M6 - Galway City Ring Road [planning decision pending]

L1011

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Free traffic speeds refers to the peak speed of vehicles in uncongested conditions. eg the speeds used in travelling from one traffic jam to the back of the next one. It does not refer to either the (unenforced) speed limit or the average travel speeds of the vehicle involved.

It is exposure to motor vehicles travelling at these speeds that is the major source of both percieved and actual threat for those road users outside cars such as cyclists and pedestrians.

I know what free speed means, thanks.

There are extremely few occasions where that can exceed 50km/h in Galway in rush how

KevR

Galway already has higher than average rates of of walking and cycling despite the fact it is one of the wettest towns in the country. And we still have chronic congestion!

I fully agree that we should encourage people to ditch the car and walk/cycle instead for short journeys.

BUT....it is naive in the extreme to think we will solve our transport problems by encouraging more walking and cycling. We do not have enough road capacity - this affects buses and cyclists also, it's not just motorists.

CerebralCortex

KevR wrote: »

Galway already has higher than average rates of of walking and cycling despite the fact it is one of the wettest towns in the country. And we still have chronic congestion!

I fully agree that we should encourage people to ditch the car and walk/cycle instead for short journeys.

BUT....it is naive in the extreme to think we will solve our transport problems by encouraging more walking and cycling. We do not have enough road capacity - this affects buses and cyclists also, it's not just motorists.

I remember when I went to college in GMIT and beating the bus into town at peak times by walking(slight exaggeration) the traffic was so bad!

dubhthach

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I remember when I went to college in GMIT and beating the bus into town at peak times by walking(slight exaggeration) the traffic was so bad!

When I was in secondary school I would often "Race" the Salthill bus into town on my bike. Obviously I take a slightly different route but generally I'd beat it. Awh the 90's them were the days

KevR

When I was in NUIG (2005-2010), I had a part-time evening job in Ballybrit. I cycled to work during evening rush hour and I often used to be able to keep pace with ambulances (sirens on) going across the bridge and beyond.

Not at all funny, in fact it's a very serious issue.

antoobrien

KevR wrote: »

When I was in NUIG (2005-2010), I had a part-time evening job in Ballybrit. I cycled to work during evening rush hour and I often used to be able to keep pace with ambulances (sirens on) going across the bridge and beyond.

Not at all funny, in fact it's a very serious issue.

Not as serious as the ambulances, but when I was in NUIG (98-05) I used cycle from Briarhill school, passing my brother & his boss in their van going to various sites on the west side of Galway. They left 15 minutes before me and I still beat them across town, so the traffic isn't a particularly recent phenomenon either.

galwaycyclist

So several people here have posted first hand evidence that even for significant journies - Briar Hill in - cycling beats walking at rush hour. (Ps I agree on the footpath cycle lanes, the cycle campaign has been looking to have these removed for years and replaced in with hard shoulders - its even in the city development plan)

So why aren't more people cycling? Could it be that they don't feel safe on many of the existing streets where hard shoulders are not an option anyway?

If they don't feel safe could it in part be because of free traffic speeds? If the answer is yes then is enforcing the exisiting speed limits not an obvious, easily implemented anti-congestion measure?

galwaycyclist

galwaycyclist wrote: »

the cycle campaign has been looking to have these removed for years and replaced in with hard shoulders - its even in the city development plan)

While I think of it part of the rationale for this was also to make space available for the emergency services

antoobrien

galwaycyclist wrote: »

So several people here have posted first hand evidence that even for significant journies - Briar Hill in - cycling beats walking at rush hour. (Ps I agree on the footpath cycle lanes, the cycle campaign has been looking to have these removed for years and replaced in with hard shoulders - its even in the city development plan)

So why aren't more people cycling? Could it be that they don't feel safe on many of the existing streets where hard shoulders are not an option anyway?

If they don't feel safe could it in part be because of free traffic speeds? If the answer is yes then is enforcing the exisiting speed limits not an obvious, easily implemented anti-congestion measure?

While I cycled in Galway traffic speeds had nothing to do with it (a good portion of my cycling was not rush hour and the majority of it was on roads with no shoulder or specialist cycle facilities). According to most people traffic is greater now that it was then (2005), so overall it will be slower not faster, so I reject the premise that traffic speeds has much to do with it. Indeed if traffic speeds has anything to do with it, especially given what I see every time I'm home, the people who fear this shouldn't be on the road unaccompanied i.m.o. because they simply do not know how to handle themselves safely in traffic.

to quote ei.sdraob, all these are contributing factors

c) the weather, it rains double than dublin (edit - I can confirm this one)
d) hills, galway is not exactly flat
e) the large distance between factories in east and homes in west of city (edit anywhere between 7 & 13 km one way)
f) roundabouts!

It should also be considered that there are a significant number of people for whom walking, cycling and PT are simply impractical for various reasons, e.g. for cycling & walking an injury/condition that prevents travel of greater than say 1/2 miles (if you've ever done ligaments you'll know how hard it is to walk or cycle). These issues are almost always ignored in these discussions in favour of the theory that people are simply lazy.

FYI as an example of it being impracticality, I stopped cycling to college due to having to carry a laptop and not being able to afford a suitable bag which would prevent shock damage to the disk (I don't go easy on bikes, I have to get the rims straighted at least twice a year, even in Dublin where there are a lot less holes, ridges & kerbs to hit while cycling and the bags were a lot more expensive then than now), so I had to get lifts form people going into town instead.

This week clearly shows us that if not a majority of traffic entering the city, there is a very significant portion of it that is cross town traffic. It must also be recognized that a significant amount (if not as I believe a majority) of the traffic contributing to the congestion are from Co Galway and beyond, so proposing PT & cycling initiatives for the city will naturally have a limited effect.

KevR

galwaycyclist wrote: »

So several people here have posted first hand evidence that even for significant journies - Briar Hill in - cycling beats walking at rush hour. (Ps I agree on the footpath cycle lanes, the cycle campaign has been looking to have these removed for years and replaced in with hard shoulders - its even in the city development plan)

So why aren't more people cycling? Could it be that they don't feel safe on many of the existing streets where hard shoulders are not an option anyway?

If they don't feel safe could it in part be because of free traffic speeds? If the answer is yes then is enforcing the exisiting speed limits not an obvious, easily implemented anti-congestion measure?

I always felt safe cycling in Galway. I never had a single near miss in 5 years of cycling 13+km per day.

I hated cycling though. Even in proper wet gear, 6.5km to work in the rain after a long day at college is a miserable experience. Then after working for a few hours, I had to cycle 6.5km home again in the rain. I have bad memories of cycling across town against the wind as well. It wasn't fun.

Walking is my main mode of transport at the moment. Driving is second. I have no plans to start cycling on a regular basis again. If it's within walking distance and the weather is ok, I walk. Otherwise, I drive - and yes, I would rather spend 30 mins in traffic in my car than 15 mins on a bike out in the rain (even in wet gear).

L1011

galwaycyclist wrote: »

If they don't feel safe could it in part be because of free traffic speeds? If the answer is yes then is enforcing the exisiting speed limits not an obvious, easily implemented anti-congestion measure?

There's no problem with the free traffic speeds. I'd be willing to lay money that the 90% percentile free traffic speed in rush hour in Galway is below 50km/h.

The NRA's 2002 study didn't do Galway City unfortunately.

Enforce 50km/h all you want, the Guards will give up on it due to nobody to stop and GoSafe won't do it due to no revenue.

KevR

Stumbled across this:
http://www.galwaytraffic.com/UserMap.jsp

Same concept as the live traffic info on Google Maps.
galwaytraffic.com has average speeds though.

galwaycyclist

MYOB wrote: »

There's no problem with the free traffic speeds. I'd be willing to lay money that the 90% percentile free traffic speed in rush hour in Galway is below 50km/h.

The NRA's 2002 study didn't do Galway City unfortunately.

The 90th percentile is arguably irrelevant. What is important is the peak speeds by those within the tenth percentile if they happen to be above 50km/h.

Also why restrict the analysis to rush hour? Unless somebody trying to avoid awkward facts?

L1011

galwaycyclist wrote: »

The 90th percentile is arguably irrelevant. What is important is the peak speeds by those within the tenth percentile if they happen to be above 50km/h.

Also why restrict the analysis to rush hour? Unless somebody trying to avoid awkward facts?

95th if you want. 90th is whats used for normal research purposes.

Rush hour because that is all that matters for congestion. Someone wants to make it cover 24 hours to support an obsession...

galwaycyclist

MYOB wrote: »

95th if you want. 90th is whats used for normal research purposes.

Rush hour because that is all that matters for congestion. Someone wants to make it cover 24 hours to support an obsession...

Ah no as I recall 90th percentile is a criteria used to justify speed limit decisions. The result among other things has been traffic congestion, high levels of cyclist/pedestrian deaths and various other impacts-obesity etc.

So if I understand you correctly, people who wish to travel outside motor vehicles, outside of rush hour, and who wish a reasonable kevel of safety while doing so, are simply "obsessed" and have no entitlement to expect the support of the state?

L1011

galwaycyclist wrote: »

So if I understand you correctly, people who wish to travel outside motor vehicles, outside of rush hour, and who wish a reasonable kevel of safety while doing so, are simply "obsessed" and have no entitlement to expect the support of the state?

No, you are obsessed with free speed.

dubhthach

Tbh I don't see what any of this has to do with the Outer bypass. Stay on topic folks.

Sponge Bob

Traffice backed up to Kelehans in Bushypark from the current bridge today.

Sponge Bob

Everybody stay out of Galway next Sunday, 4th September. Don't come in here whining because you have been warned.

http://ironmanireland.com/local-info/

From Conamara, Ros an Mhíl, An Spidéal, Na Forbacha or Bearna to Galway City, County East and Vice Versa.

7:00am to 10:00am During these hours the only diversion available will be through Maam Cross,
An Fhairche(Clonbur), Cong, Headford & Cluain Bú (Cloonboo) Via the R336, R345, R483, R346, R334 & N84.
We Strongly advise planning journeys in advance so as not to require use of this diversion, due to the extra mileage involved.

10:00am to 2.00pm At this time the Galway – Bearna Road will have been fully reopened. Anyone wishing to travel towards Galway City Centre, Galway City East or Galway County East must use the Quincentenary Bridge as it will be the only bridge available .

From Galway City West to City Centre, City East or County East and vice-versa.

7:00am to 2:00pm The Quincentenary Bridge will be the only bridge available during this period.

2:00pm to 5:00pm The Quincentenary, Salmon Weir & O’Brien’s Bridges will be available.

From Nuns Island, The Claddagh or Small Crane to any location and vice-versa.

7:00am to 2:00pm The only route out of this area will be Via O’Briens Bridge (as Newcastle, St. Mary’s & Lower Salthill Roads and Wolfe Tone Bridge will be closed).

The only route into this area will be Via the Salmon Weir or O’Brien’s Bridge and Gaol Road (as Newcastle, St. Mary’s & Lower Salthill Roads and Wolfe Tone Bridge will be closed).

2:00pm to 5:00pm The Wolfe Tone Bridge will be closed during this time, but all other routes will be available.

dubhthach

TheUsual wrote: »

I have to say that Galway traffic always shocks me.
Dublin has the population but Galway doesn't.

Two things may hep :

1. Multiple Park (for free) and ride around the city for free, where the council pay for short-hop buses to act like the Luas in Dublin (every 10 minutes).

2. Get some driving instructors to teach people how to use roundabouts. Galway is by far the worst town in Ireland to drive in my opinion. That and speeding for no reason on the bypass, and I have seen a lot of Gardaí stop speeders there.

Galway has the bulk of the population living West of the river while all the jobs are east of the River. There are only 3 viable river crossings (O'Brien's bridge is effectively only West - East, neutered for cross-city traffic), of these two are narrow urban bridges. The simple issue is lack of infrastructure in Galway. The current "bypass" was planned when the population of the area that is now the city (boundary extended in 1984/5) was around 40k. The population recent census is 75,414. In the last 20 years alone the population has increased by about 50%

TheUsual

dubhthach wrote: »

Galway has the bulk of the population living West of the river while all the jobs are east of the River. There are only 3 viable river crossings (O'Brien's bridge is effectively only West - East, neutered for cross-city traffic), of these two are narrow urban bridges. The simple issue is lack of infrastructure in Galway. The current "bypass" was planned when the population of the area that is now the city (boundary extended in 1984/5) was around 40k. The population recent census is 75,414. In the last 20 years alone the population has increased by about 50%

I agree with the bridges point.

But they have the population of Tallaght (a suburb in Dublin), nobody lives in Galway and yet the traffic delay times are the same as a real city. It's a small town and doesn't need an M50 ringroad.

ei.sdraob

TheUsual wrote: »

I agree with the brigdes point.

But they have the population of Tallaght (a suburb in Dublin), nobody lives in Galway and yet the traffic delay times are the same as a real city. It's a small town and doesn't need an M50 ringroad.

There is a lot more people in the County, and yes they have to be squeezed into the same few bridges if they want to get across the river/lake

TheUsual

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Have you actually cycled in Galway? Or used public transport??
there are the bloody roundabouts, why oh why is there a roundabout at terryland?

Way too many roundabounts there and panicked drivers that can't use them, or just aggressive women and men that just don't care how they drive.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

And then there are people who simply do not have the health to cycle

True for Dublin too.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

As for buses, they are often overcrowded, smelly and at times/destinations full of certain loud "minority" who make bus commuting a miserable experience for all, and of course they all go in and out of town, no buses going across town

More people and more bus lanes means shorter commutes and I love my i-Pod when some 19 year old starts talking non-stop at full volume.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Btw how would you propose to add 2 bus lanes on lets say the quincenteneal bridge? reduce traffic to one lane?? spend enough money widening the bridge spending as much money as the bypass bridge would cost?

New bridge and one-way system. Take a look at Cork and the traffic system there. Galway has no traffic plan as far as I can see.

antoobrien

This happened in May of this year and we missed it.

Full text: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0531/1224298147042.html

Article text

Guidance sought on Galway bypass conservation issues

THE SUPREME Court has referred questions on the implementation of the EU habitats directive, arising from questions about the Galway city outer bypass route, to the European Court of Justice.

The case is being taken against An Bord Pleanála with Galway city and county councils as notice parties.

The Supreme Court is seeking guidance on whether significant developmental damage to a part of a special area of conservation counts as a breach of the integrity of the overall special area.

The landmark case arose in relation to a decision by An Bord Pleanála in November 2008 to grant development consent for the €317 million Galway city outer bypass.

The planning board found that while the road would have “localised severe impact” on part of the Lough Corrib conservation area, this did not “adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned”.

However, environmental campaigner Peter Sweetman claimed An Bord Pleanála was wrong in its interpretation of the habitats directive. His challenge to the board’s decision is supported by Ireland, the Attorney General, and the Minister for Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

In its referral to Europe, the Supreme Court said the “essential legal issue in respect of which a response from the Court of Justice is sought” related to whether a body such as An Bord Pleanála had authority to approve development which involved “the destruction and permanent loss” of part of a listed priority habitat, other than in special exemptions under the habitats directive itself.

The Supreme Court is also seeking clarity on the “true construction” of phrases such as “adverse effect on the integrity of the site”.

Last June the five-judge Supreme Court, presided over by the Chief Justice, Mr Justice John Murray, granted the application for referral to the European Court of Justice.

Earlier this month, the Courts Service wrote to the parties involved to say the request had been sent to that court.

The Galway city outer bypass is a proposed extension of the M6 Ballinasloe to Galway route designed to pass to the north of Galway city.

It begins at the R336 in Baile Nua at the west to link at a new junction with the new N6 Galway to Dublin road at Garraun at the east.

The development includes the provision of a new crossing of the river Corrib. However, while planning has continued, funding for the proposed road is now far from certain.

Sponge Bob

Very bland, maybe it means that Isaac has to hang around Brussels supplicating for an audience...which would keep him out of mischief what ??!!


Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 26 May 2011 — Peter Sweetman, Ireland, Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government v An Bord Pleanala
(Case C-258/11)
(2011/C 226/29)
Language of the case: English
Referring court
Supreme Court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: Peter Sweetman, Ireland, Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government
Defendant: An Bord Pleanala
Questions referred
1. 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 Directive ( 1 ), having ‘an adverse effect on the integrity of the site’?
2. 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?
3. 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?
( 1 ) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992. OJ L 206, p. 7EN aka Habitats Directive

antoobrien

The GCOB got a one line mention in todays announcement on the Infrastructure and Capital Development Plan for 2012 to 2016

Work will also continue on the Galway City Outer By-Pass (N6) to resolve the legal issues delaying the project.

Given that the New Ross/Enniscorthy Project will proceed with preparation works (but not construction it would appear), assuming the ECJ rule in favour of the project, this project will probably not have funding until 2016 (under current economic conditions).

Sponge Bob

Correct, they committed to carrying on with the planning IF it comes back from Europe in one piece. If not.

It doesn't matter what Brian Walsh says.

Bosco boy

Basically, the only work the government have committed to over the next 4 years is to resolving the legal issues, beyond that there is a committment to nothing! Brian Walsh and Healy eames can spin this whatever way they want but this project has as much a chance now as metro north!!

Iwannahurl

It seems Brian Walsh wore out the lino between his office and Leo Varadkar's for little more than a commitment to continued working on legal (and presumably re-design?) issues.

I'm not sure what else he can do over the next four years, other than keep the GCOB on the government agenda, but I would like to see him put the same effort into progressing other proposals to deal with Galway's traffic and transportation issues.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I'm not sure what else he can do over the next four years, other than keep the GCOB on the government agenda, but I would like to see him put the same effort into progressing other proposals to deal with Galway's traffic and transportation issues.

Considering the street closures & traffic direction changes in the smarter travel plan are predicated on having the GCOB in place he'd be wasting his time.

Iwannahurl

Other proposed or potential measures, eg removal of roundabouts and the implementation of an extensive 30 km/h zone, aren't dependent on a Bypass.

Another issue worth looking at is enforcement (eg of existing speed limits). It would be nice to see Walsh wearing out the Dail carpet for that, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Zubeneschamali

Removal of roundabouts is happening right now.

Sponge Bob

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Other proposed or potential measures, eg removal of roundabouts and the implementation of an extensive 30 km/h zone, aren't dependent on a Bypass

You already have an extensive 30kph zone because of all the congestion casued by the LACK of a bypass. You are correct in saying there is no commitment to build it before 2015 though.

Iwannahurl

There isn't a single street in the entire city with a 30 km/h limit.

Chronic traffic congestion does not a slow-speed zone make. Speeding is a chronic and widespread problem IMO.

L1011

Iwannahurl wrote: »

There isn't a single street in the entire city with a 30 km/h limit.

Chronic traffic congestion does not a slow-speed zone make. Speeding is a chronic and widespread problem IMO.

Observation by those using Galway streets on a regular basis disagrees with you, and disagreed with you last time you played your circular argument also. Drop it this time and save us all the hassle.

Iwannahurl

Can you name the street(s) with a 30 km/h limit?

dubhthach

Tbh I fail to see what Garda speed enforcement or the lack of it has to do with the Outer Bypass, stay on topic folks.

Amtmann

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Can you name the street(s) with a 30 km/h limit?

Irrelevant to the thread. Back on topic, please.

Sponge Bob

Anyway, back to the main business. Does anyone know whether the redesign of the short section around the bog cotton can be done as a Part 8 meaning that it could be shovel ready in early-mid 2013 (assumed as 6 months after a court decision).

dubhthach

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Anyway, back to the main business. Does anyone know whether the redesign of the short section around the bog cotton can be done as a Part 8 meaning that it could be shovel ready in early-mid 2013 (assumed as 6 months after a court decision).

Well isn't the crux of the problem that the entire western section of the bypass was refused permission? I would assume they have to resubmit that whole half to planning process as a whole?

Sponge Bob

Correct. But this is the full text of the order below, they only took umbrage with the Bog Cotton subsection. If you nudged the road east at that point ( and it is a short section ) you might be able to get a favourable pre-opinion from the Planning Board without starting off the whole process with route selection, EPR etc etc.

The EIS is finally online for this scheme. the City Council website has it ( not the county council) > http://www.galwaycity.ie/AllServices/RoadsandTraffic/StudiesandSchemes/ProposedN6GalwayCityOuterBypass/


From

http://www.pleanala.ie/documents/orders/ER2/DER2056.pdf

It is noted, in particular, that a section of the proposed road
development would cut through Tonabrocky Bog which is part of the Moycullen Bogs
Natural Heritage Area and is an active blanket bog listed as a priority habitat in Annex 1 of the EU Habitats Directive. Tonabrocky Bog also hosts a population of slender cotton grass eriophorum gracile which is a legally protected and vulnerable species [1999 Protection Order].

Having regard to the report of the person who conducted the oral hearing into
the application for approval of the proposed road development, the EIS and the submissions received in relation to the application, the Board is not satisfied that the part of the road development being refused approval (between Junction A and Junction W) would not be prejudicial to the preservation of this habitat or that the significant adverse effects on the environment would not be avoidable or could not be better addressed by an alternative route. This part of the proposed road development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Iwannahurl

The lead story in today's City Tribune (dropped down to me from a hot air balloon) tries to spin the news as positively as it can: "City's relief as troubled bypass is spared axe".

However, it says that "funding for the bypass only covers resolving the legal issues".

I presume the funding is intended to be spent on advancing the GCOB plan somehow rather than to enrich lawyers, but no details are provided as to the methods to be employed to practically address the matters raised in the court case.

It'll be interesting to see how long the "city's relief" lasts.

L1011

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The lead story in today's City Tribune (dropped down to me from a hot air balloon) tries to spin the news as positively as it can: "City's relief as troubled bypass is spared axe".

However, it says that "funding for the bypass only covers resolving the legal issues".

Its proposed to be a PPP. All the state funds is planning and the CPO anyway. Its impossible to fund a CPO when you don't know what land is going to be CPOed.

I would have thought an anti-roads campaigner would know the details of something they're specifically opposed to... clearly not.

Sponge Bob

When was it changed to a PPP then MYOB ??? I suppose a completely new CPO on the western section would be a hell of a lot cheaper than a CPO from around 2006 or so. If they are told to fiddle with the eastern section ( short of something impossible) they might have to issue a new cheaper CPO there too.

Iwannahurl

MYOB wrote: »

Its proposed to be a PPP. All the state funds is planning and the CPO anyway. Its impossible to fund a CPO when you don't know what land is going to be CPOed.

I would have thought an anti-roads campaigner would know the details of something they're specifically opposed to... clearly not.

Your clairvoyant abilities are letting you down!

The point is, will the 'non-axing' of funds actually progress the project, or is the "city's relief" to consist merely of sitting on hands until 2016?

Brian Walsh, who's filling Frank Fahey's shoes manfully, says the challenge now is to find a PPP investor. It remains to be seen who has pockets deep enough these days, but in any event a PPP will mean a toll, will it not? If this forum is anything to go by, a toll negates or seriously attenuates the effectiveness of a bypass from the outset.






EDIT: "...an anti-roads campaigner would know the details of something they're specifically opposed to" -- what can I say but

antoobrien

Sponge Bob wrote: »

When was it changed to a PPP then MYOB ??? I suppose a completely new CPO on the western section would be a hell of a lot cheaper than a CPO from around 2006 or so. If they are told to fiddle with the eastern section ( short of something impossible) they might have to issue a new cheaper CPO there too.

It was a PPP under the second PPP program - from June 2009

Irish and Proud

Ok I'm no expert on Galway, but from an outsider's point of view, there's something quite obvious:

Dublin - M50 links all National Routes - many inter-route free-flow connections (have used this road a good few times);

Cork - N25 CSRR links all National Routes other than the N20 - when the Sarsfield and Bandon Road Interchanges are complete, all junctions will be grade separated - Dunkettle needs major upgrading though;

Limerick - M7/N18 Southern Ring (both motorway standard) links up all National Routes;

Waterford - N25 (motorway standard)/R710 (DC with roundabouts) links practically all roads around the city;

Galway - N6 Urban Single Carriageway (4 Lanes) - no Grade Separation whatsoever - this is clearly the worst of the five cities.

The GCOB is badly needed!

L1011

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Your clairvoyant abilities are letting you down!

The point is, will the 'non-axing' of funds actually progress the project, or is the "city's relief" to consist merely of sitting on hands until 2016?

Brian Walsh, who's filling Frank Fahey's shoes manfully, says the challenge now is to find a PPP investor. It remains to be seen who has pockets deep enough these days, but in any event a PPP will mean a toll, will it not? If this forum is anything to go by, a toll negates or seriously attenuates the effectiveness of a bypass from the outset.

PPPs do not have to mean a toll. Shadow tolling or availability payments are two other options for PPPs.

First is the state pays a toll - far lower than a consumer toll would have due to the 'collection' costs being the price of a traffic counter - per vehicle and the second the state pays for every day the road is open.

Latter works better as it ensures the operating company has every incentive to ensure the road stays open in all conditions, just like a hard toll does; but for a shadow toll there isn't the same incentive. Traffic will grow over time so the money is recovered regardless.


And anyway, clearing up the legal issues caused by Isaac and the rerouting of the western section is definitely "progress", as without that done, the scheme would not be ready for a PPP operator to step in whenever one becomes available. It'd add significant time - and far more significant cost - to the PPP if they had to deal with those uncertainties.

And ensuring Isaac loses another vexatious road case is extremely important, as we need a Wunder Order against him at this rate.

Iwannahurl

Ireland and the AG are parties to the ECJ case, IIRC, so I doubt their involvement is "vexatious".

Anywhere else in the RoI where "shadow tolling" and "availability payments" are in operation?

What precedents are there which might indicate that these would be likely PPP options for the GCOB?

L1011

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Ireland and the AG are parties to the ECJ case, IIRC, so I doubt their involvement is "vexatious".

That was Gormley running solo. Its vexatious.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Anywhere else in the RoI where "shadow tolling" and "availability payments" are in operation?

The M50 from the M1 to the M11 operates under availability from memory - its a non-tolled PPP (the Westlink toll doesn't go to them, separate setup)

Also schools and water supply systems. Shadow tolling isn't in use anywhere here yet, however...

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What precedents are there which might indicate that these would be likely PPP options for the GCOB?

...both are used extensively and successfully for roads in the UK. If looking for information, remember that they usually call a PPP "PFI" instead.