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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Outer City Bypass

12357…35

Comments

  • #122
    jkforde
    Registered Users Posts: 1,991 ✭✭✭jkforde


    Private Joker wrote: »
    the point was made that all other more developed countries in europe had most of their infastructre in place before any of the habitats directives were put in place in the EU.

    also true that most wise citizens of those same states envy us with our relatively abundant diversity of semi-natural landscapes and biodiverse habitats. but myopic Paddy, he don't give a **** and just wants to develop like they did post-WWII without any mature assessment of their way of doing things or contemplation of any alternative opportunities to develop in a different, more enlightened way. instead, our form of debate typically ends with "no no, just build the f@&kin' ting lads, for fook sake."

    🌦️ 6.7kwp, 45°, SSW, mid-Galway 🌦️



  • #123
    galwayrush
    Registered Users Posts: 12,815 ✭✭✭✭galwayrush


    jkforde wrote: »
    also true that most wise citizens of those same states envy us with our relatively abundant diversity of semi-natural landscapes and biodiverse habitats. but myopic Paddy, he don't give a **** and just wants to develop like they did post-WWII without any mature assessment of their way of doing things or contemplation of any alternative opportunities to develop in a different, more enlightened way. instead, our form of debate typically ends with "no no, just build the f@&kin' ting lads, for fook sake."

    Do they envy our horrible traffic problem for a relatively small population? I imagine Galway would have had a bypass years ago if we were in one of those more enlightened states.


  • #124
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    I well remember 5 hour trips from Dublin to Galway of a friday if I couldn't leave early. So yeah, build the thing lads, quick. Who would ever want to drive through Kinnegad, Moate, Ballinasloe, or Ennis of a friday again, life is too short. :)


  • #125
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    gilberto_eire wrote: »
    I think anything bar an officially recognised body should be ignored in these situations.
    If an individual wants to object to a process they should need a certain amount of support(say 2000 others etc).

    While I disagree with the objector I don't disagree with the process

    If any individual disagree's with something they should be able to take their case to the highest court if it warrants it


  • #126
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    jkforde wrote: »
    also true that most wise citizens of those same states envy us with our relatively abundant diversity of semi-natural landscapes and biodiverse habitats. but myopic Paddy, he don't give a **** and just wants to develop like they did post-WWII without any mature assessment of their way of doing things or contemplation of any alternative opportunities to develop in a different, more enlightened way. instead, our form of debate typically ends with "no no, just build the f@&kin' ting lads, for fook sake."

    No assessment! There is an EIS published as part of every major development, especially if one goes anywhere near the habitats e.g. the massive amount of limestone & bogs we have in Galway.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users Posts: 25,666 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    galwayrush wrote: »
    Do they envy our horrible traffic problem for a relatively small population? I imagine Galway would have had a bypass years ago if we were in one of those more enlightened states.

    They probably look at the proportion of our landmass in roads, and think "Paddy, wouldya cop on and make effective use of what you've got, ffs. Keep going the way you're going and there'll be no space left between the road at all".


  • #128
    inisboffin
    Registered Users Posts: 4,385 ✭✭✭inisboffin


    'Will Build Roads For Soup'

    ;)


  • #129
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    They probably look at the proportion of our landmass in roads, and think "Paddy, wouldya cop on and make effective use of what you've got, ffs. Keep going the way you're going and there'll be no space left between the road at all".

    Nope.

    We nominate our areas of conservation based on a list of habitats provided by Europe, they simply ratify the lists provided. In certain cases (where 6.4 of the habits directive is invoked) the EU commission is asked for an opinion of the need of the project, which is rarely rejected (according to the opinion 1 case in 15-20 submissions).

    The designation process means, among other things, we can remove the designation if we so wish (something that was suggested in the opinion), or refuse to create new areas if the designation becomes too problematic.

    A touch of hyperbole perhaps, my reading of this ruling means that it will be hard to dig a drainage ditch, break a rock or cut down more than a handful of trees in large parts of the land West of the Corrib, because it has apparently assesses any permanent loss as being an adverse effect and Brussels must be asked (provided the court proper doesn't decide to change the definition of adverse affect to something more lenient).

    Personally I don't know why we are nominating so much land in the west of Ireland (something like 80% of the protected habitats are in Connemara) but leaving vast areas of the midlands free for pillage (anyone who has ever taken the train through the Bog of Allen - like many of the bogs in Galway, also a raised bog - will know what I mean and I like the idea of turf cutting).


  • #130
    Zzippy
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,166 Mod ✭✭✭✭Zzippy


    antoobrien wrote: »
    No assessment! There is an EIS published as part of every major development, especially if one goes anywhere near the habitats e.g. the massive amount of limestone & bogs we have in Galway.

    An EIS often isn't worth the paper its written on. For instance, I've just read the EIS for the proposed new salmon farm in Galway Bay. It was written by 2 staff members in Bord Iascaigh Mhara - the same agency that is applying for the licence. Neither of them have the remotest professional qualifications to be able to write such a complex document, as far as I can see. The whole document is extremely biased, and scientifically unsound. As someone with a scientific background, its easy for me to see the flaws, but to the average punter looking at a 400-page document that they don't understand, it may seem kosher. Most EIS's are written by consultants, usually paid by the applicant, so their independence is also questionable.


  • #131
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    Zzippy wrote: »
    An EIS often isn't worth the paper its written on.

    <snip>

    As someone with a scientific background, its easy for me to see the flaws, but to the average punter looking at a 400-page document that they don't understand, it may seem kosher. Most EIS's are written by consultants, usually paid by the applicant, so their independence is also questionable.

    This is the point. Why is it that the EIS consultants employed by local authorities or developers never seem to argue against key aspects of the schemes they are assessing? If they are impartial professionals it would imply that they must occasionally come accross problematic aspects in the projects they are assessing?


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    This is the point. Why is it that the EIS consultants employed by local authorities or developers never seem to argue against key aspects of the schemes they are assessing? If they are impartial professionals it would imply that they must occasionally come accross problematic aspects in the projects they are assessing?

    Serious misunderstanding of the EIS in the above post, not to mention an obvious not reading of the EIS for GCOB.

    The EIS is supposed to state potential problems with the proposed solution, not to judge for or against it. That's the job of ABP, who will take into account the EIS, written & oral statements etc.

    The EIS for GCOB did state that some limestone would be lost, it did examinations on the cost benefit (in terms of projected accidents) and a few more items.

    The whole case now revolves is what level of habitat loss is deemed to require going to Brussels - and this opinion appears to say any permanent loss triggers 6.4 and off to Brussels at the taxpayers expense.

    So if you want to go to jail, go have someone take a picture/video of you breaking a rock or digging a dtich in the corrib sac.


  • #133
    yer man!
    Registered Users Posts: 1,646 ✭✭✭yer man!


    Is it actually just the people in Menlo that are going mad about this? i'd love to know if Mr. Sweetman was acting on behalf of someone from the area. Like I remember it was halted a few years ago because some documents weren't in Irish and people were complaining that they couldn't read them.......


  • #134
    Doc Ruby
    Registered Users Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    They probably look at the proportion of our landmass in roads, and think "Paddy, wouldya cop on and make effective use of what you've got, ffs. Keep going the way you're going and there'll be no space left between the road at all".
    Except we've one of the lowest rates of urbanisation for a European country. And kindly stop using "Paddy" to refer to Irish people.


  • #135
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    Except we've one of the lowest rates of urbanisation for a European country.




    What do you conclude from that, in the present context?


  • #136
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    What do you conclude from that, in the present context?

    Around Galway city we have
    Less of this:
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    We're just back from a 3-month stint in Melbourne. The planners there, in their wisdom, have contrived to create massive low-density urban sprawl over many decades, adding another 86,000 hectares only recently IIRC. I read somewhere that the sprawl is currently as much as 100 km across.

    More of this:

    irish-countryside-22.jpg

    And if we do not get a bypass we'll have more of the former than the former than the latter as we will be forced to increasing the amount of sprawl around the city in order to house people that otherwise will not be able to live outside town.

    Do you really want to see the kind of population density that is seen in Dublin where the population of Co. Galway is put into (an utterly soulless kip of an area) about the size of Galway city?

    Christ the situation is bad enough!


  • #137
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    antoobrien wrote: »

    And if we do not get a bypass we'll have more of the former than the former than the latter as we will be forced to increasing the amount of sprawl around the city in order to house people that otherwise will not be able to live outside town.



    I'm not sure I follow.

    Do you mean the Bypass will facilitate more building of houses in the countryside rather than in the city?


  • #138
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    People are forgetting that reliable journey times are essential so that people can telecommute effectively too. So yes. Better roads lead to less congestion in strange ways.

    Sadly That EIS dates from the days when Broadband was singularly absent around Galway. No EIS has ever factored efficient telecommuting/reliable journey times into the mix ....probably because it involves showing how humans can and will reduce their net impact by not sitting in jams spewing out fumes and you can't have that can you. :)


  • #139
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users Posts: 25,666 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    And kindly stop using "Paddy" to refer to Irish people.

    I will, when you stop doing it yourselves. Ref jkforde 's post, which I was mirroring.


  • #140
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    I'm not sure I follow.

    Do you mean the Bypass will facilitate more building of houses in the countryside rather than in the city?

    No, but not building it will guarantee more sprawl into the countryside.


  • #141
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users Posts: 25,666 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    antoobrien wrote: »
    No, but not building it will guarantee more sprawl into the countryside.

    And by collorary, building it will lead to more housing further out in the countryside, surely?

    The alternative is more density in the land that is aready used for using, a prospect that seems to horrify some people here. IMHO it's just because you've not seen it done welll.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    And by collorary, building it will lead to more housing further out in the countryside, surely?

    Not necessarily - at least not in the fashion that some people in this country detest. It's already practically impossible for me to get pp in the area that I'm from because I moved there 25 years ago, rather then being born there (as some of my younger siblings were), so the notion that a person can just buy a plot of land and build a house is nonsense.

    The model I have for this is the San Francisco Bay Area - two cities and a number of smaller towns. Hopefully though they would not sprawl into each other (maybe we'll learn the lessons they didn't). Instead of developing Knocknaracara, Dangan, Briarhill or Ardaun, develop Bearna, Moycullen, Athenry or Oranmore (properly!).
    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    The alternative is more density in the land that is aready used for using, a prospect that seems to horrify some people here. IMHO it's just because you've not seen it done welll.

    The idea of any land being used other than the fashion that the individual desires seems to horrify some. People have a penchant for decrying the "bungalow blitz" that supposedly dogged the celtic tiger housing boom - despite the fact that a bungalow here is a singe story detached house and you could probably count on one hand the amount of those that were built in the past 10 years - as being a waste (see the "Is the Galway bypass necessary" thread for some of those arguments).

    But then we have also seen arguments against low density housing, as in the bit I quoted earlier.

    To my mind all of this has nothing to do with the proposed bypass and bringing it up is at best a disingenuous attempt to distract from the fact that the roads system in Galway is almost entirely unchanged since the 50s and is totally inadequate for what we had 15 years ago, before we discuss what we will

    I.M.O. Galway isn't far from the kind of tipping point that DCC are claiming for water (go fix the water mains you shower of muppets) or we wouldn't have plans to double the capacity of the water system. Galway has grown at an average of 2% per year for the past 50 years, so if there isn't an emergency on the horizon, this is some really long view thinking from the local authorities (I'm sceptical that this is the case).

    So I think we need to diversify the populations centres, creating multiple towns that can support themselves e.g. appropriate shopping & travel facilities, without forcing them to come to Galway every week to get shopping. It's part of the reason I'd support developments like the proposed Tesco off SQR, choice and flexibility.

    We need planning to ensure it's all done properly, both in the city and county This as you have pointed out is where we have fallen down, but it is not an excuse to do nothing.

    And yes we need more than just the bypass (as if it's not possible to be for anything but one side of this argument) as over half the people employed in the city commute from outside the city (with the majority of that figure falling outside the smarter travel plan area.


  • #143
    what_traffic
    Registered Users Posts: 4,866 ✭✭✭what_traffic


    Legal opinion may see rerouting of Galway bypass
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1128/1224327207872.html


  • #144
    periodictable
    Closed Accounts Posts: 931 ✭✭✭periodictable


    "...the site of a legally protected and vulnerable species....."

    what a load of bollokology-like the €200,000 bat house built at an undisclosed location off the Ennis bypass, to which the bats never moved... or the Doonbeg Golf Club which was held up by a rare snail.
    What they never told you about were the thousands of gulls that came in each evening to eat the snails.


  • #145
    crusher000
    Registered Users Posts: 649 ✭✭✭crusher000


    Sure if we can't go over it, lets go under it. Most cities in Ireland now have a tunnel Dublin, Cork, Limerick. Off course it will cost more but after so many years of objections time to rethink. They could also have Salmon Weir for Inbound traffic from the west two lanes all the way and Quincentenial for out bound four lanes all the way. Slip road at Newcastle for the Connemara people and the two lanes out by westside for those living that direction and the holiday campers.


  • #146
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    crusher000 wrote: »
    Sure if we can't go over it, lets go under it.

    If going over it will damage the limestone pavement, why do you think that going under through it will not?

    what_traffic wrote: »
    Legal opinion may see rerouting of Galway bypass
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1128/1224327207872.html

    Shows just how idiotic our journos are as anybody who has done a cursory investigation of the case will know that the SAC covers the entire Corrib system, from the Claddagh to Cornamona and as such the bridge can not be rerouted.

    We already know that the section through the bogs will need further planning, up to and including rerouting as this was rejected (why do people keep forgetting this).


  • #147
    Predalien
    Closed Accounts Posts: 946 ✭✭✭Predalien


    antoobrien wrote: »



    Shows just how idiotic our journos are as anybody who has done a cursory investigation of the case will know that the SAC covers the entire Corrib system, from the Claddagh to Cornamona and as such the bridge can not be rerouted.

    In fairness, the whole saga also highlights the idiocy of the developer and An Bord Pleanala, given they couldn't grasp the meaning of the word integrity, and continued to argue about it's definition, ignoring the plain meaning of the word.


  • #148
    Doc Ruby
    Registered Users Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    I will, when you stop doing it yourselves. Ref jkforde 's post, which I was mirroring.
    So you aren't Irish? And what makes you think jkforde is Irish, or that he's an arbiter of good taste as regards ethnic commentary?

    I don't know, I appreciate the outdoors more than most people, but it seems like the stout defenders of the countryside are doing a lot more damage to the environment by ensuring that more cars are burning more fuel for longer periods due to the existing shambles of the traffic network in Galway. And that's to say nothing of the economic damage. Is it an example of well meaning regulations being abused by a minority for their own personal benefit?


  • #149
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users Posts: 25,666 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    So you aren't Irish? And what makes you think jkforde is Irish, or that he's an arbiter of good taste as regards ethnic commentary?

    Nope, and I'd imagine any regular contributor here knows that from my previous posts.

    What makes you think I'm aiming for good taste?



    Now back on topic:
    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    I don't know, I appreciate the outdoors more than most people, but it seems like the stout defenders of the countryside are doing a lot more damage to the environment by ensuring that more cars are burning more fuel for longer periods due to the existing shambles of the traffic network in Galway. And that's to say nothing of the economic damage. Is it an example of well meaning regulations being abused by a minority for their own personal benefit?

    What we need to do is get people OUT of their cars: onto buses, bicycles and their feet. There's plenty of evidence that building better roads simply makes cars more attractive, rather than less.

    That requires stopping development that is "further than a reasonable public transport + reasonable walk commute" away from jobs (which are the cause of most commuting).

    So I don't support any further development of Moycullen or Claregalway (for example) - or even Aradaun outside of the current dual-carriageway - unless that is balanced development that stops people having to commute. Instead, concentrate the growth on the current urban area boundaries, and make better use of the space there.

    That said, I do support another bridge over the Corrib, because the present one makes the network very vulnerable: one crash can s***w the whole city. And yet, there needs to be network to feed it. But I won't want to see yet another "eastern distributor road" outside of the current one, because to my mind that will simply expand the current sprawl.


  • #150
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    what_traffic wrote: »
    Legal opinion may see rerouting of Galway bypass
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1128/1224327207872.html

    Eee Yew, Frank McDonald. I wouldn't worry what he thinks. :(

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1128/1224327207872.html


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    dinneenp
    Registered Users Posts: 8,099 ✭✭✭dinneenp


    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    Nope, and I'd imagine any regular contributor here knows that from my previous posts.

    What makes you think I'm aiming for good taste?


    Now back on topic:

    What we need to do is get people OUT of their cars: onto buses, bicycles and their feet. There's plenty of evidence that building better roads simply makes cars more attractive, rather than less.

    That requires stopping development that is "further than a reasonable public transport + reasonable walk commute" away from jobs (which are the cause of most commuting).

    So I don't support any further development of Moycullen or Claregalway (for example) - or even Aradaun outside of the current dual-carriageway - unless that is balanced development that stops people having to commute. Instead, concentrate the growth on the current urban area boundaries, and make better use of the space there.

    That said, I do support another bridge over the Corrib, because the present one makes the network very vulnerable: one crash can s***w the whole city. And yet, there needs to be network to feed it. But I won't want to see yet another "eastern distributor road" outside of the current one, because to my mind that will simply expand the current sprawl.


    Regardless of the public/private transport debate I think the country needs good roads and bottlenecks bypassed. It would benefit private and public transport.
    for anyone who wants to get to Connemara you can add on an extra 30minutes AT LEAST as they have to go through Galway/over the bridge. This is crazy.

    And in a way I don't see anything wrong with more sprawl, as long as it's planned. If Gawlay had a shopping center outside of the city, like Blanchestown Shopping Center Liffey Valley it'd reduce traffic going into town.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement