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

antoobrien · 14-11-2013 4:10pm

Frank Black wrote: »

Ah ha!
A Software engineer!

Moving your critiques of my posts to a 10.

Conrgratulations, you can read. Pity it took so many hints to find information that was right under your nose.

Frank Black wrote: »

TBH, I'm not interested in a semantic debate on who 'owns' what or whether the 'scheme' in 'new' or not - I'm happy that I'm right,

Rather typical of a poster that posts mostly in AH (yes I can use search too): I'm right but I won't why or how the opposing view is wrong.

In fact you sound like several people who have "reasoned objections" to GCOB.

Frank Black wrote: »

but don't really see how it adds any value to the debate on the (new) scheme - which is surely the whole point of the thread, no?

The whole point of the thread is anything and everything to do with stuff that has anything to do with building the road, hence the off topic bit. So discussing the irrelevances of whether or not this is a PR hack for next years LE is merely fun not debate.

If you want real debate, I suggest you ask Victor to unlock the GCOB thread, or (heavens forbid) create a new one on the subject.

Frank Black wrote: »

Of course, is that's not of interest to you, you can continue to denigrate my knowledge. It's not something I would intend to engage with you on, and given the gap in our backgrounds in terms of experience of the issues, it wouldn't be fair on yourself or very satisfying for me.

If asking direct questions is denigrate then I'll continue thanks. you can take that whichever way you wish, no skin off my nose.

Frank Black wrote: »

From the amount of times you post on this forum you seem like you're interested in it. If so, you'd be better off listening to those whose professional experience and background knowledge far outstrips your own, as opposed to trying to shout them down.
Who knows, you might even learn something new and interesting.

I'll listen to anybody who shows they are worth listening to. Care to engage by explaining properly where you are coming from besides posting the equivalent of just shut up?

Frank Black · 14-11-2013 8:01pm

antoobrien wrote: »

You have given us not a shred of proof for your claims other than actions that are in fact normal in the course of any large project - new money to be spent for a new phase = new tender, not a new scheme.

I don't need to prove anything. I'm simply offering my opinion and pointing out where you're wrong. Other readers can make up their own minds on the matter.
If you wish to skew the definition of 'phase', 'tender' or 'scheme', to attempt to prove your point, go right ahead, as I've said people can make up their own minds. The fundamental question is whether the previous scheme will be a starting point for this scheme - the answer to that is 'no'.

antoobrien wrote: »

yet because they have gone back to examine the route and habitats to see if there are any changes (like the ones ABP made when they granted permission for the eastern section) that may help the planning process, this is a new scheme?

There is no previous scheme being examined as part of this process. It's back to Stage 1 of the PMG's, you can take the previous scheme and flush it down the toilet, it's gone, it's dead, it's no more. Sorry, but you'll have to accept this at some point.

antoobrien wrote: »

It's entirely possible that the habitat mapping etc will result in the exact same route being identified as optimal from the various points of view, environmental, transport etc. If this is the case the submission will be made - using the exact route you have described as "dead" under the IORPI process. So dead just plain wrong.

You use the word 'if' a lot for someone who's so sure of themselves.
Strange.
Of course we may end up with the exact some route again, I would consider that to be highly unlikely though for reasons I can expand on later if their are posters interested.

antoobrien wrote: »

I'll listen to anybody who shows they are worth listening to. Care to engage by explaining properly where you are coming from besides posting the equivalent of just shut up?

Sorry to break it to you, but I've already demonstrated to my professional body that I have the required competencies to hold the Chartered title. I don't particularly feel the need to prove myself to a software engineer who likes to shout the odds.

They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
They're right in your case.

L1011 · 14-11-2013 8:04pm

Frank, to be totally honest, you haven't actually shown any bone fides *or* actually refuted anything anto has said other - "I know this, you're wrong" is not a refutation. This is beginning to look rather Walter Mitty.

Frank Black · 14-11-2013 9:03pm

MYOB wrote: »

Frank, to be totally honest, you haven't actually shown any bone fides *or* actually refuted anything anto has said other - "I know this, you're wrong" is not a refutation. This is beginning to look rather Walter Mitty.

How can someone say 'you're wrong' without refuting something?
That's surely the definition of refuting.
If you mean I haven't 'proved' that he's wrong, well that's different.
One obvious way will be to wait until the preferred route is published in 2015 I suppose. A quicker way would be to find what services GCC have advertised for their new consultants. If I can find anything on this tomorrow I'll post it up.

As for your Walter Mitty comment, it hardly deserves a response, but if you can find any posts of mine where I claim to be anything other than an engineer involved in road design, I guess you'll be right.

Good luck with that.

L1011 · 14-11-2013 9:08pm

Lack of proof behind potentially empty claims does not provide any reason for anyone to believe you.

Frank Black · 14-11-2013 9:36pm

MYOB wrote: »

Lack of proof behind potentially empty claims does not provide any reason for anyone to believe you.

You can choose to believe me or not, it's entirley up too you.

This need to have everything 'proved' is tiresome, especially as many of my comments will be opinion based as opposed to provable facts.

Doubt if poor old Anto will be able to 'prove' much of the guff he's posted.

I've offered to post up information tomorrow which will demonstrate I'm right - perhaps you should wait until then?

L1011 · 14-11-2013 9:47pm

Frank Black wrote: »

You can choose to believe me or not, it's entirley up too you.

This need to have everything 'proved' is tiresome, especially as many of my comments will be opinion based as opposed to provable facts.

Doubt if poor old Anto will be able to 'prove' much of the guff he's posted.

I've offered to post up information tomorrow which will demonstrate I'm right - perhaps you should wait until then?

If you're stating someone is wrong as emphatically as you are, proof is needed. I'll wait till tomorrow but I've got an idea of what's coming.

yer man! · 14-11-2013 9:48pm

Lads! lads!, calm...

Frank Black · 14-11-2013 9:54pm

MYOB wrote: »

If you're stating someone is wrong as emphatically as you are, proof is needed. I'll wait till tomorrow but I've got an idea of what's coming.

Really? Something different than the schedule of services required for the new Galway Bypass scheme as advertised by GCC in their tender for new Consultants?

Do tell.

Because I've no idea what you're getting at.

Frank Black · 15-11-2013 8:33am

MYOB wrote: »

If you're stating someone is wrong as emphatically as you are, proof is needed. I'll wait till tomorrow but I've got an idea of what's coming.

Tender & Schedule for the Conditions of Engagement for Consultancy Services (Technical)
FTS9 v.1.3 18/03/2011 5
SCHEDULE B: CONSULTANT’S SERVICES AND FEES
CONSULTANT’S STAGE SERVICES
The Consultant‟s appointment is for Whole Stages for Stages (i) to (ii) as tabled below.
PSDP SERVICES
Performance of all the duties of Project Supervisor for the Design Process is included in the Services as tabled below [and the Stage Fees].
TOTAL FEE [9]
Lump Sum:
STAGE SERVICES
Stage (i) All services necessary or desirable for the purposeful management and delivery of Phase 1 of the National Roads Authority 2010 Project Management Guidelines (NRA PMG). STAGE SERVICES Performance Period from permission to start [4.4] (days) Milestones (if any) Percentage of Total Fee for Stage Stage fee Percentage of Stage fee for suspension [4.19,20] 90 5 5 All services necessary or desirable for the purposeful management and delivery of the NRA PMG Phase 1 - Scheme Concept and Feasibility Studies. The services shall include, but are not limited to, the Details of Stage Services set out in the table at end of Stage Services. Full fee for this stage paid on submission of the Final Scheme Feasibility Report.

STAGE SERVICES
Stage (ii) Design All services necessary or desirable for the purposeful management and delivery of Phase 2, Phase 3 and Phase 4 of the National Roads Authority 2010 Project Management Guidelines (NRAPMG) and, if required, draft Statement of Case for Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest under Article 6(4) of the EU Habitats Directive. STAGE SERVICES Performance Period from permission to start [4.4] (days) Milestones (if any) Percentage of Total Fee for Stage Stage fee Percentage of Stage fee for suspension [4.19,20] Whole Stage 915 % 5%
Sub-Stage (ii a) All services necessary or desirable for the purposeful management and delivery of the NRA PMG Phase 2 - Route Selection. 80% of fee for this sub-stage paid in equal monthly instalments and 20% paid on submission of Final Route Selection Report. 15 The services shall include, but are not limited to, the Details of Stage Services set out in the table at end of Stage Services. Sub-Stage

All services necessary or desirable for the purposeful management and delivery of the NRA PMG Phase 3 - Design and Phase 4 The Statutory Processes excluding EIA/EAR services. The services shall include the detailed design of structures and the detailed design of drainage where a likelihood of an impact on a designated site exists to a level adequate to assess the impact. 80% of fee for this sub-stage paid in equal monthly instalments and 20% paid on completion of the Statutory Processes & Handover of Documentation 80 The services shall include, but are not limited to, the Details of Stage Services set out in the table at end of Stage Services. Sub-Stage (ii c) All services necessary or desirable for the purposeful management and delivery of the EIA/EAR component of the NRA PMG Phase 4. All services necessary or desirable for the purposeful management and delivery, if required, of draft Statement of Case for Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest under Article 6(4) of the EU Habitats Directive. Time Charge N/A.

Or, we can go with 'Anto the Expert's View.

antoobrien wrote: »

There's work in progress on updating/extending the EIS.

Wrong!

You know, I've seen you and Anto on here posting and shouting down others. I actually thought that he was involved in the construction industry with a contractor or something, such is the 'authority' he likes to flavour his posts with - it's laughable that ye are going to try and tell me I'm wrong with no professional background in the area.
You really picked the wrong poster to have an argument with and you'll expose yourselves further as 'know-nothing loudmouths' if you continue with the whole 'Walter Mitty/you're talking rubbish' line of argument.

L1011 · 15-11-2013 9:29am

You've posted some text from etenders. Care to explain how it supports your case now?

At no point have I said it's not a new scheme, but you asserting it is with no proof (and threats now, I see) gives me no reason to believe so.

Frank Black · 15-11-2013 10:32am

MYOB wrote: »

You've posted some text from etenders. Care to explain how it supports your case now?

At no point have I said it's not a new scheme, but you asserting it is with no proof (and threats now, I see) gives me no reason to believe so.

Sorry, I'm not going to engage you in a semantic debate, I've already posted enough on the matter, and you seem like your trying to waste my time with pointless nit-picking and 'backitupology- you can happily believe what you want and be wrong as much as you want.
No skin off my nose buddy.

Maybe try asking expert Anto to back up some of his 'claims' and see how much 'proof' he's able to post up.

L1011 · 15-11-2013 10:34am

Frank Black wrote: »

Sorry, I'm not going to engage you in a semantic debate, I've already posted enough on the matter, and you seem like your trying to waste my time with pointless nit-picking and 'backitupology- you can happily believe what you want and be wrong as much as you want.
No skin off my nose buddy.

Maybe try asking expert Anto to back up some of his 'claims' and see how much 'proof' he's able to post up.

So you're not willing to actually prove anything. Walter Mitty.

Everything here is classic Mitty character stuff - claim knowledge/experience/qualification, say everyone else is wrong, show now evidence of said knowledge, experience or qualifications. Follow that with belittling any requests for proof and vague threats.

If you are what you say you are you've done a fantastic job of convincing everyone you're not. And all from refusing to actually elaborate on one single point.

antoobrien · 15-11-2013 11:06am

Frank Black wrote: »

Wrong!

I see nothing in that quoted text suggesting that as I put it "There's work in progress on updating/extending the EIS" is entirely inaccurate.

Or did I miss this bit:

All services necessary or desirable for the purposeful management and delivery, if required, of draft Statement of Case for Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest under Article 6(4) of the EU Habitats Directive.

Among other things that one line suggests that the EIS will need be updated, to show the extent of the required management of the habitat (if not the replacement of the habitat as has been done in other cases) as the original EIS is now several years out of date.

If I'm wrong would you care to explain the correct mechanism, which will be interesting as IORPI hasn't been done (yet, there's one in process) in Ireland.

Please, explain how a "new" scheme can go from greenfield plan to ABP submission in two years when it took the original project to 6 years to go from constraints to ABP hearings and in the cases of the M17 & M18 projects 6 & 5 years respectively.

After all there's an impressive list of geological, geophysical, structural, environmental & other reports that took several years to compile for the original application. They will presumably have to be at least verified if not recompiled for the "new" scheme.

Frank Black · 15-11-2013 11:34am

antoobrien wrote: »

I see nothing in that quoted text suggesting that as I put it "There's work in progress on updating/extending the EIS" is entirely inaccurate.

Or did I miss this bit:
.

The reason you see nothing wrong with your original statement is because you're unable to read properly - I suggest you go back and read it again. The services advertised is for production of a new EIS - there is nothing in the services on updating an existing EIS. New scheme, new EIS - simple
The bit you've quoted is nothing to do with what you're trying to argue, and demonstrates your complete misunderstanding of the current process.

antoobrien wrote: »

Among other things that one line suggests that the EIS will need be updated, .

No, it doesn't

antoobrien wrote: »

as the original EIS is now several years out of date..

Out of date and quite probably for a route which will not be anything like the new route of the proposed bypass - Baby steps, Anto, baby steps

antoobrien wrote: »

If I'm wrong ..

You are

antoobrien wrote: »

would you care to explain the correct mechanism, which will be interesting as IORPI hasn't been done (yet, there's one in process) in Ireland...

The process will entirely depend on the route chosen. there won't be a need for IROPI if no Annex 1 habitats are affected by the proposed route - we will have to wait and see.

antoobrien wrote: »

Please, explain how a "new" scheme can go from greenfield plan to ABP submission in two years when it took the original project to 6 years to go from constraints to ABP hearings and in the cases of the M17 & M18 projects 6 & 5 years respectively....

Hard work and plenty of resources by the Consultants appointed, with a smattering of Client optimism regarding programme delivery - I suspect it will take a bit longer myself.

antoobrien wrote: »

After all there's an impressive list of geological, geophysical, structural, environmental & other reports that took several years to compile for the original application. They will presumably have to be at least verified if not recompiled for the "new" scheme.

He's getting there, I really think he's getting there.
Baby steps Anto
Baby steps.

Always remember if the thought of a new route for Galway Bypass becomes too overwhelming and frightening for you - I'll be only a PM away.

Frank Black · 15-11-2013 11:38am

MYOB wrote: »

So you're not willing to actually prove anything. Walter Mitty.

Everything here is classic Mitty character stuff - claim knowledge/experience/qualification, say everyone else is wrong, show now evidence of said knowledge, experience or qualifications. Follow that with belittling any requests for proof and vague threats.

If you are what you say you are you've done a fantastic job of convincing everyone you're not. And all from refusing to actually elaborate on one single point.

Damn - you got me,
Really thought I had you going there - shodda known you'd be too clever for me.
Nice work Sherlock.

antoobrien · 15-11-2013 12:08pm

Frank Black wrote: »

The process will entirely depend on the route chosen. there won't be a need for IROPI if no Annex 1 habitats are affected by the proposed route - we will have to wait and see
....
Always remember if the thought of a new route for Galway Bypass becomes too overwhelming and frightening for you - I'll be only a PM away.

Good god you could teach the guys in the SEAR school some lessons in not answering questions.

Btw the answer above tells me that you are infact a spoofer that has no direct knowledge of the project.

If you had you'd know that most of the Menlo/Coolough area on the approach to the Corrib is part of the Lough Corrib SAC and is riddled with Annex 1 habitats.

Frank Black · 15-11-2013 12:15pm

antoobrien wrote: »

Good god you could teach the guys in the SEAR school some lessons in not answering questions.

Btw the answer above tells me that you are infact a spoofer that has no direct knowledge of the project.

If you had you'd know that most of the Menlo/Coolough area on the approach to the Corrib is part of the Lough Corrib SAC and is riddled with Annex 1 habitats.

Very poor Anto - very poor.

That's the best you could manage in terms of a response?

Come on - try harder. I'm enjoying this. At least in a 'shooting fish in a barrel' sense.

Take each of my points and try to come up with a response. I can wait, and I could do with a laugh.

Or are you going to take your ball and run off home, now the big bad engineer has called you out as a blowhard?

antoobrien · 15-11-2013 12:25pm

Frank Black wrote: »

Very poor Anto - very poor.

Classic AH, not actually dealing with the response.

Do you deny that the area in question is riddled with Annex 1 habitats?

Frank Black · 15-11-2013 12:39pm

antoobrien wrote: »

Classic AH, not actually dealing with the response.

Do you deny that the area in question is riddled with Annex 1 habitats?

No no no Anto,
This isn't the way a debate works.
i took each of your points and showed where you were wrong.
Now, go through mine and either indicate that you've accepted my point or argue an alternative view - then I'll show you where you're wrong (again).

It's not going to work with you shifting the goalposts everytime you've been found out.

Once you've done that, i'll come back to any new queries you have.

antoobrien · 15-11-2013 1:05pm

Frank Black wrote: »

No no no Anto,
This isn't the way a debate works.
i took each of your points and showed where you were wrong.

No you didn't show anything of the sort.

You have indicated than an EIS update/new document is not needed, if this is, as you claim a new project, then according to the NRAs guidelines an EIA is required:

(4) Any prescribed type of proposed road development consisting of the construction of a proposed public road or the improvement of an existing public road, namely:

The construction of a new road of four or more lanes, or the realignment or widening of an existing road so as to provide four or more lanes, where such new, realigned or widened road would be eight kilometres or more in length in a rural area, or 500 metres or more in length in an urban area;

The construction of a new bridge or tunnel which would be 100 metres or more in length.

Emphasis added, see table 1.

Those guidelines do not mention the habitats directive, so it appears that your position that this is a "new scheme" but does not need an EIS/EIA is contradictory.

The final word on this goes to Mr Frank Gilmore, Director of Service, Roads, Transportation, Marine & General Services for Galway Co Co.

http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/65028/galway-county-council-to-take-the-lead-in-new-galway-city-outer-bypass-scheme

This week, Mr Gilmore stressed that the decision by the ECJ only related to the method used by ABP to approve the scheme, not the merits of the scheme itself.

So the route is not dead as you so eloquently put it.

Galway County Council is currently working with the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) to advance mapping in the areas of interest for the revised scheme and new consultants will be appointed by the end of this month.

The use of the word revised indicates that there is no new scheme, that this is an extension of the work already done, which could (hopefully will) lead to refinements in the route - which may or may not happen in the areas covered by the SACs & NHAs.

Frank Black · 15-11-2013 2:00pm

antoobrien wrote: »

No you didn't show anything of the sort.

You have indicated than an EIS update/new document is not needed, if this is, as you claim a new project, then according to the NRAs guidelines an EIA is required:

Emphasis added, see table 1.

Those guidelines do not mention the habitats directive, so it appears that your position that this is a "new scheme" but does not need an EIS/EIA is contradictory.

The final word on this goes to Mr Frank Gilmore, Director of Service, Roads, Transportation, Marine & General Services for Galway Co Co.

http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/65028/galway-county-council-to-take-the-lead-in-new-galway-city-outer-bypass-scheme

So the route is not dead as you so eloquently put it.

The use of the word revised indicates that there is no new scheme, that this is an extension of the work already done, which could (hopefully will) lead to refinements in the route - which may or may not happen in the areas covered by the SACs & NHAs.

Anto Anto,
I said each of my points - not just the ones it suits you to argue now.
We'll come back to this point (where you're so wrong it's comically funny) when you've either accepted or argued the points I've made against your original post.
Take you time now.
I can wait.

Iwannahurl · 15-11-2013 2:27pm

antoobrien wrote: »

The final word on this goes to Mr Frank Gilmore, Director of Service, Roads, Transportation, Marine & General Services for Galway Co Co.

This week, Mr Gilmore stressed that the decision by the ECJ only related to the method used by ABP to approve the scheme, not the merits of the scheme itself.

http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/65028/galway-county-council-to-take-the-lead-in-new-galway-city-outer-bypass-scheme

So the route is not dead as you so eloquently put it.

FWIW my interpretation of Mr Gilmore's reported comment is that it was a general one regarding the (alleged

) overall merits of the GCOB. The ECJ's decision concerned the legal questions referred to them regarding interpretation of EU directives.

It seems that what is now being claimed by Gilmore et al is that if the original application had been made under Article 6(4) instead of 6(3) then ABP would have approved it in accordance with EU law and all would now be hunky-dory. That little "glitch", as he calls it, cost a mere €14 million, btw. What a difference a digit makes.

Incidentally, the above Advertiser report also includes the following (emphasis by me):

[Mr Gilmore] added that a new application would be prepared for the scheme which would be funded by the National Roads Authority.

Frank Black · 15-11-2013 2:30pm

OK, so I'm a bit quiet this afternoon I'll give you a little headstart - but I do want you answering or accepting my points if you wish this 'debate/me wiping the floor with you exercise' to continue.

antoobrien wrote: »

You have indicated than an EIS update/new document is not needed, if this is, as you claim a new project, then according to the NRAs guidelines an EIA is required:.

Anto - a serious question.
Can you read?
I'm being serious.
Has staring at lines of code all day affected your ability to read English.
If you can, please go back and read the extract from the procurement document (and btw, I haven't 'indicated' anything, I've quoted the procurement document)

Here, I'll help
:.[/QUOTE]All services necessary or desirable for the purposeful management and delivery of the EIA/EAR component of the NRA PMG Phase 4.:.[/QUOTE]

Now, go back and read your post again.

Silly boy.

antoobrien wrote: »

The final word on this goes to Mr Frank Gilmore, Director of Service, Roads, Transportation, Marine & General Services for Galway Co Co..:.

This bit actually made my day.
I know Frank well.
Let's just say I wouldn't be quoting his public pronouncements to bolster my arguments
'Revised' will mean whatever Frank want's it to mean in the future you'll find.

antoobrien · 15-11-2013 2:42pm

Frank Black wrote: »

Anto - a serious question.
Can you read?
I'm being serious.
Has staring at lines of code all day affected your ability to read English.
If you can, please go back and read the extract from the procurement document (and btw, I haven't 'indicated' anything, I've quoted the procurement document)

Here, I'll help
:.

All services necessary or desirable for the purposeful management and delivery of the EIA/EAR component of the NRA PMG Phase 4.:.

In fact I can. I don't see the word new there, do you?

Frank Black wrote: »

This bit actually made my day.
I know Frank well.
Let's just say I wouldn't be quoting his public pronouncements to bolster my arguments
'Revised' will mean whatever Frank want's it to mean in the future you'll find.

Ah so the official stated position is not relevant because it does not suit you? Sounds like this belongs in AH or CT not infra/roads.

antoobrien · 15-11-2013 2:46pm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

FWIW my interpretation of Mr Gilmore's reported comment is that it was a general one regarding the (alleged ) overall merits of the GCOB. The ECJ's decision concerned the legal questions referred to them regarding interpretation of EU directives.

Yes, but he does state revised. Not new scheme.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Incidentally, the above Advertiser report also includes the following (emphasis by me):

Yes, but then we knew that a new application would have to be submitted if they wanted to go ahead with the IORPI. I'd ask how that makes it a new scheme, but I really don't care at this point.

Frank Black · 15-11-2013 3:25pm

antoobrien wrote: »

In fact I can. I don't see the word new there, do you?

I guess all the Consultants have been tendering for the wrong exercise so.
Imagine how embarrassed they'll be when they find out a humble software engineer spotted this error :rolleyes:

I think we've reached the end of any reasonable argument on this point. You're wrong, pure and simple. I know it hurts. I know its embarrassing to be exposed on a public forum as a guy who talks big, but knows little. But nobody's perfect. We all make mistakes. Why not show a little class even at this late stage and admit it?
The more you try to wriggle out of it the more you'll end up looking like a petulant child who won't admit a mistake, even when their error has been very patiently explained to them numerous times. - There's no shame in someone who's not familiar with the process making an error - but to continue to insist you're right in the face such clear evidence to the contrary? - Well, it's not really reflecting very well on you.

Anyway, what about all my other points Anto?
Still waiting.

If you listen really closely you'll hear the sound of goalposts being frantically moved again no doubt.

Frank Black · 15-11-2013 3:27pm

antoobrien wrote: »

I'd ask how that makes it a new scheme, but I really don't care at this point.

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Iwannahurl · 15-11-2013 4:00pm

antoobrien wrote: »

Not new scheme.

Yes, but then we knew that a new application would have to be submitted if they wanted to go ahead with the IORPI. I'd ask how that makes it a new scheme, but I really don't care at this point.

OK, since Mr Gilmore also said "revised" let's ignore his use of the word "new" in the same context.

Does the word "scheme" have special significance here?

Iwannahurl · 15-11-2013 4:16pm

Frank Black wrote: »

The process will entirely depend on the route chosen. there won't be a need for IROPI if no Annex 1 habitats are affected by the proposed route - we will have to wait and see.

Always remember if the thought of a new route for Galway Bypass becomes too overwhelming and frightening for you - I'll be only a PM away.

I think I'll ask this one in-thread, if that's OK with you.

The implications of the bit in bold have only just struck me.

Personally I don't find the thought of a new route per se to be "too overwhelming and frightening" since I am sceptical of the alleged purposes and merits of a "bypass", and in any case I am not car-dependent as I mainly commute by bike, on foot or (occasionally) by bus.

If it's possible that a new route could be chosen, what might the implications be in terms of a construction date? Is 2019 realistic in that context?*

Would every element of a new scheme, such as an EIA, have to be done from scratch, or could the project be segmented in some way so that some of the preparatory work for the original project could be reused or recycled?

EDIT: Or maybe you've already answered that:

Frank Black wrote: »

Out of date and quite probably for a route which will not be anything like the new route of the proposed bypass

*Edit 2: Also answered already, I guess:

Frank Black wrote: »

Hard work and plenty of resources by the Consultants appointed, with a smattering of Client optimism regarding programme delivery - I suspect it will take a bit longer myself.

antoobrien · 15-11-2013 4:26pm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

OK, since Mr Gilmore also said "revised" let's ignore his use of the word "new" in the same context.

Does the word "scheme" have special significance here?

The scheme is the set of actions required to meet the intended goal of said scheme - in this case provide bypass of Galway. Everything else hangs from this.

So (for me) in order for the scheme to be "new" there'd have to be a new/different goal - which there isn't. The routes & endpoints have changed several times during the lifetime of the scheme, but that has not caused a new overall scheme.

Now as to what Mr Gilmore said, the use of the word new was in relation to the planning application - required to complete the goals of the scheme. We knew this would more than likely be required because it's very unlikely that a bridge can be built without impacting the SACs in the area, which are bigger than the areas indicated in the EIS. Also if they go forward with IORPI they will have to "replace" the habitat by designating other area(s) to replace the lost/damaged area(s).

Iwannahurl · 15-11-2013 4:32pm

antoobrien wrote: »

The scheme is the set of actions required to meet the intended goal of said scheme - in this case provide bypass of Galway. Everything else hangs from this.

We may be getting, er, bogged down in semantics here.

But I assume the issue is of significance, so I'll press on.

Your use of the word "scheme" twice in the same sentence has me confused. For example, would it make sense to say "the plan is the set of actions required to meet the intended goal of said plan"? Would that not be circular and confusing?

Can you clarify?

antoobrien · 15-11-2013 4:41pm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Your use of the word "scheme" twice in the same sentence has me confused. For example, would it make sense to say "the plan is the set of actions required to meet the intended goal of said plan"? Would that not be circular and confusing?

Put braces around "of said plan" if it helps.

Iwannahurl · 15-11-2013 4:52pm

Not a lot:

antoobrien wrote: »

The scheme is the set of actions required to meet the intended goal (of said scheme).

The scheme is the set of actions required to meet the intended goal of the set of actions?

Sorry, does not compute.

antoobrien · 15-11-2013 4:57pm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Not a lot:

The scheme is the set of actions required to meet the intended goal of the set of actions?

Sorry, does not compute.

I've no inclination to get into a nit picking match with you, take it or leave it.

Victor · 15-11-2013 6:49pm

Frank Black wrote: »

I guess all the Consultants have been tendering for the wrong exercise so.
Imagine how embarrassed they'll be when they find out a humble software engineer spotted this error :rolleyes:

I think we've reached the end of any reasonable argument on this point. You're wrong, pure and simple. I know it hurts. I know its embarrassing to be exposed on a public forum as a guy who talks big, but knows little. But nobody's perfect. We all make mistakes. Why not show a little class even at this late stage and admit it?
The more you try to wriggle out of it the more you'll end up looking like a petulant child who won't admit a mistake, even when their error has been very patiently explained to them numerous times. - There's no shame in someone who's not familiar with the process making an error - but to continue to insist you're right in the face such clear evidence to the contrary? - Well, it's not really reflecting very well on you.

Anyway, what about all my other points Anto?
Still waiting.

If you listen really closely you'll hear the sound of goalposts being frantically moved again no doubt.

On-topic, constructive posts only, please.

Moderator

Frank Black · 15-11-2013 6:55pm

antoobrien wrote: »

I've no inclination to get into a nit picking match with you, take it or leave it.

antoobrien wrote: »

Classic AH, not actually dealing with the response.

Come on Anto - what's sauce for the goose and all.

I'm enjoying seeing you tie yourself in linguistic knots.
Answer the question.

15-11-2013 8:14pm

Can anyone else say "ZZZZzzzz"

Frank Black · 15-11-2013 8:50pm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

If it's possible that a new route could be chosen, what might the implications be in terms of a construction date? Is 2019 realistic in that context?*

Would every element of a new scheme, such as an EIA, have to be done from scratch, or could the project be segmented in some way so that some of the preparatory work for the original project could be reused or recycled?

EDIT: Or maybe you've already answered that:

*Edit 2: Also answered already, I guess:

Whether the route requires a Habitat6(4) process or 6(3) would have a huge implication on delivery date - probably a couple of years at least. I've already posted earlier in the thread my calculations on a 6(4) scenario, that I envisage 2021 as an optimistic opening date. If not a 6(4) then 2019 is achievable. Of course we won't know until the Annex 1 habitats are mapped and the extents of same agreed with NPWS. This process has already started and is well underway - it was being done as an advance contract to the appointment of the main consultants and will be continued by them once they are appointed.
Of course they could have saved all that time and money by just asking a certain software engineer.....

antoobrien wrote: »

you'd know that most of the Menlo/Coolough area on the approach to the Corrib is part of the Lough Corrib SAC and is riddled with Annex 1 habitats.

Thank you Anto - you obviously do habitat mapping in your spare time too
Ahem

I guess it's wait and see time - I suspect the new consultants will know by early next year whether a route which avoids Annex 1 is possible and viable.

In terms of salvageable work from the old EIS - like I said earlier, some of the GI - rocks don't move. But the vast majority of the original surveys which informed the EIS are a decade old at this stage and nobody wants to be standing in front of ABP using that data to defend the scheme. So I'm afraid most of the previous money spent is (much like the old scheme) dead and flushed down the toilet.

Iwannahurl · 15-11-2013 9:11pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Can anyone else say "ZZZZzzzz"

This is the "Not really on-topic stuff from 'N6 - Galway City Outer Bypass' thread" thread.

In which case I guess mere boredom is as constructive an input as any other, so you can snore away until 2019 (at the earliest).

15-11-2013 9:24pm

Well played, well played

Iwannahurl · 15-11-2013 9:38pm

Thanks.

I can easily maintain this standard for another six years. At least.

The cycling keeps me fit, dontcha know.

antoobrien · 18-11-2013 10:15am

Frank Black wrote: »

Thank you Anto - you obviously do habitat mapping in your spare time too

Ahem

http://webgis.npws.ie/npwsviewer/

Frank Black · 18-11-2013 11:29am

antoobrien wrote: »

Ahem

http://webgis.npws.ie/npwsviewer/

Very good Anto - you're great at being able to log onto websites and mis-understand the information presented within.

For other interested readers - The NPWS map viewer shows the extents of protected areas within the Country - SAC's and NHA,s and such like.

It doesn't show (listen carefully now Anto, you may learn something) the location and extents of Annex 1 habitats within these protected zones. It will be these Annex 1's and the imapact of the proposed scheme on them, which will detemine whether a 6(4) or 6(3) process is required.

As posted above - this work on Aneex 1 mapping is currently underway,

antoobrien · 18-11-2013 12:46pm

Frank Black wrote: »

Very good Anto - you're great at being able to log onto websites and mis-understand the information presented within.

For other interested readers - The NPWS map viewer shows the extents of protected areas within the Country - SAC's and NHA,s and such like.

Areas that are now much larger than when the original EIS was compiled. So much larger that the current proposed approach goes through this extended area, where it previously skirted the area.

Frank Black wrote: »

It doesn't show (listen carefully now Anto, you may learn something) the location and extents of Annex 1 habitats within these protected zones. It will be these Annex 1's and the imapact of the proposed scheme on them, which will detemine whether a 6(4) or 6(3) process is required.

The extent of the Limestone is known to most people familiar with the area. For those of you that aren't there is a quarry about 800m from the river, extending another approx 800m east (one of the extensions to the NHA borders it). So to avoid a 6(4) process, at the very least, the support piers would need to be built outside the protected zone, as any construction will cause damage to limestone.

Unless they can redesign the crossing so that none of the protected limestone will be impacted, a 6(4) process will be required (alternative crossings will require significant demolition works and the approach route may go through a protected habitat to make the crossing possible).

Going by the current proposed route protected zone is abut 600m-700m wide, so the supporting piers would need to be outside this zone to avoid hitting limestone.

I've concentrated on the limestone as it only takes a single Annex 1 habitat to be affected to invoke 6(4). However there will also likely be an issue with bogs in the newly extended protected area, so I'm really not at all hopeful that a 6(4) process can be avoided.

Frank Black · 18-11-2013 1:04pm

Sorry Anto, I'm feeling sorry for you at this stage and hate to keep picking on you. I do feel however, for the sake of other interested readers, that I need keep correcting the errors in your posts, particularly when (despite no specific training or background experience) you try to portray yourself as some kind of expert in this field.

antoobrien wrote: »

The extent of the Limestone is known to most people familiar with the area. For those of you that aren't there is a quarry about 800m from the river, extending another approx 800m east (one of the extensions to the NHA borders it). So to avoid a 6(4) process, at the very least, the support piers would need to be built outside the protected zone, as any construction will cause damage to limestone. .

Limestone does not equal Annex 1.
Common mistake made by a lot of people.
Areas of limestone are potential Annex 1 habitats. It requires a detailed field survey and assessment to determine whether to classify certain areas of Limestone as Annex 1.

antoobrien wrote: »

Going by the current proposed route protected zone is abut 600m-700m wide, so the supporting piers would need to be outside this zone to avoid hitting limestone.
.

I presume you're referring to the old route?
You really need to accept that this route is dead.
Even if the new route ends up on the exact same line as the old - hitting limestone does not necessarily equate to hitting an Annex 1 habitat - see above.

antoobrien wrote: »

so I'm really not at all hopeful that a 6(4) process can be avoided.

Well, you seem to be toning down the certainty of your language somewhat Anto, which is to be welcomed. Baby steps, baby steps.

There's always hope. The key driver in the Route Selection process will be the avoidance of Annex 1 habitats. Whether this is possible or not will depend on the extent of those - which (and apologies for labouring this point) has still not been determined.

So, remain hopefull everyone.

antoobrien · 18-11-2013 1:40pm

Frank Black wrote: »

Limestone does not equal Annex 1.
Common mistake made by a lot of people.
Areas of limestone are potential Annex 1 habitats. It requires a detailed field survey and assessment to determine whether to classify certain areas of Limestone as Annex 1.

Frank Black wrote: »

- hitting limestone does not necessarily equate to hitting an Annex 1 habitat - see above.

That's a poor attempt to prove a point. Interesting. The Limestone at the proposed river crossing is Annex 1 (as acknowledged by pro & anti) but you are implying that the Limestone 100m -200m away isn't. That's a leap.

Frank Black wrote: »

I presume you're referring to the old route?
You really need to accept that this route is dead.
Even if the new route ends up on the exact same line as the old

You do realise that you've just directly contradicted yourself there right? How can the old route be dead, if you state that it's possible the new route may end up on the same line.

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.

I'm fairly certain that 6(4) will be needed because of your next bit.

Frank Black wrote: »

The key driver in the Route Selection process will be the avoidance of Annex 1 habitats. Whether this is possible or not will depend on the extent of those - which (and apologies for labouring this point) has still not been determined.

That will be interesting, especially considering in 2006 they chose the current location because they thought it minimized the "penetration" to the SAC.

Frank Black · 18-11-2013 2:36pm

antoobrien wrote: »

That's a poor attempt to prove a point. Interesting. The Limestone at the proposed river crossing is Annex 1 (as acknowledged by pro & anti) but you are implying that the Limestone 100m -200m away isn't. That's a leap..

I'm not implying anything or leaping anywhere - that's what you're doing in fact. I'm stating that this work is on-going. Do you see the difference?

In terms of proving a point. - I'm simply pointing out where you're either mis-informed, have misunderstood or are in other ways wrong. I appreciate you don't particularly like it that someone has come onto the thread who knows more than you, but it's for the benifit of other readers

antoobrien wrote: »

You do realise that you've just directly contradicted yourself there right? How can the old route be dead, if you state that it's possible the new route may end up on the same line. .

I must say, I'm missing any contradiction - the new route may end up on the same line as the old route, it may not. I've already posted on this very point if you re-read the thread.

antoobrien wrote: »

I'm fairly certain that 6(4) will be needed because of your next bit..

I think if there's one thing we've established Anto, it's that it's dangerous for you to be certain of anything.
- because you usually end up wrong.

antoobrien wrote: »

That will be interesting, especially considering in 2006 they chose the current location because they thought it minimized the "penetration" to the SAC.

Yes, it's a very interesting scheme - It's why I'm interested in it.
All very interesting indeed.

antoobrien · 18-11-2013 2:48pm

Frank Black wrote: »

I must say, I'm missing any contradiction - the new route may end up on the same line as the old route.

That is the contradiction. If the "old" route is dead, then surely it or parts of it can not be used for the new one.

Perhaps you'd like to clarify what you mean by the route being "dead".

Frank Black wrote: »

I think if there's one thing we've established Anto, it's that it's dangerous for you to be certain of anything.
- because you usually end up wrong.

Well then show us where the alternative crossing points are and how 6(4) can be avoided.

Frank Black · 18-11-2013 4:11pm

antoobrien wrote: »

Well then show us where the alternative crossing points are and how 6(4) can be avoided.

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.
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.

antoobrien wrote: »

That is the contradiction. If the "old" route is dead, then surely it or parts of it can not be used for the new one.

Perhaps you'd like to clarify what you mean by the route being "dead"..

Very good - should have said scheme.
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 (and very unlikely) that this route will be the exact same as the previous one, it's possible (and likely) that it will be co-incident with the previous one over some of its length, it's possible that, other than the tie in locations, it will not follow any part of the previous route.
Surely this doesn't need to be explained any further?
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. 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.

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

Comments