Galway road projects confirmed

cferrie

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Your solution, which I have argued is outdated, pumps the existing N59 traffic into Daingean on a 2 lane road and splits it into a cross river and a town stream at that point.

You are already talking 15000 vehicles a day on the Galway side of Moycullen. ( Source 2013 Low Growth) when a 2 lane road becomes severely congested at under 10,000 vehicles.

These traffic movements by and large continue to/from Galway from Moycullen and taking them away from Bushypark and Daingean makes complete sense. Removing around 2 out of 3 existing traffic movements in Bushypark and Daingean will go down rather well in those areas.

I would personally estimate that the outer bridge will have an AADT of around 10,000 movements ( including south connemara traffic not enumerated in that link above) upon opening which justifies a dualled solution on day one.

The other movements will continue through Bushypark and Daingean as now...on that 2 lane road.

You may be correct but we won't know without a comprehensive review of transport planning in the city using current data and taking into account measures to reduce car usage as described in the development plan.

You argue that my proposal is outdated but the current bypass proposal is based on a study published in 1999. I don't expect my proposal to work in isolation of other measures, which is again why I am calling for a comprehensive and holistic review.

The decision to proceed with the bypass should not be taken without such a review.

cferrie

Iwannahurl wrote: »

There's no doubt the GCOB is a trophy project. Politically, support for the GCOB wasn't enough to give Frank Fahey the electoral immortality he craved, but Brian Walsh might yet benefit.

With regard to your statement above, what "huge changes" -- in the city and in car usage -- are you referring to, and what is the evidence for that?



.

Roddy Mannion's new book on Galway gives a very good overview of the changes that have taken place in the city in the last decade or so. It's a real eye-opener!

antoobrien

cferrie wrote: »

You may be correct but we won't know without a comprehensive review of transport planning in the city using current data and taking into account measures to reduce car usage as described in the development plan.

You argue that my proposal is outdated but the current bypass proposal is based on a study published in 1999. I don't expect my proposal to work in isolation of other measures, which is again why I am calling for a comprehensive and holistic review.

The decision to proceed with the bypass should not be taken without such a review.

You argue about needing newer reviews but then you dismiss the newer reviews.

Make up your mind.

Btw the GCOB was reviewed several times between route selection (2001) and submission of plans to ABP (in 2006).

Sponge Bob

cferrie wrote: »

The decision to proceed with the bypass should not be taken without such a review.

On the contrary, the review should take place once the long distance and outer to outer commuter traffic is being/has been removed by the bypass.

It is an utterly pointless exercise at present and these rolling fractional 'do something' reviews resulted in €16m+ being grossly wasted on a 1.6km of Séamus Quirke project in the past 2 years.

Iwannahurl will no doubt have a goodie bag of ideas to share with is on how to use all that newly decongested road space within the city .

Iwannahurl

cferrie wrote: »

Roddy Mannion's new book on Galway gives a very good overview of the changes that have taken place in the city in the last decade or so. It's a real eye-opener!

Thanks for that.

http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/Galway-Roddy-Mannion/9781908308191

I'll check it out when I get the chance.

His interview with Pat Kenny might be worth a listen also.

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/podcast/podcast_patkenny.xml

cferrie

antoobrien wrote: »

You argue about needing newer reviews but then you dismiss the newer reviews.

Make up your mind.

Btw the GCOB was reviewed several times between route selection (2001) and submission of plans to ABP (in 2006).

There hasn't been a review of the justification for the bypass. The route selection merely offered slightly different variants on the same solution (incidentally all crossing the river at the same point) and the planning process was concerned with the impact of the proposal not the justification for it.

Sponge Bob

cferrie wrote: »

the planning process was concerned with the impact of the proposal not the justification for it.

Start with 10k vehicle movements being subtracted from the current 35-40k vehicle movements on the headford Road roundabout so...and review away yourself. Hopefully Hurl will give you a hand with stats and crayons.

cferrie

Sponge Bob wrote: »

On the contrary, the review should take place once the long distance and outer to outer commuter traffic is being/has been removed by the bypass.

It is an utterly pointless exercise at present and these rolling fractional 'do something' reviews resulted in €16m+ being grossly wasted on a 1.6km of Séamus Quirke project in the past 2 years.

Iwannahurl will no doubt have a goodie bag of ideas to share with is on how to use all that newly decongested road space within the city .

Are you sure that's the way to go? What if the review shows that traffic in the city is still a problem despite the bypass? Then we will have spent min. €150m (your figure) on a piece of infrastructure that doesn't work. Now that, would be "utterly pointless"!

cferrie

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Start with 10k vehicle movements being subtracted from the current 35-40k vehicle movements on the headford Road roundabout so...and review away yourself. Hopefully Hurl will give you a hand with stats and crayons.

I don't pretend to have all the data to carry out a review. That 10k is your own estimate and may be justifiable but we simply can't know. What is your objection to updating the transportation plan? Surely its just a matter of due diligence when you're spending that kind of money?

cferrie

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Thanks for that.

http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/Galway-Roddy-Mannion/9781908308191

I'll check it out when I get the chance.

His interview with Pat Kenny might be worth a listen also.

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/podcast/podcast_patkenny.xml

It was a very interesting interview - some of his ideas are more provocative than realistic but it's about time we had those kinds of discussions about Galway.

Sponge Bob

cferrie wrote: »

Are you sure that's the way to go? What if the review shows that traffic in the city is still a problem despite the bypass?

You will be dealing ceteris parabis with short haul traffic and shoppers not with a complex mixture of road users as now (Oh! and don't forget that Hospital which is the main Regional hospital from Limerick to Letterkenny and a university which has grown hugely)

Then we will have spent min. €150m (your figure) on a piece of infrastructure that doesn't work. Now that, would be "utterly pointless"!

No we won't.

Connemara traffic will no longer be forced through Galway.
Traffic to and from the hospital ( eg ambulances with extremely sick people in them) will not be stuck in City traffic...add up all them Golden Hours!!!

Do review away and publish the results in the forum and like I said...Hurl is simply gagging to be of help! I can tell.

cferrie

Sponge Bob wrote: »

You will be dealing ceteris parabis with short haul traffic and shoppers not with a complex mixture of road users as now (Oh! and don't forget that Hospital which is the main Regional hospital from Limerick to Letterkenny and a university which has grown hugely)



No we won't.

Connemara traffic will no longer be forced through Galway.
Traffic to and from the hospital ( eg ambulances with extremely sick people in them) will not be stuck in City traffic...add up all them Golden Hours!!!

Do review away and publish the results in the forum and like I said...Hurl is simply gagging to be of help! I can tell.

You are still assuming that removing the Connemara through traffic will have a substantive effect on traffic in the city. Without a review of the plan using current data on car usage and traffic volumes we simply cannot know that. Building the bypass to find out is a bit of a risky strategy don't you think?

Sponge Bob

cferrie wrote: »

Building the bypass to find out is a bit of a risky strategy don't you think?

Not risky at all. Just build the damn thing like every other Irish City has. ( some twice over)

cferrie

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Not risky at all. Just build the damn thing like every other Irish City has. ( some twice over)

Twice over? I wonder why that was - did the first one not work or something!? Heaven forbid!

Sponge Bob

Both the Dublin and Cork rings were rebuilt since initial construction while Galway was not ringed at all. The Galway Bypass is of sufficient quality not to require a rebuild within 20 years unlike the others.

antoobrien

cferrie wrote: »

There hasn't been a review of the justification for the bypass. The route selection merely offered slightly different variants on the same solution (incidentally all crossing the river at the same point) and the planning process was concerned with the impact of the proposal not the justification for it.

I don't think the economic case has been published, but there is information included on the potential for accident prevention. This is based on an expected opening of 2010. To quote from the Part 2 of the EIS (Nov 2006):

The existing road network has developed over a period of time and does not meet current design standards with respect to visibility etc. at many locations. The N6 GCOB is designed to current standards. There will be a transfer of traffic from the existing road network to the N6 GCOB. As a result of the above it is predicted that there will be a considerable reduction in the number of road traffic accidents that are likely to happen.

The total number of accidents forecast throughout the network by the cost benefit analysis computer software programme COBA 11 is shown in Table 2.1 below. It does not provide a breakdown by accident type and is based on the average national accident rates provided in the NRA Guidelines for Cost Benefit Analysis, June 2005. The number of accidents is produced for the opening year, 2024 and the scheme life.

Period | Do min | Do something | Saving
2010 | 188 | 156 | 32
2024 | 236 | 196 | 40
Scheme life | 7055 | 5857 | 1198

The table is based on the output from the COBA 11 software package, which was used to produced the analysis.
"Do min" = do nothing. "Do Something" = build the road.

There is a sample CBA from the [URL="file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/paobrien/Desktop/file,14164,en.pdf"]Tralee Bypass[/URL], which has been published as part of NRA guidelines (seems to be a real document). The analysis is that (based on low traffic growth, 2007 prices) the potential benefits were €501.5m.

KevR

cferrie wrote: »

You may be correct but we won't know without a comprehensive review of transport planning in the city using current data and taking into account measures to reduce car usage as described in the development plan.

You argue that my proposal is outdated but the current bypass proposal is based on a study published in 1999. I don't expect my proposal to work in isolation of other measures, which is again why I am calling for a comprehensive and holistic review.

The decision to proceed with the bypass should not be taken without such a review.

This bypass and Galway transport in general have both been planned and debated to death. We could start a new long drawn out comprehensive review, deal with all the objections and then when the time eventually comes again to actually start building something, the comprehensive review will be old, out of date and irrelevant meaning we will need another review. Vicious circle...

There comes a time when enough planning/debating/objecting has been done and that time is now. Most people agree that the bypass will greatly improve the transport situation in Galway. Assuming it gets the green light from the European Court, it will be built and the minority who don't want it will have to accept it.

?Cee?view

KevR wrote: »

This bypass and Galway transport in general have both been planned and debated to death. We could start a new long drawn out comprehensive review, deal with all the objections and then when the time eventually comes again to actually start building something, the comprehensive review will be old, out of date and irrelevant meaning we will need another review. Vicious circle...

There comes a time when enough planning/debating/objecting has been done and that time is now. Most people agree that the bypass will greatly improve the transport situation in Galway. Assuming it gets the green light from the European Court, it will be built and the minority who don't want it will have to accept it.

It's like Mutton Island all over again. That ran for years with various nimbys and ecomentalists bleating, while the bay was literally covered in sh1t and getting more polluted by the day. Now that that is finally built, the benefits are obvious. The bypass will surely be the same.

Sponge Bob

churchview wrote: »

It's like Mutton Island all over again. That ran for years with various nimbys and ecomentalists bleating, while the bay was literally covered in sh1t and getting more polluted by the day. Now that that is finally built, the benefits are obvious. The bypass will surely be the same.

You have far too much faith in Galway ecoMentalists, they are never wrong in their own little minds.

Mutton Island is to be increased from 70-90k capacity today...ie what the fuss was about 10 years ago... to 170k capacity. Design already under way

Catherine Connolly says she wants a vegetable garden out there instead ...something must give.

Mind you I'd be quite happy to see the plans for this mega sewage facility published if only to keep certain serial whingers quiet on the Bypass. I note none of the usual suspects expressed too much concern when this chap wrote to the Advertiser about capacity issues last summer.

Lets hope there are no repeats THIS summer, especially if the weather warms up for race week as looks likely, or is that too much to expect of a maxed out system??

yer man!

Some people don't like change......

dloob

Any review resulting in a new route would lead to another 20 years of legal battles with ecomentalists from Dublin who want to keep Galway as their unspoiled west of Ireland theme park. :mad:

Iwannahurl

churchview wrote: »

It's like Mutton Island all over again. That ran for years with various nimbys and ecomentalists bleating, while the bay was literally covered in sh1t and getting more polluted by the day. Now that that is finally built, the benefits are obvious. The bypass will surely be the same.

The "ecomentalists" also warned that that we were drinking our own sh1t (actually "rural" dwellers' sh1t) via Galway City's water supply.

Of course that's all changed now because, as the Cryptocracy in City Hall assures us, our shiny new sh1t removal water treatment system ensures that we have (probably) the "best treated water in the country". We won't dwell here on their previous assurances that the source water was fine, just fine -- a position they steadfastly maintained right up to the day before the Cryptosporidium scandal broke.

Back to the (future) GCOB. Politically, a new review of the case for a bypass is a non-runner. Its inclusion in the list of priority infrastructure shows that, and I doubt even the most vehement objectors would have the stomach for more epic battles (or maybe they do).

However, it also seems that there is a new policy emphasis on Transportation Demand Management as opposed to unsustainable road building as a promoter of unsustainable "Planning". Links to discussion on the GCOB in the Roads forum have already been posted in this thread. My own view is that it is imperative to ensure a Bypass is not abused by those who would quite happily continue to fill up Galway City and County roads with thousands more single-occupant cars, thanks to their car-dependent, traffic-generating "planning" policies.

Excerpts from the NRA's National Roads Traffic Management Study:

In Galway the strategic road network is still under development, and the existing Bóthar na dTreabh (N6) provides the function of a city bypass, but also has been subject to development of significant volumes of retail activity which hamper the ability of that road to achieve its primary function. There is therefore significant need to restore an appropriate level of safety and efficiency of the national road network in that area pending delivery of the Outer Bypass.

In the absence of the GCOB, the Galway Ring Road continues to provide connectivity between the major radial routes. Nevertheless, although constructed as a City Bypass, the existing Ring Road (Bóthar na dTreabh) has supported significant growth in retail and low-density employment uses which have been displaced from the City Centre by this infrastructure. This has led to significant erosion in the level of service provided by the ring road, leading to an inability to achieve its originally desired function.

The Traffic Management Study objectives set out a clear hierarchy of road users and required functions of a National Primary Route. In the case of the Galway Ring Road, it is evident that significant interventions are necessary in order to provide for the needs of the road, whilst considering the range of existing users along that corridor.

The ring road comprises a mixture of single and dual carriageway connecting the N6 with the N59. Whilst the at-grade roundabouts represent a key capacity constraint, it is noted that these roundabouts also provide access to numerous retail and commercial developments along the corridor, and as such any capacity increase would require such access to be considered. Whilst subject to more detailed design studies, a Traffic Management Study for Galway is therefore likely to include a number of initiatives which may include:

• Major enhancements at up to six existing at-grade junctions to improve traffic flow, provide for pedestrian/cycle movement and improve traffic safety;
• Removal of direct accesses where possible to protect traffic flow;
• Provision of new link roads to improve access to new grade separated junctions;
• Provision for high-value road users (Freight/Public Transport etc); and
• Significant investment in Smarter Travel policies and infrastructure to reduce car demand.

It is envisaged that a Traffic Management Study could deliver significant benefit to Galway City as an interim measure pending construction of the GCOB. The existing layout of the Galway Ring Road lends itself to significant scope for improvement, although the appropriate management of development clusters will be a significant requirement to ensure that the benefits of such a strategy can be fully captured.

.

cferrie

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Excerpts from the NRA's National Roads Traffic Management Study:

In the absence of the GCOB, the Galway Ring Road continues to provide connectivity between the major radial routes. Nevertheless, although constructed as a City Bypass, the existing Ring Road (Bóthar na dTreabh) has supported significant growth in retail and low-density employment uses which have been displaced from the City Centre by this infrastructure. This has led to significant erosion in the level of service provided by the ring road, leading to an inability to achieve its originally desired function.

Constructed as a bypass but they forgot to build the bridge which would have made it effective. Instead they brought the traffic back in towards the city to cross on pre-existing bridges. That may have something to do with its "inability to achieve its originally desired function".

Now the answer is to build a whole new bypass further away from the city instead of building the bridge which they should have built in the first place.:rolleyes:

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The "ecomentalists" also warned that that we were drinking our own sh1t (actually "rural" dwellers' sh1t) via Galway City's water supply.

Of course that's all changed now because, as the Cryptocracy in City Hall assures us, our shiny new sh1t removal water treatment system ensures that we have (probably) the "best treated water in the country". We won't dwell here on their previous assurances that the source water was fine, just fine -- a position they steadfastly maintained right up to the day before the Cryptosporidium scandal broke.

Not that that has anything to do with the roads project, but you are very well aware that the source of that outbreak has never been proven, despite the calims of the taxi driver that it was sewage tanks in Co Galway, while totally ignoring the amount of urban trratment centrers that have outflows into the lake & River Care.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Back to the (future) GCOB. Politically, a new review of the case for a bypass is a non-runner. Its inclusion in the list of priority infrastructure shows that, and I doubt even the most vehement objectors would have the stomach for more epic battles (or maybe they do).

It's not a runner because they can see beyond their own noses.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

In the absence of the GCOB, the Galway Ring Road continues to provide connectivity between the major radial routes. Nevertheless, although constructed as a City Bypass, the existing Ring Road (Bóthar na dTreabh) has supported significant growth in retail and low-density employment uses which have been displaced from the City Centre by this infrastructure. This has led to significant erosion in the level of service provided by the ring road, leading to an inability to achieve its originally desired function.

Anybody who describes a road that goes through pre-existing residential, real and industrial areas a s bypass deserves to be fired.

The road could no more be described a bypass in the 80s as could the Western Distributer road be described as a bypass of Knocknacara.

Lets go back to when it was built - it linked up with SQR - which goes through/past the Westside & Newcastle estates & businesses. It then passes Dunnes and Quinnsworth (now Tesco), cuts over to Ballinfolye/Tirellan, up past Glenburren & the industrial estate in Mervue then on to Ballybane. The only "new" facilities along that route (where there were no businesses/housing at all) are the ones in Briarhill.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

However, it also seems that there is a new policy emphasis on Transportation Demand Management as opposed to unsustainable road building as a promoter of unsustainable "Planning". Links to discussion on the GCOB in the Roads forum have already been posted in this thread. My own view is that it is imperative to ensure a Bypass is not abused by those who would quite happily continue to fill up Galway City and County roads with thousands more single-occupant cars, thanks to their car-dependent, traffic-generating "planning" policies.

Excerpts from the NRA's National Roads Traffic Management Study:

In Galway the strategic road network is still under development, and the existing Bóthar na dTreabh (N6) provides the function of a city bypass, but also has been subject to development of significant volumes of retail activity which hamper the ability of that road to achieve its primary function. There is therefore significant need to restore an appropriate level of safety and efficiency of the national road network in that area pending delivery of the Outer Bypass.



The Traffic Management Study objectives set out a clear hierarchy of road users and required functions of a National Primary Route. In the case of the Galway Ring Road, it is evident that significant interventions are necessary in order to provide for the needs of the road, whilst considering the range of existing users along that corridor.

The ring road comprises a mixture of single and dual carriageway connecting the N6 with the N59. Whilst the at-grade roundabouts represent a key capacity constraint, it is noted that these roundabouts also provide access to numerous retail and commercial developments along the corridor, and as such any capacity increase would require such access to be considered. Whilst subject to more detailed design studies, a Traffic Management Study for Galway is therefore likely to include a number of initiatives which may include:

• Major enhancements at up to six existing at-grade junctions to improve traffic flow, provide for pedestrian/cycle movement and improve traffic safety;
• Removal of direct accesses where possible to protect traffic flow;
• Provision of new link roads to improve access to new grade separated junctions;
• Provision for high-value road users (Freight/Public Transport etc); and
• Significant investment in Smarter Travel policies and infrastructure to reduce car demand.

It is envisaged that a Traffic Management Study could deliver significant benefit to Galway City as an interim measure pending construction of the GCOB. The existing layout of the Galway Ring Road lends itself to significant scope for improvement, although the appropriate management of development clusters will be a significant requirement to ensure that the benefits of such a strategy can be fully captured.

.

I see we're back to the conspiracy theories populated by the arts and history graduate that was silly enough to buy an apartment in temple bar then complain about the noise.

Are you going to pull out the auctioneers report again, which refers to the Ballintemple as an area for possible future development, while ignoring that the Ballintmple are plan is part of the county development plan? Or perhaps we could talk about the potential development of Ardaun, which is also on the go for more than 10 years.

Nobody supporting GCOB wants to see a quarryvalue next nor near it (e.g. I'm not particuraly enamoured with Tesco for buying up land in Brarhill for a supermarket - which as thus far been rejected PP on two occasions).

Iwannahurl

cferrie wrote: »

[/INDENT]Constructed as a bypass but they forgot to build the bridge which would have made it effective. Instead they brought the traffic back in towards the city to cross on pre-existing bridges. That may have something to do with its "inability to achieve its originally desired function".

Now the answer is to build a whole new bypass further away from the city instead of building the bridge which they should have built in the first place.:rolleyes:

Lots of things were forgotten when infrastructure and development was being "planned" in this country (eg services on motorways, sewage treatment, public transport, pedestrian faciities). The ink was barely dry on the National Spatial Strategy before it was shelved for short-term gain of various kinds. Of course our political system and culture may have had something to do with that.

I vaguely recall hearing somewhere that ?Siemens once offered to build some serious roads infrastructure (perhaps a bridge over the Shannon) for the fledgling Irish State, seeing as how they were engaged in major engineering works anyway. Their offer was declined, reportedly, because sure weren't the locals only using donkeys and carts then.

The short view, populism, penny wise and pound foolish, unsustainability and It'll Do -- we didn't get where we are today without such influences on our politics.

Let's hope the current government has put all that behind them, and will commit scarce resources with value for money and sustainability in mind.


.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Lots of things were forgotten when infrastructure and development was being "planned" in this country (eg services on motorways, sewage treatment, public transport, pedestrian faciities). The ink was barely dry on the National Spatial Strategy before it was shelved for short-term gain of various kinds. Of course our political system and culture may have had something to do with that.

I vaguely recall hearing somewhere that ?Siemens once offered to build some serious roads infrastructure (perhaps a bridge over the Shannon) for the fledgling Irish State, seeing as how they were engaged in major engineering works anyway. Their offer was declined, reportedly, because sure weren't the locals only using donkeys and carts then.

The short view, populism, penny wise and pound foolish, unsustainability and It'll Do -- we didn't get where we are today without such influences on our politics.

Let's hope the current government has put all that behind them, and will commit scarce resources with value for money and sustainability in mind.


.

Define irony:
Complaining about the shortfalls in infrastructure planning, while being against potentially the biggest of infrastructure in the city's history as "too big".

Sponge Bob

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The "ecomentalists" also warned

I see you ignored the invitation in this thread to suggest some useful ideas for the road space going forward and dragged up this one here up. Abset a few key facts as I would expect.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Nevertheless, although constructed as a City Bypass, the existing Ring Road (Bóthar na dTreabh) has supported significant growth in retail and low-density employment uses which have been displaced from the City Centre by this infrastructure.

No SOONER was this road finished in the 1980s than the City Centre was then PEDESTRIANISED thereby DISPLACING many CITY CENTRE businesses to the Liosbán. Even Kennys Bookshop ended up there FFS.

The 'significant growth' referred to was caused by this DISPLACEMENT not by THE SHAGGIN ROAD ITSELF!!!!!!!!

The SOLUTION = REVERSE THIS PEDESTRIANISATION MADNESS!!!!

antoobrien

Sponge Bob wrote: »

No SOONER was this road finished in the 1980s than the City Centre was then PEDESTRIANISED thereby DISPLACING many CITY CENTRE businesses to the Liosbán. Even Kennys Bookshop ended up there FFS.

The 'significant growth' referred to was caused by this DISPLACEMENT not by THE SHAGGIN ROAD ITSELF!!!!!!!!

Indeed, O'Connors had a shop beside Ryans (River Island now I think) that had to move to the "Incredible Planet" ( later dubbed the invisible planet after Curry's built beside it and effectively put O'Connors and Powerworld out of business).

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Define irony:
Complaining about the shortfalls in infrastructure planning, while being against potentially the biggest of infrastructure in the city's history as "too big".

Link/quote?

Iwannahurl

Sponge Bob wrote: »

I see you ignored the invitation in this thread to suggest some useful ideas for the road space going forward and dragged up this one here up. Abset a few key facts as I would expect.



No SOONER was this road finished in the 1980s than the City Centre was then PEDESTRIANISED thereby DISPLACING many CITY CENTRE businesses to the Liosbán. Even Kennys Bookshop ended up there FFS.

The 'significant growth' referred to was caused by this DISPLACEMENT not by THE SHAGGIN ROAD ITSELF!!!!!!!!

The SOLUTION = REVERSE THIS PEDESTRIANISATION MADNESS!!!!

Galway: City of CAPITALS. And EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!