Galway Ring Road- are there better ways to solve traffic?

Sam Russell

mod: Ok, I have moved the posts that were off topic on the M6 Galway ring road thread.

The guidelines for this thread are :

1. Discussion of ways to better serve the Galway traffic distribution.

2. No talk of VRT, Motor Tax, etc. They are not Galway specific.

3. Modal switch is OK if it avoids slagging off other types of traffic, and is relevant to Galway.

4. Suggestions of P&R locations if it would solve problems.


Usual rules apply - do not attack the poster, and be civil.

Ruhanna

marno21 wrote: »

Can you provide a source for this statement please.

In Ireland, road-building is typically conceived as a precursor to new development, and new development is typically based on access by private car.

Consider these three Ps: precedent, PR and politics.

Precedent is the most obvious, because we've been here already. The existing N6 was planned as a ring road around the city, but the Council ruined it by giving "planning" permission for large traffic-generating developments all around it, including huge areas of surface car parking. All low density, massively wasteful of valuable urban real estate and hugely damaging to the viability of public transport.

The M50 is another example of the way we use bypasses in Ireland. Need we go into details?

Additional precedents include other towns and cities that were bypassed and which subsequently saw a rise in the total number of car trips and in modal share for driving. If that is an incorrect assessment, can you name any bypassed town in Ireland that has experienced a decreased modal share for driving and an increased modal share for public transport, cycling and walking? If there is one it would be good to know, because it would make an interesting and informative study.

PR is either (a) the promotion of the long-demanded "bypass" (now called a ring road or expressway) on the basis that it will make more development possible, or (b) promotion of development on the basis of its proximity to the proposed new road.

Phrases such as "open up" and "free up" are typically used in this context. That's what the pro-bypass lobby were seeking from the very beginning, and it's what they still want now:

“The Galway City Outer Bypass would significantly alleviate the chronic traffic congestion problems in the city. It would also open up development opportunities for both the city and county which in turn would attract additional investment and employment opportunities,” CIF said in its pre-budget submission seen by the Galway City Tribune.

Note that the CIF is still using the old GCOB terminology, while carrying the old ideas forward into their inevitable recommendations for yet more road building. They have learned nothing, and they have forgotten nothing.

In fact the CIF are unabashedly just picking up where they left off after the economic crash and the demise of the fatally-flawed GCOB project:

“The city badly needs to build the Galway City Outer Ring road. Currently, traffic crisscrosses the city creating major traffic congestion. The Galway City Outer Ring road would relieve this traffic congestion, while at the same time open up much-needed lands for residential, commercial and industrial development that would help to service the needs of the city into the future.”

Source: https://constructionnews.ie/regional-development-ireland

As an example of promotion of development on the basis of its proximity to the proposed new road, here's some PR from Bannon, one of the largest commercial property consultancies in Ireland, advertising the "Gateway Shopping Park" as being "only 400 metres from the proposed M6 Galway Bypass".

Here's another:

"Without doubt, one of the highest profile sites to come to the market in Galway in recent times, the property is strategically placed with easy access to Galway city centre and the main traffic arteries to and from the city. All access points to the city are close by with the N6 link road 2kms away."

Source: http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/101299/high-profile-development-lands-in-rahoon-now-for-sale

Finally, for now, there's the political perspective. Irish local and national politicians typically see road-building as a way to "open up" towns, cities and regions for more development.

http://clarechampion.ie/work-to-start-next-year-on-e550m-gort-to-tuam-motorway
https://www.limerickpost.ie/2015/06/18/new-road-to-open-up-irelands-biggest-cul-de-sac
http://wicklowvoice.ie/6802/

They're not building railways with the same speed and enthusiasm, so the result in almost all cases is car-dependent sprawl. What are motorways for but to make more driving more easy?

And here it is from the horse's mouth, so to speak: no less a person than the Taoiseach Leo Varadkar says that the proposed ring road will "free up other parts of the city for further development."

Link: https://connachttribune.ie/listen-leo-varadkar-on-galway-traffic-health-and-councils-no-confidence-motion/

Geuze

A healthy, sustainable future does not involve ever more roads and cars.

This road may be justified, I can't say.

But a better future means much more public transit.

The most successful cities in the world have effective transit.

Carol25

What is the primary purpose of the city's roads? Moving county dwellers in their driver-only cars from A to B and back? Because the rurban commuter cohort, thanks to Galway County Council's stupid "planning" policies over decades, are huge contributors to the city's traffic congestion. You are not stuck in traffic, you are traffic.

Are you saying modern cars are not comfortable? What are you driving, a Lada? You didn't refute anything with regard to short distance driving in Galway. The fact remains, because the data have been there for years, is that a significant proportion of journeys in the city are over short distances. The thousands of county drivers entering the city after their long drives from rurban developments spread over a very large commuter catchment meet thousands of city drivers travelling relatively short distances and the resultant mess is called "permanent gridlock" or some such. It's this chaotic and unsustainable mosaic of travel patterns that gives rise to demand for a so-called "bypass", which may ease congestion in the short term but which will not fix the core problems in the long term and will probably make things worse (see the story of the M50).

Our stupid and unsustainable planning policies have led to many thousands of people transplanting themselves to the countryside, many of whom moved out to have "an urban-type home while avoiding the cost of city living" as mentioned in a link posted earlier. Can they be transplanted back? Unlikely. Our "planning" policies over decades have gifted us a legacy of unsustainable transport and infrastructure problems that will last for decades more. An urban motorway costing hundreds of millions of Euro is probably only the start of it.

Private cars, regardless of trip purpose, are massively inefficient. If you want to make the worst possible use of finite space, then the private car is the ideal way to do it.



Look at the picture above. Is either lane "shut down"? Which mode of transport illustrates the most efficient use of available resources?

A better question might be: what are the social implications of our rurban settlement patterns, which is one major source of the seemingly insatiable demand for more road construction?

As stated earlier, probably more than once, 40% of car trips don't cross the river at all. Shifting a chunk of those trips to modes other than massively space-inefficient single-occupant private cars would go a long way to relieving congestion on the river crossings. Likewise, eliminating cross-river trips (such as with Park & Ride, and making much more efficient use of bridges (such as by mode-shifting to public transport especially) would also make much better use of existing infrastructure at much lower cost.

The "miles and miles of tailbacks" are primarily composed of single-occupant cars (90% in Parkmore, according to a Council engineer).

Mandatory? Do you have some sort of ideological objection to transport planning and measures to control private car use?

Speaking of which, do you think that the County Council's construction of a motorway within the City Council's administrative area should be mandatory, to the extent that 40 family homes should be demolished, the relative tranquility of numerous other homes destroyed or diminished, and the property of an even larger group compulsorily acquired, divided or restricted, just so that county car commuters can drive faster?[/quote]


This is just going around in circles, you’re not offering any concrete proposals re public transport options. You’re making out building a road is ‘destroying the tranquility of the area’. Galway is a city, it’s not a nature reserve and the previous plan for the bypass further out avoiding home demolition was denied as I’m sure you’re well aware. You’ve just posted up a random picture of a bus and cars in traffic as your ‘example’ of a public transport solution without offering a single detail re times, roads, lanes, destinations. What’s more important to note however is the picture you’re using is a picture of a good road, with two lanes of traffic and a huge bus lane area, are you aware there isn’t a single road in Galway able to free up that kind of space. There’s barely room for one lane each way, never mind two. As I’ve already stated, Galway City’s roads are not fit for purpose. Building the road in the picture you’ve provided looks to have improved the availability of public transport in that random area, food for thought.
No one wants the bypass to ‘travel faster’, they want two get from a to b. Hospitals, ambulances, people in all sorts of situations. Are you aware a huge amount of people travel into Galway City daily to UHG from as far away as Donegal and other areas for Cancer treatments and other conditions as Galway is the designated ‘centre of excellence’ for the West. And guess where the hospital is located, across the river that doesn’t have enough bridges. Those people don’t have a menu of public transport services to choose from either. I agree planning is poor, foresight is shocking, and public transport options should be developed. However Galway needs more infrastructure to achieve this.
I’m done with this argument. As they say on Dragons Den, I’m out.

Carol25

In response to Ruhanna:
This is just going around in circles, you’re not offering any concrete proposals re public transport options. You’re making out building a road is ‘destroying the tranquility of the area’. Galway is a city, it’s not a nature reserve and the previous plan for the bypass further out avoiding home demolition was denied as I’m sure you’re well aware. You’ve just posted up a random picture of a bus and cars in traffic as your ‘example’ of a public transport solution without offering a single detail re times, roads, lanes, destinations. What’s more important to note however is the picture you’re using is a picture of a good road, with two lanes of traffic and a huge bus lane area, are you aware there isn’t a single road in Galway able to free up that kind of space. There’s barely room for one lane each way, never mind two. As I’ve already stated, Galway City’s roads are not fit for purpose. Building the road in the picture you’ve provided looks to have improved the availability of public transport in that random area, food for thought.
No one wants the bypass to ‘travel faster’, they want two get from a to b. Hospitals, ambulances, people in all sorts of situations. Are you aware a huge amount of people travel into Galway City daily to UHG from as far away as Donegal and other areas for Cancer treatments and other conditions as Galway is the designated ‘centre of excellence’ for the West. And guess where the hospital is located, across the river that doesn’t have enough bridges. Those people don’t have a menu of public transport services to choose from either. I agree planning is poor, foresight is shocking, and public transport options should be developed. However Galway needs more infrastructure to achieve this.
I’m done with this argument. As they say on Dragons Den, I’m out.

WillieMason

Carol25 wrote: »

In response to Ruhanna:
This is just going around in circles, you’re not offering any concrete proposals re public transport options. You’re making out building a road is ‘destroying the tranquility of the area’. Galway is a city, it’s not a nature reserve and the previous plan for the bypass further out avoiding home demolition was denied as I’m sure you’re well aware. You’ve just posted up a random picture of a bus and cars in traffic as your ‘example’ of a public transport solution without offering a single detail re times, roads, lanes, destinations. What’s more important to note however is the picture you’re using is a picture of a good road, with two lanes of traffic and a huge bus lane area, are you aware there isn’t a single road in Galway able to free up that kind of space. There’s barely room for one lane each way, never mind two. As I’ve already stated, Galway City’s roads are not fit for purpose. Building the road in the picture you’ve provided looks to have improved the availability of public transport in that random area, food for thought.
No one wants the bypass to ‘travel faster’, they want two get from a to b. Hospitals, ambulances, people in all sorts of situations. Are you aware a huge amount of people travel into Galway City daily to UHG from as far away as Donegal and other areas for Cancer treatments and other conditions as Galway is the designated ‘centre of excellence’ for the West. And guess where the hospital is located, across the river that doesn’t have enough bridges. Those people don’t have a menu of public transport services to choose from either. I agree planning is poor, foresight is shocking, and public transport options should be developed. However Galway needs more infrastructure to achieve this.
I’m done with this argument. As they say on Dragons Den, I’m out.

Well said you are 100% right

WillieMason

Ruhanna wrote: »

What is the primary purpose of the city's roads? Moving county dwellers in their driver-only cars from A to B and back? Because the rurban commuter cohort, thanks to Galway County Council's stupid "planning" policies over decades, are huge contributors to the city's traffic congestion. You are not stuck in traffic, you are traffic.

Are you saying modern cars are not comfortable? What are you driving, a Lada? You didn't refute anything with regard to short distance driving in Galway. The fact remains, because the data have been there for years, that a significant proportion of journeys in the city are over short distances. The thousands of county drivers entering the city after their long drives from rurban developments spread over a very large commuter catchment meet thousands of city drivers travelling relatively short distances and the resultant mess is called "permanent gridlock" or some such. It's this chaotic and unsustainable mosaic of travel patterns that gives rise to demand for a so-called "bypass", which may ease congestion in the short term but which will not fix the core problems in the long term and will probably make things worse (see the story of the M50).

Our stupid and unsustainable planning policies have led to many thousands of people transplanting themselves to the countryside, many of whom moved out to have "an urban-type home while avoiding the cost of city living" as mentioned in a link posted earlier. Can they be transplanted back? Unlikely. Our "planning" policies over decades have gifted us a legacy of unsustainable transport and infrastructure problems that will last for decades more. An urban motorway costing hundreds of millions of Euro is probably only the start of it.

Private cars, regardless of trip purpose, are massively inefficient. If you want to make the worst possible use of finite space, then the private car is the ideal way to do it.



Look at the picture above. Is either lane "shut down"? Which mode of transport illustrates the most efficient use of available resources?

A better question might be: what are the social implications of our rurban settlement patterns, which is one major source of the seemingly insatiable demand for more road construction?

As stated earlier, probably more than once, 40% of car trips don't cross the river at all. Shifting a chunk of those trips to modes other than massively space-inefficient single-occupant private cars would go a long way to relieving congestion on the river crossings. Likewise, eliminating cross-river trips (such as with Park & Ride, and making much more efficient use of bridges (such as by mode-shifting to public transport especially) would also make much better use of existing infrastructure at much lower cost.

The "miles and miles of tailbacks" are primarily composed of single-occupant cars (90% in Parkmore, according to a Council engineer).

Mandatory? Do you have some sort of ideological objection to transport planning and measures to control private car use?

Speaking of which, do you think that the County Council's construction of a motorway within the City Council's administrative area should be mandatory, to the extent that 40 family homes should be demolished, the relative tranquility of numerous other homes destroyed or diminished, and the property of an even larger group compulsorily acquired, divided or restricted, just so that county car commuters can drive faster?

Where is this picture taken?

Geuze

WillieMason wrote: »

can you give examples of these cities? so i can compare them to galway?

e.g. Freiburg, Regensburg..........

http://urbanrail.net/eu/de/fr/freiburg.htm

https://www.vag-freiburg.de/fahrplan-linien/netzplaene/liniennetzplan.html

Ruhanna

Carol25 wrote: »

In response to Ruhanna:
This is just going around in circles, you’re not offering any concrete proposals re public transport options. You’re making out building a road is ‘destroying the tranquility of the area’. Galway is a city, it’s not a nature reserve and the previous plan for the bypass further out avoiding home demolition was denied as I’m sure you’re well aware. You’ve just posted up a random picture of a bus and cars in traffic as your ‘example’ of a public transport solution without offering a single detail re times, roads, lanes, destinations. What’s more important to note however is the picture you’re using is a picture of a good road, with two lanes of traffic and a huge bus lane area, are you aware there isn’t a single road in Galway able to free up that kind of space. There’s barely room for one lane each way, never mind two. As I’ve already stated, Galway City’s roads are not fit for purpose. Building the road in the picture you’ve provided looks to have improved the availability of public transport in that random area, food for thought.
No one wants the bypass to ‘travel faster’, they want two get from a to b. Hospitals, ambulances, people in all sorts of situations. Are you aware a huge amount of people travel into Galway City daily to UHG from as far away as Donegal and other areas for Cancer treatments and other conditions as Galway is the designated ‘centre of excellence’ for the West. And guess where the hospital is located, across the river that doesn’t have enough bridges. Those people don’t have a menu of public transport services to choose from either. I agree planning is poor, foresight is shocking, and public transport options should be developed. However Galway needs more infrastructure to achieve this.
I’m done with this argument. As they say on Dragons Den, I’m out.

You're out, without properly addressing any of the core issues, and while failing to comprehend a key point about efficient use of finite road space. It's all about geometry, but it seems that in Galway committed car commuters (perhaps most especially those in the county who have made their rural bed and now have to lie in it, no matter what happens) just cannot grasp the fundamentals of travel mode as it relates to road capacity.

Geuze

Geuze

Population = 220,000

Tram network, and buses.

Ruhanna

WillieMason wrote: »

Where is this picture taken?

Kraków, Poland.

WillieMason

Geuze wrote: »

Population = 220,000

Tram network, and buses.

Thanks for the examples much appreciated. Have you any examples of coastal cities similar to Galway i can check out?

WillieMason

Ruhanna wrote: »

You're out, without properly addressing any of the core issues, and while failing to comprehend a key point about efficient use of finite road space. It's all about geometry, but it seems that in Galway committed car commuters (perhaps most especially those in the county who have made their rural bed and now have to lie in it, no matter what happens) just cannot grasp the fundamentals of travel mode as it relates to road capacity.

I think its solutions she wants everyone knows the problems

Ruhanna

WillieMason wrote: »

Thanks for the examples much appreciated. Have you any examples of coastal cities similar to Galway i can check out?

There are probably countless examples of other cities of similar size around the world. But so what? Some things might be the same, other factors significantly different.

There is one universal principle, and that is geometry. It doesn't matter where you look, the result will always be the same: the private car is the least efficient use of finite road space. Any sustainable solution to urban traffic and transport cannot avoid addressing this basic fact.

Ruhanna

WillieMason wrote: »

I think its solutions she wants everyone knows the problems

You can see no potential solution in the posted images, no?

Sam Russell

Last Saturday, I drove from Athenry to Terryland and back. It was interesting because the traffic was not too bad, but I noticed the inordinate delay at the various traffic lights on the four or so junctions. They are complex and use sequencing that is very inefficient and give rise to tailbacks on the major route. There is also the Coolagh roundabout which also gives rise to problems.

Now, I am not a traffic engineer, but looking at the map, it would appear to me there is plenty of space available to widen the N6 (Bothar Na dTreabh) to allow extra lanes, slip roads and bus lanes where appropriate. The main aim should be to make the N6 free flow as much as possible, and to widen or duplicate the Centenial bridge, again there is space to do so.

Bus transport along the N6 is notable by its absence. Park and rides are also absent. Do the small things first.

Ruhanna

Sam Russell wrote: »

Last Saturday, I drove from Athenry to Terryland and back. It was interesting because the traffic was not too bad, but I noticed the inordinate delay at the various traffic lights on the four or so junctions. They are complex and use sequencing that is very inefficient and give rise to tailbacks on the major route. There is also the Coolagh roundabout which also gives rise to problems.

Now, I am not a traffic engineer, but looking at the map, it would appear to me there is plenty of space available to widen the N6 (Bothar Na dTreabh) to allow extra lanes, slip roads and bus lanes where appropriate. The main aim should be to make the N6 free flow as much as possible, and to widen or duplicate the Centenial bridge, again there is space to do so.

Bus transport along the N6 is notable by its absence. Park and rides are also absent. Do the small things first.

Why add lanes only to use those lanes in the most inefficient way possible, ie for private cars?

Ruhanna

Is is ether/or, for at least two critical reasons: (1) the huge expenditure, which could be put to much better use, and (2) the damage that the proposed urban motorway would cause, with adverse effects lasting at least another generation, such as induced traffic and further sprawl.

If people "want" to use their single-occupant cars, clogging up the roads, then they have lost the moral right to complain about congestion. You are not stuck in traffic, you are traffic.

Everybody pays taxes.

what_traffic

Ruhanna wrote: »

Or four, in our case: drive, cycle, walk, use public transport.

And yes, we pay tax the same as everybody else does.

Ditto. That's the big problem really - if people were more multi-modal in Galway City and it's surrounds, would there be a want for this City Ring Road.
Car for our household can spend a week or two in the driveway without been moved.

what_traffic

Cookiemunster wrote: »

That's great for you, but many people live where they can afford, which usually isn't near where they work. Public transport is great in densely populated areas, but unfortunately nowhere in Ireland is densely populated (not even Dublin). Until we start building up in the center of cities and get people to live there, rather than sprawling out then no amount of public transport is going to resolve the traffic issue.

It's not about it been great or not. It is about the choices people make. I do not live close to work, 10km. Point I was making is that people use motor vehicles in the City for unnecessary journeys. Rurban commuters in the main are locked into one mode.
Agree re Density - Galway City Density has decreased by half since 1960 but population has quadrupled.

Ruhanna

Sam Russell wrote: »

Mod: Can we get back on topic. General discussion of tax, motor tax, sprawl, etc are off topic. Discussion on whether Galway Ring road is needed should be put in that thread. Off topic stuff will be moved or deleted depending on whether there is a thread for it.

Can be you more specific (and prescriptive) regarding what is "on topic" in this thread?

For example, what would be an "on topic" response to your post below?

Sam Russell wrote: »

Last Saturday, I drove from Athenry to Terryland and back. It was interesting because the traffic was not too bad, but I noticed the inordinate delay at the various traffic lights on the four or so junctions. They are complex and use sequencing that is very inefficient and give rise to tailbacks on the major route. There is also the Coolagh roundabout which also gives rise to problems.

Now, I am not a traffic engineer, but looking at the map, it would appear to me there is plenty of space available to widen the N6 (Bothar Na dTreabh) to allow extra lanes, slip roads and bus lanes where appropriate. The main aim should be to make the N6 free flow as much as possible, and to widen or duplicate the Centenial bridge, again there is space to do so.

Bus transport along the N6 is notable by its absence. Park and rides are also absent. Do the small things first.

Ruhanna

Zzippy wrote: »

Bothar na dTreach could possibly be widened, which would create additional space for bus and cycle lane infrastructure, if you're not going to assign existing lanes for those, which IMO should be the first order of business. You can't widen/duplicate the Quin bridge, however, without taking out significant property interests on the western side, and even if you did, you're still funnelling additional traffic quicker into the bottleneck that is Seamus Quirke Road, which cannot be widened further. Even if you assumed a lot of that traffic is heading for the N59, there is no space for slip roads to create a free flow junction, and traffic will still grind to a halt and back up to Terryland.

Why so much emphasis on "widening"? The capacity of the Seamus Quirke Road at present (car lanes + bus/bike lanes + bike paths/lanes + footpaths) would be reduced if any of the existing space was reallocated to create another car lane.

The SQR is not a bottleneck. Where people travelling by bike or bus encounter bottlenecks on that side of town is on the Western Distributor Road and on the Deane and Browne roundabouts.

There is a 100% bottleneck for public transport on the Quincentenary Bridge, in the sense that there is no bus lane. So bus service providers don't use it.

There are four lanes (two in each direction) on the Quincentenary Bridge. Reallocating space to bus lanes, implementing bus priority measures at junctions and providing a connected off-road cycle route (with junction priority) on the whole length of the existing N6 Ring Road would increase capacity, not reduce it.

Zzippy

Ruhanna wrote: »

Why so much emphasis on "widening"? The capacity of the Seamus Quirke Road at present (car lanes + bus/bike lanes + bike paths/lanes + footpaths) would be reduced if any of the existing space was reallocated to create another car lane.

The SQR is not a bottleneck. Where people travelling by bike or bus encounter bottlenecks on that side of town is on the Western Distributor Road and on the Deane and Browne roundabouts.

There is a 100% bottleneck for public transport on the Quincentenary Bridge, in the sense that there is no bus lane. So bus service providers don't use it.

There are four lanes (two in each direction) on the Quincentenary Bridge. Reallocating space to bus lanes, implementing bus priority measures at junctions and providing a connected off-road cycle route (with junction priority) on the whole length of the existing N6 Ring Road would increase capacity, not reduce it.

The sheer number, proximity and sequencing of traffic lights on SQR means it certainly is a bottleneck, particularly at busy times.

what_traffic

Zzippy wrote: »

The sheer number, proximity and sequencing of traffic lights on SQR means it certainly is a bottleneck, particularly at busy times.

Different bottleneck, maybe bottleneck for a single car user at peak times, but for the person walking, cycling or bus.... Only time they experience the bottleneck is when trying to cross the main SQR/BOD road.

Zzippy

what_traffic wrote: »

Different bottleneck, maybe bottleneck for a single car user at peak times, but for the person walking, cycling or bus.... Only time they experience the bottleneck is when trying to cross the main SQR/BOD road.

My point was in reply to someone who suggested widening the N6 and BnaT for car traffic, to show that doing so would only funnel traffic faster to SQR which is a bottleneck for cars, and would make very little difference to commute times. I was not advocating for it.

Ruhanna

Sam Russell wrote: »

I am guilty of going off-topic myself. I intend to sort this out when I get time.

When I sort it out, I will post specific guidelines. I will try and do so over he wekend.

Pending those guidelines, I would like to offer a general opinion.

I appreciate that the general rule, on Boards and in life, is to be civil. Fair enough, lack of civility should be discouraged and/or sanctioned.

I also understand that Boards is structured in a vertical or linear fashion, ie forums generate their own topics, topics generate threads, and threads generate discussion that is meant to be on-topic.

Likewise I also understand and appreciate that Moderators are volunteers and that their voluntary work may become a real pain (to them) if uncivil behaviour or unwanted discussion leads to their being bombarded with Reports.

However, incivility is a generic misbehaviour not unique to any one forum or topic (and for which there are effective sanctions, presumably) whereas that which may be called 'unwanted' discussion might be more contested, subjective and situation-specific.

'Vertical' Boards discussions are one thing, real life is another.

In relation to "M6 - Galway City Ring Road [planning decision pending]" the proposed project is a really big deal in Galway: 40 homes are to be demolished, many more properties are to be indirectly affected, and formerly quiet neighbourhoods will be changed forever, eg by traffic noise. Likewise the transport and planning environment will be drastically altered, for at least another 25 years. The changes that will inevitably follow the construction of the proposed motorway, for good or ill, will probably last for decades.

People are bound to have opinions on such a major project. I would argue that citizens ought to have an opinion on it, and that they should be allowed to express them. All the more so since the project is currently in the planning decision process, which means that people's opinions are being officially sought too. How do we know what we think until we hear what we say?

Of course we are all entitled to our opinion, but not our own facts.

Boards is a private forum, which is fair enough. However, every member should be treated fairly and impartially (civility works both ways).

I would argue that a thread split (ie N6 GCRR Planning Decision Pending versus N6 GCRR Is It Really Necessary?) risks creating an artificial divide that would not be impartial. In other words, a pre-existing group on Boards who would like to take the construction of the N6 GCCR for granted would simply want to continue discussing the proposal as if its merits were inherent and self-evident and that any contrary view is just vexatious and likely to cause derailment (a euphemism, in my opinion, for people continuing to express views that certain other people don't like).

I would suggest, for example, that people who would favour a thread split are more likely to be those that have already indicated a strong preference for the N6GCCR, while those who are supposedly "derailing" discussion are those who are less than convinced or maybe even strongly opposed.

In other words, a thread split would be a subjective divide in which "N6 GCRR Planning Decision Pending" risks being about manufacturing consent for a foregone (mainstream) conclusion while "N6 GCRR Is It Really Necessary?" is about sidelining dissent and quarantining unpopular opinions in a separate place where certain people won't have to see them.

Rant over.

Ruhanna

Zzippy wrote: »

My point was in reply to someone who suggested widening the N6 and BnaT for car traffic, to show that doing so would only funnel traffic faster to SQR which is a bottleneck for cars, and would make very little difference to commute times. I was not advocating for it.

Good point.

The key consideration is that an awful lot of discussion about urban road projects in particular are based on the unspoken, default assumption that the design user is a driver.

Even people who should know better, such as former Green Party mayors, fall into that trap to some degree. See the reference here to "45000 people": http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/blog/detail.cfm?id=40

Ruhanna

Ruhanna wrote: »

Pending those guidelines, I would like to offer a general opinion.

I appreciate that the general rule, on Boards and in life, is to be civil. Fair enough, lack of civility should be discouraged and/or sanctioned.

I also understand that Boards is structured in a vertical or linear fashion, ie forums generate their own topics, topics generate threads, and threads generate discussion that is meant to be on-topic.

Likewise I also understand and appreciate that Moderators are volunteers and that their voluntary work may become a real pain (to them) if uncivil behaviour or unwanted discussion leads to their being bombarded with Reports.

However, incivility is a generic misbehaviour not unique to any one forum or topic (and for which there are effective sanctions, presumably) whereas that which may be called 'unwanted' discussion might be more contested, subjective and situation-specific.

'Vertical' Boards discussions are one thing, real life is another.

In relation to "M6 - Galway City Ring Road [planning decision pending]" the proposed project is a really big deal in Galway: 40 homes are to be demolished, many more properties are to be indirectly affected, and formerly quiet neighbourhoods will be changed forever, eg by traffic noise. Likewise the transport and planning environment will be drastically altered, for at least another 25 years. The changes that will inevitably follow the construction of the proposed motorway, for good or ill, will probably last for decades.

People are bound to have opinions on such a major project. I would argue that citizens ought to have an opinion on it, and that they should be allowed to express them. All the more so since the project is currently in the planning decision process, which means that people's opinions are being officially sought too. How do we know what we think until we hear what we say?

Of course we are all entitled to our opinion, but not our own facts.

Boards is a private forum, which is fair enough. However, every member should be treated fairly and impartially (civility works both ways).

I would argue that a thread split (ie N6 GCRR Planning Decision Pending versus N6 GCRR Is It Really Necessary?) risks creating an artificial divide that would not be impartial. In other words, a pre-existing group on Boards who would like to take the construction of the N6 GCCR for granted would simply want to continue discussing the proposal as if its merits were inherent and self-evident and that any contrary view is just vexatious and likely to cause derailment (a euphemism, in my opinion, for people continuing to express views that certain other people don't like).

I would suggest, for example, that people who would favour a thread split are more likely to be those that have already indicated a strong preference for the N6GCCR, while those who are supposedly "derailing" discussion are those who are less than convinced or maybe even strongly opposed.

In other words, a thread split would be a subjective divide in which "N6 GCRR Planning Decision Pending" risks being about manufacturing consent for a foregone (mainstream) conclusion while "N6 GCRR Is It Really Necessary?" is about sidelining dissent and quarantining unpopular opinions in a separate place where certain people won't have to see them.

Rant over.

Thread split reasoning is simple logic which has been used multiple times in the past in this forum, one thread to discuss the construction, layout, junctions etc, i.e. the physical route itself and the other thread for all other existential and philosophical points.

It's not a big deal, thread splits happen all the time

Ruhanna

It's a motorway, reportedly, between points B and C on the map below.

One reason why it's a ludicrous project.

Source: http://www.n6galwaycity.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Galway-N6-Briefing-Document-Final.pdf

Sam Russell

Mod: I have deleted posts that are not Galway specific.

Posts in this thread should be specific to the need or otherwise of the Galway Ring Road or Bypass.

The provision of PT, bus lanes, P&R, etc are all OK.

General observations about Tax, VRT, etc that are not related to transport or traffic in Galway will be deleted.

Thank you for your patience. If any poster has a problem with any of this, then PM me and I will consider your views.