Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
M6 - Galway City Ring Road [planning decision pending]
Options
Comments
-
It's shocking how calm the national media are about a proposed €500 million for a route that surrounds one city and serves that one county with scarcely any national benefit whatsoever. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/new-bridge-and-two-tunnels-in-galway-bypass-plan-1.2203561. One link I read even suggested the total cost could approach €750 million were tunnelling options to be selected.Well that's the problem, the whole process is about as clear as a barrel of mud. We have had no breakdown of proposed costings of any of the routes, let alone a reason why this "hybrid route" (it's western section around Bearna the Green route) was grafted together and why it's superior to other routes. (well anything would be superior to the routes closer to the city such as Red route!).
Likewise no cost breakdown, is the proposed costing purely for a road project or are the other aspects, or any details on funding model.
How much would it cost to build 5,000 houses in Athenry along with enhanced train services to Galway city... And have a single-carriageway outer route to safely handle HGV traffic and traffic that doesn't need to interact with Galway city...? I don't accept the premise that no additional crossings over the Corrib are necessary for motorists however the money being talked about is literally eye-watering.0 -
The 750million figure was for the Red Route (well or one of variations) which would have required at least 120 demolitions plus major cut/cover and bore.
As for Athenry, well as I've said many times the money wasted on the WRC would have been better spent restoring the double track section to Oranmore (which was single-tracked in the 1920's -- I also think Oranmore station is misplaced) and if possible extending it to Athenry.
You would however need a new station somewhere in likes of Renmore with shutter bus service to Ballybrit/Parkmore0 -
Schadenfreudia wrote: »The definitions of "sustainable transport" you quote both contain woolly terms similar to "sustainable" in the definitions. Pure waffle.
What's your definition of sustainable transport?Schadenfreudia wrote: »The net contribution of bypass related carbon emissions (plus or minus) which the Galway bypass will make to global warming are so
(1) tiny
(2) uncertain in nature
that any opposition to it on the grounds of its alleged negative environmental impact is akin to opposing public transport on the grounds of increased disease from air-borne human infections.
Do you think man-made climate change is real?Schadenfreudia wrote: »Not a problem on the proposed bypass; all the more reason to get those cars bypassing out of the city.
The M50 causes more congestion on local roads and on routes into the city, not less.
There's nothing to show that the same won't happen in Galway.0 -
-
Fine, don't build that junction then.I also heard something like that - one senior planner/engineer said "if the proposed junction for Parkmore goes ahead...". I got the impression they really want to put in that junction to serve commuters but think they might not get the go-ahead from ABP as it contravenes the stated purpose of the road as a bypass perhaps...
Only that's not what is (or should be) being proposed. So far as I am aware, very few people on this thread have called for the construction of a commuter motorway.Iwannahurl wrote: »It makes no sense to try to quarantine such discussion, unless what you really want is a nice clean aircon thread where nobody gets to question the wisdom of spending €500 million of public money to facilitate only car commuters travelling to their "good high end, highly paid positions".
As it stands, to travel from Dublin to Connemara or Limerick to Clifden you must use Galway City streets. Granted, not central streets, but city streets all the same very close to the CC. This traffic has no business in Galway, the people stuck with it don't want to be there are it doesn't help the city to have all that passing-through traffic.
There are only two choices for these movements. Continue to force them through Galway city, or put them on a road type more suitable for long distance traffic.
Could someone please explain why any sane person would (all things being equal) want the former state of affairs to continue?0 -
Advertisement
-
Now there's a nugget, I'm assuming they are talking about the grade separated junction, if they removed the link roads you wouldn't be able to get from the "bypass" to the N59, which if you ask me defeats one of main purposes of the road.
I have no idea what the engineering considerations might be, but in terms of the consultation process the impression I got was that ARUP are taking on board specific suggestions from affected people. I have heard that changes have been made based on local knowledge, specific requests or perhaps even agreement between neighbours close to the "emerging preferred route". Apparently members of the project team have gone out on their bikes(!) and visited locations along the proposed route/s.
Perhaps this is ARUP's own way of working, ie incremental design changes based on detailed feedback? I don't know. However, when it comes to making significant changes (eg an at-grade link versus a flyover on Cappagh Road) then what suits one set of people may have another group up in arms. The car commuters of Knocknacarra may welcome an access point close to their homes, while the residents of Mincloon may be relieved by the omission of the proposed link road in their area. Unfortunately the people living in Cappagh may be outraged at the prospect of increased traffic volume past their homes.
It's early days. I would expect some significant changes in due course. In theory the Integrated Traffic Management Plan could rule out the need for an expressway altogether (ARUP said this at the most recent public consultation) but I would be highly sceptical of that possibility. Not that I think it couldn't be done in theory, but when you have ARUP/NRA/Galway Co Co and a €500 million price-tag versus an NTA/pro-expressway PT-apathetic City Council declaring vague aspirations without even a hypothetical budget, it's already clear where official priorities lie. Given ARUP's brief, and their professional interest in structural engineering, the dominating philosophy will be about building infrastructure for vehicles and not about providing transport services for people, imo.0 -
Schadenfreudia wrote: »I don't have one - the phrase is meaningless.
It's not meaningless, you just don't like it because it generally excludes privite motorised transport.Schadenfreudia wrote: »Complete nonsense.
Tell that to the engineers who have to work on projects to upgrade roads round Sandyford etc to handle traffic coming off and onto the M50.0 -
Because vehicles are autonomous, independent entities that travel on their own from place to place for their own reasons? Or do vehicles serve people?Given ARUP's brief, and their professional interest in structural engineering, the dominating philosophy will be about building infrastructure for vehicles and not about providing transport services for people, imo.
The city in question was Kampala, capital of Uganda.This idea that there would be less traffic jams if only fewer roads were built is nonsense. I remember watching a Top Gear special where the boys were challenged to a road trip through an African country, including (unavoidably, presumably the country did not have the money for a 1st world road network including bypasses) passing through its capital city. It took them a full day to do this, so bad was the traffic.
Your theory, if I understand it correctly, is that failing to build roads promotes "sustainable" transport and discourages non-essential private car use. Ye associate building roads with "induced demand."Tell that to the engineers who have to work on projects to upgrade roads round Sandyford etc to handle traffic coming off and onto the M50.
And it's a crock - look at Kampala. People are literally willing to spend a day sitting in traffic because - shock of horrors - people have places to go. Of course, in Kampala people probably avoid any travel through it that is not absolutely unavoidable, but I don't think that's a good state of affairs.
We also know from Irish experience that if screwing motorists and failing to build roads was the solution to traffic problems, we wouldn't have traffic problems. And Kampala would be a blissful paradise of cycling and all the rest.0 -
Before we all head off to Kampala, Uganda to have a look at how they are getting it wrong, remember to get your submissions in for the Consultation #3 before the 12-June-2015
One can also view the public consultation exhibition proposals at the below addresses if you could not make the recent public meetings at the Menlo and Westwood Hotels.
N6 Galway City Transport Project,
Corporate House,
City East Business Park,
Ballybrit,
Galway
or
Integrated Transport Management Programme,
Galway City Council,
City Hall,
College Road,
Galway
See also(last page of this Brochure)
http://www.n6galwaycity.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/GCOB-4.03-17.3.3-004_PC-No.-3_Brochure.pdf0 -
Your theory, if I understand it correctly, is that failing to build roads promotes "sustainable" transport and discourages non-essential private car use. Ye associate building roads with "induced demand."
And it's a crock - look at Kampala. People are literally willing to spend a day sitting in traffic because - shock of horrors - people have places to go. Of course, in Kampala people probably avoid any travel through it that is not absolutely unavoidable, but I don't think that's a good state of affairs.
We also know from Irish experience that if screwing motorists and failing to build roads was the solution to traffic problems, we wouldn't have traffic problems. And Kampala would be a blissful paradise of cycling and all the rest.
No, failing to build roads and also failing to provide for and promote walking, cycling and public transport in workable and attractive ways, will mean you're stuck with what you have got.
The Netherlands had a headstart and isn't "blissful paradise of cycling" but for it to stop the decline and then grow the level of cycling took a lot of work. Just as the our car-culture took a lot of work from the motor industry, councils, the NRA etc.
I'm not anti-bypass. I do example support bypasses which gets large trucks and intercity traffic out of core city, town and village streets. Longford had that problem, Galway City does not.
We also know that people do crazy things with cars -- such as driving under 2km when walking is faster when parking etc is taken into account.0 -
Advertisement
-
Schadenfreudia wrote: »I don't have one - the phrase is meaningless.Schadenfreudia wrote: »What I'm saying is that based on their track record there is no reason to believe they are correct.
The definitions of "sustainable transport" you quote both contain woolly terms similar to "sustainable" in the definitions. Pure waffle.
That's an interesting graph; if you added 2014/15 the red line would be pointing further upwards.
In that context to argue about the Galway bypass in terms of unmeasurable "sustainability" is pointless. The only concrete measure of "sustainability" offered is carbon emissions.
The net contribution of bypass related carbon emissions (plus or minus) which the Galway bypass will make to global warming are so
(1) tiny
(2) uncertain in nature
that any opposition to it on the grounds of its alleged negative environmental impact is akin to opposing public transport on the grounds of increased disease from air-borne human infections.
Not a problem on the proposed bypass; all the more reason to get those cars bypassing out of the city.
Unless you can point to specific errors in the IMF's analysis, then you have no valid reason to believe they are incorrect. Argument by vague innuendo has no credibility. 'Put up or shut up' is the principle that applies here. Your beliefs about the IMF are irrelevant: what matters is whether you can show where their analyses are incorrect. Except you can't and you won't.
There is far more to Galway's ridiculous levels of car dependence than CO2 emissions, although the GHG issue is hugely important. Firstly, there are local pollutants due to vehicle exhausts, eg particulates, carbon monoxide, NOx, VOCs etc.
In 2012 the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer classified diesel exhaust as a Group 1 Human Carcinogen.
In 2010 the Irish car market share for diesel was 66%, and was increasing at a rate of three percentage points every six months. The ratio of petrol to diesel among new cars purchased in 2007 was 72% versus 28%. In 2013 the ratio had gone the other way: 27% versus 73%.
A new expressway built close to residential areas will therefore expose residents to emissions from thousands of diesel cars every day, because such vehicles will constitute a large majority of the fleet.
These local issues also bring us back neatly to the question of sustainability, which you seek to dismiss, again by innuendo rather than concrete facts.
An accumulation of local and regional problems can amount to a national problem, which in turn can become a global problem. This is why institutions such as the Royal Academy of Engineering support a 'think global, act local' philosophy:- Look beyond your own locality and the immediate future.
- Innovate and be creative.
- Seek a balanced solution.
- Seek engagement from all stakeholders.
- Make sure you know the needs and wants.
- Plan and manage effectively.
- Give sustainability the benefit of any doubt.
- If polluters must pollute – then they must pay as well.
- Adopt a holistic, ‘cradle-to-grave’ approach.
- Do things right, having decided on the right thing to do.
- Beware cost reductions that masquerade as value engineering.
- Practice what you preach.
There is more than one way to get cars out of the city. If an expressway is built without an overarching objective to reduce car use, and without realistic measures to achieve that objective, then the ultimate outcome is that we will be heading in the wrong direction in terms of sustainability. ARUP themselves recognise, in their corporate rhetoric at least, that sustainable development does not have to require new infrastructure:Sustainable infrastructure design is not just about new infrastructure. It is about rehabilitation, reuse or optimisation of existing infrastructure, which is consistent with the principles of urban sustainability and global sustainable development.
It remains to be seen whether they practice what they preach.0 -
I would say though that car engines driving in optimum conditions will release less pollutants than idling in traffic going over the QCB. Now while fun reading can we get back to actual route selection of this planned road?0
-
Iwannahurl wrote: »I have no idea what the engineering considerations might be, but in terms of the consultation process the impression I got was that ARUP are taking on board specific suggestions from affected people. I have heard that changes have been made based on local knowledge, specific requests or perhaps even agreement between neighbours close to the "emerging preferred route". Apparently members of the project team have gone out on their bikes(!) and visited locations along the proposed route/s.
Perhaps this is ARUP's own way of working, ie incremental design changes based on detailed feedback? I don't know. However, when it comes to making significant changes (eg an at-grade link versus a flyover on Cappagh Road) then what suits one set of people may have another group up in arms. The car commuters of Knocknacarra may welcome an access point close to their homes, while the residents of Mincloon may be relieved by the omission of the proposed link road in their area. Unfortunately the people living in Cappagh may be outraged at the prospect of increased traffic volume past their homes.
It's early days. I would expect some significant changes in due course. In theory the Integrated Traffic Management Plan could rule out the need for an expressway altogether (ARUP said this at the most recent public consultation) but I would be highly sceptical of that possibility. Not that I think it couldn't be done in theory, but when you have ARUP/NRA/Galway Co Co and a €500 million price-tag versus an NTA/pro-expressway PT-apathetic City Council declaring vague aspirations without even a hypothetical budget, it's already clear where official priorities lie. Given ARUP's brief, and their professional interest in structural engineering, the dominating philosophy will be about building infrastructure for vehicles and not about providing transport services for people, imo.
The lack of link-road to N59 is a no-goer as far as I'm concerned, without it you will not remove any N59 destined traffic from the QCB. As for HGV's destined to R336 they wouldn't be coming off at that junction anyways they'd stay on new road until it meets the current R336 west of Bearna.
Personally I prefered the green routes interconenction to N59 which was directly on it with no link-roads.0 -
There are only two choices for these movements. Continue to force them through Galway city, or put them on a road type more suitable for long distance traffic.
Could someone please explain why any sane person would (all things being equal) want the former state of affairs to continue?
I think I can explain this one.
As our public transport fans have admitted public transport is a pretty crap unpleasant way to get anywhere compared to cars.
So the only way to get more people to use it is to make any alternative equally crap.
Therefore we need to keep as much traffic as possible on the city streets.0 -
Why is there this insistence in claiming that Galway does not have a problem with trucks driving through it, when all available Corrib crossings come with a km or so of each other, and all go through the core of the city or the periphery of said core and certainly through the city proper. There's no way that the Seamus Quirke Road and the QCB is suitable for HGVs, with the residential, educational and shopping areas that surround the whole route to the Barna road.I'm not anti-bypass. I do example support bypasses which gets large trucks and intercity traffic out of core city, town and village streets. Longford had that problem, Galway City does not.
Another bypass project for a certain small village was refused planning permission ultimately because adequate alternatives were not explored. The subsequent report which looked into HGV bans and free truck use of a nearby toll road for a month still came to the same conclusion. A bypass was still needed. If there are no safe alternatives, there are no safe alternatives.0 -
I think I can explain this one.
As our public transport fans have admitted public transport is a pretty crap unpleasant way to get anywhere compared to cars.
So the only way to get more people to use it is to make any alternative equally crap.
Therefore we need to keep as much traffic as possible on the city streets.
Massive strawman there! But to expand on your point - it is stated government policy to encourage a modal shift to public transport. A public transport project is supposed to fit with that objective.
Option A - improving the public transport system to a high level that suits commuters so much that they choose to use it would be the ideal and would fit in with said objective. A large modal shift would take a lot of the traffic off city streets.
Option B - spending €500 million of public money on a road that will just facilitate more car travel and not encourage any kind of modal shift does not fit in with government policy.
It's not about making driving a crap alternative, it's about making PT the more attractive alternative, despite what you would like people to believe is the agenda.
Option A would probably cost a lot less than €500 million.0 -
-
Let's not forget either that local and national government was quite happy to stand idly by for decades as the car dependence problem festered. In Galway they were waiting for Godot (still are, now that I think of it) because Godot was going to fix the traffic congestion problem by building a "bypass". So no need to plan the city (or county) properly, or develop reliable and efficient public transport services.
Now apparently there are people in positions of influence/responsibility who have been heard to ask rhetorically at public consultations "why should the State provide public transport for people travelling to work?"0 -
Massive strawman there! But to expand on your point - it is stated government policy to encourage a modal shift to public transport. A public transport project is supposed to fit with that objective.
Option A - improving the public transport system to a high level that suits commuters so much that they choose to use it would be the ideal and would fit in with said objective. A large modal shift would take a lot of the traffic off city streets.
Option B - spending €500 million of public money on a road that will just facilitate more car travel and not encourage any kind of modal shift does not fit in with government policy.
It's not about making driving a crap alternative, it's about making PT the more attractive alternative, despite what you would like people to believe is the agenda.
Option A would probably cost a lot less than €500 million.
Just one very quick point that i'd like to point out on this, is that Option A will not cost a lot less then Option B. Some people on here reckon its just a case of painting some additional line markings on various roads, which is not the case, and even if it were, additional Buses need to be put on these lanes. CIE is losing money hand over fists as it is. A (very) quick google told me that Bus Eireann lost €54 million in a recent calendar year. Obviously this isnt all attributable to Galway but just say for argument sake we do paint a thicker white line on one of the lanes in each direction over the Quincentennial Bridge and put 6/8 new buses running on it and Bus Eireann's losses attributable to Galway rose to €20 million for the year. After 10 years you have half the road paid back.
Likewise, option B, the €500 million road is not a true cost (monetary that is, before people argue environmental/health/etc) as the amount of tax generated in the construction of the road (in VAT on the project itself, VAT on the materials, additional jobs, income tax on these additional jobs and the construction workers, Coporation Tax on the contractors profits and the manufacturers of the materials profits, the savings on Social welfare if the construction workers come from off of this, etc (the list goes on)).
Now I'm not saying that Option B will pay for itself, or that it aint a lot of money, and that there isnt other projects that may be more deserving of the money, I'm merely pointing out that the differences in costs between options A & B are not very large.0 -
ballinadog wrote: »Just one very quick point that i'd like to point out on this, is that Option A will not cost a lot less then Option B. Some people on here reckon its just a case of painting some additional line markings on various roads, which is not the case, and even if it were, additional Buses need to be put on these lanes. CIE is losing money hand over fists as it is. A (very) quick google told me that Bus Eireann lost €54 million in a recent calendar year. Obviously this isnt all attributable to Galway but just say for argument sake we do paint a thicker white line on one of the lanes in each direction over the Quincentennial Bridge and put 6/8 new buses running on it and Bus Eireann's losses attributable to Galway rose to €20 million for the year. After 10 years you have half the road paid back.
Likewise, option B, the €500 million road is not a true cost (monetary that is, before people argue environmental/health/etc) as the amount of tax generated in the construction of the road (in VAT on the project itself, VAT on the materials, additional jobs, income tax on these additional jobs and the construction workers, Coporation Tax on the contractors profits and the manufacturers of the materials profits, the savings on Social welfare if the construction workers come from off of this, etc (the list goes on)).
Now I'm not saying that Option B will pay for itself, or that it aint a lot of money, and that there isnt other projects that may be more deserving of the money, I'm merely pointing out that the differences in costs between options A & B are not very large.
I'd agree that spending on option A might be just as expensive as option B -- my thinking on option A is that it should include a tram line/s which would easily bring the cost up to €500m, the bus lanes and the road network in other places should also be upgraded but that can be done over time as happened and is still happening in Dublin.
The overall cost of Luas is now running at ~€1.5bn and it's investment which is well worth it. I don't agree that public transport always has to pay for itself but Luas pays for its operational costs.
As for "monetary that is, before people argue environmental/health/etc" -- these are monetary costs and as we won't hit or emissions targets, these factors will become more and more real.
And as for return from VAT on the materials, additional jobs, income tax on these additional jobs and the construction workers, etc etc -- all of this would also apply to a major public transport investment and plus public transport can lead to greater savings as it will allow Galway to grow more sustainable and would also help the city and city centre to remain attractive.0 -
Advertisement
-
It's not meaningless, you just don't like it because it generally excludes privite motorised transport.
Tell that to the engineers who have to work on projects to upgrade roads round Sandyford etc to handle traffic coming off and onto the M50.
I don't "like it" because it is ill-defined waffly nonsense. I am in no way opposed to public transport, as my posts will show.
There is increased traffic in the vicinity of the M50 interchanges; the claim that overall the M50 has increased traffic into (and in) the city is simply not accurate.
I can recall when it would take at least an hour to get past Leixlip heading west or to get to the Naas Road - at a time when the number of cars in Dublin was probably half what there is today.
Now it is very unusual for it to take more than 15 minutes (N7) - 17 minutes (N4) - even with all this "increased traffic" around the junctions at Sandyford.0 -
"probably" ?
Well we have no idea, have we, as everyone involved in the project didn't bother to explore the PT option until now, so we have a preferred route following extensive surveys and consultation and an approx. cost, while on the PT side all we have is a vague commitment to carry out surveys to assess the options. Joined-up thinking, right there...0 -
ballinadog wrote: »Now I'm not saying that Option B will pay for itself, or that it aint a lot of money, and that there isnt other projects that may be more deserving of the money, I'm merely pointing out that the differences in costs between options A & B are not very large.
The jobs/revenue argument in favour of roads is politically very seductive, especially in this country where public transport is seen as a cost to be suffered (or avoided if at all possible) rather than as a service to be provided.
But you're right: infrastructure for PT is only part of the story, and an efficient service will cost money to run.
Personally I would not try to argue that PT is cheaper. It is better, though, which is why the spending is justified. Perhaps it should get even more than the €500 million estimated for the expressway. I wonder how much it would cost to emulate the likes of this: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecoap/about-eco-innovation/good-practices/estonia/20130617-capital-of-free-public-transport_en.htm0 -
Iwannahurl wrote: »... an efficient service will cost money to run.
Some effective services -- ie Luas -- can cover their running costs.0 -
One thing I wonder though is what level of CPO/demolition would be required to put in place a light rail solution that actually was effective. While sitting on Green line LUAS earlier with the young fella, I was thinking it's just as well that the pre-existing rail route had been perserved. Even in case of Red route at least a large section of route follows the old rail reservation that was to run the proposed "DART to Tallaght" (as outlined back in the 70's)
In Galway given that there hasn't really been any reservations put in place I'd imagine it would lead to "fun" when it came to route selection of any such scheme.0 -
Well we have no idea, have we, as everyone involved in the project didn't bother to explore the PT option until now, so we have a preferred route following extensive surveys and consultation and an approx. cost, while on the PT side all we have is a vague commitment to carry out surveys to assess the options. Joined-up thinking, right there...
And given the nta's refusal to allow a good service in Galway, or From Swords to Dublin through the port tunnel, there is no guarantee they would allow a good solution for bus passengers.0 -
In Galway given that there hasn't really been any reservations put in place I'd imagine it would lead to "fun" when it came to route selection of any such scheme.
Given the amount of objections, complaints and delay (Garret Fitzgerald getting it hopelessly wrong; Mary O'Rourke tearing up the plan to start planning all over again in 1997 so that the digging in the city centre would not coincide with the next election) - I'd imagine a Luas through Galway would lead to at least a decade of "debate".
Meanwhile they can get on with building the bypass.0 -
It's interesting the level of scrutiny under which we, as a nation, put public transport infrastructure compared to road/car infrastructure.Schadenfreudia wrote: »[...] I'd imagine a Luas through Galway would lead to at least a decade of "debate".
Meanwhile they can get on with building the bypass.
(Not directed at you, or any "side", in particular. Just those two quoted sentences got me thinking. I mean, this whole thread has descended from an effectively illegal proposed road development project.)0 -
One thing I wonder though is what level of CPO/demolition would be required to put in place a light rail solution that actually was effective. While sitting on Green line LUAS earlier with the young fella, I was thinking it's just as well that the pre-existing rail route had been perserved. Even in case of Red route at least a large section of route follows the old rail reservation that was to run the proposed "DART to Tallaght" (as outlined back in the 70's)
In Galway given that there hasn't really been any reservations put in place I'd imagine it would lead to "fun" when it came to route selection of any such scheme.
I've been thinking about the same question for a while and this morning I put the results on paper, as such (ie Google Maps)...
http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057438782/
I was able to find routes with very few demolitions / CPOs of house (I think 2 min - 4 max).0 -
Advertisement
-
I've been thinking about the same question for a while and this morning I put the results on paper, as such (ie Google Maps)...
http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057438782/
I was able to find routes with very few demolitions / CPOs of house (I think 2 min - 4 max).
What's minimum width for LUAS for on street running (pylons suspended over whole road carriageway). From looking at the Naas road it's seems to be about 20 feet wide.
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.330342,-6.331822,3a,75y,59.21h,63.12t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1siJvfaqyoTyNbOsbY7CVn1g!2e0?hl=en
The Citadis trams can have a width of 2.3 -> 2.6metres, I'm not sure what's used on the LUAS, so you looking at probably a 6 metre corridor.
Do you have a link to your actual google map, it's bit hard to make out anything on the size of that screenshot (zoom to detail).0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement