Galway road projects confirmed

john locke

finally some good news...

http://www.galwaynews.ie/26818-galway-road-projects-confirmed-government-stimulus-plan

Sponge Bob

By 12 km they mean the section from the Glenlo Abbey to the Airport only. The western section of the bypass will not progress as part of the schene.

Lapin

Sponge Bob wrote: »

By 12 km they mean the section from the Glenlo Abbey to the Airport only. The western section of the bypass will not progress as part of the schene.

That would mean a bridge over the Corrib.

I thought some of the legal issues surrounded the construction of the bridge.

ScumLord

Oh good, for a minute there I thought Galway might be without roadworks in the near future.

The ring road is badly needed the new junction at the end of the N17 is just pointless the way it's set up now. Two lanes going into one on the other side of the junction is just so pointless.

antoobrien

Lapin wrote: »

That would mean a bridge over the Corrib.

I thought some of the legal issues surrounded the construction of the bridge.

yup, hearing expected in September, decision sometime before christmas.

But even if it gets go ahead then it will be 2014/2015 before construction starts as the project will have to be tendered etc.

For more on GCOB and other roads projects see the threads in the roads forum.

yer man!

Lapin wrote: »

That would mean a bridge over the Corrib.

I thought some of the legal issues surrounded the construction of the bridge.

No it was the road after the bridge to link up to the spiddal road. The road has planning approval as far as the N59 which would seriously help things around the city. I think the legal issue about the bridge you're referring to was to do with the limestone on the river bed and and banks, there was some fuss kicked up about it being rare or something, however I don't think was deemed to be the case (I only heard this now, I don't know if it's true or not). This bypass could save Glenlo abbey too.

antoobrien

yer man! wrote: »

No it was the road after the bridge to link up to the spiddal road.

That bit (N59 -> R336) has been rejected by ABP.

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].

yer man! wrote: »

The road has planning approval as far as the N59 which would seriously help things around the city. I think the legal issue about the bridge you're referring to was to do with the limestone on the river bed and and banks, there was some fuss kicked up about it being rare or something, however I don't think was deemed to be the case (I only heard this now, I don't know if it's true or not). This bypass could save Glenlo abbey too.

The legal objection is on the Eastern portion (N59 -> M6) regarding the Limestone Pavement under the river and the fact that the Corrib (Lake & river) is a cSAC. The case details are visiable on the ECJ website: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-258/11&td=ALL

Interpretation of Article 6(3) and (4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) – Assessment of the implications of a plan or project for a protected site – Criteria to be applied to an assessment of the likelihood of such a plan or project having an adverse effect on the integrity of the site concerned – Consequences of the application of the precautionary principle – Building of a road the path of which crosses a zone proposed as a special area of conservation

tldr
ABP though that the impact was minimal, some environmentalists didn't so we ended up in europe.

Edit:

There is a thread on infra discussing this project: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055413202

The high court challenges are discussed on page 9, cant find where the supreme court challenges are discussed.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

ABP though that the impact was minimal, some environmentalists didn't so we ended up in europe.

Point of information: incorrect, unclear or incomplete statement. There were objections to the GCOB raised in the Irish courts on environmental grounds, but the case was referred to the ECJ by the Irish Supreme Court, for rulings on EU law. This has been discussed in the Roads forum, which you have linked to.

On the subject of these roads and the ensuing employment opportunities, there was an economist on the radio today (IIRC -- Jim Power perhaps?) expressing scepticism about the Gort to Tuam motorway in particular.

Sponge Bob

The Motorway is part of the Derry to Cork route and connects the third and fourth largest cities on this island via the fourth and fifth.

Shame Jim reckons the world ends in Lucan but that is how a lot of those rentaquote economists who work for our banks operate.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Point of information: incorrect, unclear or incomplete statement. There were objections to the GCOB raised in the Irish courts on environmental grounds, but the case was referred to the ECJ by the Irish Supreme Court, for rulings on EU law. This has been discussed in the Roads forum, which you have linked to.

On a point of information - no environmental objection (including the unlamented minister) no ECJ case, ergo not incorrect, unclear or incomplete.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

On the subject of these roads and the ensuing employment opportunities, there was an economist on the radio today (IIRC -- Jim Power perhaps?) expressing scepticism about the Gort to Tuam motorway in particular.

Of course he would, it's not in Dublin or providing connectivity to Dublin. One wonders was it looked at in isolation, instead of as a part of a wider transport system - ARC.

bonzodog2

The merits of the roads themselves are a matter for a different thread perhaps, but the Ballinasloe-Galway M6 construction, for a similar length of road to Gort-Tuam, was a consortium of 2 Spanish companies and 1 Irish.

[edit]http://www.transport.ie/viewitem.asp?id=8987&lang=ENG&loc=2126

I remember there were lots of Portugese workers arounf Athenry when they were finishing this end of it.

Forcing public construction projects to compete by tender is great in principle, but if a large percentage of profits and wages end up going out of the country, is that really in our best interests ?

boardzz

What is the road that is currently being constructed just outside Tuam on the Miltown side? M17?

shortys94

They're just straightening the route of the n17, nothing to do with m17

Mars Bar

boardzz wrote: »

What is the road that is currently being constructed just outside Tuam on the Miltown side? M17?

Is that not where the 4 girls were killed? I think they are straightening out the road there as it's a black spot for accidents.

lotusm

Mars Bar wrote: »

boardzz wrote: »

What is the road that is currently being constructed just outside Tuam on the Miltown side? M17?

Is that not where the 4 girls were killed? I think they are straightening out the road there as it's a black spot for accidents.

No. This section is just north of tuam. The section where the accident was is between miltown and ballindine which has very bad bends. They (NRA). Must be leaving it until they the m17 further up. So hopefully the road will be safe till then but I doubt it.

Iwannahurl

bonzodog2 wrote: »

The merits of the roads themselves are a matter for a different thread perhaps, but the Ballinasloe-Galway M6 construction, for a similar length of road to Gort-Tuam, was a consortium of 2 Spanish companies and 1 Irish.

[edit]http://www.transport.ie/viewitem.asp?id=8987&lang=ENG&loc=2126

I remember there were lots of Portugese workers arounf Athenry when they were finishing this end of it.

Forcing public construction projects to compete by tender is great in principle, but if a large percentage of profits and wages end up going out of the country, is that really in our best interests ?

Fair point. Such projects have to be open to tender, and it has been pretty much standard practice for successful bidders to immediately sub-contract the work anyway. So I wonder how Brendan Howlin hopes to guarantee that the predicted 13000 jobs created will boost employment opportunities in Ireland? (Other than for rent-a-quote economists and Supreme Court judges, that is? )

beeintheknow

'Dey took arrr jobbbssss'

Get over yourselves.

This is fantastic news for the West of Ireland, whatever way you want to frame it.

cferrie

I can't understand why we need to spend so much to build 21.4km of new road when much of the problems could be solved by just linking up the existing road network.

The traffic problems in Galway are caused by bottlenecks at the river crossings which in turn are a function of the poor planning of the city over the years which has seen most of the industry being developed on one side of the city and most of the housing on the other side.

A new bridge link north of Jordan's Island would connect the N6 at the Menlo Roundabout (or whatever it's official name is) with the Newcastle Road at Daingean. This could be done with just 2km of road (incl upgrade of road at Tirellan) and would relieve the bottleneck at the Quincentennial bridge.

This bridge would also be in a location where it would link the two sides of the city. The outer bypass is would not do this - it would just make it a bit easier for people travelling from Dublin to Connemara.

See the red line on the map below for comparison with the length of the proposed outer bypass

ScumLord

bonzodog2 wrote: »

The merits of the roads themselves are a matter for a different thread perhaps, but the Ballinasloe-Galway M6 construction, for a similar length of road to Gort-Tuam, was a consortium of 2 Spanish companies and 1 Irish.

there was a mix of Irish and Spanish on that job. Ireland still has some of the best machine drivers, they even get sent to jobs in Poland.

Looking at the roads in Spain you'd think it's a great idea to have them do our jobs but they just weren't prepared for Irish ground on the M6 at least. They wasted millions because of it.

antoobrien

I think Biko might take umbridge to discussing this here (in light of the ban we had for a couple of months), so I suggest taking it to the GCOB project page on the roads forum. The last thing we want is another thread locked.

But to answer your question:

cferrie wrote: »

I can't understand why we need to spend so much to build 21.4km of new road when much of the problems could be solved by just linking up the existing road network.

I can kill that suggestion in one word - bog. The land behind tirellan is very wet in spots and a lot of the land in Dangan isn't great either. Also IIRC you'd be going straight through the sports facilities that NUIG has in the area.

It also doesn't take into account the large amount of traffic coming from the West of the county - which the Western portion was supposed to help to deal with. Your suggestion still routes all that traffic through the residnetail and retail areas along the SQR to get to the new bridge.

That route was taken to avoid as much of the bogland as possible both east & west of the river.

Sponge Bob

cferrie wrote: »

A new bridge link north of Jordan's Island would connect the N6 at the Menlo Roundabout (or whatever it's official name is) with the Newcastle Road at Daingean. This could be done with just 2km of road (incl upgrade of road at Tirellan) and would relieve the bottleneck at the Quincentennial bridge.

You have a good point but you should have made it perhaps 20 years ago and reserved the corridor then.

Doing so now will only attract the same shower of eco loonies to object on whatever spurious issue they care to mention and will take 10 years to get through and cost 10's and 10's of Millions extra (not least in free legal aid for the eco loonies) and before any road is ever built.

One could try to reserve it as an 'outer inner' or 'inner outer' route at some stage to keep the eco loonies distracted perhaps.

But you are right...if too late to be right.

This bridge would also be in a location where it would link the two sides of the city. The outer bypass is would not do this - it would just make it a bit easier for people travelling from Dublin to Connemara.

And from Dublin back to Connemara don't forget. The bypass is very much for those of us who do not want to enter the congested rathole that is (and will continue to be) Galway City just because we fancy leaving Connemara on business for the day. It frees Connnemara from the tyranny of Galway traffic and that is a good thing!

Mrs OBumble

Sponge Bob wrote: »

It frees Connnemara from the tyranny of Galway traffic and that is a good thing!

But the Connemaruvians won't be able to drive their tractors on the motorway, surely?



(ducking for cover now )

Sponge Bob

JustMary wrote: »

But the Connemaruvians won't be able to drive their tractors on the motorway, surely?

(ducking for cover now )

You can come back out Mary, tis a Dual Carriageway.

cferrie

antoobrien wrote: »

I think Biko might take umbridge to discussing this here (in light of the ban we had for a couple of months), so I suggest taking it to the GCOB project page on the roads forum. The last thing we want is another thread locked.

At the risk of upsetting the moderators I think this issue is a bigger one for Galway city and county and not just limited to a discussion about roads.

antoobrien wrote: »

I can kill that suggestion in one word - bog. The land behind tirellan is very wet in spots and a lot of the land in Dangan isn't great either. Also IIRC you'd be going straight through the sports facilities that NUIG has in the area.

It also doesn't take into account the large amount of traffic coming from the West of the county - which the Western portion was supposed to help to deal with. Your suggestion still routes all that traffic through the residnetail and retail areas along the SQR to get to the new bridge.

That route was taken to avoid as much of the bogland as possible both east & west of the river.

The ground conditions are undoubtedly an issue but is also an issue for the outer bypass on the eastern approach to the river so I don't see that as being a real issue. The land where the bypass crossess the Menlo Road is marshland and prone to flooding. In any case 2km of road through bog will still be cheaper than 21.4km of road on solid ground.

This location would cater also for traffic coming from Moycullen/Oughterard direction which could bypass the city before reaching the Quincentennial bridge.

We are fortunate that there is still a corridor of land available here to accommodate the road. The NUIG grounds that would be affected are not built on and it wouldn't take much to relocate a couple of pitches. The road between Castlelawn Heights and Tirellan has plenty of space either side for widening. The extent of CPOs would be considerably lower and much less contentious than the current proposal.

The current plan for the outer bypass is based on a transport study that was carried out ten years ago, before the heights of the boom or the depths of the bust. Surely it is time to question the thinking behind the proposal and consider a more current, realistic and holistic approach to transport planning in Galway.

ScumLord

JustMary wrote: »

But the Connemaruvians won't be able to drive their tractors on the motorway, surely?



(ducking for cover now )

No they won't but most tractor journeys are short and they can use the old road.

Sponge Bob

cferrie wrote: »

In any case 2km of road through bog will still be cheaper than 21.4km of road on solid ground.

12km not 21.4km read the announcement.

The current plan for the outer bypass is based on a transport study that was carried out ten years ago, before the heights of the boom or the depths of the bust. Surely it is time to question the thinking behind the proposal and consider a more current, realistic and holistic approach to transport planning in Galway.

Not worth the hassle of a redesign. Half the industry in Galway would leg it if they thought we were going back to the drawing board and leaving ourselves at the mercy of the eco loonies and the interminable planning process in this country.

While your suggestion was absolutely correct 20 years ago...and would suffice for now (had you made it and had it been followed during that time)...it is not future proof in that it would absolutely eliminate the possibility of a bypass...ever.

It is worth kicking out there to give the eco loonies something new to object to while we get on with what is left of the original bypass though.

The cost of going straight back to the drawing board would be far too high in my opinion and it would be extremely costly in the medium term in terms of inward investment and jobs in Galway were we to do so. Lethally so in my opinion.

People want something done yesteday. There is only one plan on the table and that has been in the works since 1998 from what I remember.

antoobrien

cferrie wrote: »

In any case 2km of road through bog will still be cheaper than 21.4km of road on solid ground.

The N7 built a couple of sections through bog land, it caused several months of delays and still isn't right

cferrie wrote: »

This location would cater also for traffic coming from Moycullen/Oughterard direction which could bypass the city before reaching the Quincentennial bridge.

Yeah but that's only half the battle, plus, you still have to negotiate the residential/retail/industrail routes points east to get there.

cferrie wrote: »

We are fortunate that there is still a corridor of land available here to accommodate the road. The NUIG grounds that would be affected are not built on and it wouldn't take much to relocate a couple of pitches. The road between Castlelawn Heights and Tirellan has plenty of space either side for widening.

Oh dear - you want to build access to the bridge on a road that the council are closing off so as to keep priority traffic with Liosban and Headford Rd. That makes that particular land bank useless from a development (of any kind) point of view.

cferrie wrote: »

The extent of CPOs would be considerably lower and much less contentious than the current proposal.

Since the entire Corrib Lake & River complex is a cSAC, moving the bidge a bit south does nothing to remove the current legal/environmental objections.

I don't think the CPOs will be any less contentions. It's hard to tell from the quality of the map but it also looks like you're going through a couple of houses at the junction of the Castlelawn and Coolough Rd and bringing the road through at least one building in the IDA estate in Dangan.

cferrie wrote: »

The current plan for the outer bypass is based on a transport study that was carried out ten years ago, before the heights of the boom or the depths of the bust. Surely it is time to question the thinking behind the proposal and consider a more current, realistic and holistic approach to transport planning in Galway.

Actually it's closer to 15 years, it got a mention as being under discussion in the Road Needs Study of 1998, which noted that the existing N6 corridor was already running at/near capacity. The boom made it very clear that we need something that does not run through existing residential, industrial & retail areas.

I agree though that we need a more complete approach to transport, I just fail to see how it can be done without moving cross town traffic from this area. If there's congestion in this area, the whole city grinds to a halt, and unfortunately your plan fails to address this.

E.g. I'd love to see a BART style light rail system paralleling the planned route.

cferrie

Sponge Bob wrote: »

12km not 21.4km read the announcement.



Not worth the hassle of a redesign. Half the industry in Galway would leg it if they thought we were going back to the drawing board and leaving ourselves at the mercy of the eco loonies and the interminable planning process in this country.

While your suggestion was absolutely correct 20 years ago...and would suffice for now (had you made it and had it been followed during that time)...it is not future proof in that it would absolutely eliminate the possibility of a bypass...ever.

It is worth kicking out there to give the eco loonies something new to object to while we get on with what is left of the original bypass though.

The cost of going straight back to the drawing board would be far too high in my opinion and it would be extremely costly in the medium term in terms of inward investment and jobs in Galway were we to do so. Lethally so in my opinion.

People want something done yesteday. There is only one plan on the table and that has been in the works since 1998 from what I remember.

21.4km is what the Galway Outer Bypass website says - the Minister doesn't mention the length in his announcement yesterday. In any case 12km is still a lot more than 2km and it's not just the length of the road that is at issue. I just don't believe that the outer bypass is the best solution for Galway's transport & traffic problems. A road that links both sides of the city while relieving the congestion at the current river crossings is more beneficial to the city (and by extension the county) than a bypass which only deals with part of the problem.

If we follow your logic on the "hassle of redesign" we would not have abandoned Metro North, the DART Underground nor would we be considering alternative locations for the National Children's Hospital.

The very fact that this project has been in the works since 1998 (although the justification for it only came four years later!) is exactly the reason why it needs to be reassessed. The world is a very different place to what it was fourteen years ago and the assumptions made then about the development of the city are no longer valid. What I am proposing is a reappraisal of the transport and traffic planning in the city to find a solution that would be more appropriate and I believe that if a comprehensive transport initiative is pursued, the outer bypass as it is currently proposed would not be necessary.

This proposal would also be capable of delivery in a much shorter time frame and would have a more immediate impact so I don't see why this would deter inward investment in the city.

I also think it wouldn't be hard to convince your "eco loonies" that a project of this scale would be preferable to the current outer bypass proposal.

As you say, there is only one plan on the table, and even when there were alternatives proposed they were all just slight variations of the same idea. Is it too much to ask for a bit of lateral thinking from the local authority?

antoobrien

JustMary wrote: »

But the Connemaruvians won't be able to drive their tractors on the motorway, surely?



(ducking for cover now )

Nah, we'll just leave the Connemaruvians at home, sure they've no use for roads.

<legger>;)

cferrie

antoobrien wrote: »

The N7 built a couple of sections through bog land, it caused several months of delays and still isn't right.

the existing proposal goes through more bogland than my proposal

antoobrien wrote: »

Yeah but that's only half the battle, plus, you still have to negotiate the residential/retail/industrail routes points east to get there.

But the bulk of the traffic problems stem from the existing river crossing constraints not the areas that they pass through

antoobrien wrote: »

Oh dear - you want to build access to the bridge on a road that the council are closing off so as to keep priority traffic with Liosban and Headford Rd. That makes that particular land bank useless from a development (of any kind) point of view.

Obviously any current proposals for this area would need to be reviewed in light of a comprehensive traffic proposal. I'm not sure what land bank your referring to here.

antoobrien wrote: »

Since the entire Corrib Lake & River complex is a cSAC, moving the bidge a bit south does nothing to remove the current legal/environmental objections.

The current legal issues have nothing to do with the river - they are concerned with the land to the west of the Newcastle road. Any issues arising here will have already been dealt with to some degree in the current EIS.

antoobrien wrote: »

I don't think the CPOs will be any less contentions. It's hard to tell from the quality of the map but it also looks like you're going through a couple of houses at the junction of the Castlelawn and Coolough Rd and bringing the road through at least one building in the IDA estate in Dangan.

There are many more landowners affected by the current proposal than by this short stretch of road. There is plenty of unbuilt land on both sides of the river to design a route which doesn't require building demolition.

antoobrien wrote: »

Actually it's closer to 15 years, it got a mention as being under discussion in the Road Needs Study of 1998, which noted that the existing N6 corridor was already running at/near capacity. The boom made it very clear that we need something that does not run through existing residential, industrial & retail areas.

The length of time only strengthens the argument for a reappraisal - see my earlier comments.

antoobrien wrote: »

I agree though that we need a more complete approach to transport, I just fail to see how it can be done without moving cross town traffic from this area. If there's congestion in this area, the whole city grinds to a halt, and unfortunately your plan fails to address this.

On the contrary, my proposal bypasses this area with the exception of the junction at the Menlo Roundabout which would have to be redesigned to give priority to east-west traffic.

antoobrien wrote: »

E.g. I'd love to see a BART style light rail system paralleling the planned route.

But what would this rail line serve on the existing route - it goes through sparsely populated agricultural land for the most part. Unless of course you expect that the land either side of the new bypass would be open for development. This has never been explicitly stated but I suspect, regrettably, that this may be one of the reasons that the bypass is so vocally supported by certain public representatives (past & present) who may have an interest in the land and its development.

?Cee?view

cferrie wrote: »

A new bridge link north of Jordan's Island would connect the N6 at the Menlo Roundabout (or whatever it's official name is) with the Newcastle Road at Daingean. This could be done with just 2km of road (incl upgrade of road at Tirellan) and would relieve the bottleneck at the Quincentennial bridge.

This bridge would also be in a location where it would link the two sides of the city. The outer bypass is would not do this - it would just make it a bit easier for people travelling from Dublin to Connemara.

Any reason other than those you've stated why you might want the road to avoid Menlo?

cferrie

churchview wrote: »

Any reason other than those you've stated why you might want the road to avoid Menlo?

Hah! You've done your research! :-)

Yes, I used to live in Menlo and have family still living there. The outer bypass doesn't affect them in any substantial way though. I do have objections to an 8m high dual carriageway running through the grounds of Menlo Castle (as I have written about before in a letter to the Galway Advertiser) but I think anyone who appreciates our built heritage would have the same view.

My principle objection to the outer bypass is that it is a lot of money to spend on a project that won't actually solve the problem it purports to solve.

?Cee?view

cferrie wrote: »

Hah! You've done your research! :-)

Yes, I used to live in Menlo and have family still living there. The outer bypass doesn't affect them in any substantial way though. I do have objections to an 8m high dual carriageway running through the grounds of Menlo Castle (as I have written about before in a letter to the Galway Advertiser) but I think anyone who appreciates our built heritage would have the same view.

My principle objection to the outer bypass is that it is a lot of money to spend on a project that won't actually solve the problem it purports to solve.

Fair enough. My suspicions were correct

I can't see how your suggestion would work at this stage. It seems that your proposal would have worked years ago (as stated by others), but unfortunately it would now appear that it might be too late. The bypass really is the only show in town at this stage, and it's needed before Galway chokes completely.

As to Menlo Castle. That's a litany of disgraces and missed opportunities. It might have been best if it had just burned completely to rubble when the fire happened for all the respect it's been shown since!

cferrie

churchview wrote: »

The bypass really is the only show in town at this stage, and it's needed before Galway chokes completely.

Problem is, it's not going to work. It will help people who want to bypass the city completely but it will not help the majority of people who are simply trying to navigate around the city. I'm not saying my proposal is a panacea but it could be one element of a more holistic approach to transport which moves away from a solution based only on building more (and bigger) roads.

antoobrien

cferrie wrote: »

Obviously any current proposals for this area would need to be reviewed in light of a comprehensive traffic proposal. I'm not sure what land bank your referring to here.

The bit your red line on the map passes through

cferrie wrote: »

The current legal issues have nothing to do with the river - they are concerned with the land to the west of the Newcastle road.

That section was rejected by ABP and is not subject to the High Court and subsequent Supreme court and ECJ actions.

cferrie wrote: »

Any issues arising here will have already been dealt with to some degree in the current EIS.

The same legal issues will apply. don't take it from me, take a read of the high court ruling.

cferrie wrote: »

There are many more landowners affected by the current proposal than by this short stretch of road. There is plenty of unbuilt land on both sides of the river to design a route which doesn't require building demolition.

There are 4 houses that require demoltion for the proposed GCOB. For this proposal you would require 5 houses and a factory/office building.

cferrie wrote: »

The length of time only strengthens the argument for a reappraisal - see my earlier comments.

Yes and traffic volumes have double in that time, even with the impact of the recession. Saying that they need reappraisal is true - do they have enough capacity for the current levels, which would not have been envisaged in 2001 when route selection occurred.

cferrie wrote: »

On the contrary, my proposal bypasses this area with the exception of the junction at the Menlo Roundabout which would have to be redesigned to give priority to east-west traffic.

The words "with the exception of" means that they're still going into the area. Also you're forgetting that they're closing off Castlelawn Rd under the plans to remove the Kirwan Roundabout.

cferrie wrote: »

But what would this rail line serve on the existing route - it goes through sparsely populated agricultural land for the most part. Unless of course you expect that the land either side of the new bypass would be open for development. This has never been explicitly stated but I suspect, regrettably, that this may be one of the reasons that the bypass is so vocally supported by certain public representatives (past & present) who may have an interest in the land and its development.

I believe that no matter what happens we have to do something like this in the future as the lake will prohibit any roads/rail projects further north of the proposed bridge.

I think that we could, with the proper investments, make a BART style system (which serves the towns in the SF bay area) work as things currently stand. But I still believe that we'd need some form of bypass that takes traffic coming from Connemara (North & West) away from the residential & business areas of the city unless they have a delivery/pickup.

If we're serious about public transport we'll have to have some sort of rail system or a series of Park and rides schemes in Galway to distribute commuter across the city, away from the city centre.

We can use the bypass route to remove cross town traffic (HGVs, cars busses) from the central areas, while putting Park and Ride facilities in place near the junctions to bring people to various other points. Having the bypass allows this traffic to also stay of out areas it doesn't need to be in in order to get people to factories etc.

Sponge Bob

cferrie wrote: »

The current legal issues have nothing to do with the river - they are concerned with the land to the west of the Newcastle road. Any issues arising here will have already been dealt with to some degree in the current EIS.

No to the first part, the legal issues are east of Menlo, and a very qualified yes to the second part re the EIS.

ScumLord

cferrie wrote: »

Problem is, it's not going to work. It will help people who want to bypass the city completely but it will not help the majority of people who are simply trying to navigate around the city.

Getting the people who just want to bypass Galway or get from one side to the other out of the city will help those trying to navigate inside the city. There are plenty of cars that don't want to go anywhere near the city but have no choice.

Iwannahurl

beeintheknow wrote: »

'Dey took arrr jobbbssss'

Get over yourselves.

This is fantastic news for the West of Ireland, whatever way you want to frame it.

Missing the point entirely.

€2.25bn stimulus to create 13,000 jobs, says Howlin

THE €2.25 billion infrastructure stimulus package announced by the Government yesterday will generate about 13,000 jobs, according to Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform Brendan Howlin.

He said the positions created would be “local” jobs “in as far as it is legally possible”. The jobs will mostly be in construction.

antoobrien

cferrie wrote: »

Problem is, it's not going to work. It will help people who want to bypass the city completely but it will not help the majority of people who are simply trying to navigate around the city.

I would tend to disagree with that sentiment. The 2006 census (2011 figures not available yet) had a study of the travel patterns within the city. It found that 30% of the journeys originating from within the city were 5km or greater (with a further 17% not stating a distance).

That means that a lot of the traffic is trying to either get to the other side of town, or out of town entirely. So putting in place something that helps get this traffic out and away from the city ASAP, will help the traffic that's trying to get about town.

This survey did not deal with the traffic originating from the county area trying to get across town. When this traffic is also taken out of the mix, the internal traffic situation improves again.

cferrie wrote: »

I'm not saying my proposal is a panacea but it could be one element of a more holistic approach to transport which moves away from a solution based only on building more (and bigger) roads.

The problem I have with your suggestion, as well intentioned as it is (despite the NIMBYism), is that it's just another piecemeal addition to the infrastructure that won't solve anything and is ignoring the traffic patterns and plans that are in place for the junctions in question.

beeintheknow

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Missing the point entirely.

€2.25bn stimulus to create 13,000 jobs, says Howlin

THE €2.25 billion infrastructure stimulus package announced by the Government yesterday will generate about 13,000 jobs, according to Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform Brendan Howlin.

He said the positions created would be “local” jobs “in as far as it is legally possible”. The jobs will mostly be in construction.

How am I exactly?

"In as far as it is legally possible" means that the work will go to skilled EU citizens. Free movement of labour is a wonderful thing and that is how it should be.

The road will bring major economic benefits beyond the construction phase, and that is great news however you want to frame it.

zarquon

beeintheknow wrote: »

How am I exactly?

"In as far as it is legally possible" means that the work will go to skilled EU citizens. Free movement of labour is a wonderful thing and that is how it should be.

The road will bring major economic benefits beyond the construction phase, and that is great news however you want to frame it.

Don't bother arguing the point. He is a serial complainer against infrastructural progress that doesn't include the provisioning or prioritisation of cycling facilities. Maybe the government should redesign to include bike lanes on the new motorway to garner his support:rolleyes:

cferrie

The fundamental issue is this:

- Galway has a serious traffic problem

- The outer bypass is being touted as the solution to that problem

- The bypass was designed based on 10 year old data and outdated thinking and was never considered in the light of current traffic levels in the city

- The bypass has become a trophy project for local politicians who are telling us it will solve the traffic problem, attract inward investment and, through the stimulus package, regenerate the local economy.

- Not surprisingly then, the people of Galway are mostly supportive of the project (who doesn't want to solve the traffic problem and improve the economy?) primarily because there is no other solution being put forward

- There has been no critical review of the justification for the bypass which reflects the huge changes that have taken place in the city and in car usage since it was first mooted.

I simply don't believe that we should spend €300m on a project without being certain that it is going to do the job it purports to do. The current Development Plan contains many positive proposals for public transport use and the Galway Transportation Unit has been set up to implement these proposals. Unfortunately their remit is limited by adherence to the 2002 Transportation & Planning Study.

Galway city needs a new Transportation & Planning Study which would take a comprehensive, holistic and integrated approach to how we get around the city and which would carry out a cost-benefit analysis on major proposals like the bypass.

If this study can demonstrate convincingly that the bypass provides a viable solution to the current problems then so be it. As it stands, I am just not convinced.

antoobrien

cferrie wrote: »

The fundamental issue is this:

- Galway has a serious traffic problem

- The outer bypass is being touted as the solution to that problem

- The bypass was designed based on 10 year old data and outdated thinking and was never considered in the light of current traffic levels in the city

- The bypass has become a trophy project for local politicians who are telling us it will solve the traffic problem, attract inward investment and, through the stimulus package, regenerate the local economy.

- Not surprisingly then, the people of Galway are mostly supportive of the project (who doesn't want to solve the traffic problem and improve the economy?) primarily because there is no other solution being put forward

- There has been no critical review of the justification for the bypass which reflects the huge changes that have taken place in the city and in car usage since it was first mooted.

I simply don't believe that we should spend €300m on a project without being certain that it is going to do the job it purports to do. The current Development Plan contains many positive proposals for public transport use and the Galway Transportation Unit has been set up to implement these proposals. Unfortunately their remit is limited by adherence to the 2002 Transportation & Planning Study.

Galway city needs a new Transportation & Planning Study which would take a comprehensive, holistic and integrated approach to how we get around the city and which would carry out a cost-benefit analysis on major proposals like the bypass.

If this study can demonstrate convincingly that the bypass provides a viable solution to the current problems then so be it. As it stands, I am just not convinced.

I take it then that you didn't read the smarter travel plan produced by the city council in an attempt at a public transport moneygrab in 2010. Underpinning all those lovely bus lanes and cycle facilities was an assumption that GCOB & Gluas would be there.

It's not that the plans aren't there, it that the public don't know where they are.

cferrie

antoobrien wrote: »

I take it then that you didn't read the smarter travel plan produced by the city council in an attempt at a public transport moneygrab in 2010. Underpinning all those lovely bus lanes and cycle facilities was an assumption that GCOB & Gluas would be there.

It's not that the plans aren't there, it that the public don't know where they are.

I'm aware of the Smarter Travel Plan, and the Galway City Bus study 2002; and the Galway Strategic Bus Study 2007 - none of which can be described as a comprehensive approach to transportation and planning. In fact the 2002 plan to which I referred earlier defers to a previous study carried out in 1999 and doesn't question the validity of the assumptions which led to the outer bypass proposal.

The plans are indeed there, but they are outdated and piecemeal and are not a good basis on which to make a decision to spend €300m of precious resources.

Sponge Bob

cferrie wrote: »

The plans are indeed there, but they are outdated and piecemeal and are not a good basis on which to make a decision to spend €300m of precious resources.

It won't cost €300m , more like €150m,. Some of that is already spent, as you know, on planning.

The bridge will be the most complex element but the Boyne Bridge on the M1 cost €35m which would be indicative.

The construction of the Gort-Ennis M18 came in around €5m a km which indicates that the mainline of 12km will cost around €60m to construct. Supporting data > http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/4080

So thats €100m or so for construction of 12km including the bridge.

Land acquisition and a few junctions and arty bits will take the whole lot to around €150m at most.

Even if they do add another 10km to the west that lot will cost no more than €50m to construct and much of the land required is bog (once the cotton is dodged)

This figure of €300m is a complete fantasy from God Knows Where and I would appreciate some hard costings if you intend to quote it again please.

cferrie

Sponge Bob wrote: »

It won't cost €300m , more like €150m,. Some of that is already spent, as you know, on planning.

...

This figure of €300m is a complete fantasy from God Knows Where and I would appreciate some hard costings if you intend to quote it again please.

The €300m figure comes from a report by Enda Cunningham in the Galway City Tribune when the Taoiseach announced his commitment to the project back in May http://www.galwaynews.ie/25995-kenny-pledges-bypass-funding-if-go-ahead-given

If you have other figures please share them. If the real figure is €150m it doesn't change my argument - it's still a lot of money in today's context and needs to be fully justified. Of course it's not just about the money - there are acknowledged environmental costs to going ahead with the project which are being justified on the basis of the supposed necessity of the infrastructure.

antoobrien

cferrie wrote: »

The €300m figure comes from a report by Enda Cunningham in the Galway City Tribune when the Taoiseach announced his commitment to the project back in May http://www.galwaynews.ie/25995-kenny-pledges-bypass-funding-if-go-ahead-given


If you have other figures please share them. If the real figure is €150m it doesn't change my argument - it's still a lot of money in today's context and needs to be fully justified.

The cost estimates are based on 2008 prices - land, labour, equipment, materials etc. The acknowledged boom time cost per km of DC was €5m making the total cost of the proposed 36km of road (Bearna to Glennascaul) in the region of €150m (do a search on the roads forum, you'll find the figures).

We'd expect a fair reduction on those prices (up to 25%) and a 50% (or more) drop in land prices.

cferrie wrote: »

Of course it's not just about the money - there are acknowledged environmental costs to going ahead with the project which are being justified on the basis of the supposed necessity of the infrastructure.

Would you care to shed some light on those, especially any that are not covered by the EIS?

Also what about the environmental cost of keeping cars bottled up in Galway city?

Sponge Bob

I did share the figures. Maybe the total figure is the PPP cost over 30 or 40 years which is not the same as the construction figures I posted.

Against that the likes of Boston Scientific can invest as much as €90m in a single project in Galway and they have marked the governments card on the need for a bypass.

alleyjoe

really a good news

cferrie

Sponge Bob wrote: »

I did share the figures. Maybe the total figure is the PPP cost over 30 or 40 years which is not the same as the construction figures I posted.

Against that the likes of Boston Scientific can invest as much as €90m in a single project in Galway and they have marked the governments card on the need for a bypass.

I don't want to get bogged down on the issue of cost. Any figures that are quoted, either from the press or through comparison with other projects, are purely conjectural pending the tender process for the project.

The real issue is whether the project is going to deliver what it promises. The GM of Medtronic, quoted in that article you linked to, identified traffic gridlock as the problem and have assumed, like everyone else, that the outer bypass is the solution to that problem.

I'm simply questioning the basis of that assumption and I believe there are other measures which could and should be carried out which will have a much greater impact on the traffic problems for a much lower capital outlay.

Sponge Bob

cferrie wrote: »

I'm simply questioning the basis of that assumption and I believe there are other measures which could and should be carried out which will have a much greater impact on the traffic problems for a much lower capital outlay.

Your solution, which I have argued is outdated, pumps the existing N59 traffic into Daingean on a 2 lane road and splits it into a cross river and a town stream at that point.

You are already talking 15000 vehicles a day on the Galway side of Moycullen. ( Source 2013 Low Growth) when a 2 lane road becomes severely congested at under 10,000 vehicles.

These traffic movements by and large continue to/from Galway from Moycullen and taking them away from Bushypark and Daingean makes complete sense. Removing around 2 out of 3 existing traffic movements in Bushypark and Daingean will go down rather well in those areas.

I would personally estimate that the outer bridge will have an AADT of around 10,000 movements ( including south connemara traffic not enumerated in that link above) upon opening which justifies a dualled solution on day one.

The other movements will continue through Bushypark and Daingean as now...on that 2 lane road.