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

N6 - Galway outer bypass: Is it needed?

1…6791112…19

Comments

  • #242
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    MYOB wrote: »
    Defending myself against misrepresentations is not 'scoring points"


    Claiming misrepresentation while declining to provide clear refutation, on the other hand, does look a lot like mere point-scoring.


    MYOB wrote: »
    Just as your examples provide no assessment of how it could be.


    So you didn't actually read the documentation on TDM I linked to earlier.



    MYOB wrote: »
    There is no TDM either. Telling people that something that doens't exist and is utterly unquantified can prevent the need for a bypass that a competent roads authority has deemed entirely necessary doesn't wash.


    The lack of TDM does not bolster the case for a bypass.

    Quite the opposite in fact: it shows clearly that alternatives have never been seriously attempted.

    The 20-year-old GCOB proposal is rooted in old-school thinking, outdated spatial "planning" priorities, car-dependent development and traffic-generating transport policies. It is vehemently supported by those who see no problem with our car-is-king culture (The People That Matter, "no room" for pedestrians etc) and who deride bypass opponents or even just mere sceptics as "BA**ARDS", "ecomentalists", "sociopaths" and the like (see original GCOB thread for numerous examples of such posts).

    On the other hand, the guaranteed non-availability of a bypass for several more years (or ever) greatly strengthens the case for proper TDM, there being no alternative. No alternative, that is, except sit in our cars and moan righteously about traffic, as so many seem grimly willing to do.


  • #243
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,114 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    So you didn't actually read the documentation on TDM I linked to earlier.

    Unless there's one you forgot to link, there is nothing to support any of your claims. Some nifty PowerPoint work and some cities nothing like Galway.

    Not a bit to suggest an ability to replace the bypass which is all this thread is about.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Claiming misrepresentation while declining to provide clear refutation, on the other hand, does look a lot like mere point-scoring.

    When someone deliberately "misreads" something over and over again to try and find something to argue against, they are not worth refuting. You are the only person who managed to do so.

    *awaits onslaught of poems, cartoons, links to unrelated things, piles of asteriks and absolutely no content relating to the topic*

    If you can find me one single city in the world where a TDM or similar has removed 20%+ of the traffic, without a light rail system, I'll be delighted to read about it in detail.


  • #244
    ?Cee?view
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,940 ✭✭✭?Cee?view


    yer man! wrote: »
    This is getting confusing now, there's a lot of good points being brought up here. There's a clear "pro-bypass" and a "we can do without" thing going on, well that's what I can gather from it anyway. I'm a firm advocate for public transport and I think in order for public transport to improve it needs the bypass, both would depend on each other. Nobody can deny that the car will not be obsolete anytime soon and that you cannot get 99% of people to take to bus, you just can't, accept that, there will always be a need for cars owing to the dispersed housing and the like. Public transport facilitates people moving in urban areas, it's the only way it makes money, in Galway that means moving people about the city, grand. Long distance travelling will rely on the car, it's not feasible to have buses running everywhere, bus eireann is a prime example (only making money on Urban routes, intercity routes), most people in the countryside wouldn't use the bus if it stopped outside their house and went every 15 minutes, they have cars and they want to use them, it's much more convenient. By having a bypass you get all those people who want/have to use cars (please for the love of god accept that they need to use cars to be efficient for where they live and need to go to) they get to bypass the city leaving more road space in the city. By penalising anybody who wants to drive in the city you can get more people to use a public transport system or cycle and allow both of these to improve with all the space you now have created. I can understand ( I think ) what Iwannahurl is saying is that by getting city traffic to use public transport or cycle you could allow the long distance traffic to use the free space created in the coty network, but what's going to force city traffic to use public transport that won't penalise those who need to use a car.

    Summary: Get those who need to use a car out (on a bypass) those that don't need to use a car (on public transport/cycling on freed up city space)


    Post of the Day.

    You have encapsulated the issues and taken each "side's" view into account to arrive at sensible conclusions. Most of the other posts here are from zealots and those defending themselves and logic against them.


  • #245
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    MYOB wrote: »
    Unless there's one you forgot to link, there is nothing to support any of your claims. Some nifty PowerPoint work and some cities nothing like Galway.

    Not a bit to suggest an ability to replace the bypass which is all this thread is about.

    If you can find me one single city in the world where a TDM or similar has removed 20%+ of the traffic, without a light rail system, I'll be delighted to read about it in detail.



    I can find one city very close to home where no attempt was made in twenty years to even try TDM, the clear preference being traffic generation and the promotion of car dependence.

    You didn't answer these points:
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    The lack of TDM does not bolster the case for a bypass.

    Quite the opposite in fact: it shows clearly that alternatives have never been seriously attempted.

    The 20-year-old GCOB proposal is rooted in old-school thinking, outdated spatial "planning" priorities, car-dependent development and traffic-generating transport policies. It is vehemently supported by those who see no problem with our car-is-king culture (The People That Matter, "no room" for pedestrians etc) and who deride bypass opponents or even just mere sceptics as "BA**ARDS", "ecomentalists", "sociopaths" and the like (see original GCOB thread for numerous examples of such posts).

    On the other hand, the guaranteed non-availability of a bypass for several more years (or ever) greatly strengthens the case for proper TDM, there being no alternative. No alternative, that is, except sit in our cars and moan righteously about traffic, as so many seem grimly willing to do.


  • #246
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    I can find one city very close to home where no attempt was made in twenty years to even try TDM, the clear preference being traffic generation and the promotion of car dependence.

    Do tell.

    After all as we hear so often, proof or it never happened.


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,114 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    I can find one city very close to home where no attempt was made in twenty years to even try TDM, the clear preference being traffic generation and the promotion of car dependence.

    You didn't answer these points:

    I'll take that as a no then, shall I?

    Those points have been answered - by all means do one but theres not a hope in hell it'll remove the need for a bypass. You're still arguing as if people are looking for onr or the other when it's only really you who wants to do one alone


  • #248
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    yer man! wrote: »
    Get those who need to use a car out (on a bypass) those that don't need to use a car (on public transport/cycling on freed up city space)

    How do you define "need", in terms of city traffic especially?

    Incidentally, major Bypass proponents such as Galway Chamber of Commerce want transport policies to support people who "like, want, prefer and need" to use the car.

    TDM would address those assumptions PDQ in the absence of a GCOB.


  • #249
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    markpb wrote: »
    There's a third camp of people who say that the bypass isn't going to happen anytime soon and that GCC should do whatever they can to alleviate the traffic in the meantime. It's possible that they'll be so successful that the bypass won't be needed but that's not relevant right now.

    I wonder how the proponents of these measures reconcile the fact that there has been a marked reduction (some estimates put it at 5%-10%) in traffic since ABP granted permission for the eastern section in 2008 but but no great reduction in traffic congestion?

    In fact some of the measures that the council have introduced have made things worse rather than better e.g. the N6 corridor plan has put traffic on the R339 back to pre-motorway tailbacks every day with traffic regularly backing up at least 1 mile from the lights at parkmore. It had been the case before these works that there was little or no traffic on this road. The N6 outbound is still regularly backing up past the racecourse gates, often as far or further than the exit of the business park (sometimes even hogans). This is despite the extra lanes that has been provided.

    I won't even get started with the utter mess that is moneenaghesha cross.


  • #250
    ?Cee?view
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,940 ✭✭✭?Cee?view


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Zealots, BA**ARDS, ecomentalists: your repeated labelling of Bypass sceptics and opponents in such terms is far from being value-neutral.

    You interpreted my reference to zealots to be a reference solely to bypass "sceptics"

    I take it that you are not attributing "BA**ARDS" to me?


  • #251
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    antoobrien wrote: »
    I wonder how the proponents of these measures reconcile the fact that there has been a marked reduction (some estimates put it at 5%-10%) in traffic since ABP granted permission for the eastern section in 2008 but but no great reduction in traffic congestion?

    In fact some of the measures that the council have introduced have made things worse rather than better e.g. the N6 corridor plan has put traffic on the R339 back to pre-motorway tailbacks every day with traffic regularly backing up at least 1 mile from the lights at parkmore. It had been the case before these works that there was little or no traffic on this road. The N6 outbound is still regularly backing up past the racecourse gates, often as far or further than the exit of the business park (sometimes even hogans). This is despite the extra lanes that has been provided.

    I won't even get started with the utter mess that is moneenaghesha cross.



    The alleged increased congestion has coincided with an increase in the proportion of children being driven to school in the inter-censal period 2006-2011. Funny that: more congestion prompts more people to drive Johnny and Mary to school.

    Incidentally, the City Council is claiming that the RAB-signals conversions have reduced tailbacks. I don't have a link but it was in the most recent City Tribune, iirc.


  • Advertisement
  • #252
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    churchview wrote: »
    You interpreted my reference to zealots to be a reference solely to bypass "sceptics"

    I take it that you are not attributing "BA**ARDS" to me?



    What do you think?

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055413202&page=19


  • #253
    ?Cee?view
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,940 ✭✭✭?Cee?view


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    What do you think?

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055413202&page=19

    That is a direct reference to the Green Party.


  • #254
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    MYOB wrote: »
    arguing as if people are looking for onr or the other



    The only options are TDM or do nothing.

    Personally I think many of those sitting in their cars every day and moaning -- without deliberate irony -- about traffic congestion would rather chew their own arm off than opt for TDM.

    At least the do nothing option means not having to get out of the car


  • #255
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,114 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    The only options are TDM or do nothing.

    Personally I think many of those sitting in their cars every day and moaning -- without deliberate irony -- about traffic congestion would rather chew their own arm off than opt for TDM.

    At least the do nothing option means not having to get out of the car

    Do it or do nothing, both in conjunction with the bypass. That is all that can work


  • #256
    KetchupKid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 198 ✭✭KetchupKid


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    The only options are TDM or do nothing.

    Personally I think many of those sitting in their cars every day and moaning -- without deliberate irony -- about traffic congestion would rather chew their own arm off than opt for TDM.

    At least the do nothing option means not having to get out of the car

    Well Galway still doesn't have a TDM (Transportation Demand Management programme!) and probably never will and yes, if all the idiots took the bus (ourselves included), Galway wouldn't have any traffic issues, but just a bus issue. Currently there aren't enough buses, they don't service enough areas, many of the current stops, transfers and destinations are inconvenient for a lot of people and in some cases it's not cost effective. If we had a reasonably priced adequate public transportation system, with suitable park & ride locations, there wouldn't be any traffic problems in Galway, but unfortunately we have nothing, except grid lock. So talk all you want about not having TDM, because we have nothing and unless you're lucky enough to live in a convenient location where you can cycle and/or take a handy bus at various convenient times, you're stuck in the grid lock. Should something be done to fix the problem? Yes, we're certainly paying enough in taxes between Motor tax, VRT, petrol tax, etc and it has been promised to us by endless politicians, while other parts of the country with less traffic problems have seen multiple remedies.

    Yes, maybe if there was a TDM and adequate PT we might not need a GCOB, but unfortunately we don't have anything but FUBAR!


  • #257
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    MYOB wrote: »
    Do it or do nothing, both in conjunction with the bypass. That is all that can work




    If I understand that point correctly, the corollary is 'do nothing until a Bypass exists'.

    If so, it's an essentially defeatist conclusion.

    Mind you, it supports my view that many motorists would prefer to see nothing at all done that might upset the status quo.

    Which in turn indicates that traffic congestion is not as intolerable as some bypass proponents would like to claim.

    As usual, these Boards 'debates' just go round in circles (on non-existent ring roads)...


  • #258
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    KetchupKid wrote: »
    So talk all you want about not having TDM, because we have nothing



    Talk all you want about a GCOB, because you won't get one for years (or possibly ever, if the NRA CEO is to be believed).

    By the way, luck has less to do with the FUBAR situation than political, social and personal choices.

    Though I feel lucky to do so, I live where I live and travel the way I travel because of choice, not luck.

    The motorists speeding and blocking up the roads and footpaths as I do the school run are doing so out of choice also.

    The local authority had choices when it decided to construct large cul-de-sac estates and pedestrian/cycle-hostile high-speed arterial routes.

    And so on.


  • #259
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,114 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    If I understand that point correctly, the corollary is 'do nothing until a Bypass exists'.

    If so, it's an essentially defeatist conclusion.

    Mind you, it supports my view that many motorists would prefer to see nothing at all done that might upset the status quo.

    Which in turn indicates that traffic congestion is not as intolerable as some bypass proponents would like to claim.

    As usual, these Boards 'debates' just go round in circles (on non-existent ring roads)...

    Constructing what.you want to argue against again I see.


  • #260
    markpb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,394 ✭✭✭markpb


    MYOB wrote: »
    Constructing what.you want to argue against again I see.

    What he's saying is all I can read from your posts too. I'm a little lost about what your opinion is on the matter.

    I understand that you believe Galway is different somehow and that traditional traffic management plans won't work there but I don't see what you think can or should be done. Apart from constructing a road that, for one reason or another, won't happen for a while.


  • #261
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,114 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    I have no opposition to traffic management plans - as much as its useful to construct that.

    I just see no evidence at all that they can negate the need for a bypass. And that is all this thread is about.


  • Advertisement
  • #262
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    The alleged increased congestion has coincided with an increase in the proportion of children being driven to school in the inter-censal period 2006-2011. Funny that: more congestion prompts more people to drive Johnny and Mary to school..


    Did you even read the post, I said that there has been no great reduction in traffic congestion and you somehow get "increased congestion".

    I've long suspected you're being argumentative for the sake of it, this confirms it.


  • #263
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Did you even read the post, I said that there has been no great reduction in traffic congestion and you somehow get "increased congestion".

    I've long suspected you're being argumentative for the sake of it, this confirms it.




    Confirmation bias.

    You wrote earlier:
    antoobrien wrote: »
    no great reduction in traffic congestion

    In fact some of the measures that the council have introduced have made things worse rather than better e.g. the N6 corridor plan has put traffic on the R339 back to pre-motorway tailbacks every day with traffic regularly backing up at least 1 mile from the lights at parkmore.

    It had been the case before these works that there was little or no traffic on this road.

    The N6 outbound is still regularly backing up past the racecourse gates, often as far or further than the exit of the business park (sometimes even hogans). This is despite the extra lanes that has been provided.

    I won't even get started with the utter mess that is moneenaghesha cross.


    There's a name for that kind of fallacious rhetoric.

    It may suit your purposes to claim that I'm being "argumentative for the sake of it" since this fits with the fantasy, and the received group-think, that the 20-year-old case for the bypass, emanating as it did from outdated car-dependent and traffic-generating policies, is unassailable and self-evident to all but but a few anti-car ideologues with an "agenda" who favour "oppressive measures taken to punish car users" blah blah etc.

    I live in the real world, however, and my views on traffic and transportation policies are derived from my attitudes, experiences and reading of the evidence.

    Boards-level 'debate' is not worth being "argumentative" about, whether purely for its own sake or for any other reason.


  • #264
    galwayrush
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,815 ✭✭✭✭galwayrush


    yer man! wrote: »
    Summary: Get those who need to use a car out (on a bypass) those that don't need to use a car (on public transport/cycling on freed up city space)

    So simple.:cool:


  • #265
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    galwayrush wrote: »
    So simple.:cool:



    There is always a well-known solution to every human problem; neat, plausible, and wrong. ~ H. L. Mencken. :)


  • #266
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    antoobrien wrote: »
    I wonder how the proponents of these measures reconcile the fact that there has been a marked reduction (some estimates put it at 5%-10%) in traffic since ABP granted permission for the eastern section in 2008 but but no great reduction in traffic congestion?

    In fact some of the measures that the council have introduced have made things worse rather than better e.g. the N6 corridor plan has put traffic on the R339 back to pre-motorway tailbacks every day with traffic regularly backing up at least 1 mile from the lights at parkmore. It had been the case before these works that there was little or no traffic on this road. The N6 outbound is still regularly backing up past the racecourse gates, often as far or further than the exit of the business park (sometimes even hogans). This is despite the extra lanes that has been provided.

    I won't even get started with the utter mess that is moneenaghesha cross.



    I think I see what's going on here now.

    If there's already a name for this specious rhetoric, or if a name for it ought to be coined, it somehow needs to encompass the idea of having one's cake and eating with both sides of one's mouth. :)

    One the one side, it's a claim that there has been "no great reduction in traffic congestion" despite a reported 5-10% decrease in traffic since 2008. This, it seems we are invited to conclude, apparently undermines the case for Traffic Demand Management or similar measures.

    On the other side, it's a claim that recent and partly-implemented traffic management measures such as the N6 Multi-Modal Corridor Scheme and the conversion of the Moneenageisha (Ffrench) Roundabout to a signalised junction have actually "made things worse".

    Why might a GCOB advocate (and vociferous opponent of roundabout removal) try to make both claims simultaneously?

    Could the following be a explanation?

    Claim 1: a 5-10% decrease in traffic volume leads to "no great reduction" in congestion.

    Possible subtext: a reduction in congestion is not achievable with modest TDM-type reductions in traffic.

    Claim 2: the N6 Multi-Modal Corridor Scheme has made things worse traffic-wise.

    Possible subtext: measures aimed at better traffic management and facilitation of public transport, walking and cycling actually cause more congestion.

    Foregone conclusion: the only proper solution is a bypass.

    Plausible?


  • #267
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,110 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Should we be focusing on relieving congestion or getting most people moving?


  • #268
    yer man!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,646 ✭✭✭yer man!


    8675557621_0c3fc9eb6f.jpg


  • #269
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,110 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    yer man! wrote: »
    8675557621_0c3fc9eb6f.jpg

    Whose argument?


  • #270
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,535 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    All posted by me earlier, and ignored by you:

    http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/

    http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/ump/07%20SEATTLE%20Best%20Practices%20in%20Transportation%20Demand%20Management.pdf

    http://www.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/7997_93169_GTZ_TDM_Armin_Wagner.pdf

    http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/data/files/publications/fairness_car_dependant.pdf

    http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/files/car_dependency_scorecard_2.pdf
    I only read some of the material and by and large it's all the same: screw motorists. The UN report praises Singapore for making cars 2x or 3x more expensive than other countries (among probably other things.)

    But on the VTPI site it was seriously messed up including this pile of total garbage that could only be believed by an anti-car leftist.
    For example: http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm86.htm
    Strategies that reduce traffic congestion tend to reduce the frequency of crashes but can increase the severity of those crashes that do occur. Strategies that shift automobile travel time, route or destination but do not reduce total vehicle travel probably do little to increase road safety or public health, and may increase injuries and fatalities.
    :eek:

    So all those motorways that Ireland built have worked to "reduced traffic congestion ... shift automobile travel time, route or destination but do not reduce total vehicle travel" in fact some might say it's increased vehicle travel.

    So all those crashes should be more severe and increased travel means there should be more of them. I.E. if that site is correct, our new motorways should all be drenched in blood.

    There's just one problem with that (thankfully) it's total bunk. Ireland moved massively to reroute traffic on faster, grade separated highways and all the while, road fatalities went down. The experience was positive for all concerned in most if not all cases. VTPI claims that deaths and serious injuries should be skyrocketing but it's just not happening.
    There is no Bypass, and there may never be one.

    The lack of same ensures that you can keep telling yourself how right you are as you sit in stalled traffic for the next ten years.
    We know who to blame for this lack of a bypass (hopefully the decision will be overriden in court as a matter of extreme public interest which is allowed and has happened in similar cases).
    monument wrote:
    Should we be focusing on relieving congestion or getting most people moving?
    Both. Starting with changes to Irish and if necessary European law to shove people Peter Sweetman and other nuisance litigators out of the way. Permanently.

    https://u24.gov.ua/
    Join NAFO today:

    Help us in helping Ukraine.



  • Advertisement
  • #271
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,535 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    the received group-think, that the 20-year-old case for the bypass

    I live in the real world, however, and my views on traffic and transportation policies are derived from my attitudes, experiences and reading of the evidence.
    Heres the thing, so do I. Or perhaps more likely, I live in the real world, and you live in a motorist bashing fantasy-land where everyone can ride bikes and it will all be sunflowers and rainbows.

    Unfortunately in real life, a few things can be taken to the banks.
    1. Anti-car boneheads think that just screwing motorists is the answer to all problems. Like the VTPI who claims that motorways kill. :eek: Which would be humourously infantile if it were not so bizarre and the authors not actually seriously expecting people to believe it.
    2. Bypasses, i.e. high quality grade separated roads, are essential to keeping through traffic out of a city. I've seen first hand how a bypass can transform a traffic choked hellhole (which my local town was before the N5 bypass opened, with vast quantities of Dublin-Mayo/Roscommon traffic strangling the town and ugly HGVs being part of the towns furniture) to being a quiet, peaceful place to do business, where I actually think cycle lanes etc might be a good idea.
    I'm likely not alone: pretty sure Moate, Loughrea etc have gone through the same transformations.


    This is the sort of balanced approach that I favour:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6jFnOnjzrk

    Note that when getting rid of what they call a "Stroad" (a hybrid of Street and Road), it is absolutely clear that handling the former stroads' long distance traffic with a high speed road is of equal importance to measures to make the former stroad a pleasant, living street.

    It's been said earlier that Galway City Council has been adding lanes etc to its streets to help deal with the through traffic. That's clearly not the solution. Telling Peter Sweetman to go to Hell on the other hand and removing through traffic from the city centre, clearly is.

    https://u24.gov.ua/
    Join NAFO today:

    Help us in helping Ukraine.



Advertisement