5:03pm

I know 2 people hoping they get a CPO on their property !

How much do people get does anyone know? Is it a set fee or how does it work?

Iwannahurl · 08-05-2015 5:03pm

zarquon wrote: »

1. At the very least i would hope that this new road will offer opportunities for new bus corridors along the quincentenniel bridge or indeed using the new road and served by bus routes covering at the very least ballymoneen and cappagh.

2. Also, it doesn't take a genius to understand that in order to increase potential for public transportation facilitation in a very cramped and condensed city, one has to remove as much unnecessary peripheral traffic as possible. Yet some are becrying this project which is designed to alleviate congestion and increase potential space for PT. Incredibly shortsighted of such people who let their emotions rule over their head, considering that some feel that anything with an internal combustion engine was spawned by satan.

3. Of course who cares about those with medical difficulties and disabilities who rely on this proverbial spawn of satan for mobility. Such people should be happy to limp their way or wheel their chair to a bus stop up a hill and then change through multiple buses to get to a destination! The environment is more important than independent mobility for the medically challenged. God forbid one of our militant cyclists should ever become temporarily or permanently disabled - i'd bet they would use the new ring road with glee then and be thankful for the facility!

4. On another note, can anyone remember back to the 80's when the quincentenniel bridge plans were heavily opposed by NUIG who stated that the construction would have a detrimental and destructive impact on the University. 30 years later we can clearly see they were correct and that the University never recovered from the ensuing destruction - Oh wait, it thrived!! I'm sure they are right this time though. :rolleyes:

1. Hopes and aspirations are no substitute for good public policy. Galway City Council, and the State generally, has failed for decades to develop public transport properly. Two major studies of public transport have been only partially implemented, and that's a generous assessment. If "ten thousand" car commuters are granted an expressway, who will fill the buses? I've asked this time and time again, and the questions is being dodged as far as I can see.

2. Galway is not a "very cramped and condensed city". By European standards it's a small town, and so the level of car dependence is just silly. Where does the traffic congestion go when the schools are off? What is "peripheral traffic" in that context, and in a situation where just 5% of traffic would be expected to travel the entire length of a "bypass"?

3. What proportion of the commuting population is disabled? And where is concern for the mobility of disabled people evident in the illegal parking in disabled spaces and on footpaths, which is absolutely rampant throughout the city? An expressway will not address that behavioural problem, which is just another manifestation of the Car is King culture which rules the city.

4. Back in the 80s, the Quincentenary Bridge was supposed to be a relief road. And then, to nobody's surprise, the City Council "planners" allowed major traffic-generating development around it, with free parking acting like a car magnet. It was only a few short years before more grumbling about traffic congestion started up.

Iwannahurl · 08-05-2015 5:07pm

zarquon wrote: »

15 mins in the car.

So you're saying that your cross-town car commute takes 15 minutes?

How much will a €600 million expressway take off that?

what_traffic · 08-05-2015 5:07pm

zarquon wrote: »

At the very least i would hope that this new road will offer opportunities for new bus corridors along the quincentenniel bridge or indeed using the new road and served by bus routes covering at the very least ballymoneen and cappagh.

Will this really happen? Strange after 18 months there are no plans produced by Arup, City Council or NRA outlining the slightest bit of information on the Public Transport element?

There is not one single proposal! Not even a hint.

It is hard to take the proposals on merit when this Basic information is omitted. Many householders directly(50) and indirectly affected(300) I am sure will be asking this question.

what_traffic · 08-05-2015 5:09pm

dubhthach wrote: »

expressway? Last time I look the legal term is Motorway.

On the local radio this morning the NRA and Arup official called it an "Expressway" and "Dual Carriageway".
A motorway it will not be?

Iwannahurl · 08-05-2015 5:12pm

what_traffic wrote: »

Strange after 18 months there are no plans produced by Arup, City Council or NRA outlining the slightest bit of information on the Public Transport element?

There is not one single proposal! Not even a hint.

Careful now!

There was a colouredy poster.

And senior ARUP and Council people were recently photographed in front of a screen on which was projected images of bikes and buses.

Credit where credit is due.

dubhthach · 08-05-2015 5:16pm

what_traffic wrote: »

On the local radio this morning the NRA and Arup official called it an "Expressway" and "Dual Carriageway".
A motorway it will not be?

Please show me the location in Irish statute book that defines Expressway. The technical term used by NRA for motorways in this country is "Type 1 Dual Carriageway" (Type 2 Dual-carriageway have wire barrier and no hard shoulders -- Tuam bypass will be Type 2).

Given that there are alternative routes available there's no reason why it shouldn't be subject to a Motorway order to at least the N59 junction (or to where DC part ends).

Iwannahurl · 08-05-2015 5:33pm

Semantics.

"Expressway" is probably more of a qualitative description at this stage. No decision has yet been made regarding the precise designation, afaik.

Expressway is what the ARUP Project Manager said, and it's perfectly acceptable shorthand at this stage of the project.

dubhthach · 08-05-2015 5:37pm

short hand? nawh I smell FUD to be honest.

Mrs OBumble · 08-05-2015 6:00pm

The last few posts are the first time I have heard "motorway" mentioned in the same content as the Galway Outer Bypass.

The fact that the project website is

http://www.n6galwaycity.ie/,

not

http://www.m6galwaycity.ie/

makes me think that dual-carriageway is the intended designation. I'd see "expressway" a shorthand for this.

And Knocknacarra-Parkmore Expressway has a nicer ring to it than Knocknacarra-Parkmore Dual-Carriageway.

dubhthach · 08-05-2015 6:05pm

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

The last few posts are the first time I have heard "motorway" mentioned in the same content as the Galway Outer Bypass.

The fact that the project website is

http://www.n6galwaycity.ie/,

not

http://www.m6galwaycity.ie/

makes me think that dual-carriageway is the intended designation. I'd see "expressway" a shorthand for this.

And Knocknacarra-Parkmore Expressway has a nicer ring to it than Knocknacarra-Parkmore Dual-Carriageway.

Just as the Ballinasloe to Galway motorway was the N6 Ballinasloe to Galway. It was designated motorway by minister issuing a motorway order. Of course legally speaking all of the M6 is technically part of the N6 route.

?Cee?view · 08-05-2015 6:27pm

dubhthach wrote: »

Just as the Ballinasloe to Galway motorway was the N6 Ballinasloe to Galway. It was designated motorway by minister issuing a motorway order. Of course legally speaking all of the M6 is technically part of the N6 route.

Is it not preferable that its designated a motorway to control development alongside it? The speed limit could still be lower than the motorway standard.

dubhthach · 08-05-2015 7:20pm

?Cee?view wrote: »

Is it not preferable that its designated a motorway to control development alongside it? The speed limit could still be lower than the motorway standard.

Exactly, this is the reason why all the "HQDC" were redesignated, so for example N18 from Shannon to Gort became M18 etc. It prevents local councillors getting ideas, and it also prevents local landholders from putting entrances onto the road (as doing so is illegal on motorways)

The S2 section I'm concerned about, tbh if they are going to go with S2 at least mandate that it has compulsory buslanes.

Crumbs868 · 08-05-2015 7:28pm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Semantics.
.

Pot, kettle.....

what_traffic · 08-05-2015 9:11pm

dubhthach wrote: »

Please show me the location in Irish statute book that defines Expressway. The technical term used by NRA for motorways in this country is "Type 1 Dual Carriageway" (Type 2 Dual-carriageway have wire barrier and no hard shoulders -- Tuam bypass will be Type 2).

Given that there are alternative routes available there's no reason why it shouldn't be subject to a Motorway order to at least the N59 junction (or to where DC part ends).

Ya I know. Maybe you could contact the NRA and the ARUP office about this. Sloppy language but they did use an old Galway City map as well.

dubhthach · 08-05-2015 9:22pm

what_traffic wrote: »

Ya I know. Maybe you could contact the NRA and the ARUP office about this. Sloppy language but they did use an old Galway City map as well.

It's the current OS map for that resolution. Perhaps you should get onto to the OS about updating it.

Of course if you look at the actual route selection map they use a fairly up todate high resolution map (which appears to have been sent out to affected land owners)

Iwannahurl · 08-05-2015 11:37pm

Crumbs868 wrote: »

Pot, kettle.....

...expressway.

what_traffic · 08-05-2015 11:56pm

dubhthach wrote: »

Of course if you look at the actual route selection map they use a fairly up todate high resolution map (which appears to have been sent out to affected land owners)

Why you making excuses for them now? Do the general public not deserve the same? This is basic stuff - if I turned up to work with a presentation with out of date information would be laughed out the door.
http://www.n6galwaycity.ie/phase-2/bulletin-6-07-05-2015/

This is the NRA/Galway City Council who have responsibility for the existing N6 and they don't have a proper map showing the changes they made to four junctions. That is a joke.

Outer City Bypass

Comments