M6 - Galway City Ring Road [planning decision pending]

xckjoo · 16-06-2021 9:42am

I'm opposed to it because all the research has shown it won't fix anything and is likely to make things worse. I used to think it was needed but why would I be for something that'll cost millions and do nothing to help? No point in sticking your head in the sand.

cgcsb · 16-06-2021 9:58am

tharlear wrote: »

Great point.

I think one thing I disagree with you on is that Galway will still expand, Look at any side road east of the Corrib and it is full of one off housing. The people in these houses will continue to drive their cars. Industrial expansion will take place between Galway airport to briarhill east/west, and Parkmore and Oranmore north/ south. The point where the original Galway bypass was meant to leave the m6 will be a new junction.

As you point out the people will vote, with their "feet" cars, and this type of development will led to more one off housing, more cars and more roads, but all on the east side of the river.

There is a lovely pictogram in an earlier post of cars people and buses. With busses everyone is sitting waiting for the bus that may come and the bus lane is empty, except for those who can afford a taxi.

Having looked at the quality of bike lanes on Seamus Quirk road, which mixes bikes and pedestrians, sets up bus passenger v cyclist crash point at ever bus stop, its a mess. Alot of work need to be done before you will convince even 20% of the population to cycle.

Those you appose the bypass need some massage other than we are going to force everyone to cycle, take a bus, or walk. you catch more fly's with honey than vinegar.

A small city like Galway with such short trip distance should really have 40-50% walking or cycling. As you correctly point cycling provision is poor and needs to be drastically improved. Even the bus connects plan shows that there will be exactly 0 metres of cycle lane in the city centre. Unacceptable really.

PT trips should be 20-30% and I think bus connects can achieve that. The cross city link can provide sufficiently improved speeds and reliability. Just a shame that walking and cycling got ignored in the process.

Modelling data shows that a road bypass will not resolve the congestion issue. Conemara to East of Galway and beyond trips are rare and there are few population centres west of Galway City

fmlarnapairce · 16-06-2021 12:36pm

cgcsb wrote: »

A small city like Galway with such short trip distance should really have 40-50% walking or cycling. As you correctly point cycling provision is poor and needs to be drastically improved. Even the bus connects plan shows that there will be exactly 0 metres of cycle lane in the city centre. Unacceptable really.

PT trips should be 20-30% and I think bus connects can achieve that. The cross city link can provide sufficiently improved speeds and reliability. Just a shame that walking and cycling got ignored in the process.

Modelling data shows that a road bypass will not resolve the congestion issue. Conemara to East of Galway and beyond trips are rare and there are few population centres west of Galway City

Businesses/deliveries/personal travel from Connemara / Moycullen / Clifden etc has to go through terrible traffic to get to the far side of Galway to continue onwards journey to Dublin, Limerick, Cork etc. A ring road, or whatever you want to call it, will make a huge difference to all of us living out this direction. Or all of us living out here and working in Parkmore etc. I do not want to clog up the city centre streets, if there was a suitable park and ride and I wanted to go into the city centre, I would use it. But there is no plan for a P&R that will bring people living rurally in the west of the county out to places of high employment (parkmore etc). I know i am going to get mauled for this view, and I know I do not have the same stats back up that others here seem to have, but I would be happy if this road was built, it would make my families life better, less time in transit.
In my opinion there are two problems here, issue of traveling from west to east to west without having to go through 50 roundabouts and 20 sets of lights, and the issue with PT in city centre, catering for all of those who live in the city. Both can be addressed, I do not see why you can only have a ring road or only have improved PT, both are needed. Improved PT will never make my or my wifes journey to Parkmore quicker and will never involved less than two buses.

what_traffic · 16-06-2021 12:47pm

fmlarnapairce wrote: »

In my opinion there are two problems here, issue of traveling from west to east to west without having to go through 50 roundabouts and 20 sets of lights, and the issue with PT in city centre, catering for all of those who live in the city. Both can be addressed, I do not see why you can only have a ring road or only have improved PT, both are needed. Improved PT will never make my or my wifes journey to Parkmore quicker and will never involved less than two buses.

All named after the 50 tribes of Galway City as well I presume?

fmlarnapairce · 16-06-2021 12:54pm

what_traffic wrote: »

All named after the 50 tribes of Galway City as well I presume?

that is what you pull me up on? I'm getting off light

what_traffic · 16-06-2021 2:00pm

fmlarnapairce wrote: »

that is what you pull me up on? I'm getting off light

Presumed it was a typo and you meant to say 5?

Aontachtoir · 16-06-2021 4:38pm

fmlarnapairce wrote: »

Businesses/deliveries/personal travel from Connemara / Moycullen / Clifden etc has to go through terrible traffic to get to the far side of Galway to continue onwards journey to Dublin, Limerick, Cork etc. A ring road, or whatever you want to call it, will make a huge difference to all of us living out this direction. Or all of us living out here and working in Parkmore etc. I do not want to clog up the city centre streets, if there was a suitable park and ride and I wanted to go into the city centre, I would use it. But there is no plan for a P&R that will bring people living rurally in the west of the county out to places of high employment (parkmore etc). I know i am going to get mauled for this view, and I know I do not have the same stats back up that others here seem to have, but I would be happy if this road was built, it would make my families life better, less time in transit.
In my opinion there are two problems here, issue of traveling from west to east to west without having to go through 50 roundabouts and 20 sets of lights, and the issue with PT in city centre, catering for all of those who live in the city. Both can be addressed, I do not see why you can only have a ring road or only have improved PT, both are needed. Improved PT will never make my or my wifes journey to Parkmore quicker and will never involved less than two buses.

Expecting to be able to drive from your front door to your destination is outdated 20th century thinking. You should be excited to cycle to your nearest bus stop, taking as many buses as necessary to get as close to your destination as you can, and then walking the rest of the way, twice a day, and especially in the winter.

More seriously though, your comment is bang on the money. It's not an either/or situation, and pretending it is won't help. More PT is needed to facilitate the subset of journeys that can easily be moved to PT, and a better road network is needed to facilitate the separate subset of journeys that can't.

Sam Russell · 16-06-2021 4:45pm

Aontachtoir wrote: »

Expecting to be able to drive from your front door to your destination is outdated 20th century thinking. You should be excited to cycle to your nearest bus stop, taking as many buses as necessary to get as close to your destination as you can, and then walking the rest of the way, twice a day, and especially in the winter.

More seriously though, your comment is bang on the money. It's not an either/or situation, and pretending it is won't help. More PT is needed to facilitate the subset of journeys that can easily be moved to PT, and a better road network is needed to facilitate the separate subset of journeys that can't.

The argument is about which journeys are in which group.

It is like the Covid argument as to which journeys are essential - mine are, but yours are not - it is that simple.

Remember, the proposed by-pass- renamed the City Ring Road - will not be built within a decade at the earliest - and may be renamed and re-routed several times before it actual gets built.

However, better public transport can be in place within a year or two, and Covid has shown cycling infrastructure can be in place in months.

Aontachtoir · 16-06-2021 4:55pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

The argument is about which journeys are in which group.

It is like the Covid argument as to which journeys are essential - mine are, but yours are not - it is that simple.

Remember, the proposed by-pass- renamed the City Ring Road - will not be built within a decade at the earliest - and may be renamed and re-routed several times before it actual gets built.

However, better public transport can be in place within a year or two, and Covid has shown cycling infrastructure can be in place in months.

Covid has shown that cycling infrastructure can be put in place easily if there is a sudden economic collapse leading to an incredible fall in traffic. It will be interesting to see what effect those cycle lanes have on cycling numbers and overall traffic as economic activity begins to return to prepandemic levels.

I don't care what the bypass is called. If it's going to take a decade, we should be pushing full steam ahead right now, and PT can be provided in the meantime. If everyone in Galway has a Damascene conversion in the intervening years and decides that using PT is actually far preferable to driving, problem solved, and the state can opt not to tender the construction contract. If, as I suspect, the people of Galway continue to prefer the comfort and convenience of their cars by a wide margin even if it means sitting in traffic, the PT option will have failed to live up to its promise and the construction contract can be progressed.

Edit: I would add that outside the emergency setting of an international pandemic, individual citizens are probably the people who should be deciding whether their journeys can be replaced by PT or not.

xckjoo · 16-06-2021 4:59pm

Aontachtoir wrote: »

Expecting to be able to drive from your front door to your destination is outdated 20th century thinking. You should be excited to cycle to your nearest bus stop, taking as many buses as necessary to get as close to your destination as you can, and then walking the rest of the way, twice a day, and especially in the winter.

More seriously though, your comment is bang on the money. It's not an either/or situation, and pretending it is won't help. More PT is needed to facilitate the subset of journeys that can easily be moved to PT, and a better road network is needed to facilitate the separate subset of journeys that can't.

If only it was that easy. Building the road would be direct competition for a move to more efficient transport strategies. Efficient referring to the movement of volumes of people from place to place. If the road is built then we'll probably (hopefully?) see an initial improvement in traffic and travel times which will encouraged more car usage and sparse housing developments. Even if there was massive PT development at the same time, it'll be under utilised because people are already invested in their car and home. So that'll atrophy over time since it'll cost more to maintain than it's bringing in and there'll be pressure to "better" spend the money. But at the same time, the new road network will quickly reach capacity with all the new people using it and traffic will be back to current levels in no time. And we're back to square 1 with a lot of wasted money in the meantime.

Also worth remembering that if you live in the country and don't have alternatives to using the car, then you want as many people as possible in the city moving away from cars as they'll just clog up the roads and will get there first since they don't have as far to go.

Sam Russell · 16-06-2021 4:59pm

Aontachtoir wrote: »

Covid has shown that cycling infrastructure can be put in place easily if there is a sudden economic collapse leading to an incredible fall in traffic. It will be interesting to see what effect those cycle lanes have on cycling numbers and overall traffic as economic activity begins to return to prepandemic levels.

I don't care what the bypass is called. If it's going to take a decade, we should be pushing full steam ahead right now, and PT can be provided in the meantime. If everyone in Galway has a Damascene conversion in the intervening years and decides that using PT is actually far preferable to driving, problem solved, and the state can opt not to tender the construction contract. If, as I suspect, the people of Galway continue to prefer the comfort and convenience of their cars by a wide margin even if it means sitting in traffic, the PT option will have failed to live up to its promise and the construction contract can be progressed.

It will take at least a decade - there are too many obstacles to overcome. Funding is one of them, environment is another.

xckjoo · 16-06-2021 5:07pm

Aontachtoir wrote: »

Edit: I would add that outside the emergency setting of an international pandemic, individual citizens are probably the people who should be deciding whether their journeys can be replaced by PT or not.

Why? People make selfish decisions, not ones that'll improve things for everyone i.e. "everyone else should take the bus so I can drive places faster"

Aontachtoir · 16-06-2021 5:32pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

It will take at least a decade - there are too many obstacles to overcome. Funding is one of them, environment is another.

Great. If those problems look insurmountable in a few years' time, we can look at solutions then (changing planning laws, changing the government, etc). For now, best to just plough ahead with planning etc so no time is wasted. At this stage it costs very little.

xckjoo wrote: »

If only it was that easy. Building the road would be direct competition for a move to more efficient transport strategies.

This is the sort of thing that is problematic. It is an open acknowledgement that people prefer cars, even when a well-resourced PT system is available, but is coupled with a refusal to sensibly expand capacity to allow for the increase in cars that go with a rapidly expanding population in case it makes people's lives too easy. It's just saying "yes, we know PT is inconvenient and you would rather not use it, so we're going to make your life harder and harder until you give up and just start waiting for the bus." It comes across as negative and controlling.

xckjoo wrote: »

Why? People make selfish decisions, not ones that'll improve things for everyone i.e. "everyone else should take the bus so I can drive places faster"

I would suggest that people are individually better able to make a decision about what works best for their circumstances and preferences. We're not living in China.

If PT gets me to my destination and back more quickly and conveniently than driving, I will take PT. If it doesn't, I will drive. Your comment above suggests that you know PT likely won't ever get me where I need to go as well as driving can, but I should still have to use PT anyway. That seems a bit much.

donvito99 · 16-06-2021 6:56pm

Aontachtoir wrote: »

If PT gets me to my destination and back more quickly and conveniently than driving, I will take PT.

This is why the road, as planned, won't ease congestion. It's a billion year relief car park for rush hour.

cgcsb · 16-06-2021 7:18pm

fmlarnapairce wrote: »

Businesses/deliveries/personal travel from Connemara / Moycullen / Clifden etc has to go through terrible traffic to get to the far side of Galway to continue onwards journey to Dublin, Limerick, Cork etc.

And the solution to that is to reduce traffic through a dramatic improvement to public transport along with walking and cycling infrastructure. Those journeys, which are very few, can then continue relatively unhindered on existing roads.

fmlarnapairce wrote: »

A ring road, or whatever you want to call it, will make a huge difference to all of us living out this direction. Or all of us living out here and working in Parkmore etc. I do not want to clog up the city centre streets, if there was a suitable park and ride and I wanted to go into the city centre, I would use it. But there is no plan for a P&R that will bring people living rurally in the west of the county out to places of high employment (parkmore etc). I know i am going to get mauled for this view, and I know I do not have the same stats back up that others here seem to have, but I would be happy if this road was built, it would make my families life better, less time in transit.
In my opinion there are two problems here, issue of traveling from west to east to west without having to go through 50 roundabouts and 20 sets of lights, and the issue with PT in city centre, catering for all of those who live in the city. Both can be addressed, I do not see why you can only have a ring road or only have improved PT, both are needed. Improved PT will never make my or my wifes journey to Parkmore quicker and will never involved less than two buses.

Quite simply value for money. You're talking about 750 to 1000 million euro for the sake of a handful of journeys. That will have to be weighed against what sustainable transport infrastructure could be bought for the same amount. Also it's not only Galway projects looking for funding.

Covidhaveago · 16-06-2021 9:03pm

Aontachtoir wrote: »

I would suggest that people are individually better able to make a decision about what works best for their circumstances and preferences. We're not living in China.

Indeed, here in Ireland, people are free to live as they like, unlike China. So if they want to run a 2 car household in an exurb or rural one off on the periphery of a small urban area like Galway, they can do so.

The problem is, proponents of this way of living also expect the taxpayer to spend the guts of a billion euro on the Galway ring road to facilitate this lifestyle. That's not realistic.

donvito99 · 16-06-2021 9:06pm

Ironically, if we were living in China, Galway would have three ring roads on stilts built in the last 6 years.

beerguts · 16-06-2021 9:21pm

This thread is nuts. There are posters on here with a complete anti car agenda. Let's sum up the existing infrastructure for galway West.
At the moment there is only one suitable road across the corrib (quincentennial Bridge). The other routes require you to go through the city center and are not designed for heavy traffic, so there is only one route. This services the main estates/areas of the city (Knocknaccara, Salthill and Newcastle) plus the villages on the coast and into connemara (Spidéal, Barna, Moycullen, Oughterard and Clifden) an area with a population on par with a lot of counties in its own right. All serviced by a single carriage road that funnels all traffic into the same choke point at Terryland. And you guys have this fantasy that people are going to be persuaded to give up their own transport when they have been encouraged over the last 40 years to build in a dispersed manner both for domestic and business. Give me a break the road is required.

donvito99 · 16-06-2021 9:38pm

beerguts wrote: »

This thread is nuts. There are posters on here with a complete anti car traffic agenda. Let's sum up the existing infrastructure for galway West.
At the moment there is only one suitable road across the corrib (quincentennial Bridge). The other routes require you to go through the city center and are not designed for heavy traffic, so there is only one route. This services the main estates/areas of the city (Knocknaccara, Salthill and Newcastle) plus the villages on the coast and into connemara (Spidéal, Barna, Moycullen, Oughterard and Clifden) an area with a population on par with a lot of counties in its own right. All serviced by a single carriage road that funnels all traffic into the same choke point at Terryland. And you guys have this fantasy that people are going to be persuaded to give up their own transport when they have been encouraged over the last 40 years to build in a dispersed manner both for domestic and business. Give me a break the road is required.

FYP.

Galway is a small city with concentrated areas of employment, education, health services that can be addressed by two trunk, quality public transport routes for peanuts. Journey times by bus v the private car today would be outstanding.

A proper, limited access bypass is required. The present proposal to have a junction at every housing estate distributor road, business park and national route is an expensive recipe for disaster.

Sam Russell · 16-06-2021 9:48pm

beerguts wrote: »

This thread is nuts. There are posters on here with a complete anti car agenda. Let's sum up the existing infrastructure for galway West.
At the moment there is only one suitable road across the corrib (quincentennial Bridge). The other routes require you to go through the city center and are not designed for heavy traffic, so there is only one route. This services the main estates/areas of the city (Knocknaccara, Salthill and Newcastle) plus the villages on the coast and into connemara (Spidéal, Barna, Moycullen, Oughterard and Clifden) an area with a population on par with a lot of counties in its own right. All serviced by a single carriage road that funnels all traffic into the same choke point at Terryland. And you guys have this fantasy that people are going to be persuaded to give up their own transport when they have been encouraged over the last 40 years to build in a dispersed manner both for domestic and business. Give me a break the road is required.

1: No-one was 'encouraged' to build houses in a dispersed manner. It was done in spite of proper planning, These developments were unsustainable, required significant infrastructure, and were built with insufficient water supplies, and inadequate drainage. Now they require significant investment by the State to bring broadband to them so they can watch Netflix, Disney+ and other streaming services rather than Saorview and Freesat.

2. No PT crosses the QCB which was built in 1988. Why not? Is it not fit for purpose, or is it Galway has no need for PT as they can ask Central Gov for a few more Euros to have another go at solving the traffic problem. They had Bothar ns dTreabh, the M17 and M18, the loads of roundabouts - one for every Tribe, and then decided that they did not work, so removed them again.

3, The Coolagh roundabout is better as a car park in the morning, so what will improve that - oh, a new motorway might work.

4. They put the industrial estates on the east side, and the houses on the west side - there is good planning for you, Of course it is OK if the Central Government will fund another attempt at a solution.

Big IF.

Aontachtoir · 16-06-2021 9:51pm

donvito99 wrote: »

This is why the road, as planned, won't ease congestion. It's a billion year relief car park for rush hour.

Is this based on an assumption that there will be no investment in PT in the intervening period? Or that PT will be provided and will fail to relieve traffic?

Covidhaveago wrote: »

Indeed, here in Ireland, people are free to live as they like, unlike China. So if they want to run a 2 car household in an exurb or rural one off on the periphery of a small urban area like Galway, they can do so.

The problem is, proponents of this way of living also expect the taxpayer to spend the guts of a billion euro on the Galway ring road to facilitate this lifestyle. That's not realistic.

You mean, if an average Irish taxpayer chooses to live in a typical Irish dwelling and travels by by far the most common mode of transport in Ireland (and anywhere else in the world, for that matter) it is not realistic to expect that the Irish government would plan for this choice, given that rural living and car use have been basic features of Irish society since the state was founded?

Where on earth did this mentality come from? Do people now also oppose building new hospitals, schools, power plants etc if the currently-available ones cannot meet demand? Or does refusing to expand capacity to meet the entirely predictable needs of a growing population solely apply to transportation?

donvito99 · 16-06-2021 10:02pm

Aontachtoir wrote: »

Is this based on an assumption that there will be no investment in PT in the intervening period? Or that PT will be provided and will fail to relieve traffic?

Public transport never relieves traffic. It just allows you to beat it. This is the nature of traffic the world over. This road just puts it somewhere else and will in fact encourage more of it, far in excess of any natural growth of population of economic activity in the city.

given that rural living and car use have been basic features of Irish society since the state was founded?

I don't recall people taking their motor cars from Rossaveal to work in a medical devices plant east of the Corrib in 1922.

Where on earth did this mentality come from? Do people now also oppose building new hospitals, schools, power plants etc if the currently-available ones cannot meet demand? Or does refusing to expand capacity to meet the entirely predictable needs of a growing population solely apply to transportation?

You can take things to the extreme if you want. The point being made is that this road will further weaken Galway as a city, spreading out the population even further when it ought to be concentrated in proximity to where people actually live their lives. Doing this will avoid the extraordinary cost, relative to the population, of massive road projects that encourages more sprawl.

cgcsb · 16-06-2021 11:00pm

beerguts wrote: »

This services the main estates/areas of the city (Knocknaccara, Salthill and Newcastle) plus the villages on the coast and into connemara (Spidéal, Barna, Moycullen, Oughterard and Clifden) an area with a population on par with a lot of counties in its own right

Sorry, wha??

Aontachtoir · 17-06-2021 12:52am

donvito99 wrote: »

Public transport never relieves traffic. It just allows you to beat it. This is the nature of traffic the world over. This road just puts it somewhere else and will in fact encourage more of it, far in excess of any natural growth of population of economic activity in the city.

But this is like complaining that more people use the healthcare system when better screening services and treatments are provided. If people have better access to any service, of course they're going to use it more. If a hospital A&E is persistently overcrowded and unable to adequately service its target population (even though it could when it was originally built), is the answer to refuse to expand the department, hire more staff, or even build an extra one to help relieve the pressure? Or maybe insist that patients go home and make themselves healthier so they don't need to come to hospital? Of course not. You invest in a multipronged approach, part of which is to invest in public health, and part of which is to expand the infrastructure. In the same way, if the road network cannot adequately service the population using it, it should be expanded until it can, recognising that it will still likely need to be expanded in the future, because growth of cities is as inevitable as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.

donvito99 wrote: »

I don't recall people taking their motor cars from Rossaveal to work in a medical devices plant east of the Corrib in 1922.

Ah, you've got me there. I forgot they were using the ol' Royal BusConnects back then.

donvito99 wrote: »

You can take things to the extreme if you want. The point being made is that this road will further weaken Galway as a city, spreading out the population even further when it ought to be concentrated in proximity to where people actually live their lives. Doing this will avoid the extraordinary cost, relative to the population, of massive road projects that encourages more sprawl.

You can put it in bold and try to make it as alarming as possible. The fact of the matter is that good infrastructure costs money, and it won't get any cheaper over time. Even if it costs a billion euro, that's still far less than the Children's Hospital, which will surely just induce demand and be too full in a few years' time, right?

Separately, I don't have the foggiest what you mean by "weakening the city." What does that mean? Cities across Ireland and Europe and the world have massively, massively expanded over the past two centuries. Is London weaker than it was when it was just the City of London? Is Dublin weaker than when it was just the area between the canals? Is Cork weaker than when it was the area around the centre island? Cities grow. That is how they become stronger.

But look. The solution is simple. Just put in the PT while we're waiting for the road to go through the planning stages. Surely the people of Galway will rejoice and giddily abandon their cars to ride the bus. When the road gets through planning and is no longer necessary, then there's no need to invest in it. Of course, if by that point PT has failed to fix the problem, it is unlikely to ever do so, and more infrastructure will definitely be necessary. But at least we'll know.

17-06-2021 9:53am

Sam Russell wrote: »

2. No PT crosses the QCB which was built in 1988. Why not?

Answered each time you bring this up, recommend you go back and look at the last few times you posted this and the replies

CatInABox · 17-06-2021 10:23am

The climate action bill passed the Dail today, and with that, the prospects for this road diminish even further, in my opinion. Given that our commitments under the Paris Agreement now have legal force in Ireland, a child that can't read or write could rock up to the high court and get any planning permission for this road overturned.

xckjoo · 17-06-2021 10:31am

Aontachtoir wrote: »

This is the sort of thing that is problematic. It is an open acknowledgement that people prefer cars, even when a well-resourced PT system is available, but is coupled with a refusal to sensibly expand capacity to allow for the increase in cars that go with a rapidly expanding population in case it makes people's lives too easy. It's just saying "yes, we know PT is inconvenient and you would rather not use it, so we're going to make your life harder and harder until you give up and just start waiting for the bus." It comes across as negative and controlling.

I would suggest that people are individually better able to make a decision about what works best for their circumstances and preferences. We're not living in China.

If PT gets me to my destination and back more quickly and conveniently than driving, I will take PT. If it doesn't, I will drive. Your comment above suggests that you know PT likely won't ever get me where I need to go as well as driving can, but I should still have to use PT anyway. That seems a bit much.

And I'd like to not have to pay any tax while having the most amazing services possible i.e. just because the individual wants something doesn't mean much, it's the governments job to look out for the greater societal good; which in this case is lower overall commute/travel times for the general population and not just catering to the individual and their desire for convenience.

There's also a problem of scarcity of resources that you don't seem to acknowledge. There's money, materials and just basic physics. Even if we build roads with x10 the capacity, we'll still have bottlenecks at the places everyone is going to/from.

Aontachtoir wrote: »

But this is like complaining that more people use the healthcare system when better screening services and treatments are provided. If people have better access to any service, of course they're going to use it more. If a hospital A&E is persistently overcrowded and unable to adequately service its target population (even though it could when it was originally built), is the answer to refuse to expand the department, hire more staff, or even build an extra one to help relieve the pressure? Or maybe insist that patients go home and make themselves healthier so they don't need to come to hospital? Of course not. You invest in a multipronged approach, part of which is to invest in public health, and part of which is to expand the infrastructure. In the same way, if the road network cannot adequately service the population using it, it should be expanded until it can, recognising that it will still likely need to be expanded in the future, because growth of cities is as inevitable as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.

For years we've thrown more and more money at the healthcare system and they've hired more and more people, yet we've got longer waiting lists and a creakier healthcare system than ever before. Bit like the way we've thrown more and more money at road building but have more traffic than ever before. Time for a different approach or continue to do the same?

Aontachtoir wrote: »

You can put it in bold and try to make it as alarming as possible. The fact of the matter is that good infrastructure costs money, and it won't get any cheaper over time. Even if it costs a billion euro, that's still far less than the Children's Hospital, which will surely just induce demand and be too full in a few years' time, right?

This is where I'm starting to doubt if you're serious with these arguments. We're back to the scarcity of resources issue. There's no bottomless pit of money to implement every single approach at once and just hope for the best. Do you continuously buy things (houses, cars, art, etc.) because they'll cost more in the future or do you look at what you can afford and make purchasing decisions based on that? Or are you suggesting that travel infrastructure should take priority over healthcare? Also, please provide some evidence that induced demand is a detriment to the healthcare industry because you're really coming across poorly with these kinds of statements. Induced demand is a proven issue in transport development but I've never come across it in respect to childrens healthcare.

Aontachtoir wrote: »

But look. The solution is simple. Just put in the PT while we're waiting for the road to go through the planning stages. Surely the people of Galway will rejoice and giddily abandon their cars to ride the bus. When the road gets through planning and is no longer necessary, then there's no need to invest in it. Of course, if by that point PT has failed to fix the problem, it is unlikely to ever do so, and more infrastructure will definitely be necessary. But at least we'll know.

I agree with you here. They should have started the PT investment years ago and then reviewed to see if more roads are needed. It looks like we might be seeing some progress with it now so fingers crossed.

But you do realise all these planning applications and everything around it are costly don't you? I'd say we're in the hole on this project for millions already.

17-06-2021 12:42pm

xckjoo wrote: »

But you do realise all these planning applications and everything around it are costly don't you? I'd say we're in the hole on this project for millions already.

This is one thing I find fascinating wrt publiclly funded projects. In the private sector, if you are assessing whether to continue with a project the one thing you don't consider is how much you've already spent.

I have seen projects with a total cost in excess of 100 mil being canned after 20+ million has been spent and thats not the only one.

The public sector appear opposed to doing this and it often looks like if they spend X amount they have to keep going even if the project is no longer justified.

KrisW1001 · 17-06-2021 12:58pm

The private sector invests to raise revenue and/or profit. A write-off of 20 M from cancelling a 100 M project can be justified by an making 30 M more in profits if the remaining 80 M of funding is allocated to a different project.

Public sector projects are all cost, with (usually) no revenue, so having 20 M poured into the hole is not something that can be easily offset. You either finish the job, or you have to answer for wasting 20 M of funding.

Private companies also have very short horizons: at best, five to ten years; the government spends on a 20-50 year timescale.

remfan · 17-06-2021 2:22pm

Having read the summary of the climate action bill I don't see how this makes it any easier to object, what would the basis of any such objection be on the strength of this?

Aontachtoir · 17-06-2021 3:15pm

xckjoo wrote: »

For years we've thrown more and more money at the healthcare system and they've hired more and more people, yet we've got longer waiting lists and a creakier healthcare system than ever before. Bit like the way we've thrown more and more money at road building but have more traffic than ever before. Time for a different approach or continue to do the same?

Good question. The healthcare service clearly doesn't have enough capacity, and the more healthcare services we provide, the more people seem to be using them. No matter how many operating rooms we build, no matter how big the A&Es are, no matter how many beds we open, there never seems to be enough. Patient numbers keep rising to take account of expansions in service. If this isn't induced demand, how does it meaningfully differ?

So, do we leave people languishing in waiting rooms and on waiting lists? Or do we invest in expanding infrastructure along with more public health measures? What are your thoughts on this?

xckjoo wrote: »

But you do realise all these planning applications and everything around it are costly don't you? I'd say we're in the hole on this project for millions already.

Almost certainly. Most planning applications cost a few million - peanuts in the overall picture, if we're casually talking about spending several hundred million on light rail for Galway. Same with your other objections about scarcity of resources. Of course we are dealing with scarce resources. That's why we're even talking about this.

remfan wrote: »

Having read the summary of the climate action bill I don't see how this makes it any easier to object, what would the basis of any such objection be on the strength of this?

It probably won't. The government may have to show they considered any potential increase in carbon emissions arising from a project and how to eliminate/offset them as part of the planning process, but that will become increasingly irrelevant as electric vehicles take over. Soon we'll have a national car fleet that is quite literally powered by the wind, and the tired old argument that "roads = bad because cars use petrol" can finally be put to bed for good. When that happens, it is hard to see what connection, if any, road projects could be considered to have with climate change.

If the M6 does in fact take a decade to build, the national switch to EVs will be very far advanced.

KrisW1001 · 17-06-2021 4:02pm

Traffic congestion is still a waste of everyone’s time, regardless of how the cars are powered.

The problem with M6 is that it will not fix the problem it is proposed for: give it a couple of years, and the M6 and the old N6 will be just as congested as before.

This has been seen time and time again with road expansion in car-dependent cities: once you build more road space, traffic increases. People shift their driving patterns toward peak periods, and soon the additional capacity is swallowed up again. This is called Induced Demand, and it was described earlier. It’s not some bogeyman invented by environmentalists - it happens everywhere.

You make an analogy to the health service. Hospital capacity is like roads - it is a finite resource, but one that is shared. Also, like roads, it is subject to induced demand: if you expand a local A&E, more people will present there, often with trivial matters that shouldn’t be there, but hey it’s free, isn’t it? But the health service doesn’t build out capacity - it hasn’t been doing that for a long time. Instead, the budget goes into diversion, because you can’t keep building hospitals - pretty soon you run out of money.

N6 is the silver bullet fallacy: the one big thing that’ll fix everything. Keeping your health analogy, it’s like pouring money into a new 500-bed acute hospital because the local government was too lazy to organise funding for multiple smaller projects like diabetes clinics, supports to stop smoking, running educational programmes to combat childhood obesity, or provide additional clinical outreach. The total cost of all those small measures is much smaller, but there’s more admin involved in setting them up, and – more importantly – no big impressive ribbon for the elected officials to cut just before an election.

N6 will cost about €900 million to build as specified. That’s a lot of money, and its high price will starve the city of further transportation investment: politically, it’s hard to ask for more money just after you’ve been handed a billion. If it were my money, I’d spend about €400 million on outer bypass of Galway to tie together the radial routes, and spend the rest on making the city less car-dependant. (I know this is not how transport funding works, and yes, that is another part of the problem). Better bus services, a free or near-free Park+ride system subsidised by a congestion charge (maybe with discounts for cars with 2,3 or more occupants), improved medium-distance cycleways.

riddlinrussell · 17-06-2021 4:04pm

remfan wrote: »

Having read the summary of the climate action bill I don't see how this makes it any easier to object, what would the basis of any such objection be on the strength of this?

Between now and 2030 there will be a series of 'Carbon budgets' that each dept will need to work within, with less available each year, as a bare result of that you are definitely going to see significant priority changes in departments so they can 'afford' their highest priorities.

Its not necessarily that it makes objections easier, just that the raw calculations on what's 'worth' building are likely going to see a major shift.

cgcsb · 17-06-2021 4:32pm

riddlinrussell wrote: »

Between now and 2030 there will be a series of 'Carbon budgets' that each dept will need to work within, with less available each year, as a bare result of that you are definitely going to see significant priority changes in departments so they can 'afford' their highest priorities.

Its not necessarily that it makes objections easier, just that the raw calculations on what's 'worth' building are likely going to see a major shift.

With the carbon budgets I would estimate we'll get to 2030 with the M20, M28, M11 to Rosslare and the motorway to Foynes. Maybe the M40 North at a stretch. These will be the last new motorways and most of them are pretty short stretches that basically finish the motorway network, connecting all cities and ports. The Derry motorway is dead I'd say, at least the section south of Monaghan. These roads will be about €3bn to €4bn all in all.

There might be some new dual carriageway stretches on the N4 and N24 but that's basically it. The rest of new road projects will be single carriageway retrofits, safety improvements and bypasses of the more dangerous parts of the secondary route network.

I'd say The Galway Ringroad and the Motorway widening projects in Greater Dublin don't have a snowballs, their feasibility studies and EIAs are flawed at this point.

17-06-2021 6:07pm

cgcsb wrote: »

I'd say The Galway Ringroad and the Motorway widening projects in Greater Dublin don't have a snowballs, their feasibility studies and EIAs are flawed at this point.

I have to say, watching the progression of the first bypass through the processes and now the ring road that its truly astounding to see how much attitudes have changed in relation to this road, sustainable travel in Galway, climate change and alternative ways of achieving similar results.

Originally I was an ardent supporter of the original bypass and initially the ring road too (you'll find lots of posts on here from me supporting it) but as I educated myself more on planning, infrastructure, sustainable travel, active travel, etc I came to realise that this ring road could be a 6 lane both-ways motorway and would still not solve Galway's traffic problems.

Aontachtoir · 17-06-2021 7:50pm

It is interesting to me that so many comments opposing building the bypass are along the lines of "building the bypass AND DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ELSE won't solve Galway's traffic problems, therefore the bypass is the wrong choice."

Of course the bypass won't solve all of Galway's traffic problems by itself. Nobody on earth is claiming that it would, and everyone acknowledges that more PT should be provided in Galway. "Bypass alone" is not on the table in any likely future, and it stretches credibility to suggest that it would ever be. "More PT and better roads" or "more PT and the same roads" are the options that are realistically on offer. Attacking a "bypass only" plan in our current political context is basically attacking a strawman.

what_traffic · 17-06-2021 8:29pm

riddlinrussell wrote: »

Between now and 2030 there will be a series of 'Carbon budgets' that each dept will need to work within, with less available each year, as a bare result of that you are definitely going to see significant priority changes in departments so they can 'afford' their highest priorities.

Its not necessarily that it makes objections easier, just that the raw calculations on what's 'worth' building are likely going to see a major shift.

This is the issue, the money.
IMF came out yesterday with a report
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/CR/Issues/2021/06/15/Ireland-Selected-Issues-460785 (Page 13)

they reckon we need to spend about 0.9 billion a year on Climate Mitigation measures (very close to the cost of this road at this point with construction inflation etc)

The other problem is that the ARUP stats show that with the Ring Road going ahead, public transport and cycling % of trips are projected in the single digits for the City by 2037

17-06-2021 8:45pm

Aontachtoir wrote: »

It is interesting to me that so many comments opposing building the bypass are along the lines of "building the bypass AND DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ELSE won't solve Galway's traffic problems, therefore the bypass is the wrong choice."

Of course the bypass won't solve all of Galway's traffic problems by itself. Nobody on earth is claiming that it would, and everyone acknowledges that more PT should be provided in Galway. "Bypass alone" is not on the table in any likely future, and it stretches credibility to suggest that it would ever be. "More PT and better roads" or "more PT and the same roads" are the options that are realistically on offer. Attacking a "bypass only" plan in our current political context is basically attacking a strawman.

Who said that and where? As far as I am aware nobody has said that.

The GTS has set out the next few years of transport development in Galway City. It is broken into ring road, PT, bikes & pedestrian.

The GTS is implementing the bare minimum in terms of an efficient bus service for example, with a spine of bus infrastructure traversing the city which all routes will use to some extent.

Again it does the same for bike and pedestrian infrastructure.

What it also does is make a hilariously poor argument that the ring road is needed.

By laying so much at the feet of the ring road it positions Galway as a car dependant city for the 10 years following its construction by which time they will be in the exact same position and will have no option but to try implement a full network of bus and bike infrastructure. The only difference is it will have to be done when the population will have increased by 50% making it harder to do.

The main difference between the arguments is this, move people or move cars.

If the goal is to move the greatest number of people in the most efficient way possible, in the shortest amount of time, then the answer is infrastructure for sustainable modes.

If the goal is to move cars, build the ring road which will be a bandaid for a decade.

Take a look at the M6 pre-covid. Tailbacks almost back to the Oranmore exit barely over a decade since it opened. Meanwhile the Tuam Rd is as bad as it ever was. There will likely be a post-covid dip in the volumes but within a few years I think its safe to say the tailbacks will be the other side of the Oranmore exit and making their way to Rathmorrisey.

The ring road will be no different.

You also have to remember, the opening date is most likely to be around 2034 and Galway can't wait that long.

Aontachtoir · 17-06-2021 9:06pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

By laying so much at the feet of the ring road it positions Galway as a car dependant city for the 10 years following its construction by which time they will be in the exact same position and will have no option but to try implement a full network of bus and bike infrastructure. The only difference is it will have to be done when the population will have increased by 50% making it harder to do.

Are you saying that the GTS plan is to build the ring road and not provide anything else? Maybe I have misunderstood your meaning.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The main difference between the arguments is this, move people or move cars.

But that's a false choice. Cars move people. Moving cars moves people. And people overwhelmingly prefer to be moved by cars.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Take a look at the M6 pre-covid. Tailbacks almost back to the Oranmore exit barely over a decade since it opened. Meanwhile the Tuam Rd is as bad as it ever was. There will likely be a post-covid dip in the volumes but within a few years I think its safe to say the tailbacks will be the other side of the Oranmore exit and making their way to Rathmorrisey.

The ring road will be no different.

You also have to remember, the opening date is most likely to be around 2034 and Galway can't wait that long.

I would expect road use to significantly increase if Galway's population is going to go up by 50%, wouldn't you? Shouldn't we plan for that? As far as 2034 is concerned (a date that seems to get pushed inexplicably further into the future any time this claim is brought up), why would Galway have to wait that long for transport investment? Are you suggesting that the plan would be to build the bypass and do nothing else in the meantime?

17-06-2021 11:28pm

Aontachtoir wrote: »

Are you saying that the GTS plan is to build the ring road and not provide anything else? Maybe I have misunderstood your meaning.

Refer to the 5 paragraphs above the one you quoted

Aontachtoir wrote: »

But that's a false choice. Cars move people. Moving cars moves people.

Sure, inefficiently

Aontachtoir wrote: »

I would expect road use to significantly increase if Galway's population is going to go up by 50%, wouldn't you? Shouldn't we plan for that? As far as 2034 is concerned (a date that seems to get pushed inexplicably further into the future any time this claim is brought up), why would Galway have to wait that long for transport investment? Are you suggesting that the plan would be to build the bypass and do nothing else in the meantime?

No, I'm saying that current plans call for half measures + a ring road.

Again, read my previous post fully. I'm not sure why you continue to maintain this line about the ring road and nothing else, nobody has stated that except you

cgcsb · 17-06-2021 11:41pm

Aontachtoir wrote: »

It is interesting to me that so many comments opposing building the bypass are along the lines of "building the bypass AND DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ELSE won't solve Galway's traffic problems, therefore the bypass is the wrong choice."

That's because if we spend €100m on public transport improvements in Galway and €1000m on a bypass we'll have wasted €1000m. There's no value in it, we'd be building it for the sake of creating a more difficult traffic situation in the future.

It's not all about Galway you see, that ring road money could be extremely effective at providing sustainable transport solutions anywhere in Ireland.

Aontachtoir · 18-06-2021 12:27am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sure, inefficiently

As inefficiently as empty buses, I suppose.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No, I'm saying that current plans call for half measures + a ring road.

What are "full measures", to you? How would you define and deliver these full measures?

cgcsb wrote: »

That's because if we spend €100m on public transport improvements in Galway and €1000m on a bypass we'll have wasted €1000m. There's no value in it, we'd be building it for the sake of creating a more difficult traffic situation in the future.

But that's such a sweeping statement, and only makes sense if you choose to define any investment in roads as wasted money. If we invest €500m in public transport for Galway, and it doesn't completely eliminate Galway's traffic problems, is that a wasted €500m? Of course not - as long as traffic is reduced somewhat, it will be labelled a successful intervention. I don't see why a different standard should be applied to the "PT+bypass" plan than to the "PT-only" plan.

Besides, I can't see a better way to guarantee a more difficult traffic situation in the future than by point-blank refusing any investment in road capacity even though we know Galway's population is expected to increase by 50% in the coming years. Are all these people just going to ride the bus or cycle? Do we honestly believe that it will be cheaper or easier to fix infrastructure deficits like this a decade from now? Has that ever been the case?

cgcsb · 18-06-2021 8:30am

Aontachtoir wrote: »

But that's such a sweeping statement, and only makes sense if you choose to define any investment in roads as wasted money.

Actually no, not all roads are a waste of money. For example the business case for M20 is quite strong. Its just that the Galway ring road is a waste of money.

Aontachtoir wrote: »

If we invest €500m in public transport for Galway, and it doesn't completely eliminate Galway's traffic problems, is that a wasted €500m? Of course not - as long as traffic is reduced somewhat, it will be labelled a successful intervention. I don't see why a different standard should be applied to the "PT+bypass" plan than to the "PT-only" plan.

Because the PT measures will actually reduce traffic somewhat but the modelling shows the ring road will create a worse congestion scenario by 2037.

Aontachtoir wrote: »

Besides, I can't see a better way to guarantee a more difficult traffic situation in the future than by point-blank refusing any investment in road capacity even though we know Galway's population is expected to increase by 50% in the coming years. Are all these people just going to ride the bus or cycle? Do we honestly believe that it will be cheaper or easier to fix infrastructure deficits like this a decade from now? Has that ever been the case?

Because we know now that new roads can't solve capacity issues

veryangryman · 18-06-2021 8:43am

cgcsb wrote: »

Because we know now that new roads can't solve capacity issues

They extend capacity. In growing populations that is a good thing. Yes NY and London are choc a bloc for traffic despite great transport systems along with road infrastructure. The point is that the squeeze is less due to the infrastructure.

Have to say it's a farce to say that either roads or public transport "don't solve the problem". Any city worth visiting will be packed regardless of what you build. And will continue to have problems. The trick is to ease said problems

18-06-2021 11:44am

Aontachtoir wrote: »

As inefficiently as empty buses, I suppose.

Now now, no need for pettiness. You know full well the buses are not empty

Aontachtoir wrote: »

What are "full measures", to you? How would you define and deliver these full measures?

I've said it several times, but I'll repeat. note this is not an exhaustive list, just what I can recall off the top of my head

Buses

Full network of bus lanes for all routes
Priority sequencing at all junctions on bus routes
Cashless ticketing only
Middle door alighting
High frequency on all routes (less than 10 mins)
Bus lanes on Tuam rd (in and out) all the way to Tuam. Same for Oranmore
Removal of permission for taxi's in bus lanes

Bikes

Full network of protected cycle lanes which are segregated from both motor traffic & pedestrians
Dutch style intersections on all junctions
Dutch style calming at all entrance/exit points. To include all housing estates, businesses etc
Large expansion of bike share scheme all across the city to meet "max 5 minute walk" time from each station
Large expansion on the amount of bike parking spaces
City center secure parking a la Drury st
Planning requirement - All apartment blocks must include secure bike parking sufficient to meet 100% bike use
Bike repair stations located on high traffic routes

Pedestrian

Implement permeability measures to eliminate as many "long way around" walking routes as possible
Max 30 second wait at any request crossing lights
Address all pinch points where paths narrow or disappear
Review desire lines of pedestrian foot traffic and add safe crossing points wherever its absent
Survey to identify the "no-go" areas, reasons why (e.g. poor lighting) and address

Cars

Park n strides (PNS) on all major entry points into the city
All PNS to be served by a high frequency bus route
PNS have free parking
PNS have secure and free bike parking & repair facilities
PNS to be connected to path & bike lane network

City Center Infrastructure

Removal of all on street parking except for disabled spots
Expand width of paths to capture gained space from the above
Reduce to one-way where pinch points remain
All one-way streets will be 2 way for pedestrians and bike users
Provide a network of secure bike hangars across the city for residents with no storage space for bikes
A 0.50c per customer per day levy on all remaining paid parking spaces in the city to go towards funding all other measures in perpetuity

As for delivery, you would need to talk to the local govt reps for details on that. Pretty much everything I've listed above has been done somewhere in Ireland at some point so its nothing new.

If the above was implemented (along with a few other things I can't think of right now) the net result would be a far higher % of people travelling by bus, bike and on foot, capacity freed up, reduced pollution, densification of the city reducing the need to drive etc etc

The ring road does the exact opposite

CatInABox · 18-06-2021 11:52am

remfan wrote: »

Having read the summary of the climate action bill I don't see how this makes it any easier to object, what would the basis of any such objection be on the strength of this?

Previously our Paris Agreement targets had zero legal force in Ireland. After this bill passes, they'll be codified, and any project that doesn't take them into account will face significant difficulties in the courts.

Look at the advice that Matheson are giving out concerning section 5 of the bill

In preparing both Climate Action Plans and the national long term climate strategy, the Minister and the government must consider, among other things, value for money, the need to promote sustainable development and restore, and protect, biodiversity and relevant scientific or technical advice.

Hard to reconcile a lot of that with the ring road.

There's a host of groups lining up to bring this to judicial review, and as we've seen recently, the courts are quite happy to strike down planning approval even from state bodies like ESB over quite minor things. ABP are buckling under their workload, and many major projects are very obviously not getting the scrutiny that they need/deserve, and this is resulting in a lot of successful JRs.

fmlarnapairce · 18-06-2021 2:01pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Now now, no need for pettiness. You know full well the buses are not empty

I've said it several times, but I'll repeat. note this is not an exhaustive list, just what I can recall off the top of my head

Buses
Full network of bus lanes for all routes

Priority sequencing at all junctions on bus routes

Cashless ticketing only

Middle door alighting

High frequency on all routes (less than 10 mins)

Bus lanes on Tuam rd (in and out) all the way to Tuam. Same for Oranmore

Removal of permission for taxi's in bus lanes

Bikes
Full network of protected cycle lanes which are segregated from both motor traffic & pedestrians

Dutch style intersections on all junctions

Dutch style calming at all entrance/exit points. To include all housing estates, businesses etc

Large expansion of bike share scheme all across the city to meet "max 5 minute walk" time from each station

Large expansion on the amount of bike parking spaces

City center secure parking a la Drury st

Planning requirement - All apartment blocks must include secure bike parking sufficient to meet 100% bike use

Bike repair stations located on high traffic routes

Pedestrian
Implement permeability measures to eliminate as many "long way around" walking routes as possible

Max 30 second wait at any request crossing lights

Address all pinch points where paths narrow or disappear

Review desire lines of pedestrian foot traffic and add safe crossing points wherever its absent

Survey to identify the "no-go" areas, reasons why (e.g. poor lighting) and address

Cars
Park n strides (PNS) on all major entry points into the city

All PNS to be served by a high frequency bus route

PNS have free parking

PNS have secure and free bike parking & repair facilities

PNS to be connected to path & bike lane network

City Center Infrastructure
Removal of all on street parking except for disabled spots

Expand width of paths to capture gained space from the above

Reduce to one-way where pinch points remain

All one-way streets will be 2 way for pedestrians and bike users

Provide a network of secure bike hangars across the city for residents with no storage space for bikes

A 0.50c per customer per day levy on all remaining paid parking spaces in the city to go towards funding all other measures in perpetuity

As for delivery, you would need to talk to the local govt reps for details on that. Pretty much everything I've listed above has been done somewhere in Ireland at some point so its nothing new.

If the above was implemented (along with a few other things I can't think of right now) the net result would be a far higher % of people travelling by bus, bike and on foot, capacity freed up, reduced pollution, densification of the city reducing the need to drive etc etc

The ring road does the exact opposite

that is all very impressive, very laudable, and I really want to see it all in place yesterday.

However, I am a commuter from west of corrib (ps that is a large area, with a large population, with currently a huge amount of traffic travelling in and out every day) and I want to get to Parkmore/I am a business owner west of the Corrib and I want to get deliveries or make deliveries/i am a tourist who wants to get from Dublin to west of corrib/i am a hotel,bnb etc owner west of the corrib who wants my guests not to have to sit in traffic for 2 hours on a Fri evening/etc list is not exhaustive.

All above points you listed are about helping people get into the city centre, I suppose to go shopping or wandering around on a sat or whatever, as we do not have a 'business district'. What about us who do not want to go anywhere near the city centre, we want to bypass it? Why can we not have all you say above and also a road so that we can avoid town and that fcuking QB? I just do not get this view that it can only be one or the other, and others saying that this money could be used elsewhere in Ireland to fund x y z. I am only concerned about Galway (I know, how very greedy of me), and I am fed up to the teeth being on that bridge, and everyone i know is the same. I think the only people who are actually against this road are 1) those who will lose their houses or have a road on their backdoor (i understand their pain) and 2) people posting on this site.

i do not care if they reduce the number of exits and entrances to the ring road, but there needs to be a way for people to get around the city, not through it, and PT will not solve that issue, not for those who do not live in the city (but are still citizens etc so deserve to be catered for as much as possible).

Aontachtoir · 18-06-2021 2:04pm

CatInABox wrote: »

There's a host of groups lining up to bring this to judicial review, and as we've seen recently, the courts are quite happy to strike down planning approval even from state bodies like ESB over quite minor things. ABP are buckling under their workload, and many major projects are very obviously not getting the scrutiny that they need/deserve, and this is resulting in a lot of successful JRs.

Agreed. I expect to see some amendments to these laws once the Greens are out of power. It sounds increasingly like it will not be possible to build the infrastructure we need in a rapidly growing country.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The ring road does the exact opposite

Is that the old strawman of the ring road by itself with absolutely nothing else? Because the inevitable inclusion of PT alongside the ring road would address many of the suggestions you have made.

You promise that your "full measures" will deliver a "far higher percentage" of people walking, cycling, taking the bus, etc. How high is that increase? What figures or modelling are you basing this on? What effect would it have on overall traffic patterns in a growing city? How much would all of this cost?

The significant restrictions on road capacity your "full measures" scheme requires would seem likely to be restrictive enough to normal road users that it would encourage businesses to move out of the city centre to peripheral locations, where they can be more easily accessed by people who choose to or need to drive. Which is fine, I guess, but doesn't that just increase car dependency outside the city?

timmyntc · 18-06-2021 2:07pm

fmlarnapairce wrote: »

that is all very impressive, very laudable, and I really want to see it all in place yesterday.

However, I am a commuter from west of corrib (ps that is a large area, with a large population, with currently a huge amount of traffic travelling in and out every day) and I want to get to Parkmore/I am a business owner west of the Corrib and I want to get deliveries or make deliveries/i am a tourist who wants to get from Dublin to west of corrib/i am a hotel,bnb etc owner west of the corrib who wants my guests not to have to sit in traffic for 2 hours on a Fri evening/etc list is not exhaustive.

All above points you listed are about helping people get into the city centre, I suppose to go shopping or wandering around on a sat or whatever, as we do not have a 'business district'. What about us who do not want to go anywhere near the city centre, we want to bypass it? Why can we not have all you say above and also a road so that we can avoid town and that fcuking QB? I just do not get this view that it can only be one or the other, and others saying that this money could be used elsewhere in Ireland to fund x y z. I am only concerned about Galway (I know, how very greedy of me), and I am fed up to the teeth being on that bridge, and everyone i know is the same. I think the only people who are actually against this road are 1) those who will lose their houses or have a road on their backdoor (i understand their pain) and 2) people posting on this site.

i do not care if they reduce the number of exits and entrances to the ring road, but there needs to be a way for people to get around the city, not through it, and PT will not solve that issue, not for those who do not live in the city (but are still citizens etc so deserve to be catered for as much as possible).

PT will take traffic off the road, so that people such as yourself who have no option but to drive into or through the city can do so.

Personally I wouldnt be against an actual bypass further out of the city, but the proposed N6 is not that. If they build the N6 GCRR as proposed, it too will succumb to excessive traffic and you will be in the same situation you are now, but with 1bn+ of public money spent on getting us there.

Compo82 · 18-06-2021 2:24pm

This thread must be populated by the most anti-car individuals of any thread on the roads section. There are huge new estates going up on the Ballymoneen rd and Clybaun rd in Knocknacarra, so I don't know where all the traffic is going to go.

I wonder if you took an actual survey of people in Galway and see what percentage is in favour of the bypass, I's say it's well over 70%.

The bypass is needed if Galway is going to grow as a city and if it is to attract further investment from multinationals. I'm not against further public transport but the bypass is needed first before putting in further bus lanes. The Gluas would be just a extreme waste of money as the people along the line would only benefit and Galway is just too small from a Gluas.

M6 - Galway City Ring Road [planning decision pending]

Comments