As far as I remember it pre-dates the other ones. You'd think they'd have remove it when adding the new one, but it's probably something simple like stop removals being handled by a different department and needing to meet certain requirements to do
Or is it like some of the other stops around town, which serve no practical purpose but still generate advertising revenue?
A good honest article in the City Tribune
The main purpose of the Ring Road isn't to solve the traffic issue.
Is the Ring Road needed to cater for new development lands? Maybe, but let's have that debate. Let's not let the future vision of Galway be private developer led - come up with a considered plan.
In the meantime, let's make a start on the traffic problem.
So let's plan the city to be even bigger and even way more car dependent? What at all can go wrong with that approach?
Thats it in a nutshell
If the plan was to do all of the following and have it ready to go prior to or upon the opening day of the GCRR
95% of the resistance would evaporate. Why? Well because it would make total, absolute sense to do that as it would set the city up for the future to a population of 500k, all able to move freely with multiple safe, accessible options
As it stands, the plan is
That makes no sense as it will be more of the same problems and will achieve nothing in the long term hence the resistance from so many
I think it was nearly 10 years before Sli Gheal in knocknacara had a footpath installed that connected it to the rest of knocknacara. These kind of things should be in place before the first houses are sold.
So instead of ghost estates, ghost footpaths?
can’t say I have a problem with that.
anyways, re: the article, I’m there myself, agreeing. This is about the growth of Galway. People talk about population growth as if it’s a given but it really is not. If people think they can’t live in a place they will vote with their feet and go somewhere else. The default is that this is a bad thing but if lack of resource usage is what you’re persuing, then “local town for local people” is the approach you want to go for. Less people means less polluters. And you won’t say you want that, but it’s undeniable that you want to prevent the “wrong” growth.
As for the “It’s all Ring Road the Power wants, everything else they say is LIES!!!” Boilerplate Defeatist BS of the Antiroad Movement here, I can equally say that “for them, it’s all about stopping the road, as it has been for the past thirty years against its predecessors, and will be for the generations it takes to get the road’s successors built. They pay lip service to other solutions but the congestion is one of their greatest assets to deter private car traffic.” You may call that utter tosh, but what’s the difference between what I say about the antiroad Movement and what you say about “those in power”?
they’re gonna build something for road traffic. Save a catastrophic mass depopulation happening that river isn’t keeping it at only four bridges, with two to drive on, and one of those for through traffic, as the decades roll on. Question is what and when.
I think where you're confused SeaSlacker is that there isn't an "Antiroad Movement", there's a growing group of people frustrated with the traffic in the city that are realising that the project that's pitched as the solution is not going to solve the traffic issues.
Without an (as yet unplanned) overhaul of public and active traffic in and around the city then it'll only make things worse.
Build the road, but only if there are also solutions being implemented to solve the actual transport problem and these are in place before the induced demand pushes us to an even wider spread of gridlock.
Rustyfrog, again, my description of a “Movement” is the grouping of all people who hold the opinion that the road must not be built, irrespective of affiliation or how they came to that conclusion. To be part of the Movement all one does is advocate against the road or take other action to stop it from proceeding.
MOD NOTE
@[Deleted User] please stop referencing an "anti road movement" as by your own admission an organised one doesn't exist, if you continue it will be considered trolling
Its happening anyway.
There is not the political or community support, funding or mandate for your list of items there. The RR will be built, other items will be enhanced over time.
Take the wins where you can get them, would be my suggestion.
Timmy - "Agh, the chip pan has caught fire - quick, pass me that jug of water!"
Jenny & Tom - "No that'll make things worse, here throw this fire blanket over it."
SeaSlacker - "Look, an Antiwater Movement! Water for locals to use on local fires only."
*double post*
It exists. As long as there’s anyone advocating for a cause, it exists. For example, there’s a “re unify the 26 with Britain” Movement, but that’s a handful of loonies with maybe one or two active on Twitter. They have no sway and have no one listening to the Movement. But it does exist.
Because the Movement to stop the road exists, I will continue to refer to the group of people, affiliated with each other or unaffiliated, who put effort into advocating for the prevention of roadbuilding activity, as “the Movement”. If that means I am to be sanctioned over that semantics, then I am to be sanctioned over that semantics.
@[Deleted User] don't post in this thread for 2 weeks
So, language is getting sanctioned now?
Pro-cycling, anti-car, anti-ringroad posters use all sorts of derogatory, devisive language and I haven't noticed that getting sanctioned.
Is this a forum for debate or an echo chamber???
This is a valid point & before more people get banned, can the Mods clarify what terms are allowed & what aren't. It is clear to me, as a relative outsider who rarely posts here, that there is a group of people are totally anti car & opposed to any new roads.
I don't want to pull the thread off topic or question the Mods decisions here. I will raise a thread on feedback.
he term the movement implies a conspiracy theory, anyone who want to talk about anti traffic/bypass/public transport or pro traffic/bypass/public transport groups, in those terms can
As long as conversation is done in a civil manor so people can engage legitimately
Galway Traveller Movement would likely disagree with the conspiracy aspect.
Ditto the Connelly Youth Movement (a NUIG society - https://socs.nuigalway.ie/societies/cyms)
Great job of missing the point and context.
In the context of movement only applying to conspiracies, as was implied earlier, I think Mrs O' got it spot on.
F me
Alan Curran, the founder of Galway Cycle Bus, has been co-opted onto the city council to replace Owen Hanley
Is that not normal on that road?
Maybe the council can address the issue by raising the speed limit like they are doing on BnT
That is Bothar na Treabh, garda call it Ballinfoile, the section that links Kirwan junction to Font junction
This is the definition of letting perfection be the enemy of good. Or in other words, being an idealogue. If you believe what you just wrote why would you not just support the building of the road? All of the other things on the list are much more likely to happen if the road is built, and many of them will not work without the road being built.
Someone gave the great example above of it taking 10 years for a short footpath to be built connecting up one suburban estate to another - which obviously shouldn't happen. And at first you think, jees why isn't this built first and then the houses after? Makes sense initially but the council have shag all resources to make that happen and are reliant on the houses being built and people being there to actually use the path before building it.
So many people commenting about the road are theorists with no practicalities. Governments are big and slow, they get elected on 5 year terms and long term projects are really hard to see through to fruition. When Galway gets the chance to progress itself, it needs to just do it.
PS I think the vast majority of locals are very much in favor of this but there's a vocal minority (or in the case of Friends of the Environment, a skilled legal minority) that are not.
By the way, that strip of road (a 2km dual carriageway) is nothing more than a money-making project for the Guards. 117kph is too fast but it's a disgrace that it's 50kph.
It's not even a remotely dangerous stretch of road.
It's not "remotely dangerous" for who? I'm not sure on the number of incidents involving serious injuries and fatalities there so maybe you could enlighten us? It is a two lane dual carriageway with no central median and has foot[paths and cycle paths alongside it. What speed, in your view, would be safe for all uses so?
Traffic has been insane on Doughiska Road in the evenings recently. I walk up that way and it's bumper to bumper from the Roscam junction up to Dunnes in Briar hill. Must take an hour or so to do that 1 kilometre I'd say.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62877c35768f143f69acd7bb6cd43f3c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c75a042883554fcbe7ac6b4312689bcf.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/ad289898c0c6dda7e667bf900ae26d0c.svg)
