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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Not really on-topic stuff from "N6 - Galway City Outer Bypass" thread

124»

Comments

  • #152
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Frank Black wrote: »
    That's a job for the new Consultants - a job they will be paid millions of €'s for.
    If a humble road engineer such as myself were able to determine such matters without any of the resources which the new consultants will employ, without having completed any of the underlying studies and surveys, I'd be a very rich man.

    Surely you have some vague notions of where the crossing could go or where you'd like to see it go?
    Frank Black wrote: »
    Sometimes it's best to accept that there are some things you can't and don't know in realtion to this scheme - at least not yet.

    So that stops us from discussing the possible locations and why we think that say a route through Highfield Park or Menlo Graveyard should or shouldn't be contemplated?
    Frank Black wrote: »
    Very good - should have said scheme.

    Okay.
    Frank Black wrote: »
    This has been done to death at this stage. A process is underway, A new series of studies and evaluations will be undertaken. A route will be chosen. It's possible ....
    it will not follow any part of the previous route.

    Yes I get that, I got it last week when it was stated in the press. I hope that there are changes such as a junction to the N17 (which may require a minor change to the currently proposed route).

    That said, can you understand though why I'm looking at the crossing point in particular as being a potential problem for any V2 route (lets call the current/old one V1) with the various habitats being concentrated around the river as well as the practicality of routes given the high likelyhood that commercial and/or private premises will have to be knocked to make some routes work.

    Personally I hope they change the western route to take something similar to the routes that they rejected in route selection as there are options there that do not require passing through the NHAs in the area (in theory making that portion of the scheme a lot easier to get approved).
    Frank Black wrote: »
    If a new route is chosen which follows some (or all) of the old route, you can, if it makes it more palatable for yourself, look on this as a 'resurrection' of the old route.

    It's not about that Frank, that's absurd. The word "dead" looked like a total dismissal of the possibility of using the route or any part of it. That is a serious concern as the currently proposed location of the bridge is looks like it could well be the most southerly location it can be due to the development pattern in the area west of the river.
    Frank Black wrote: »
    But given this exercise has only just commenced, it's probably best to forget all about the old route for now, until the consultants have developed a feasible route option to present.

    Okay. Does that stop us from drawing up a wishlist e.g. access to the N17, moving the terminus to the N18 & dualling from there to the N6 or the possibility installing teleportation devices at all the juntcions?


  • #153
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,490 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Frank Black wrote: »
    Of course they could have saved all that time and money by just asking a certain software engineer.....


    Thank you Anto - you obviously do habitat mapping in your spare time too
    Frank Black wrote: »
    Well, you seem to be toning down the certainty of your language somewhat Anto, which is to be welcomed. Baby steps, baby steps.
    Leave out the snideness.

    Moderator


  • #154
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Surely you have some vague notions of where the crossing could go or where you'd like to see it go?

    Nope.
    antoobrien wrote: »
    So that stops us from discussing the possible locations and why we think that say a route through Highfield Park or Menlo Graveyard should or shouldn't be contemplated?

    Discuss away – I’ll await the Constraints Study, Route Options development and Route Selection processes, as to speculate in advance of these is like trying to answer a question without access to the various variables which will determine that answer.



    antoobrien wrote: »
    Yes I get that, I got it last week when it was stated in the press. I hope that there are changes such as a junction to the N17 (which may require a minor change to the currently proposed route).

    I don’t think you really have got it tbh. There is no currently proposed route. There is a blank canvas of a Study area, the constraints within this study area will be mapped and options developed which best avoid these Constraints. Then those route oprtions will be evaluated and compared against one another in order to determine a preferred route corridor. The process is set out in some detail in the NRA’s Project Management Guidelines, a copy of which is available online should you wish to delve into the details. The Consultants will not be starting with the previous route and amending or developing that to get the preferred route.

    That is the bit you don’t seem to ‘get’.



    antoobrien wrote: »
    It's not about that Frank, that's absurd. The word "dead" looked like a total dismissal of the possibility of using the route or any part of it. That is a serious concern as the currently proposed location of the bridge is looks like it could well be the most southerly location it can be due to the development pattern in the area west of the river.


    The word ‘dead’ in used in the context of the previous route not being a jumping off point for route development as explained above

    antoobrien wrote: »
    Okay. Does that stop us from drawing up a wishlist e.g. access to the N17, moving the terminus to the N18 & dualling from there to the N6 or the possibility installing teleportation devices at all the juntcions?

    You may speculate and discuss to your heart’s content. As long as those speculations and discussions are presented as such as opposed to posting in a manner which suggests to other readers that decisions regarding route options have already been decided. It is these matters along with other factual inaccuracies in your posts that I am picking you up on, - not speculation or discussion.


  • #155
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Frank Black wrote: »
    Discuss away – I’ll await the Constraints Study, Route Options development and Route Selection processes, as to speculate in advance of these is like trying to answer a question without access to the various variables which will determine that answer.

    Well here's one of them. The crossing has to be between the lake and the QB.


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


    Frank Black wrote: »
    The Consultants will not be starting with the previous route and amending or developing that to get the preferred route.



    So a "blank canvas" it is then. Leaving aside the NRA's guidelines and procedures, the thought occurs to me as an ordinary punter that starting from scratch is far more interesting, in more ways than one.

    Presumably there will be new public consultations, hearings etc? Perhaps more appeals and court cases?

    And more coruscating debate on Boards? :)


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    dubhthach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Well here's one of them. The crossing has to be between the lake and the QB.

    I would have said between the Lake and the Business Park in Dangan. There's no route that could be shoehorned in south of there, unless they plan on demolishing a chunk of Greenfields!


  • #158
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    dubhthach wrote: »
    I would have said between the Lake and the Business Park in Dangan. There's no route that could be shoehorned in south of there, unless they plan on demolishing a chunk of Greenfields!

    I know, but then Frank has stated this:
    Frank Black wrote: »
    Areas of limestone are potential Annex 1 habitats.

    So in the interests of not feeding Frank, I've left open the possibility of wholesale demolition of parts of Newcastle, Dangan & Bushypark, as well as impacts on the Graveyard & Castle in Menlo. I doubt this will be proposed, but it'll be interesting to see what the final result is.
    dubhthach wrote: »
    I would have said between the Lake and the Business Park in Dangan.

    Even then there' still a few places that could be on the line, such as Dangan heights (right beside Greenfields) or Chestnut lane (across the road). That's without looking at the other side of the river - which potentially faces the most constraints due to the currently unknown scale & location of the protected habitats in the SAC/NHA zones.


  • #159
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Frank Black wrote: »
    There is no currently proposed route. There is a blank canvas of a Study area, the constraints within this study area will be mapped and options developed which best avoid these Constraints. Then those route oprtions will be evaluated and compared against one another in order to determine a preferred route corridor. The process is set out in some detail in the NRA’s Project Management Guidelines, a copy of which is available online should you wish to delve into the details. The Consultants will not be starting with the previous route and amending or developing that to get the preferred route.



    The contract (tender) notice includes the following:
    The Scope of Work may include "[taking] possession of and [assimilating] all documentation produced to-date in relation to the scheme, including hardcopy and information held electronically."

    A couple of questions:

    1. What does "assimilate" mean in this context?

    2. What status does that confer on previous consultations, investigations etc? Are those processes now ended in procedural terms, or are they effectively ongoing because the new contractors are "assimiliating" them?


  • #160
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Presumably there will be new public consultations, hearings etc? Perhaps more appeals and court cases?


    Yes, of course. At a minimum, Public Consultations will be in line with the Project Management Guidelines - i.e First and Second PC's after development of Feasible Route Options, and development and refinement of same.
    This is slightly different that the previous order of the PC's in the od PMG's when PC1 was held at Constraints stage.
    In may well be (and it wouldn't be unusual on a scheme such as this) that other Public Consultations are held in addition to these.

    As regards appeals and court cases - who can say? I certainly wouldn't bet against it.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    And more coruscating debate on Boards? :)

    I believe that process has already started.


  • #161
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    The contract (tender) notice includes the following:
    The Scope of Work may include "[taking] possession of and [assimilating] all documentation produced to-date in relation to the scheme, including hardcopy and information held electronically."
    A couple of questions:

    1. What does "assimilate" mean in this context?

    2. What status does that confer on previous consultations, investigations etc? Are those processes now ended in procedural terms, or are they effectively ongoing because the new contractors are "assimiliating" them?

    There would be a wish that any relevant information previously carried out on the old scheme be used in the development of this scheme. It would be up to the new Consultants to review this information and assimilate anything of relevance into the background info which will inform the development of the new scheme.
    As I have previously stated, given the length of time elapsed between the old studies and a likely application under this scheme, how much of this information lends itself to 'assimilation' is questionable - very little I feel. Nevertheless, it is an exervcise which the new Consultants will undertake in the hope of getting some return on our tax-euros previously spent.

    In terms of the status of the previous work. Any information being assimilated would require that the new Consultants effectively 'take ownership' of it. A slightly tricky concept if they wanted to be difficult about it. I honestly can't see much of it being useful anyway tbh - so it may be a moot point.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    Interesting chat with some of the key people who will be running the project for the new Consultants earlier this week.
    They are looking at various 'radical' route alignment options in a bid to avoid the Habitats 6(4) issue. One of them even said at one stage 'It's not like we haven't built motorways through cities before'.
    Certainly the route selection 'drivers' on this scheme are considerably different than those which would normally apply, and it is likely to lead the process down some interesting avenues which would be deemed totally impractical on a 'normal' scheme.
    Of course it's very early days and not enough work has been completed to determine the feasibility or otherwise of any route option, but it is interesting to hear where the investigations are going.
    Watch this space.


  • #163
    what_traffic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,002 ✭✭✭what_traffic


    Frank Black wrote: »
    One of them even said at one stage 'It's not like we haven't built motorways through cities before'.
    Sounds a bit like scaremongering to me Frank. What ya reckon?


  • #164
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    what_traffic wrote: »
    Sounds a bit like scaremongering to me Frank. What ya reckon?

    I don't remember too many roads that would have knocked entire estates before.


  • #165
    dubhthach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    antoobrien wrote: »
    I don't remember too many roads that would have knocked entire estates before.

    Unless you go back to bad old days of Dublin corporation destroying the core of medieval street layout in the 60's-80's. Of course the one side affect of that was it allowed the archaeologists get in and have a look. :rolleyes:

    One only has to look at High Street/Cornmarket, Christ Church Place,Nicholas Street/Patrick Street and the damage done to the Urban fabric as a result.


  • #166
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    what_traffic wrote: »
    Sounds a bit like scaremongering to me Frank. What ya reckon?

    I wouldn't call it scaremongering, but it is interesting that such options are not being dismissed entirely out of hand.
    I would however have serious doubts as to how feasible such an option would prove to be.


  • #167
    what_traffic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,002 ✭✭✭what_traffic


    Frank Black wrote: »
    I wouldn't call it scaremongering, but it is interesting that such options are not being dismissed entirely out of hand.
    I would however have serious doubts as to how feasible such an option would prove to be.
    Agree with you regarding feasability.
    Any civil engineers in that key group of people getting romantic notions about tunnelling under the Corrib in these discussions?


  • #168
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    what_traffic wrote: »
    Agree with you regarding feasability.
    Any civil engineers in that key group of people getting romantic notions about tunnelling under the Corrib in these discussions?

    Anybody know what effect the quarries in Menlo & Twomileditch would have on the feasibility of tunnels nearby?

    Indeed would a tunnel hit up against 6(3)/6(4) since the entire river area is covered by an SAC.


  • #169
    annfield1978
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 569 ✭✭✭annfield1978


    Were the Consultants appointed for this yet?

    I am assuming RPS will be in with a shout


  • #170
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    annfield1978 wrote: »
    Were the Consultants appointed for this yet?

    I am assuming RPS will be in with a shout

    Not officially appointed, but identified. I understand there is an objections period of a couple of weeks which need to elapse prior to official appointment. Seems to be reasonably well known within the industry who they are - but I probably shouldn't say until it is official.



    It's not RPS though.


  • #171
    annfield1978
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 569 ✭✭✭annfield1978


    well I am in the industry and dont know so a subtle hint and I am sure I get it

    I asusme its one of

    Arup
    Ryan Hanley
    TOBIN
    Jacobs
    AECOM/ ROD or
    Motts


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    annfield1978 wrote: »
    well I am in the industry and dont know so a subtle hint and I am sure I get it

    I asusme its one of

    Arup
    Ryan Hanley
    TOBIN
    Jacobs
    AECOM/ ROD or
    Motts

    Well, I think official appointment is soon anyway. The main point regarding this appointment, is that it is not the previous consultants. I think the scheme will benefit from a 'fresh pair of eyes', as the previous consultants may have been swayed somewhat into almost defending the previous chosen route.
    Conversely, as it is a new consultants, I think they will be keen to demonstrate some fresh thinking wrt route selection, and it's one of the reasons that I think the new route for the scheme is likey to be somewhat different than the previous one.


  • #173
    what_traffic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,002 ✭✭✭what_traffic


    Frank Black wrote: »
    The main point regarding this appointment, is that it is not the previous consultants. I think the scheme will benefit from a 'fresh pair of eyes', as the previous consultants may have been swayed somewhat into almost defending the previous chosen route.
    Can see the logic in that but at the end of the say its the paymasters who hold sway.


  • #174
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    what_traffic wrote: »
    Can see the logic in that but at the end of the say its the paymasters who hold sway.

    I'm not sure what that sentence means tbh.

    Is it a suggestion that the preferred route is assessed, determined and decided on by Galway Co Co, who will be directly employing the consultants, the NRA, who are funding the scheme or the Dept of Finance who fund the NRA?

    Who are these paymasters?
    What are their motives?
    And how do they put their nefarious route selection plans into action I wonder?


  • #175
    what_traffic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,002 ✭✭✭what_traffic


    Frank Black wrote: »
    I'm not sure what that sentence means tbh.

    Is it a suggestion that the preferred route is assessed, determined and decided on by Galway Co Co, who will be directly employing the consultants, the NRA, who are funding the scheme or the Dept of Finance who fund the NRA?

    Who are these paymasters?
    What are their motives?
    And how do they put their nefarious route selection plans into action I wonder?

    You understood my statement perfectly based on your questions.
    My point basically was that I have seen in the past various traffic plans been drawn up but was a cosmetic exercise as the "wanted" route was decided beforehand by the paymaster. This is never written down on paper of course. This is not in relation to the previous GCOB plans.

    Do you know how many routes they have been told to draw up by the Council/NRA or is a set in a guidelines written somewhere(Dept of Transport Policy) for such projects?


  • #176
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    what_traffic wrote: »
    You understood my statement perfectly based on your questions.
    My point basically was that I have seen in the past various traffic plans been drawn up but was a cosmetic exercise as the "wanted" route was decided beforehand by the paymaster. This is never written down on paper of course. This is not in relation to the previous GCOB plans.

    Do you know how many routes they have been told to draw up by the Council/NRA or is a set in a guidelines written somewhere(Dept of Transport Policy) for such projects?

    Maybe on some smaller issues or schemes, certain consultants may be encouraged to reach certain conclusions, but in my experience it's not a likely scenario on a scheme of this nature. I doubt if the 'paymasters' have any idea what the prefered route is.

    In terms of route options - there are no specific number of routes which need to be developed for consideration. If you do a google search for NRA Project Management Guidelines you can read about the route options and assessment process in Chapter 2.


  • #177
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    Arup have been officially appointed as the Consultants for the scheme.


  • #178
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Are we hearing it here first? :)


  • #179
    serfboard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,720 ✭✭✭serfboard


    Since the main thread is closed I'm posting this update on here :
    The Connacht Tribune wrote:
    It has to start off again as a ‘clean sheet’ project after a fruitless 20 year hibernation – but the city’s outer bypass project could yet be completed by 2019/2020.

    This week city and county councillors were briefed on the project with two full days of public consultation to take place next week . . . and now it’s ‘full steam ahead’ for the estimated €300 million project.

    Project Engineer for the Galway City Outer Bypass (GCOB), Fintan O’Meara, told the Galway City Tribune that there was no alternative but to start with a ‘clean sheet’ process for the project.

    “The original scheme has no longer any legal status following the court rulings but we are now starting afresh on a critical infrastructural project both for the city and the region,” said Mr O’Meara.

    He said that with everything going on schedule they would hope to have the preferred route selected by ‘late 2014 or early 2015’ with the project going to the CPO (compulsory purchase order), EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) stages by late 2015 or early 2016. Construction time for the project is estimated to be in the region of three years.

    ...

    Over recent days, a dedicated project office for GCOB has been established beside the National Roads Project Office in Ballybrit that is staffed by the Arup Consulting Engineers group.

    In the briefing document provided to councillors this week, it was made clear that the project would be proceeding under Article 6 (4) of the European Habitats Directive or what is commonly referred to as the IROPI process – Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest.


  • #180
    what_traffic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,002 ✭✭✭what_traffic


    The Connacht Tribune wrote:
    This week city and county councillors were briefed on the project with two full days of public consultation to take place next week

    Any times, dates and venues for this?


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    confusticated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,681 ✭✭✭confusticated


    Today and tomorrow. It's on in the Pillo Hotel tomorrow, it was in the Tribune and the Galway Independent afaik.


  • #182
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,121 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Found info on the Galway county council website - no maps
    http://www.galway.ie/en/Services/RoadsTransportation/RoadProjects/N6GalwayCityOuterBy-pass/
    PDF five page document
    Since this is a *new* scheme should it be moved to a new thread?


  • #183
    dubhthach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    Seen that Galway CoCo have removed their Outer Bypass page + documents it's just as well it can be found in the "Wayback machine"

    PDF of the Scheme Summary brochure:
    http://web.archive.org/web/20110220184926/http://www.galway.ie/RoadProjects/n6_outer/N6brochure.pdf


Advertisement