M6 - Galway City Ring Road [planning decision pending]

Iwannahurl

MYOB wrote: »

The State is only involved due to the meddling of a single interest party no longer in government. Without them the SC action would never have had state involvement on Shoutyman's side.

"This procedure is open to all Member States’ national judges. They may refer a case already underway to the Court in order to question it on the interpretation or validity of European law."

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/institutional_affairs/decisionmaking_process/l14552_en.htm

L1011

Iwannahurl wrote: »

"This procedure is open to all Member States’ national judges. They may refer a case already underway to the Court in order to question it on the interpretation or validity of European law."

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/institutional_affairs/decisionmaking_process/l14552_en.htm

...and the underlying SC case would have got nowhere had it, as it should have been, been Mr Shouty vs. The State as a whole. Its baseless and it'll be returned to us pretty sharpish once the ECJ get to it.

spacetweek

As soon as the bypass is clears, it should be bumped up the queue. It's more important than the M20 and Enniscorthy.

A friend from Galway drove back from Dublin a week ago. 2h to east of Galway city; 90 mins to N59

galwayrush

MYOB wrote: »

The State is only involved due to the meddling of a single interest party no longer in government. Without them the SC action would never have had state involvement on Shoutyman's side.

I presume mr shouty will have no problem paying all the expenses/ legal costs caused by his actions...:rolleyes:

Leonard Hofstadter

spacetweek wrote: »

As soon as the bypass is clears, it should be bumped up the queue. It's more important than the M20 and Enniscorthy.

A friend from Galway drove back from Dublin a week ago. 2h to east of Galway city; 90 mins to N59

I'm sorry, but I don't think so.

It may well be more important to the NRA/Government, but that does not mean that it should be more important than the M20.

You cannot honestly say that it can be more important to the country to have a bypass of a city (which already has ring roads on the east side of the city anyway and a far superior road connection to Limeick than Cork does) than to have a motorway between the second and third largest cities on this side of the border.

The N20 is a death trap and it quite simply takes far too long to go from Cork to Limerick.

I'm not saying that a bypass of Galway is not important, on the contrary it is very important, as it is the only city without a bypass, but some of the problems with traffic in Galway are down to the fact that there seems to be no employment in the west side of the city (all the industrial parks are in Ballybrit, Parkmore, Ballybane etc) as opposed to not having a bypass. In Cork and Dublin there are relatively good employment opportunities on both the north and south sides of both cities, so you don't have anything like the number of people criss-crossing these cities just to get to work.

whether you agree with the GCOB or not, its one of few projects that are still showing a bit of life.

The M20 is dead in the water. There's a link somewhere on this board to the details of what will and wont be funded by this govt. The M20 did not make it on to the list

Sorry

dubhthach

Personally it shouldn't be a case of one or the other. We need both the GCOB and the M20, however given way things are I think it's gonna be a while before we have either.

Iwannahurl

MYOB wrote: »

...and the underlying SC case would have got nowhere had it, as it should have been, been Mr Shouty vs. The State as a whole. Its baseless and it'll be returned to us pretty sharpish once the ECJ get to it.

That makes absolutely no sense, IMO.

The case was one for the State (first the High Court and then the Supreme Court) until it was decided -- according to the terms of EU law -- that it should be referred to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling.

Irish courts operate under, and implement, EU law. In the case of the GCOB the Irish Supreme Court referred the case to the ECJ for a Preliminary Ruling on matters of EU environmental law.

The preliminary ruling by the ECJ regarding the interpretation of the EU Habitats Directive will allow the Supreme Court to issue a decision on whether to uphold the ruling of the High Court, which granted permission for the Outer Bypass to go ahead.

It's farcical to suggest that the Irish Supreme Court (recklessly ignoring the expert advice of the Boards.ie sages, presumably) would make such a referral in a "baseless" manner.

The ECJ will refer the case back to the Irish courts, sharpish or otherwise, after they make their Preliminary Ruling. Following the ECJ ruling, the members of the Irish Supreme Court will then be able to make their decision accordingly.

That is the well-established EU legal process that is being followed, and suggesting that it is all "baseless" is just daft, IMO. Then again, maybe those ignorant members of the Irish Supreme Court just need to educate themselves by logging on to Boards more often...

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

That makes absolutely no sense, IMO.

The case was one for the State (first the High Court and then the Supreme Court) until it was decided -- according to the terms of EU law -- that it should be referred to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling.

The ECJ will refer the case back to the Irish courts, sharpish or otherwise, after they make their Preliminary Ruling. Following the ECJ ruling, the members of the Irish Supreme Court will then be able to make their decision accordingly.

It's interesting that you give out about the "boards sages" when you clearly don't understand what you're talking about, preferring to listen to the mistaken ramblings of the hacks we have in this country.

Let's make this very clear for everybody.

The case has never actually left the Irish Supreme court. Instead they referred questions around the case.

Suggesting that the ECJ will say that GCOB can't be built is erroneous, they're ruling on the questions raised by the Supreme court - none of which mention GCOB.

What will happen is the ECJ will answer the questions submitted. The Irish Supreme Court will then apply these answers to the case and make the appropriate ruling - which will probably be subject to further appeal to the European courts by shouty if it goes against him.

If the answer to the second question (below) is "Yes", then the Supreme court will rule that the project can't go ahead - not the ECJ.

Questions referred

What are the criteria in law to be applied by a competent authority to an assessment of the likelihood of a plan or project the subject of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive1, having "an adverse effect on the integrity of the site"?

Does the application of the precautionary principle have as its consequence that such a plan or project cannot be authorised if it would result in the permanent non-renewable loss of the whole or any part of the habitat in question?

What is the relationship, if any, between Article 6(4) and the making of the decision under Article 6(3) that the plan or project will not adversely affect the integrity of the site?

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

It's interesting that you give out about the "boards sages" when you clearly don't understand what you're talking about, preferring to listen to the mistaken ramblings of the hacks we have in this country.

Let's make this very clear for everybody.

The case has never actually left the Irish Supreme court. Instead they referred questions around the case.

Suggesting that the ECJ will say that GCOB can't be built is erroneous, they're ruling on the questions raised by the Supreme court - none of which mention GCOB.

What will happen is the ECJ will answer the questions submitted. The Irish Supreme Court will then apply these answers to the case and make the appropriate ruling - which will probably be subject to further appeal to the European courts by shouty if it goes against him.

If the answer to the second question (below) is "Yes", then the Supreme court will rule that the project can't go ahead - not the ECJ.

Read my posts.

If anyone suggested that "the ECJ will say that GCOB can't be built" it certainly wasn't me. I referred solely to the Irish Supreme Court, the ECJ and the Preliminary Ruling procedure itself.

The Irish Supreme Court referred the case (or questions about the case, if you prefer) to the ECJ for a Preliminary Ruling. The Supreme Court was dealing with a decision made by the High Court, which was directly concerned with the GCOB itself.

When the ECJ issues their ruling, then the Irish Supreme Court will proceed.

What's unclear about that?

It's nonsensical for anyone to suggest that the members of the Irish Supreme Court acted in a "baseless" manner.

I don't read the mistaken ramblings of any hacks, but if I did I can't imagine I'd find it to be much worse than the kind of guff to be found in these parts.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Read my posts.

If anyone suggested that "the ECJ will say that GCOB can't be built" it certainly wasn't me. I referred solely to the Irish Supreme Court, the ECJ and the Preliminary Ruling procedure itself.

Really?

You've suggested it twice in the past day.

Okay let's examine your previous post:

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The case was one for the State (first the High Court and then the Supreme Court) until it was decided -- according to the terms of EU law -- that it should be referred to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling.

You state that it - in this case "it" refers to the case (see basic English grammar - referred to the ECJ for a ruling. This is an implicit statement that the ECJ will rule that GCOB can not be built.

Ergo - you stated that the ECJ will make the final decision on it - i.e. whether or not it can be built.


I'll also refer you to this one:

Iwannahurl wrote: »

That is not to say that I have any evidence or belief that the ECJ won't issue a decision that ultimately clears the way for the GCOB as planned.

Now I take this as saying you have no evidence or belief that the ECJ will issue a decision that prevents the GCOB as planned - in other words you beleive the ECJ will rule agaisnt GCOB.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Really?

You've suggested it twice in the past day.

Okay let's examine your previous post:



You state that it - in this case "it" refers to the case (see basic English grammar - referred to the ECJ for a ruling. This is an implicit statement that the ECJ will rule that GCOB can not be built.

Ergo - you stated that the ECJ will make the final decision on it - i.e. whether or not it can be built.


I'll also refer you to this one:



Now I take this as saying you have no evidence or belief that the ECJ will issue a decision that prevents the GCOB as planned - in other words you beleive the ECJ will rule agaisnt GCOB.

Off you go and take it whatever way you like. I wrote what I wrote and I meant what I meant. I really don't care, and it really doesn't matter a tuppenny damn within this thread or IRL (except to you apparently), how you choose to interpret -- or distort -- the intended meaning of my posts.

Getting back to my original point in this regard, which was in response to DaCor's quip about chanting "where's our Bypass" to Leo Varadkar, what's of interest is that it will take as much as two years for the ECJ to make its judgment/decision on the case/questions/matter/issue/whateveryerhavinyerself.

That's an interval of up to two years during which SFA can be done about the GCOB proper. Other than waiting, wondering, chanting, philosophising and pontificating perhaps?

L1011

Iwannahurl wrote: »

That's an interval of up to two years during which SFA can be done about the GCOB proper. Other than waiting, wondering, chanting, philosophising and pontificating perhaps?

Time to be spent insuring anti-bypass misinformation isn't thrown around, mostly; particularly that which pretends not to be anti bypass while being so.

Its generally known as "FUD" in the IT world, not sure if the phrase has passed out of the sector yet.

Iwannahurl

MYOB wrote: »

Time to be spent insuring anti-bypass misinformation isn't thrown around, mostly; particularly that which pretends not to be anti bypass while being so.

Its generally known as "FUD" in the IT world, not sure if the phrase has passed out of the sector yet.

The concept of making stuff up to counter perceived, imagined or fabricated FUD is known as "fighting FUD with FUD" I believe.

It's a common feature of Boards, in my experience, only it's not called that usually.



.

Iwannahurl

Iwannahurl wrote: »

That's an interval of up to two years during which SFA can be done about the GCOB proper. Other than waiting, wondering, chanting, philosophising and pontificating perhaps?

Actually, the thought occurs that since the ECJ, obviously, will only be deciding on matters of EU law rather than on the GCOB itself the, er, ball will again be in the Irish Supreme Court once the ECJ has done its bit.

I wonder how long it will take the Supreme Court to finish with the case? Another year or two?




.

dubhthach

Mod
I fail to see how any of this tit-for-tat has to do with actual proposed road. Accusing one another of using FUD isn't relevant as well as been unwelcome in this forum.

L1011

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I wonder how long it will take the Supreme Court to finish with the case? Another year or two?

Not a hope. Weeks to months, not years.

The bypass will be built this decade, barring the states finances worsening even further (e.g. eurozone exit). No amount of claiming its not needed is going to change that.

Iwannahurl

Weeks? Totally unrealistic, IMO.

Months? Optimistic, I would suggest.

Here's a case -- just a single solitary one, for reference -- where the Supreme Court took a year to make a judgment following an ECJ preliminary ruling (and then sent it back to the High Court).

http://www.tca.ie/EN/Enforcing-Competition-Law/Civil-Court-Cases/Beef-Industry.aspx

So if the GCOB is to be completed by 2020 at the latest, that is up to an 8-year wait for the good burghers of Galway City. No amount of conviction, or chanting, is going to change that.



.

L1011

Your visible delight at potential delays is staggering.

The case you reference wasn't one where the judgement is blindingly obvious and the case frivolous to begin with - as soon as its returned to the SC is likely to be dealt with to get rid of it.

Iwannahurl

You are staggered by your own inferences, I would suggest. There is nothing "visible" in my posts other than what appears on the screen. OTH, I am 'staggered' at how that which is "frivolous" and "blindingly obvious" to some Boards members completely eludes the members of the Supreme Court. Perhaps you could email the Supreme Court office the link to this thread. That'll learn 'em.

The inevitable wait in completing the GCOB (up to 2020 as you suggest yourself) is not a cause for delight, visible or otherwise, but an opportunity for action. However, some people would rather be 'right' about the GCOB rather than work constructively, practically and pragmatically to make the best of things in the intervening period.

For the record, I believe this is highly relevant to the GCOB, inasmuch as the Bypass itself is still only aspirational and therefore its continued absence has consequences which must be addressed now.



.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Off you go and take it whatever way you like. I wrote what I wrote and I meant what I meant. I really don't care, and it really doesn't matter a tuppenny damn within this thread or IRL (except to you apparently), how you choose to interpret -- or distort -- the intended meaning of my posts.

So you're right about what you write and all the people who can see what you claim not to have said or is inferred are wrong?

Despite the fact that dozens of posters across multiple threads have pointed out to you what you are really saying.

And if people don't agree with you they are deluded, naive or have a hidden agenda.

All you are doing is making a contrarian point in an attempt to derail the discussion, not making any meaningful attempt to add to it.

This is a discussion board, so stop throwing your toys out of the pram every time somebody says something about your language, which is not nearly as exact as you like to think and very open to interpretation. Hell you might even learn something about how to get a point across - because you are failing rather miserably to add to the discussion about the road itself.

I might remind you what this thread is actually about - the road & news about it's current status. We're all well aware of where it is - with the ECJ and any speculation as to how long it will be there, or with the supreme court when a ruling is made, is quite frankly just speculation - so stop soapboxing on it.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

So you're right about what you write and all the people who can see what you claim not to have said or is inferred are wrong?

Despite the fact that dozens of posters across multiple threads have pointed out to you what you are really saying.

And if people don't agree with you they are deluded, naive or have a hidden agenda.

All you are doing is making a contrarian point in an attempt to derail the discussion, not making any meaningful attempt to add to it.

This is a discussion board, so stop throwing your toys out of the pram every time somebody says something about your language, which is not nearly as exact as you like to think and very open to interpretation. Hell you might even learn something about how to get a point across - because you are failing rather miserably to add to the discussion about the road itself.

I might remind you what this thread is actually about - the road & news about it's current status. We're all well aware of where it is - with the ECJ and any speculation as to how long it will be there, or with the supreme court when a ruling is made, is quite frankly just speculation - so stop soapboxing on it.

I'm happy to leave the inferring, misinterpreting, misconstruing, misrepresenting and back-seat modding to the experts.

OTOH, my opinions about the currently non-existent GCOB and its place in Galway City's traffic management and transport planning policies are at least as valid as anyone else's. Of course, that's just my opinion too, but that's life for ya.

If even "dozens of posters across multiple threads" prefer to focus on what they think I'm thinking (aka what I'm "really saying") rather than what I've actually written, who am I to stop them?

The reality IRL, as opposed to in the necessarily artificial Boards environment with its vertical 'silo' structure, is that the GCOB is years away. It may be desirable for some to have speculative or abstract discussions about the proposal (peppered with some light relief in the form of Green-bashing, for example) but the lived reality is that traffic and transportation issues must be dealt with in real time, and in a variety of ways that are sustainable individually and collectively. I already engage with those issues IRL on a regular basis. Posting on Boards is just aspect of what I do in this regard. If you and "dozens" of others regard my views as contrarian, then so be it. Making comments that you don't agree with is not the same as derailing, IMO. Unless of course the primary purpose of threads/forums such as this one is to foster group-think and protect some posters from being exposed to things they'd rather not see.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I'm happy to leave the inferring, misinterpreting, misconstruing, misrepresenting and back-seat modding to the experts.


If even "dozens of posters across multiple threads" prefer to focus on what they think I'm thinking (aka what I'm "really saying") rather than what I've actually written, who am I to stop them?

Do what I mean not what I say is alive and well then in the IWH world

dubhthach

Mod

The thread isn't about Galway City's traffic management and transport planning policies it's about a road scheme, namely the GCOB. If you wish to discuss traffic managment and transport policy in Galway city then create a thread in Infrastructure.

The level of soapboxing is growing tiresome. If the level of personal sniping doesn't stop I'm gonna have to confer infractions. If ye want to have a discussion about the fineses of the inter-relationship between the ECJ and Irish court system take it to the legal forum.

As for backseat modding, that's a fairly serious allegation tbh let I haven't seen any reported posts on that specific allegation.

GalwayMagpie

Any Updates on this?

Sponge Bob

The only interesting news would be an allocation of funds to progress the required redesign of the short section around the bog cotton.

We may not find out for sure until next month when the NRA writes to Galway County Council with their allocations and figures but as far as I know not a penny has been allocated or spent on that redesign.

antoobrien

Sponge Bob wrote: »

The only interesting news would be an allocation of funds to progress the required redesign of the short section around the bog cotton.

We may not find out for sure until next month when the NRA writes to Galway County Council with their allocations and figures but as far as I know not a penny has been allocated or spent on that redesign.

Wasn't there supposed to be proposals for the alternative routes published by now?

Sponge Bob

The Western End of the Bypass ( from the N59 at the Glenlo Abbey as far as the R336 in Barna and including the link to Knocknacarra) has now been downgraded to a Regional Road...albeit a 'strategic' one and is named the "Galway City Western Route"

Varadkar then threw €100k at the 'Route' designers this year as you can see in the 2012 Strategic Regional Routes Programme. Note it is a Route not a Road.

Of couse this seriously reduces the cost of the remaining National bit east of the N59 if it makes it out of Europe intact.

citycentre

Sponge Bob, just wondering where you got the info regarding the downgrading of the road and its being taken out of the responsiblity of the NRA. Ive been ringing around contacts in the NRA, City and County councils all day and cant get any straight answers!

Sponge Bob

Why would it be funded as a strategic regional road if it wasn't. What other road is supposed to go

1. West of Galway City and
2. In the County??

Course as National N Road standards would not apply to a Regional Road...particularly an online regional road the road take need not be as wide, most especially if the Barna Tooreeny road were widened under a part 8.

I reckon the people to ask are the R336 team in the County Buildings/Liosban ...or possibly the NRA team ( who are council employees) in Ballybrit. One of them has been allocated the €110k for this year.

http://www.galway.ie/en/Services/RoadsTransportation/RoadProjects/R336BearnatoScribviaRosAnMhil/