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

Galway traffic

Options
1247248249250252

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,387 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    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



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,278 ✭✭✭Unrealistic


    Or is it like some of the other stops around town, which serve no practical purpose but still generate advertising revenue?



  • Registered Users Posts: 485 ✭✭rustyfrog


    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.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,661 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    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?



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    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

    • ring road
    • 6/7 P&R's
    • full network of protected bike lanes including dutch junction design
    • full network of bus lanes & bus priority at junctions
    • high frequency bus routes
    • widespread permeability and pedestrian priority at crossing points
    • reduced priority and access for private cars in the city center
    • 30km limits inside the city boundary (ring road would be the exception)
    • etc etc etc

    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

    • ring road
    • a few bread crumbs and token efforts at the rest of the list above

    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



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,525 ✭✭✭at1withmyself


    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.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    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.

    Post edited by [Deleted User] on


  • Registered Users Posts: 485 ✭✭rustyfrog


    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.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    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.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,773 ✭✭✭connemara man



    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



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 24,026 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    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.



  • Registered Users Posts: 485 ✭✭rustyfrog


    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."



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    *double post*

    Post edited by [Deleted User] on


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    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.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,773 ✭✭✭connemara man




  • Registered Users Posts: 3,364 ✭✭✭fergiesfolly


    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???



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,883 ✭✭✭✭Discodog



    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.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,773 ✭✭✭connemara man


    MOD NOTE

    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



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,925 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    Galway Traveller Movement would likely disagree with the conspiracy aspect.

    Ditto the Connelly Youth Movement (a NUIG society - https://socs.nuigalway.ie/societies/cyms)



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,114 ✭✭✭✭ben.schlomo




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,364 ✭✭✭fergiesfolly


    In the context of movement only applying to conspiracies, as was implied earlier, I think Mrs O' got it spot on.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Alan Curran, the founder of Galway Cycle Bus, has been co-opted onto the city council to replace Owen Hanley




  • Registered Users Posts: 24,936 ✭✭✭✭zell12




  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Maybe the council can address the issue by raising the speed limit like they are doing on BnT



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,936 ✭✭✭✭zell12


    That is Bothar na Treabh, garda call it Ballinfoile, the section that links Kirwan junction to Font junction




  • Registered Users Posts: 630 ✭✭✭GBXI


    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.



  • Registered Users Posts: 630 ✭✭✭GBXI


    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.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,661 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    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?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,094 ✭✭✭Mervyn Skidmore


    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.



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement