M6 - Galway City Ring Road [planning decision pending]

Middle Man

Zzippy wrote: »

Was at the public consultation this evening. There were a series of posters dealing with public transport - basically we're going to do lots of surveys, identify what's best way to create a modal shift, and see if they are feasible. No mention of funding.

There was a video flypast of the preferred route (Autodesk I think) that will be uploaded to the website later this week - nearly everyone there was shocked at the scale when shown that way. There was also a guy operating the Autodesk software on a pc, you could ask to zoom in on specific areas and look at it from all angles etc.

A lot of affected homeowners there, some very sad stories of elderly people with nowhere to go. Funny how they can tunnel under a racecourse but they go through people's houses...

Let this be a lesson regarding the value of proper planning. We as a nation cannot simply build houses in wherever haphazard way we like and expect things to work out. Infrastructure has to go somewhere and in the case of Galway, going through natural habitats under conservation was ruled out so therefore, houses must go and that's it!

I for one would put the common good before the interests of real estate (an institution of selfishness IMO) - the common good must envelope both the environment and the basic needs of all people. Of course, any houses that are demolished should be made good in physical terms - tender out the rebuilding process to cut costs and strictly monitor building progress to ensure compliance with the building regulations. Once done, build the bypass.

After the road is built, get cracking on the Galway Luas - a minimum catchment and outline specification should be laid down as a strict condition regarding permission for the road.

cocoman

Middle Man wrote: »

Let this be a lesson regarding the value of proper planning. We as a nation cannot simply build houses in wherever haphazard way we like and expect things to work out. Infrastructure has to go somewhere and in the case of Galway, going through natural habitats under conservation was ruled out so therefore, houses must go and that's it!

I for one would put the common good before the interests of real estate (an institution of selfishness IMO) - the common good must envelope both the environment and the basic needs of all people. Of course, any houses that are demolished should be made good in physical terms - tender out the rebuilding process to cut costs and strictly monitor building progress to ensure compliance with the building regulations. Once done, build the bypass.

After the road is built, get cracking on the Galway Luas - a minimum catchment and outline specification should be laid down as a strict condition regarding permission for the road.

I don't think that houses will be rebuilt by the council to replace those to be demolished. People will receive the value of their house or the amount of outstanding mortgage whichever is higher - plus whatever compensation etc.

Zzippy

Middle Man wrote: »

Let this be a lesson regarding the value of proper planning. We as a nation cannot simply build houses in wherever haphazard way we like and expect things to work out. Infrastructure has to go somewhere and in the case of Galway, going through natural habitats under conservation was ruled out so therefore, houses must go and that's it!

I for one would put the common good before the interests of real estate (an institution of selfishness IMO) - the common good must envelope both the environment and the basic needs of all people. Of course, any houses that are demolished should be made good in physical terms - tender out the rebuilding process to cut costs and strictly monitor building progress to ensure compliance with the building regulations. Once done, build the bypass.

After the road is built, get cracking on the Galway Luas - a minimum catchment and outline specification should be laid down as a strict condition regarding permission for the road.

An institution of selfishness? You're talking about semi-rural areas where people have lived for generations, not johnny-come-lately types who bought up sites and built mansions. Menlo, Castlegar etc are villages with people living there for decades. No need for the arrogant attitude. As for a Galway Luas... would be great but the current project's eagerness to progress with the road and lip service for public transport suggests we'll never see anything like it.

cocoman wrote: »

I don't think that houses will be rebuilt by the council to replace those to be demolished. People will receive the value of their house or the amount of outstanding mortgage whichever is higher - plus whatever compensation etc.

Has this been confirmed? I've only seen it said anywhere else that homeowners are being offered market value +10%.

L1011

Zzippy wrote: »

Has this been confirmed? I've only seen it said anywhere else that homeowners are being offered market value +10%.

If they're getting offered anything currently its not from a CPO.

Zzippy

L1011 wrote: »

If they're getting offered anything currently its not from a CPO.

CPO won't be issued til end 2015 but affected residents have had meetings with NRA/Arup over the last few weeks where they have been told that is what they will be offered AFAIK

Iwannahurl

Middle Man wrote: »

the common good must envelope both the environment and the basic needs of all people.

Driving 12 km in 7 minutes across a small city can hardly be regarded as meeting "a basic need".

Middle Man wrote: »

After the road is built, get cracking on the Galway Luas - a minimum catchment and outline specification should be laid down as a strict condition regarding permission for the road.

After €500 million is spent on an expressway, where is the money for light rail to be found?

At the public consultations, an NTA official boasted that they are spending €2 million annually on transportation projects in Galway. On that trajectory it will take them two and a half centuries to spend as much in total as what is being proposed for an expressway in the next five years.

And as an example of the sort of thing the money is being spent on, the NTA recently allocated a million for "electronic parking guidance signs in and around the city to provide real-time information on parking availability."

This is in the same city where no meaningful money is available for helping children walk or cycle to school.


.

what_traffic

Middle Man wrote: »

After the road is built, get cracking on the Galway Luas - a minimum catchment and outline specification should be laid down as a strict condition regarding permission for the road.

Will never happen. You have just eliminated any pent up demand with the expressway.

what_traffic

Went along to this last night
http://www.n6galwaycity.ie/phase-2/public-consultation-no-3/

Still very little information about the Public Transport proposals. The Autodesk that was mentioned by Zzippy earlier was running on a monitor and projector. It sure did show the scale of the road. It is huge, could hear audible gasps from residents who were watching it. Shock and awe indeed!

Iwannahurl

Overheard at one of the public consultations:

Why should public funds be used to run buses to get people from home to work?

Words reportedly spoken by an official employed in a statutory body with major influence on transport policy in the city.

veryangryman

Iwannahurl wrote: »

on parking availability[/URL]."

This is in the same city where no meaningful money is available for helping children walk or cycle to school.

N6 is a National Road, thus within NRA's budget, not Galways.

Iwannahurl

veryangryman wrote: »

N6 is a National Road, thus within NRA's budget, not Galways.

It's a transport project, and the NTA is involved. But they're bragging about spending €2 million per year, while the NRA is talking about 250 times that amount.

dubhthach

I don't see any mention of the NTA on the project page, can you provide a link showing their involvement? Instead I see that the NRA are the commissioning agency which makes sense as it's a National road scheme.

lucernarian

veryangryman wrote: »

N6 is a National Road, thus within NRA's budget, not Galways.

It's taxpayer's money at the end of the day? I don't particularly care what Govt. department or agency spend the money, €500 million is a huge figure to spend on a road project for a city of 75000 people. It's a travesty that even €2 million is regarded as something to brag about. Bad planning and a reluctance of Galway's officials, to this day, to embrace sustainable transport means that the €2 million each year seems rather inadequately spent.

Aard

veryangryman wrote: »

N6 is a National Road, thus within NRA's budget, not Galways.

The entire length of the proposed road is not National Route.

what_traffic

dubhthach wrote: »

I don't see any mention of the NTA on the project page, can you provide a link showing their involvement? Instead I see that the NRA are the commissioning agency which makes sense as it's a National road scheme.

You obviously were not at the Public Consultation No 3 then the last two evenings in Galway City. NTA representation there.

Iwannahurl

dubhthach wrote: »

I don't see any mention of the NTA on the project page, can you provide a link showing their involvement? Instead I see that the NRA are the commissioning agency which makes sense as it's a National road scheme.

It's in the "N6 Galway City Transport Project" literature, which now bears their logo.

Also the NTA had at least one representative at the recent public consultations, and co-presented the "Integrated Transport Management Programme" posters.

Incidentally, my impression was that the NTA rep I saw was not a senior official. He was definitely not waving a €500 million price-tag around.

dubhthach

Aard wrote: »

The entire length of the proposed road is not National Route.

Has that been confirmed? Other than stating the the entire length of route won't be dual carriageway I haven't seen anything stating that the single carriageway section will contain separate route designation.

dubhthach

what_traffic wrote: »

You obviously were not at the Public Consultation No 3 then the last two evenings in Galway City. NTA representation there.

I haven't been in Galway since Saturday, then again whether I personally was at the meetings or not is immaterial.

Aard

dubhthach wrote: »

Has that been confirmed? Other than stating the the entire length of route won't be dual carriageway I haven't seen anything stating that the single carriageway section will contain separate route designation.

It would create an anomaly in the National Route system whereby Primary routes only end at Secondary Routes or at air/sea ports. Cf the recent de-trunking of several National Routes.

what_traffic

dubhthach wrote: »

I haven't been in Galway since Saturday, then again whether I personally was at the meetings or not is immaterial.

True. Sorry if it came across as a dig; it was meant to be the other way around.
Your observations requesting the ref to the NTA online is perfectly valid.
On the official site notice
http://www.n6galwaycity.ie/phase-2/public-consultation-no-3/
There is no mention of the NTA at all. I was under the impression from this notice that this was to be led by ARUP as well rather than the NTA/Galway City Council.
Speaks volumes about the whole process IMHO.

Schadenfreudia

lucernarian wrote: »

It's a travesty that even €2 million is regarded as something to brag about. Bad planning and a reluctance of Galway's officials, to this day, to embrace sustainable transport means that the €2 million each year seems rather inadequately spent.

Could you define "sustainable transport" please?

antoobrien

dubhthach wrote: »

I don't see any mention of the NTA on the project page, can you provide a link showing their involvement? Instead I see that the NRA are the commissioning agency which makes sense as it's a National road scheme.

Unless the (office) proxy I'm behind is serving cached pages, I can't find any NTA links that aren't buried in documents either, but the brochure that was available at the latest set of public meetings does list the NTA as one of the organisations involved.

Since it's an integrated transportation scheme that may required both a PT & Roads componentd, the NTA & NTA must both be involved, which should (but this being a Galway project will not) debunk some the myths being pedalled about this being a "road only" project.

Carawaystick

Aard wrote: »

It would create an anomaly in the National Route system whereby Primary routes only end at Secondary Routes or at air/sea ports. Cf the recent de-trunking of several National Routes.

Primary routes also end at primary routes(n30, n25, n40,n8) and the border(n1,n2,n3,n12).


The fact the map linked has a roundabout on it that no longer exists makes me wonder what other less gross errors are in the design.

antoobrien

Carawaystick wrote: »

Primary routes also end at primary routes(n30, n25, n40,n8) and the border(n1,n2,n3,n12).


The fact the map linked has a roundabout on it that no longer exists makes me wonder what other less gross errors are in the design.

The latest OSI maps don't have the bodkin listed as lights yet.

Zzippy

antoobrien wrote: »

Unless the (office) proxy I'm behind is serving cached pages, I can't find any NTA links that aren't buried in documents either, but the brochure that was available at the latest set of public meetings does list the NTA as one of the organisations involved.

Since it's an integrated transportation scheme that may required both a PT & Roads componentd, the NTA & NTA must both be involved, which should (but this being a Galway project will not) debunk some the myths being pedalled about this being a "road only" project.

The graphics on display this week related to PT wouldn't really lead to optimism that this is anything other than a road only project. Just bullet points about surveys being done in the future to assess PT options, no mention of funding. No joined-up thinking if they're only considering PT options now, that should have been done at the initial planning stage.

KevR

Iwannahurl wrote: »

At the public consultations, an NTA official boasted that they are spending €2 million annually on transportation projects in Galway. On that trajectory it will take them two and a half centuries to spend as much in total as what is being proposed for an expressway in the next five years.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It's a transport project, and the NTA is involved. But they're bragging about spending €2 million per year, while the NRA is talking about 250 times that amount.

As the saying goes "you cut your coat to suit your cloth"
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94373483&postcount=353

By comparison, what money do public transport users generate?

Zzippy

KevR wrote: »

As the saying goes "you cut your coat to suit your cloth"
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94373483&postcount=353

By comparison, what money do public transport users generate?

You're 100% right. Clearly the more roads we have the more money we'll generate. We could pave the country out of recession!

KevR

Zzippy wrote: »

You're 100% right. Clearly the more roads we have the more money we'll generate. We could pave the country out of recession!

It seems this is a touchy subject... I will have to remember to not ask any questions with regards to the financials of public transport when debating transport in future. Ireland is not in a recession by the way.

We have people on here indignant at the proposed cost for the bypass. While it is a huge sum of money, it absolutely can be justified. Effectively, this new road has already been paid for multiple times over by Galway motorists. Let us also remember that the original plans were not as expensive. The original, cheaper alternative was objected to.

marno21

Zzippy wrote: »

You're 100% right. Clearly the more roads we have the more money we'll generate. We could pave the country out of recession!

In many cases this is true, construction of the M28 in Cork would pay itself back in no time and many times over after it's built

Iwannahurl

KevR wrote: »

As the saying goes "you cut your coat to suit your cloth"
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94373483&postcount=353

By comparison, what money do public transport users generate?

This keeps coming back like a bad penny. It has been answered over and over again: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94410682&postcount=129

And over again: the IMF recently issued a major report which showed that "global energy subsidies, including the social and environmental costs associated with heavily subsidized fossil fuels, are costing the world’s governments [ie all citizens of Planet Earth] upward of $5 trillion annually."

Link to IMF report: http://www.imf.org/external/np/fad/subsidies/

Your argument is just the "dude, where's my bypass" plea, yet again. "Payback time" is not a good basis for sound public policy. Never was, never will be.

A recent report from the NTA showed that over half (56%) of all retail spend in Dublin City Centre comes from people arriving on public transport, and a further 24% from walkers and cyclists. Car-based shoppers accounted for only €1 in every €5 spent in the survey area. Is there any reason why this could not be replicated in Galway?

What externalities do pedestrians, cyclists and bus users generate?

KevR wrote: »

this new road has already been paid for multiple times over by Galway motorists.

I'm a motorist, with all my dues paid. I don't want my taxes wasted on a scheme that will only generate more traffic and which will not solve Galway's car dependence problem in the short, medium or long term. Despite having paid all my motoring taxes, I try not to over-use the car. I get very little support for my efforts, eg cycling to school, which is why I resent the notion that €500 million should be spent on a road for car commuters when there is apparently no intention to spend even a fraction of that on measures to promote public transport, walkig and cycling.