M6 - Galway City Ring Road [planning decision pending]

Someone wake me up when there's a post directly related to the bypass

KevR

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The reality, as even the most die-hard GCOB enthusiast has been forced to accept, is that the plan as originally proposed was fatally flawed, which is why it was finally euthanased by the ECJ. Are we to conclude therefore that the ECJ is undemocratic and lacks legitimacy?

You are making stuff up and twisting things here.

I can't say that I have come across any GCOB enthusiast who now accepts the plan is fatally flawed.

Flawed because a court in Europe ruled that it passes through some special limestone / bog cotton? Hardly!! Anyone who was of the opinion that the bypass was critical is still of that opinion. The ECJ ruling has not changed that. A lot of people would be more than glad to see machinery on the ground tomorrow building this road. Unfortunately another route will have to be found.

The main flaw that I would put against the original plan is that there were at-grade junctions towards the Western end of the scheme. The full route should clearly have been fully grade separated from day one. Hopefully this will be reflected in the revised route.

veryangryman

Deleted User wrote: »

Someone wake me up when there's a post directly related to the bypass

Agreed - the arguments for and against the bypass thread is there for this 2-way muck. The rest of us (interested in the progress on the bypass planning and eventual construction) will stay here

KevR

Iwannhurl: you continuously make the point that there are better alternatives, therefore, the bypass is not necessary. You then say things like "which is why it was finally euthanased by the ECJ" as though the ECJ are somehow backing up your argument.

To be absolutely clear, the ECJ ruled as follows:
The European Court of Justice says planning permission cannot be granted for projects that “adversely affect the integrity of that site” if they stop the site from being to act as a protected priority natural habitat.

They make no mention of the scheme being unnecessary and they do not highlight public transport or cycling as being better alternatives. They do not back up your opinions on Galway transport solutions in any way.

Iwannahurl

KevR wrote: »

You are making stuff up and twisting things here.

I can't say that I have come across any GCOB enthusiast who now accepts the plan is fatally flawed.

Flawed because a court in Europe ruled that it passes through some special limestone / bog cotton? Hardly!! Anyone who was of the opinion that the bypass was critical is still of that opinion. The ECJ ruling has not changed that. A lot of people would be more than glad to see machinery on the ground tomorrow building this road. Unfortunately another route will have to be found.

The main flaw that I would put against the original plan is that there were at-grade junctions towards the Western end of the scheme. The full route should clearly have been fully grade separated from day one. Hopefully this will be reflected in the revised route.

The bypass scheme as originally proposed was a fatally flawed plan, as the ECJ ruling ultimately showed. That is self-evident. In that regard the question of whether "a lot of people would be more than glad to see machinery on the ground tomorrow" is neither here nor there. They believed what they wanted to believe prior to the ECJ decision, and maybe they still hold on to the same beliefs. So be it.

Incidentally, I have been told, by someone rather well versed in these matters, that some proponents of the GCOB in commercial and political circles believe that they can go the old route under Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive.

A realistic ambition? My informant doesn't seem to think so, and is in fact extremely dismissive of such a notion.

KevR

veryangryman wrote: »

Agreed - the arguments for and against the bypass thread is there for this 2-way muck. The rest of us (interested in the progress on the bypass planning and eventual construction) will stay here

Could not agree more.

KevR

Anyway, back on topic.

Does anyone else think that the revised route needs to be completely grade-separated?

Iwannahurl

What difference would grade separation make?

Reuben1210

Grade separated means that each junction is an interchange instead of a junction at the same level as the road ie: a roundabout or traffic lights. It allows for possible upgrade to motorway, faster speed limits and traffic times, and is safer. It would make a significant difference for sure!

To future-proof this road to a degree, grade separation is a must imo

Gerobrien25

Agree Grade separated the way to go

Iwannahurl

Reuben1210 wrote: »

Grade separated means that each junction is an interchange instead of a junction at the same level as the road ie: a roundabout or traffic lights. It allows for possible upgrade to motorway, faster speed limits and traffic times, and is safer. It would make a significant difference for sure!

To future-proof this road to a degree, grade separation is a must imo

So where would you envisage grade-separated junctions on a "revised route" for an "outer bypass"?

Reuben1210

Iwannahurl wrote: »

So where would you envisage grade-separated junctions on a "revised route" for an "outer bypass"?

Anywhere where there were at-grade junctions envisaged basically!

Iwannahurl

So, question for KevR then, and anyone else in similar circumstances and with a similar supportive attitude to a "revised route".

Grade-separated or not, what difference would a bypass make to your travel needs?

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

So, question for KevR then, and anyone else in similar circumstances and with a similar supportive attitude to a "revised route".

Grade-separated or not, what difference would a bypass make to your travel needs?

This is relevant why?

L1011

KevR wrote: »

Anyway, back on topic.

Does anyone else think that the revised route needs to be completely grade-separated?

Yes, and restricted access - to ensure that it doesn't become as useless as the existing pretense of a bypass. Which never was one, anyway.

Iwannahurl

The bypass as originally proposed was said to be needed for moving large volumes of traffic around Galway from both outside and inside the city area.

I'm wondering whether a "revised route", grade-separated or not, will satisfy that need.

Is it grade separation that would make the key difference, the "revised route" or something else?

Incidentally, I'm no roads engineer but I get the general point that grade separation means traffic streams travelling in different directions do not have to cross each other on the same level, eg as on a roundabout.

lucernarian

Deleted User wrote: »

Someone wake me up when there's a post directly related to the bypass

Hey, there's always the report button if you find something off-topic. I know commenting on politics is a tangent but it's at the heart of nearly every decision and scheme that we talk about on this forum. Understandable sentiment really?

As far as through traffic needs are concerned, they will benefit a free-flow scheme but that could be accommodated by having flyovers at interchanges outside of each end of the scheme. How many flyovers would be involved? Is an estimate of €15 million extra per grade-separated junction a good ball park figure?

Iwannahurl

lucernarian wrote: »

I know commenting on politics is a tangent but it's at the heart of nearly every decision and scheme that we talk about on this forum. Understandable sentiment really?

It's only a tangent if you have concluded a priori that the proposal cannot be questioned, and that the only things eligible for discussion are the finer details of something already taken for granted.

lucernarian

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It's only a tangent if you have concluded a priori that the proposal cannot be questioned, and that the only things eligible for discussion are the finer details of something already taken for granted.

Politics is for the politics forum to be fair. I'm just saying to leave it up to the mods to decide what's a tangent or not. And I don't think you need to have foregone conclusions just to think it's a tangent. It's the roads forum, presumably I'm expected to talk about hypothetical, real or historical road projects and the immediate context of them. Not so much Irish democracy.

Iwannahurl

There has been politics in this thread from the very first page, six years and ~1100 posts ago.

KevR

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The bypass as originally proposed was said to be needed for moving large volumes of traffic around Galway from both outside and inside the city area.

I'm wondering whether a "revised route", grade-separated or not, will satisfy that need.

Is it grade separation that would make the key difference, the "revised route" or something else?

Incidentally, I'm no roads engineer but I get the general point that grade separation means traffic streams travelling in different directions do not have to cross each other on the same level, eg as on a roundabout.

Grade separation means the route will be future proofed. We should make every effort to avoid same mistakes that were made previously in Dublin, Cork and Galway.

I think the Athlone Bypass is a really great example of a piece of transport infrastructure which was properly future proofed. It opened 24 years ago and is still operating well within its design capacity to this day. It should have no serious capacity issues for at least another 10 to 15 years. So potentially 40 years after opening, it will still be providing a good level of service to its users without any costly capacity upgrades.

Back in the very early 80's when the Athlone Bypass was being planned, it would have been very easy for the authorities to skimp and build a much cheaper single carriageway bypass with at-grade junctions. Initially, it would have been a big improvement on the existing route through the town centre. However, there would have been capacity issues by the mid to late nineties. The road would have provided a terrible level of service for a good number of years and a costly upgrade would have been required in the noughties.

There are so many examples of Irish transport projects (it does not just apply to roads) where the cheaper option is taken initially only to haunt us for years or decades afterwards. The majority of the inter-urban motorways have plenty of spare capacity - they were designed sensibly. Urban transport (again, not just roads) in Ireland is a complete disaster.

You will notice criticism being directed towards any new piece of Irish transport infrastructure if it is not going to be at least 60-70% capacity upon opening. I think this has been one of our biggest downfalls. We should be aiming for really good longevity with all brand new transport schemes (including any future road bypass of Galway City).

Reuben1210

KevR wrote: »

Grade separation means the route will be future proofed. We should make every effort to avoid same mistakes that were made previously in Dublin, Cork and Galway.

I think the Athlone Bypass is a really great example of a piece of transport infrastructure which was properly future proofed. It opened 24 years ago and is still operating well within its design capacity to this day. It should have no serious capacity issues for at least another 10 to 15 years. So potentially 40 years after opening, it will still be providing a good level of service to its users without any costly capacity upgrades.

Back in the very early 80's when the Athlone Bypass was being planned, it would have been very easy for the authorities to skimp and build a much cheaper single carriageway bypass with at-grade junctions. Initially, it would have been a big improvement on the existing route through the town centre. However, there would have been capacity issues by the mid to late nineties. The road would have provided a terrible level of service for a good number of years and a costly upgrade would have been required in the noughties.

There are so many examples of Irish transport projects (it does not just apply to roads) where the cheaper option is taken initially only to haunt us for years or decades afterwards. The majority of the inter-urban motorways have plenty of spare capacity - they were designed sensibly. Urban transport (again, not just roads) in Ireland is a complete disaster.

You will notice criticism being directed towards any new piece of Irish transport infrastructure if it is not going to be at least 60-70% capacity upon opening. I think this has been one of our biggest downfalls. We should be aiming for really good longevity with all brand new transport schemes (including any future road bypass of Galway City).

I completely agree with everything you have said there...it's a short-term thinking that still plagues us as a nation, thoug we are steadily becoming more mature in terms of out investments.
However, in terms of the Athlone bypass, I agree that it is a good example of future-proofing, even given the recent upgrade works there. The only negative is that it is now the only part of the n/m6 that is not motorway standard, and it really should have been made motorway standard...eventually this will require upgrade. As you say, Cork is another example of the country doing a cheap option with the southern ring road. Only now have they seen the need to upgrade this to motorway!!

dubhthach

From memory (And going by attached map) there were to be three roundabouts on the western half of the Bypass, I could be wrong but I believe the western section was to be 2+2 quality (Type 2 DC) as oppose to Type 1 DC up to "An Baile Nua" roundabout (which was to link to western Distributor road) .

antoobrien

dubhthach wrote: »

From memory (And going by attached map) there were to be three roundabouts on the western half of the Bypass, I could be wrong but I believe the western section was to be 2+2 quality (Type 2 DC) as oppose to Type 1 DC up to "An Baile Nua" roundabout (which was to link to western Distributor road) .

The Western Part (rejected by ABP) was proposed as 2+1 (per the ABP documentation), which the NRA have abandoned since the original route plans were drawn up.

It should also be noted that the portion that was approved by ABP was approved under condition that the junctions be redesigned for as GSJs

Furthermore, the Board considered that the grade separated junctions were necessary as proposed having regard to the strategic nature of the road and forecast future traffic growth.

Iwannahurl

dubhthach wrote: »

From memory (And going by attached map) there were to be three roundabouts on the western half of the Bypass, I could be wrong but I believe the western section was to be 2+2 quality (Type 2 DC) as oppose to Type 1 DC up to "An Baile Nua" roundabout (which was to link to western Distributor road) .

http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/gcob-roundabouts.png

http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/gcob-route3.png

Regardless of junction type (GSJ vs RAB) to my eyes the link between the GCOB and WDR* was a clear indication that the original "bypass" was, whatever about supposed intention, going to serve as a commuter route.

I recall that the AADT projections indicated a 166% increase in traffic on the WDR (2004 baseline versus 2025 post-bypass scenario). This on a road that has long tailbacks every morning, most of it due to the school run, and which features roundabouts that squeeze out cyclists and pedestrians at congested times. Meanwhile, development along the WDR continues.

I would dearly love to know what "alternative route" will eliminate the possibility that it will be used as an east-west highway for city commuters, and that will not make the WDR even less of a no-go area for parents and their children trying to get to school by bike or on foot.

That original western section was of course refused, but in my opinion it is imperative that any proposed "alternative route" not only satisfies the requirements of the Habitats Directive but also does not serve as a pump-primer for cross-town car commuting.




* Some of you may recall Frank Fahey's "the bypass starts here" sign, very conspicuously located at the GCOB-WDR connection, and clearly targeted at commuters in Knocknacarra.

Iwannahurl

KevR wrote: »

Grade separation means the route will be future proofed. We should make every effort to avoid same mistakes that were made previously in Dublin, Cork and Galway.

People seem to be putting a lot of store in grade separation.

Are you still commuting the same routes as you were, say, five or six years ago?

Is this why you are urging both the construction of a bypass and the use of GSJs, because it will facilitate your (cross town?) car commute?

dubhthach

Iwannahurl wrote: »

People seem to be putting a lot of store in grade separation.

Are you still commuting the same routes as you were, say, five or six years ago?

Is this why you are urging both the construction of a bypass and the use of GSJs, because it will facilitate your (cross town?) car commute?

Mod
How is Kev's commuting relevant to thread about the bypass, stay on topic and enough with the soap boxing.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

People seem to be putting a lot of store in grade separation.

There's a good reason for this, queues occur most frequently at junctions where traffic streams cross. I'm sure you've noticed that the proposal for Ravens Terrace and Kingston Cross include redesigns to reduce/eliminate rights turns.

Reuben1210

Iwannahurl wrote: »

People seem to be putting a lot of store in grade separation.

Are you still commuting the same routes as you were, say, five or six years ago?

Is this why you are urging both the construction of a bypass and the use of GSJs, because it will facilitate your (cross town?) car commute?

Look, GSJ is just necessary to future-proof a road, together with making it as efficient and free-flowing as possible for the years to come...whether it becomes an urban spine like the m50 or not, it will still make a significant difference!

what_traffic

antoobrien wrote: »

There's a good reason for this, queues occur most frequently at junctions where traffic streams cross. I'm sure you've noticed that the proposal for Ravens Terrace and Kingston Cross include redesigns to reduce/eliminate rights turns.

That's a very dubious link to be comparing GSJ with. The Raven's terrace right turn was essentially only moved 10 meter's down the road. Would not a better example be to compare GSJ with say the current Roundabout at the Menlo Park hotel?