M6 - Galway City Ring Road [planning decision pending]

Sponge Bob

A lot of factors can be introduced at IROPI stage and not just the positioning of the hospital vis a vis the 1m persons in its catchment.

Have a loook at the DASA 'Iropi' from some years back

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-00-401_en.htm

"The plan to extend the DASA factory will have a negative impact on the site.

• Some 20 % of the site will be destroyed (by filling in a wetland)."

In Galway that would be 0.03% or something tiny percent overall and a greater % of one subtype in the site but still a small percentage.




On went the germans

Germany says there is nowhere else in the country where the project can be carried out.

• For reasons of competitiveness and on technical grounds, the factory has to be next to an existing factory with a skilled workforce and the equipment needed.
• For functional reasons and because of the size of the workshops needed to build the jumbo jet, the project can only be located at the spot in question.

The project is of overriding public interest

• for social reasons: the factory will generate at least 4000 jobs, and possibly as many as 8000, in the Hamburg region, but also in the Länder of Schleswig-Holstein and Niedersachsen;
• for economic and technical reasons: the project is targeted on a new market. The market for jumbo jets is dominated by a single manufacturer, and Europe still does not produce any;
• for reasons of Community interest: the scheme is so important and the economic interests at stake are on such a scale that it is a matter of Community-wide concern. The project calls for extensive cooperation between various Member States, and it is vital that Germany works alongside its other partners if the scheme is to be a success.

and so

In an opinion delivered today, the Commission has said that the adverse environmental impact of extending a factory belonging to the DASA group on the Müehlenberger Loch in Hamburg can be justified on grounds of overriding public interest.

It would take about 6 months or so to get the opinion. It could easily take as long to get through the Supreme court on the current case.

The Adare Bypass is another project that may go to an IROPI process but one may not do this all the time.

KevR

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The County Council is sponsoring the bypass, yet for many years they have promoted "measles development" throughout their administrative area.

The City Council is touting the bypass as their solution to Galway's traffic congestion, yet they have deliberately and systematically promoted car-dependence in the city for decades.

Can those who created the problem really be trusted to come up with a sustainable solution?

Personally I think they're going to need their arses kicked hard from outside first. An EU-imposed delay to the mythical bypass might be just what they need to get moving once the arse-kicking commences. I won't hold my breath though.

Galway has grown faster than most other big Irish towns/cities over the past 40 years. This might be a little out there but maybe some of Galway's growth and success can be attributed to its car-dependency. Maybe people like driving as a form of transport and maybe they like to live in a house instead of an apartment - maybe this has played a part in Galway's population boom.

Car ownership has peaked in Ireland (including Galway). We now only need to build roads to support population increases. In the past, both the population and the % of car ownership were both increasing.

We live in a democracy. Motorists pay plenty of tax through their driving. If people in Galway want the car to be their main mode of transport (clearly they do), then a road network should be built to facilitate that.

spacetweek

KevR wrote: »

Galway has grown faster than most other big Irish towns/cities over the past 40 years. This might be a little out there but maybe some of Galway's growth and success can be attributed to its car-dependency. Maybe people like driving as a form of transport and maybe they like to live in a house instead of an apartment - maybe this has played a part in Galway's population boom.

Car ownership has peaked in Ireland (including Galway). We now only need to build roads to support population increases. In the past, both the population and the % of car ownership were both increasing.

We live in a democracy. Motorists pay plenty of tax through their driving. If people in Galway want the car to be their main mode of transport (clearly they do), then a road network should be built to facilitate that.

You also need to manage the city's transport needs for the greater good. I don't think those Galway motorists enjoy being stuck in their own self-generated traffic.
And car ownership may start to increase again once the economy recovers. It's still low enough compared to many other parts of the world.

Aquarius34

KevR wrote: »

We live in a democracy..

Ha I beg to differ. :pac:

Victor

OK folks, I'm going to close the off-topic thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056926483 on Thursday.

I want discussion of the bypass and it's direct implications kept in the main Galway Bypass thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055413202 (this thread).

Wider discussion on how the bypass might fit into Galway transport should go in the thread on Commuting & Transport: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056925104

Donegal hospital patients are not to be invoked to support the bypass and pedal cycle paramedics are not to be mentioned.

You can summarily mention that Galway needs to improve it's traffic demand and management in this thread, but if you want to expand on the point do so on the Commuting & Transport thread.

Moderator

dloob

I see in the local papers that the IROPI process cannot begin while the existing process is still running.
So we'll have to wait for the supreme court to make its ruling based on the ECJs interpretation of the point of law.
Any ideas when the case is likely to come up again in the court?

COYI

It'll be interesting to see how the "Irish" Supreme Court rules in this case based the advice on a point of law by the "European" Court of Justice.

Indeed, I wonder could this case (in particular) highlight the unintended consequences of EU law relating specifically to the Habitats Directive and the overly-onerous obligations it's current interpretation has placed on such a vital and important infrastructural project.

Certainly, the British Prime Minister (among others) was concerned about this very issue prior to last Thursday's ruling. I imagine he is now extremely concerned - albeit for future British projects and the precedent that this interpretation of law may set.

Ironically, I think that by bringing this case so far, the so-called "environmentalists" may have fatally wounded the Habitats Directive by unnecessarily steering into a direct collision course with (I repeat myself) a wholly necessary infrastructural project.

Cleahaigh

COYI wrote: »

It'll be interesting to see how the "Irish" Supreme Court rules in this case based the advice on a point of law by the "European" Court of Justice.

Indeed, I wonder could this case (in particular) highlight the unintended consequences of EU law relating specifically to the Habitats Directive and the overly-onerous obligations it's current interpretation has placed on such a vital and important infrastructural project.

Certainly, the British Prime Minister (among others) was concerned about this very issue prior to last Thursday's ruling. I imagine he is now extremely concerned - albeit for future British projects and the precedent that this interpretation of law may set.

Ironically, I think that by bringing this case so far, the so-called "environmentalists" may have fatally wounded the Habitats Directive by unnecessarily steering into a direct collision course with (I repeat myself) a wholly necessary infrastructural project.

Yup. It will now be toned down considerably as political opposition mounts throughout the union. When you look at the quarries, houses and so forth that are eating into the limestone pavement, much of it well after the planning process for the bypass started, it's hard to take the whole thing seriously.

Iwannahurl

COYI wrote: »

a wholly necessary infrastructural project.

Not necessarily. See link in post #846.

Iwannahurl

"The Transport Minister has confirmed that an embargo on spending in relation to the city outer bypass will be lifted. The embargo was imposed by Former transport Minister Noel Dempsey pending the resolution of an ongoing legal challenge. The European Court of Justice recently issued a ruling which found the project as planned would breach the EU habitats directive. A ruling is now awaited by the Supreme court. Speaking in the Daíl, Leo Varadkar says lifting the ban will enable other preliminary work on the outer city bypass to take place."

http://www.galwaynews.ie/31482-transport-minister-lift-embargo-spending-outer-city-bypass

Chris_5339762

I get the feeling that they have a bit of cash set aside for this and that if they get the go from the Supreme Court, there will be diggers appearing pretty quickly.

antoobrien

Here are the questions submitted to the the Minsiter on Wednesday and the answers given.

Full transcript of questions related to road activity: http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2013-05-15a.497

Sean Kyne

93. To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will provide an update on the Galway City Outer Bypass with regard to an IROPI application which is necessary to progress this much-needed infrastructure project for Galway and the West.

Minster

When the stimulus programme was announced, it was indicated that as the first phase projects progressed and as funding permitted, a second phase would be considered. In this regard, particular prominence was attached to the Galway city outer bypass project. As the Deputies will be aware, this has been the subject of legal challenge and the European Court has only recently delivered its judgement in the case. The matter has been referred back to the Irish Supreme Court. The NRA and the local authority are currently examining the implications of the European Court's decision and the most appropriate response.

Sean Kyne

I thank the Minister for his response. I am a long-time supporter of the Galway city outer bypass, which has been tied up in court for a number of years. Last month, the European Court of Justice ruled on it and the matter has reverted to the Supreme Court. Will the Minister reiterate his and the Government's support for the bypass? Will he comment on the imperative reasons of overriding public interest, IROPI, process and whether it can or should be pursued prior to a decision by the Supreme Court?

Minister

I am happy to reiterate the Government's commitment to the Galway city outer bypass, which has a benefit-to-cost ratio, BCR, of 6:1. Of all of the projects on the books, this one has the highest BCR. It makes a great deal of sense. Anyone who knows Galway knows that this project needs to be progressed once we overcome the planning permission issues. The former Minister, Mr. Noel Dempsey, took a decision to suspend planning works on the project. I intend to lift that ban so that the NRA can develop a new planning permission should it need to do so.

veryangryman

Roughly translated as...

"I cant/wont do anything to further this project but sure why not do some party-politics to bore the arse off the Dail for the afternoon"

Sake..

SWEETIEP

HA HA

dloob

I wonder does it mean planning work will commence on a new route for the western section?

SWEETIEP

THE PROBLEM IS NOW WITH THE EASTERN SECTION .

spacetweek

veryangryman wrote: »

Roughly translated as...

"I cant/wont do anything to further this project but sure why not do some party-politics to bore the arse off the Dail for the afternoon"

What?

L1011

Oh dear, the child has reappeared

yer man!

dloob wrote: »

I wonder does it mean planning work will commence on a new route for the western section?

It was mentioned before that if the process was to proceed via an IROPI then the road could be constructed in entirety along it's originally planned route. This is of course assumed the IROPI would be approved.

Irish and Proud

SWEETIEP wrote: »

THE PROBLEM IS NOW WITH THE EASTERN SECTION .

If that's you Peter Sweetman, all your actions are going to achieve in the long run is major legislative change that will favour infrastructure projects, because IMO, people will get very fed up with serial objecting. As far as I'm concerned, people like you have far too much power in a country that is clearly dysfunctional and I predict that viewpoints similar to mine will grow in popularity...

Iwannahurl

Irish and Proud wrote: »

If that's you Peter Sweetman, all your actions are going to achieve in the long run is major legislative change that will favour infrastructure projects, because IMO, people will get very fed up with serial objecting. As far as I'm concerned, people like you have far too much power in a country that is clearly dysfunctional and I predict that viewpoints similar to mine will grow in popularity...

This country is dysfunctional in more ways than one.

I doubt that the legislative change you might have in mind would supersede EU law.

You can use the pejorative term "serial objecting" all you like, but the fact remains that where disagreements on these big issues arise the courts ultimately decide. The ECJ made its decision, and its ruling supported Sweetman's long-held position. You may not like it, but it's utterly pointless (and imo irrational) to castigate an individual when a high-level independent body such as the European Court of Justice has ruled in their favour.

L1011

But ultimately, all Sweetie there will have done will have been to incinerate the state's money. The road will be IROPIed, it'll be built and his arguments will have been for naught. Won't stop him claiming it as a victory though. The few quid of his taxes it'll end up costing him could have bought him a keyboard with a working capslock.

Iwannahurl

You're still anticipating an "almighty fall" then?

L1011

Iwannahurl wrote: »

You're still anticipating an "almighty fall" then?

I'm anticipating the inevitable. There's going to be a bypass built.

Pappa Charlie

Just as well sweetie wasn't around when the wheel was invented!

Iwannahurl

Pappa Charlie wrote: »

Just as well sweetie wasn't around when the wheel was invented!

You wouldn't want anyone to get in the way of progress:

COYI

Great photo from the States Iwannahurl! Have absolutely no idea what relevance it has unless it’s an attempt to capture what the Terryland area looks like on a typical weekday evening at the moment without the GCOB.

You appear fixated on the idea that the GCOB is not actually necessary when it has, according to the Minister for Transport, a Benefit-to-cost ratio of 6:1 – the highest in the country. You do, I presume, realise that the only reason we’re not currently driving along this road is wholly down to so-called environmental objections, i.e. if an enormous area in the vicinity of Lough Corrib wasn’t designated in one broad-brush stroke - why we could drive along this very road right now.

I think it’d very interesting to see how much (in monetary terms – to concentrate on one) the overly-onerous EU Habitats Directive has cost this country as it chokes our attempt to build a vital piece of infrastructure at a time when the ordinary citizens of the state are struggling to make ends meet.

Iwannahurl

COYI wrote: »

Great photo from the States Iwannahurl! Have absolutely no idea what relevance it has unless it’s an attempt to capture what the Terryland area looks like on a typical weekday evening at the moment without the GCOB.

You appear fixated on the idea that the GCOB is not actually necessary when it has, according to the Minister for Transport, a Benefit-to-cost ratio of 6:1 – the highest in the country. You do, I presume, realise that the only reason we’re not currently driving along this road is wholly down to so-called environmental objections, i.e. if an enormous area in the vicinity of Lough Corrib wasn’t designated in one broad-brush stroke - why we could drive along this very road right now.

I think it’d very interesting to see how much (in monetary terms – to concentrate on one) the overly-onerous EU Habitats Directive has cost this country as it chokes our attempt to build a vital piece of infrastructure at a time when the ordinary citizens of the state are struggling to make ends meet.

It's wheely relevant.

As for the GCOB and EU law, the ECJ issued its verdict and that's that. Now back to the Irish Supreme Court to see what they make of it.

As an ordinary citizen myself, I frequently travel by means that do not contribute to traffic congestion. Yet I routinely find my routes choked with traffic, much of it in the form of single-occupant cars on short trips (especially the school run, though some GCOB enthusiasts on Boards conspicuously shied away from that particular line of discussion).


.

Pappa Charlie

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It's wheely relevant.

As for the GCOB and EU law, the ECJ issued its verdict and that's that. Now back to the Irish Supreme Court to see what they make of it.

As an ordinary citizen myself, I frequently travel by means that do not contribute to traffic congestion. Yet I routinely find my routes choked with traffic, much of it in the form of single-occupant cars on short trips (especially the school run, though some GCOB enthusiasts on Boards conspicuously shied away from that particular line of discussion).


.

Maybe we should knock the other bridges in the city and see how you manage with your other means, typical "I'm alright jack" attitude

Iwannahurl

Pappa Charlie wrote: »

Maybe we should knock the other bridges in the city and see how you manage with your other means, typical "I'm alright jack" attitude

Maybe some day straw men arguments on Boards will go out of fashion, though I won't hold my breath.

As for the "I'm alright Jack attitude" you're missing the point completely.

By the way, while you're there, I hope your colleagues don't take an "I'm alright Jack attitude" on Sunday. It would be nice to see road traffic law rigorously and fairly enforced.