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]

1177179181182183

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,571 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 97 ✭✭gooseman12


    The projected numbers are appalling but at this point I don't think they care, from a political standpoint they need it to go ahead.

    Take politics out of it and engage in a proper holistic plan, it would have been integrated into a larger transport scheme years and years ago.

    There have been loads of references to Cork recently on this thread and to be honest Cork shows us how not to do things. Invest everything in a distributor-bypass, spend eye watering amounts upgrading flyovers, interchanges etc. Problems still remain. Gradually realise over decades that options other than more roads need to be considered.

    Galway is at the point now where it could take these learnings and put together a plan, a proper by-pass and transport plan for the city to attempt to resolve all of the ongoing issues.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,571 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl


    You could be right yep, that it's too far gone with so much money burned on the "silver bullet" solution that they need to keep going for political reasons.

    In their defence, I think the GTS does attempt to do what you're describing in your final paragraph.

    And fully agree that Cork shows how not to do it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,571 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 83 ✭✭TnxM17


    I find this post fascinating because I agree with all of your points, yet I am against the building of the current GCRR.

    May I ask why you believe it needs to go ahead, in its current form?

    Because to me all the current GCRR does is add more ways to get stuck in city gridlocks and wont free up the space for the for better public transport revitalised public realm projects etc that we both agree would be great to be done.

    Instead of building the GCRR and then look at other options to me it should be the other way around. Look at where the public transport, footpaths and cycling lane infrastructure can be built first and then look at where the roads need to go to compliment it. As one example I think the western part of the scheme should be done that bypasses Barna, but instead of looping out past Letteragh link in to the Western Distributor Road. And have a Park and Ride west of the WDR that goes to Knocknacarra shopping centre to join with the current bus routes.

    The GCRR was originally mooted around 30 years ago - when thinking was car centric. Even 10 years ago I was part of the 'build the bloody ring road' mentality but we now know building a transport solution around private cars is counter productive.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 495 ✭✭Limerick74




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,153 ✭✭✭riddlinrussell


    https://bsky.app/profile/farronf.bsky.social/post/3loexfiqoxk2b

    Interesting thread analysing the current application with regard to its potential to turbocharge congestion in Galway without any associated (read: Mandatory) works to remove the majority of cars from the city.



  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,822 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    Holy ****, the modelling ignores induced demand, that's ridiculous. I wonder how they'd explain not following TIIs guidelines on that.

    If it does get through ABP, it'll be successfully JR'd on that alone, to be honest.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,280 ✭✭✭what_traffic


    I remember Pat McGrath had a similar article 2-3 years ago. Probably could Copy and Paste most of that article here again. Pat be retired by time GCRR gets opened if it ever does.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,907 ✭✭✭?Cee?view


    Doesn’t say much that hasn’t been said before, but at least it’s positive



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,488 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    But above you posted that "90% of people are in favour of it" based off nothing more than your own notions and some weird projection on election results where, unless I'm forgetting something, not a single candidate campaigned on it as a prominent issue. I posted information obtained from people who actually asked people what their issues were with the city, which, while not something I'd plan a city on, is still far more telling than the notions you're pushing as fact. You can be as confident as you want but you're probably wrong. I'd say 99.999999% of people want traffic to improve. Most are open to alternatives to this lame duck.

    Not sure what the rest of the stuff about your canvassing experience has to do with anything. Sorry you had a tough time of it but it doesn't reflect my experience or those of other people I know that do it.

    Not a great guess. Most people have no idea what the candidates policies are or what they're about. Unless you're canvassing for one of the big incumbents you'll be lucky if they've heard the name.

    Ye are projecting big time lads. Most of us want a working system. If we thought this would help then we'd be for it. On a related note, I'd be more in favour of this road if it was part of a larger development plan for housing west of the river. It needs to be part of a plan though or we'll have more of the same with low density sprawl



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,410 ✭✭✭Consonata


    If there is all this demand for cross-corrib traffic, then they should rebuild the old Connemara railway through the city via NUIG, taking the traffic off the streets and adding NUIG to the rail network.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 983 ✭✭✭Glenomra


    I was in Headford yesterday and decided to drive to go home to Clare by Galway, calling to a business in Liobaun. Took the incorrect turn off at a roundabout and and went further in than I needed to. What a disaster, Galway traffic currently is. It took me ages to rectify my mistake. A beautiful day, my driving not coinciding with rush hour or school closures but nevertheless a continual laborious crawl. The shop owner that I spoke to when I eventually arrived in Liosbaun said that Galway city is losing customers to Limerick, which I realised, and Athlone which I did not. I don't know how long it will take to develop the proposed ring road, but if they don't get a move on, Galway city will be left behind imo.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,280 ✭✭✭what_traffic


    Liosbaun will still have this daft CAR traffic post GCRR.

    Its a perfect example of terrible/brutal/bad/pathetic planning. It started off as a Business to Business Commercial area and NOW has been taken over with domestic retail. It was never laid out for such retail.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,055 ✭✭✭Green Peter


    Im glad some of these objectors weren't around when the wheel was invented, we'd all be on the shanks mare



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,907 ✭✭✭?Cee?view


    They’d have us heading back that way, all on bicycles!



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 42,965 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    ok so youse cannot debate against the facts that the GCRR will be a massive waste of money because it will do the exact opposite of what is being promised and so you revert to stupid one-liners which you know aren't true? Would you not have a mature attempt to debate this?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,153 ✭✭✭riddlinrussell


    Sometimes you want to shake people and say "IT'S YOUR MONEY THEY'RE SPAFFING AWAY ON THIS"

    Councillors And Staff absolutely banging their application against a brick wall of legislation that has been known about for plenty of time so they've zero excuses and just hoping that by flinging the same s**t at the wall, this time it'll stick.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,907 ✭✭✭?Cee?view


    It’s pointless “debating” you as you have your mind made up and logic will not permeate your ideology. And “youse”?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,907 ✭✭✭?Cee?view


    Legislation isn’t immutable. Just because it’s currently anti progress and development should not ultimately allow it to block improvement in people’s lives. It is now being recognised the damage that has been done by the Green commercial agenda.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,571 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl




  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 42,965 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    So you cannot debate the fact that the council have said traffic will get worse if this road is constructed, partly because they haven't bothered their hole coming up with a plan for alternative travel methods? It's my mind made up that's the issue and nothing to do with facts? 🙄

    And “youse”?

    This isn't the English forum!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,280 ✭✭✭what_traffic


    BUILD BUILD BUILD High Density housing on the current Brownfield sites/sprawl and commercial sites on the existing footprint of the City.

    GCRR will increase car traffic on many NEW routes in the City while decreasing on others. However in time we will be back to square one as induced demand takes hold. The ARUP numbers also show this in the modal share projections.

    It's a "running to a standstill" project



  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,822 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    I've been participating in this discussion for a while now, and I think I can distill the two main viewpoints on this down to these:

    • This project is required to alleviate traffic in Galway City, and must be completed before any other traffic reduction measure take place.
    • This project will not alleviate traffic problems in Galway City, and must also include traffic reduction measures as part of the project.

    That's the two main ones that I've seen on here, which admittedly ignores "the road is an abomination and must be stopped at all costs". I've ignored that as there's not many on here would hold that opinion, although one of the groups that will take a JR are of that opinion, Friends of the Earth Ireland (or something like that, I can't remember.)

    So, if that's the two main opinions on here, what evidence are the different sections bringing to the table? Everyone is basing their opinion upon the TII/GCC documents that have been provided as part of the ABP application, which on a plain reading would show a fairly standard need for a ring road of some sort. These docs are clearly supportive of building the ring road, which is obvious, after all, they're not going to submit docs that don't support the project.

    Any in-depth examination of these docs raises problems though, and indeed, some of the problems only require a cursory examination. One of the most obvious is that the percentage of traffic that this project is ostensibly targeted at (West-East & East-West) is less than 5% of the traffic that will use it. Do we really need a project of this size to deal with this traffic?

    A far larger problem is what it will actually do to traffic. In the councils own traffic modelling, we can see that traffic volumes will increase, not decrease. The volume of traffic on roads that the council says can't have traffic reduction measures introduced will actually increase. Will councillors vote for traffic reduction measures on roads where the traffic is now worse?

    That traffic model that shows an increase ignores the concept of "induced demand", something that is considered an iron law of congestion. Traffic won't get a couple of percent worse, it's going to get significantly worse.

    I personally don't think that this road will be built until it actually makes sense, and right now, from the docs that GCC have provided for this project, it does not make sense. People can shout from the rooftops about how this is needed, or how it must be built, but realistically, until the data that underpins the project makes sense, then there's going to be a lot of questions surrounding it, and a fair bit of opposition.

    As it is, I support building the road (or a road, might not need to be so large) with public and active transport project built into it, but could not support the project as it is. Not only that, it is as clear as day that this project will get judicial reviewed, a review that will have a high chance of success in my opinion. The fact that this will happen is more on GCC than on anyone else, as they're the ones that have pushed this project upon shaky grounds, to the exclusion of all other possibilities.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,571 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl


    I think you might have a subtle mistake here: you're saying "traffic will increase" and that's not necessarily the biggest problem. In a growing city traffic will increase.

    The bigger problem is that car-based mode share (of that increased traffic) will grow. So we pour taxpayer money into infrastructure and initiatives to improve sustainability of the mode share, and end up going the opposite direction. Their "do nothing" scenario ends up with a better outcome, based on that metric.

    The pushback to that is obviously "we shouldn't care about the sustainability of our mode share", but we really do, from a transport planning perspective. This isn't some kind of "eco" or "green" idea (though it obviously dovetails with eco/green ideas), rather the city's own growth becomes unsustainable. It literally becomes difficult for the city to grow as it tries to maintain an ever-expanding sprawl of low-efficiency infrastructure. Not just roads, but water, wastewater, services, every piece of infrastructure becomes inefficient because the distances between everything are larger because of the increased spacings required for what is a low-density transport mode. TLDR: if you plan transport around cars, you get lower density.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,055 ✭✭✭Green Peter


    100%, I've been here before and debated, the greens got their answer from the people of Galway in the election. They have wasted the taxpayers money objecting to a project that would go ahead in any other city. It will happen eventually because common sense will have to prevail eventually.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,488 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    Maybe the issue is the rest of us are trying to debate it on the merits of if it'll improve traffic and commute times in the city. Nobody mentioning the environmental impact except the few people trying to act like it's the only reason people are against it.

    It's a sh1te plan. That's why most of us are against it. The numbers in the report back this conclusion up. Can you debate from that point of view?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭Unrealistic


    I'm struggling to understand what way you went? If you were travelling from Headford to Liosban I can't think of any roundabout you could travel through along the way. The first roundabout I can think of that you could have arrived at if coming from Headford is the Joyce Roundabout, but you would have to have already driven past Liosban to arrive at that. It would seem that your delay was caused by the combination of a missed turn and then later taking the wrong exit off a roundabout? Or am I misunderstanding something?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 983 ✭✭✭Glenomra


    I am unsure how I missed the turn off to Liosbaun but I did. That was my own mistake. I 'knew' the way and didn't need any map etc.!!!! I accepted that my mistake would result in an inevitable delay. I was in no particular rush that day and could afford the extra time. What fascinated me however, was the traffic crawl that I met on every part of my extended journey. I wondered how locals can tolerate the inordinate amount of time, that they have to spend on very short distances, and felt that this slow traffic must impact on people's decisions on whether to visit Galway City or not. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't!



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 42,965 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    The Green party did not object to the road despite what you are trying to claim here - it was Friends of the Irish Environment, an NGO group and to my knowledge has nothing to do with the GP.

    However, the only waste of money that happened was not by those that took legal action but by those that conceived a plan that gave viable grounds for such action. It should also be pointed out that tne forthcoming iteration of this saga is pretty much the same whereby the council ignore standard traffic modelling techniques (because they know it will paint the road in a poor light presumably) and will most likely end up back in the HC.

    I also note that you fail to point out that the racecourse owners also took action against the plan - was it intentionally omitted from your message?

    It should be pointed out that Galway's transport approach needs a complete overhaul. However, the council don't want to do this and are choosing to base their entire solution to traffic on something that they know will create more traffic. And yet, you're blaming the green party???



Advertisement