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

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

Options
12467

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    antoobrien wrote: »
    That's straight out of the AH playbook, well done.

    Changing the route does not make it a new scheme.

    Btw where you really went wrong was your "knowledge" about the NRA.



    It was always an NRA project and they directed Galway Co Co & Galway City Co to plan and build it. This has not changed.

    Oh dear, we're into semantics.
    One more time.
    The previous scheme identified a preferred route. Which was challenged all the way to Europe and ultimately found to have not followed the correct procedure. It's now dead.
    A new scheme is now being developed to bypass Galway.

    The NRA fund schemes and set down the process to be followed.
    The LA's procure, and bring schemes through the stat process. They apply for PP for the scheme and defend it at the OH. They are the Client and it's 'their' scheme.

    I have nearly 15years experience in the development, design and delivery of road schemes. I do actually know what I'm talking about.
    What's your background as a matter of interest?


  • Options
    #93
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Frank Black wrote: »
    Oh dear, we're into semantics.
    One more time.
    The previous scheme identified a preferred route.

    If that's what makes it a new scheme to you then we're on the 4th or 6th different GCOB scheme, depending on what you're counting.

    1) There was the original proposed scheme N18-N59.
    2) Original eastern Route N18-N59
    3) First overall NRA scheme N6-N59 & N59-R336 (as a national route)
    4) Approved scheme N6-N59, with N59-R336 to proceed as a local road
    5) Western section re-incorporated into the scheme after the supreme court applied the ECJ ruling
    6) whatever we have now

    The new routes 2-5 didn't make this a new scheme, 1-3 were all done before the city council made a similar sign off in 2004.

    New consultants or tenders don't make it a new scheme or we'd be somewhere around v20 of Gort-Tuam.

    I really don't know where you're digging this crap out of, but it flies in the face of everything that has been published about this and other projects across the country.

    I wonder do you work for the advertiser, the only place I've seen/heard mention of this being a "new scheme" is on their headline.


  • Options
    #94
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    I notice that a City Councillor in Galway has brought up the issue of CPOs.
    Cllr Frank Fahy expressed concern that the treatment of landowners along the original bypass route could lead to the project being delayed further.

    Compulsory purchase orders (CPOs) on land along the route had now expired, he said, and, if these lands were to be used for the new plan, they would be acquired at 2013 prices rather than the 2006 prices, which would have applied under the original CPOs.

    “Farmers have made substantial investments in land acquisition in the belief that they were going to be compensated at 2006 prices,” said Cllr Fahy.

    “I personally feel that there is a possibility that landowners will take a case to Europe regarding the CPO and that the city outer bypass will be delayed another ten years,” he added, calling on all relevant bodies to ensure that landowners were treated fairly.

    Source: http://www.galwayindependent.com/20131113/news/bypass-by-2019-S27586.html

    Is he suggesting that people who made speculative investments in land around the original GCOB route should somehow be compensated?


  • Options
    #95
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Is he suggesting that people who made speculative investments in land around the original GCOB route should somehow be compensated?

    I doubt it, it's more likely that a few of Frank's neighbours bought/sold land to realign ownership along the route. It's kinda hard to drive cattle and sheep between fields with a DC in the way.


  • Options
    #96
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    antoobrien wrote: »
    If that's what makes it a new scheme to you then we're on the 4th or 6th different GCOB scheme, depending on what you're counting.

    1) There was the original proposed scheme N18-N59.
    2) Original eastern Route N18-N59
    3) First overall NRA scheme N6-N59 & N59-R336 (as a national route)
    4) Approved scheme N6-N59, with N59-R336 to proceed as a local road
    5) Western section re-incorporated into the scheme after the supreme court applied the ECJ ruling
    6) whatever we have now

    The new routes 2-5 didn't make this a new scheme, 1-3 were all done before the city council made a similar sign off in 2004.

    New consultants or tenders don't make it a new scheme or we'd be somewhere around v20 of Gort-Tuam.

    I really don't know where you're digging this crap out of, but it flies in the face of everything that has been published about this and other projects across the country.

    I wonder do you work for the advertiser, the only place I've seen/heard mention of this being a "new scheme" is on their headline.

    You didn't answer my question, and seeing as you've accused me of 'not knowing what I'm talking about' or' talking crap' or not having 'knowledge' of the process, I think the question is reasonable.

    What is your professional background which gives you the authority to make those kind of accusations about my posts?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Frank Black wrote: »
    You didn't answer my question, and seeing as you've accused me of 'not knowing what I'm talking about' or' talking crap' or not having 'knowledge' of the process, I think the question is reasonable.

    I don't need to answer said question as my occupation is on record (unlike yours) and has been since I joined.

    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. And 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?

    As for this
    The previous scheme identified a preferred route. Which was challenged all the way to Europe and ultimately found to have not followed the correct procedure. It's now dead.

    That shows a real lack of understanding of what happened. Neither the ECJ not the Supreme Court "killed the scheme", nor the route. No they ruled that the process to grant permission to use this route was not correct. The process, not the route.

    In fact the ECJ (through the Advocate) ruled that 6(4) is not a barrier to the route being used, just that the process for granting permission was flawed.

    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.


  • Options
    #98
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    antoobrien wrote: »
    I don't need to answer said question as my occupation is on record (unlike yours) and has been since I joined.

    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've looked at your first few posts since you joined and can see no reference of your professional experience - I don't intend to search through a few thousand posts - why don't you just state now what your background is. It would certainly be helpful to me and any other interested posters in terms of where to classify your accusations of lack of knowledge on the laughabilty scale. At the moment I have them at around the 8.5 out of 10 mark, but I'm willing to increase this if it turns out your just some randomer who can copy, paste and misunderstand information from the NRA's website.

    I'm nearly 20 qualified as a Civil Engineer, 14 years Chartered and 15 years direct experience at a senior level, of all stages of the road design and construction process, from Feasibility right the way through Construction. I had lunch last week with one of the NRA's Regional Inspectors where we discussed this very project. In short I suspect I know a lot more than you do - but by all means, please prove me wrong.


  • Options
    #99
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Frank Black wrote: »
    I've looked at your first few posts since you joined and can see no reference of your professional experience

    Lazy Frank very lazy. It's not that hard to find and it's not in (many of) my posts.


  • Options
    #100
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Frank Black wrote: »
    I'm nearly 20 qualified as a Civil Engineer, 14 years Chartered and 15 years direct experience at a senior level, of all stages of the road design and construction process, from Feasibility right the way through Construction. I had lunch last week with one of the NRA's Regional Inspectors where we discussed this very project.

    Very good, so explain to me how the thing that have happened here make this new scheme, but in almost every other occasion I can find record of they have not resulted in a new scheme?

    I think you are equating the overall scheme with the component projects.


  • Options
    #101
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Lazy Frank very lazy. It's not that hard to find and it's not in (many of) my posts.

    Ah ha!
    A Software engineer!

    Moving your critiques of my posts to a 10.

    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, 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?

    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.

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    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?


  • Options
    #103
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    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.


  • Options
    #104
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,856 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    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.


  • Options
    #105
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    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.


  • Options
    #106
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,856 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


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


  • Options
    #107
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    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?


  • Options
    #108
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,856 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    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.


  • Options
    #109
    yer man!
    Registered Users Posts: 1,648 ✭✭✭yer man!


    Lads! lads!, calm...


  • Options
    #110
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    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.


  • Options
    #111
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,856 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    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.


  • Options
    #113
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    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.


  • Options
    #114
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,856 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    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.


  • Options
    #115
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    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.


  • Options
    #116
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    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.


  • Options
    #117
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    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.


  • Options
    #118
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    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.


  • Options
    #119
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    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?


  • Options
    #120
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    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.


Advertisement