M6 - Galway City Ring Road [planning decision pending]

Schadenfreudia

Iwannahurl wrote: »

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."

The IMF?!

Yeah, they have a helluva track record :rolleyes:

You assume that cars will continue to add carbon to the atmosphere as they used to do? - I don't.

When the inevitable technological breakthroughs occur, what will the anti-car brigade think up next?

(I note that nobody has tried to define "sustainable transport". I am not surprised!)

Middle Man

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's not about paving the country out of it - in any case, we have a massively wide motorway (M1 - up to 38m wide) running though our area and in fact, it's one of the nicest roads there - all the lovely new trees and shrubs. The main point however is that like everything else that impacts on the environment, traffic is a fact of life and it has to be managed. The idea of stubbornly building no roads is akin to the cessation of building waste water treatment facilities and instead, focusing on getting people to reduce their waste. Of course, you know what's going to happen there - waste water below the required standards will continue to pollute our waters regardless of political doctrine. It's the same with cars - there will always be motor traffic and it has to go somewhere - so you build a proper bypass for it. Once the new road becomes operational, the cleanup of the city should commence - first thing would be the reallocation of road space to buses so that space is secured for major public transport investment thereafter. IMO, Galway should go for a Luas style system. How to fund it? Well, if the bypass is constructed as a PPP, then that should release funding for major public transport investment. Perhaps, savings could be made by building replacement housing under a tender process as opposed to compensation arrangements when it comes to securing the land for the road.

Aard

"Sustainable transport" is of course a wooly term. As is the term "sustainable" itself in many cases.

Wrt transport, however, there is definitely a continuum of sustainability. Generally this refers to carbon emission. It can also encompass transport-led development patterns. I.e. places that are designed around the car, which ultimately limit access by other modes.

Iwannahurl

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

The IMF?!

Yeah, they have a helluva track record :rolleyes:

You assume that cars will continue to add carbon to the atmosphere as they used to do? - I don't.

When the inevitable technological breakthroughs occur, what will the anti-car brigade think up next?

Are you saying the IMF's analysis is incorrect? Where exactly?

The vast majority of motor vehicles are powered by hugely inefficient heat engines burning fossil fuels. The typical motor vehicle stays on the road for ten or even twenty years. They will continue to emit CO2, which is one reason why Ireland will not meet its GHG emissions targets.




Cars, especially when single-occupant as is typically the case in Galway, are also a major waste of space.

How do you address that unavoidable fact?

Middle Man wrote: »

Once the new road becomes operational, the cleanup of the city should commence - first thing would be the reallocation of road space to buses so that space is secured for major public transport investment thereafter.

Who will be the passengers that will make the majorly increased public transport viable?

Iwannahurl

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

I note that nobody has tried to define "sustainable transport". I am not surprised!

There is no one agreed definition of Sustainable Transport, but there are many candidates.

Here's one:

A sustainable transport system is one that is accessible, safe, environmentally-friendly, and affordable.

~European Conference of Ministers of Transport, 2004

Here's another:

Transportation that does not endanger public health or ecosystems and that meets needs for access consistent with (a) use of renewable resources that are below their rates of regeneration, and (b) use of non-renewable resources below the rates of development of renewable substitutes.

~OECD, 1996

Middle Man

Iwannahurl wrote: »

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

We're back to the bad old days of defeatist mentality. I'm not religious, but Monsignor James Horan would never have got Knock Airport built if he went along with that attitude. He convinced enough people and didn't take no for an answer and that was around 1985 when our motorway 'system' stretched for a massive 7km... :rolleyes:

Basically, where there is a will, there is a way! I'm going to be blunt and say that if we as a nation have the money to drink ourselves silly and spend so much on useless fashion ideologies, then surely we collectively have to money to create a national infrastructure bond or something similar. As I don't drink myself and don't spend so much on fashion - I feel well justified in saying the above.

If we put half the money that we spend on fashion and drink towards public transport - we'd probably have the DU and MN underway in Dublin by now.

Iwannahurl

In which case I'll pretend I'm Monsignor James Horan, and on this rock I will build my Light Rail/BRT service/pedestrian paradise/little slice of Copenhagen.

First.

"They" say it can't be done, but I won't take no for an answer...

Middle Man

Iwannahurl wrote: »

In which case I'll pretend I'm Monsignor James Horan, and on this rock I will build my Light Rail/BRT service/pedestrian paradise/little slice of Copenhagen.

First.

"They" say it can't be done, but I won't take no for an answer...

...and that's exactly what I mean by attitude!

lucernarian

KevR wrote: »

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.

Could you try to justify it? The way the bypass is planned, will mainly benefit the residents of Galway City, and county to a lesser extent - in comparison to something more strategic like the M18 and M20. I really want to know how €500 million into 75,000 people goes. Just because a much cheaper scheme was rejected, doesn't mean that it's now okay to simply throw taxpayer's money at the problem. And the plan didn't fail because "it was objected to". It materially contravened the law of the land. I don't want to be drawn into a discussion on the law itself but it was up to the NRA and the lead local authority to be aware of the constraints it was working under.

Anybody who's pretending that public transport infrastructure shouldn't be relevant to a €500 million near-city bypass project is doing the equivalent of sticking their head under a rock and expecting everyone else around to not just lift the rock off, but to pay for an 80 metre crane to do the job. Whatever about the bloody word "sustainable", PT is a heck of a lot more so than gridlocked cars, or a €500 million plan to partially fix it.

Iwannahurl

lucernarian wrote: »

Anybody who's pretending that public transport infrastructure shouldn't be relevant to a €500 million near-city bypass project is doing the equivalent of sticking their head under a rock and expecting everyone else around to not just lift the rock off, but to pay for an 80 metre crane to do the job. Whatever about the bloody word "sustainable", PT is a heck of a lot more so than gridlocked cars, or a €500 million plan to partially fix it.

The N6 Galway City Transport Project is (somewhat reluctantly, imo) admitting that PT is relevant.

However, the process seems to be highly unequal, in terms of competing priorities. The NRA et al seem hell-bent on demonstrating that PT is not enough and so a €500 million expressway must be built. The NTA, on the other hand, does not have a brief with a similar price tag to deliver a PT service that might make the demolition of 40 homes unnecessary.

Public Consultation No. 3 made that very clear. The road project dominated the proceedings (numerous maps, computer simulations etc), with PT relegated to some posters on one wall, with no hard data or concrete proposals on display. The "graphics" page on the website doesn't even include those posters: http://www.n6galwaycity.ie/phase-2/public-consultation-no-3/

veryangryman

I yearn for the days when people discussed the fors and againsts of the Galway bypass in this thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056925104

If i wanted arss bored off me, id go there. Here i (seemingly silly) look for discussion on the progress of the bypass.

Not trying to backseat mod, but trying to frontseat contribute. I hope mods agree.

Iwannahurl

veryangryman wrote: »

I yearn for the days when people discussed the fors and againsts of the Galway bypass in this thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056925104

If i wanted arss bored off me, id go there. Here i (seemingly silly) look for discussion on the progress of the bypass.

Not trying to backseat mod, but trying to frontseat contribute. I hope mods agree.

It makes no sense to try to quarantine such discussion, unless what you really want is a nice clean aircon thread where nobody gets to question the wisdom of spending €500 million of public money to facilitate only car commuters travelling to their "good high end, highly paid positions".

It's actually a "transport project", according to the official documentation, and the entire enterprise is being publicly debated at present, in various forums.

Zzippy

veryangryman wrote: »

I yearn for the days when people discussed the fors and againsts of the Galway bypass in this thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056925104

If i wanted arss bored off me, id go there. Here i (seemingly silly) look for discussion on the progress of the bypass.

Funny that, the last post in that thread is your own, where you said:

veryangryman wrote: »

Just back from city.

I wonder if the Relief road (the 2 lane sections specifically) could be made into bus lanes in 1 lane.

For me (Dublin a good example), seeing a bus fly by while you sit in car in grinding traffic does encourage one to take it. My thinking is that many would take the option if it was there. Airport park and ride might get much more passengers.

Yes i know it fks things up for the motorist who has to use the road, but it would help alot with only those who need to drive actually doing it.

Thoughts

which kinda contradicts your attitude here:

veryangryman wrote: »

Most of these jobs are good high end, highly paid positions and thus most will drive to them regardless of PT options. I drive due to having such a position. It nice to be able to choose between a nice new clean aircon car and the general public. Even nicer if there is a Dual Carriageway that i can use to get to work.

Pretty clear you're either very conflicted, or have changed your tune. Either way, if you don't want to read any debate on the project, feel free not to read it. No one is forcing you to do it.

veryangryman

The postbout Dublin (which has a bypass), the point is that once the road infrastructure is in place, of couse you can do bus lanes and the likes. Not before. Otherwise you are punishing a car user who may have no other choice. Its not complicated.

I'll add that of course people who can afford the premium of driving should be allowed the luxury of same for this premium. If your destination happens to be near a good road, all the better.

Deedsie

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It makes no sense to try to quarantine such discussion, unless what you really want is a nice clean aircon thread where nobody gets to question the wisdom of spending €500 million of public money to facilitate only car commuters travelling to their "good high end, highly paid positions".

It's actually a "transport project", according to the official documentation, and the entire enterprise is being publicly debated at present, in various forums.

Are buses not allowed on the bypass?

Iwannahurl

Deedsie wrote: »

Are buses not allowed on the bypass?

Perhaps you're mistaking a bus route for a bus service?

It's not about what infrastructure buses can use, but who'll use the buses. Do you think car commuters are clamouring for an expressway so that they can take the bus instead?

Really?

veryangryman wrote: »

Most of these jobs are good high end, highly paid positions and thus most will drive to them regardless of PT options. I drive due to having such a position. It nice to be able to choose between a nice new clean aircon car and the general public. Even nicer if there is a Dual Carriageway that i can use to get to work.

veryangryman wrote: »

people who can afford the premium of driving should be allowed the luxury of same for this premium. If your destination happens to be near a good road, all the better.

dubhthach

Deedsie wrote: »

Are buses not allowed on the bypass?

Don't forget trucks either, plenty of which can be encountered on the N59 and R336, which reminds me I'm assuming that the proposed replacement for the R336 to cover connections to Ros a Mhíl will interface with the new route somewhere north of Bearna. If they ever get around to building it.

Seems Galway CoCo in their attempt at removing old projects forgot to take down the Irish language versions of the maps:

http://www.galway.ie/en/media/An%20Dara%20Comhairli%C3%BAch%C3%A1n%20Poibl%C3%AD%20R336%20Cuid%202.pdf

lucernarian

veryangryman wrote: »

The postbout Dublin (which has a bypass), the point is that once the road infrastructure is in place, of couse you can do bus lanes and the likes. Not before. Otherwise you are punishing a car user who may have no other choice. Its not complicated.

I'll add that of course people who can afford the premium of driving should be allowed the luxury of same for this premium. If your destination happens to be near a good road, all the better.

That point is okay by itself, though you did make a rather untasteful remark about having the money to drive your own car to your workplace - as though €500 million should be spent to accommodate those kinds of users.

When sums of €500 million come into play, it's very much up to the public at large to have their say in such a large scheme. This one benefits few people outside of Co. Galway. Drogheda has slightly over half the the population of Galway and certainly hasn't received the equivalent of €255 million in capital transport improvements in the last 15 years. The whole damn M1 construction costs from Gormanston to Dundalk, along with maintenance for 30 years, was €340 million. Using CPI as a basis to work out today's cost, it would be around €403 million. 53km of strategic motorway, coming within 1 km of at least 2 sites of great historical importance, is still cheaper than the expected costs of this scheme.

Iwannahurl

dubhthach wrote: »

Don't forget trucks either, plenty of which can be encountered on the N59 and R336.

You raise an interesting point. In a post-expressway situation, HGV movements will change, presumably.

I know of at least one community where the residents are now getting worried about the possibility of HGVs coming off the expressway and trundling through their neighbourhood. ARUP has already conceded that car traffic will increase significantly. Because of Galway City Council's urban "planning" practices they cannot avoid the existing route, and so could not escape any future increase in traffic volume past their homes, including HGVs.

dubhthach

The M1 doesn't include two tunnel sections, one of which will have to be bored by TBM (2 of them?). It would be nice if some actual detailed pricing was included with regards to the scheme.

I'd be interested in what the costing of the Green route was in comparison to selected route, given that it was (a) further out, potentially less property affected (b) no tunnelling involved.

I could be wrong but the original GCOB which was shot down due to Bog cotton and limestone pavement (don't mention the quarry!) was suppose to only entail half a dozen houses to be CPO's (As oppose to circa 41 on the proposed route)

dubhthach

Iwannahurl wrote: »

You raise an interesting point. In a post-expressway situation, HGV movements will change, presumably.

I know of at least one community where the residents are now getting worried about the possibility of HGVs coming off the expressway and trundling through their neighbourhood. ARUP has already conceded that car traffic will increase. Because of Galway City Council's urban "planning" practices they cannot avoid the existing route, and so could not escape any future increase in traffic volume past their homes, including HGVs.

That's beyond vague? Are you talking about the proposed N59 "rerouting/link-road" which would involve connection to Bóthar Stiofáin?

Well the most obvious HGV movement change will be removal of HGV's from Terryland/QCB/Newcastle that are destined for the N59, likewise removal of any HGV's destined for R336 from Knocknacarra/Bearna

lucernarian

dubhthach wrote: »

The M1 doesn't include two tunnel sections, one of which will have to be bored by TBM (2 of them?). It would be nice if some actual detailed pricing was included with regards to the scheme.

I'd be interested in what the costing of the Green route was in comparison to selected route, given that it was (a) further out, potentially less property affected (b) no tunnelling involved.

I could be wrong but the original GCOB which was shot down due to Bog cotton and limestone pavement (don't mention the quarry!) was suppose to only entail half a dozen houses to be CPO's (As oppose to circa 41 on the proposed route)

This then leads me to wonder what engineering and cost necessity would force them to have two tunnel constructions just to offer an alternative east-west route across a city! I would be very interested in the anticipated costs of the green route also. Imagine what road projects could be helped with a saving of e.g. €100 million... Dunkettle intersection in Cork, the CPO costs for the M20 Adare to Cork. Most of the cost of the N28 scheme. You know, schemes relevant to national strategic interest.

Iwannahurl

dubhthach wrote: »

That's beyond vague? Are you talking about the proposed N59 "rerouting/link-road" which would involve connection to Bóthar Stiofáin?

Well the most obvious HGV movement change will be removal of HGV's from Terryland/QCB/Newcastle that are destined for the N59, likewise removal of any HGV's destined for R336 from Knocknacarra/Bearna

The point is that HGV movements would change, and there is potential for some communities to be adversely affected, even if HGVs were taken off roads elsewhere.

Mind you, at the public consultation I was surprised to hear ARUP say that quite major changes are still being considered, eg the N59 "rerouting/link-road" could be dropped in favour of an at-grade connection on Cappagh Road.

It really is an "emerging" route.

dubhthach

Well one tunnel is required to get under the aforementioned Limestone pavement, ironically this is to start in Lackagh quarry which has been eating into said mentioned Limestone for the last 40+ years.

Taking this route also requires them to build a viaduct over another section of the "pavement", the "Cut-and cover" tunnel is to get around the racecourse.

The original GCOB if I recall would have passed outside of Parkmore and wouldn't have required any tunneling, it would also have spilt off the M6 closer to the current N18 junction.

dubhthach

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The point is that HGV movements would change, and there is potential for some communities to be adversely affected, even if HGVs were taken off roads elsewhere.

Mind you, at the public consultation I was surprised to hear ARUP say that quite major changes are still being considered, eg the N59 "rerouting/link-road" could be dropped in favour of an at-grade connection on Cappagh Road.

It really is an "emerging" route.

Stop been coy, give us example of which communities, the only way we can debate the issues with route selection is if such concerns are pointed out.

Zzippy

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The point is that HGV movements would change, and there is potential for some communities to be adversely affected, even if HGVs were taken off roads elsewhere.

Mind you, at the public consultation I was surprised to hear ARUP say that quite major changes are still being considered, eg the N59 "rerouting/link-road" could be dropped in favour of an at-grade connection on Cappagh Road.

It really is an "emerging" route.

I also heard something like that - one senior planner/engineer said "if the proposed junction for Parkmore goes ahead...". I got the impression they really want to put in that junction to serve commuters but think they might not get the go-ahead from ABP as it contravenes the stated purpose of the road as a bypass perhaps...

lucernarian

dubhthach wrote: »

Well one tunnel is required to get under the aforementioned Limestone pavement, ironically this is to start in Lackagh quarry which has been eating into said mentioned Limestone for the last 40+ years.

Taking this route also requires them to build a viaduct over another section of the "pavement", the "Cut-and cover" tunnel is to get around the racecourse.

The original GCOB if I recall would have passed outside of Parkmore and wouldn't have required any tunneling, it would also have spilt off the M6 closer to the current N18 junction.

I know why the tunnels are on *that* route, my major concern is why a route that involves tunnelling has been selected in the first place!! If the green route was significantly cheaper, then the blue route is just indefensible. And the whole thing's being funded by PPP, even though the State could borrow money at exceptionally cheap levels for such projects if our EU Commission friends allowed it.

dubhthach

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Mind you, at the public consultation I was surprised to hear ARUP say that quite major changes are still being considered, eg the N59 "rerouting/link-road" could be dropped in favour of an at-grade connection on Cappagh Road.

Now there's a nugget, I'm assuming they are talking about the grade separated junction, if they removed the link roads you wouldn't be able to get from the "bypass" to the N59, which if you ask me defeats one of main purposes of the road.

Of course as has been pointed out bout national primary routes, if the ended the Type-1 DC at such a roundabout junction (with link road to N59) than you could have N6/M6 designation for section up to there, everything west of it would probably end up as R336.

dubhthach

lucernarian wrote: »

I know why the tunnels are on *that* route, my major concern is why a route that involves tunnelling has been selected in the first place!! If the green route was significantly cheaper, then the blue route is just indefensible. And the whole thing's being funded by PPP, even though the State could borrow money at exceptionally cheap levels for such projects if our EU Commission friends allowed it.

Well that's the problem, the whole process is about as clear as a barrel of mud. We have had no breakdown of proposed costings of any of the routes, let alone a reason why this "hybrid route" (it's western section around Bearna the Green route) was grafted together and why it's superior to other routes. (well anything would be superior to the routes closer to the city such as Red route!).

Likewise no cost breakdown, is the proposed costing purely for a road project or are the other aspects, or any details on funding model.

Schadenfreudia

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Are you saying the IMF's analysis is incorrect?

What I'm saying is that based on their track record there is no reason to believe they are correct.

The definitions of "sustainable transport" you quote both contain woolly terms similar to "sustainable" in the definitions. Pure waffle.




That's an interesting graph; if you added 2014/15 the red line would be pointing further upwards.

In that context to argue about the Galway bypass in terms of unmeasurable "sustainability" is pointless. The only concrete measure of "sustainability" offered is carbon emissions.

The net contribution of bypass related carbon emissions (plus or minus) which the Galway bypass will make to global warming are so

(1) tiny
(2) uncertain in nature

that any opposition to it on the grounds of its alleged negative environmental impact is akin to opposing public transport on the grounds of increased disease from air-borne human infections.

Cars, especially when single-occupant as is typically the case in Galway, are also a major waste of space.

How do you address that unavoidable fact?

Not a problem on the proposed bypass; all the more reason to get those cars bypassing out of the city.