Not really on-topic stuff from "N6 - Galway City Outer Bypass" thread

antoobrien

Frank Black wrote: »

No no no Anto,
This isn't the way a debate works.
i took each of your points and showed where you were wrong.

No you didn't show anything of the sort.

You have indicated than an EIS update/new document is not needed, if this is, as you claim a new project, then according to the NRAs guidelines an EIA is required:

(4) Any prescribed type of proposed road development consisting of the construction of a proposed public road or the improvement of an existing public road, namely:

The construction of a new road of four or more lanes, or the realignment or widening of an existing road so as to provide four or more lanes, where such new, realigned or widened road would be eight kilometres or more in length in a rural area, or 500 metres or more in length in an urban area;

The construction of a new bridge or tunnel which would be 100 metres or more in length.

Emphasis added, see table 1.

Those guidelines do not mention the habitats directive, so it appears that your position that this is a "new scheme" but does not need an EIS/EIA is contradictory.


The final word on this goes to Mr Frank Gilmore, Director of Service, Roads, Transportation, Marine & General Services for Galway Co Co.

http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/65028/galway-county-council-to-take-the-lead-in-new-galway-city-outer-bypass-scheme

This week, Mr Gilmore stressed that the decision by the ECJ only related to the method used by ABP to approve the scheme, not the merits of the scheme itself.

So the route is not dead as you so eloquently put it.

Galway County Council is currently working with the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) to advance mapping in the areas of interest for the revised scheme and new consultants will be appointed by the end of this month.

The use of the word revised indicates that there is no new scheme, that this is an extension of the work already done, which could (hopefully will) lead to refinements in the route - which may or may not happen in the areas covered by the SACs & NHAs.

Frank Black

antoobrien wrote: »

No you didn't show anything of the sort.

You have indicated than an EIS update/new document is not needed, if this is, as you claim a new project, then according to the NRAs guidelines an EIA is required:



Emphasis added, see table 1.

Those guidelines do not mention the habitats directive, so it appears that your position that this is a "new scheme" but does not need an EIS/EIA is contradictory.


The final word on this goes to Mr Frank Gilmore, Director of Service, Roads, Transportation, Marine & General Services for Galway Co Co.

http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/65028/galway-county-council-to-take-the-lead-in-new-galway-city-outer-bypass-scheme



So the route is not dead as you so eloquently put it.




The use of the word revised indicates that there is no new scheme, that this is an extension of the work already done, which could (hopefully will) lead to refinements in the route - which may or may not happen in the areas covered by the SACs & NHAs.

Anto Anto,
I said each of my points - not just the ones it suits you to argue now.
We'll come back to this point (where you're so wrong it's comically funny) when you've either accepted or argued the points I've made against your original post.
Take you time now.
I can wait.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

The final word on this goes to Mr Frank Gilmore, Director of Service, Roads, Transportation, Marine & General Services for Galway Co Co.

This week, Mr Gilmore stressed that the decision by the ECJ only related to the method used by ABP to approve the scheme, not the merits of the scheme itself.

http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/65028/galway-county-council-to-take-the-lead-in-new-galway-city-outer-bypass-scheme

So the route is not dead as you so eloquently put it.

FWIW my interpretation of Mr Gilmore's reported comment is that it was a general one regarding the (alleged ) overall merits of the GCOB. The ECJ's decision concerned the legal questions referred to them regarding interpretation of EU directives.

It seems that what is now being claimed by Gilmore et al is that if the original application had been made under Article 6(4) instead of 6(3) then ABP would have approved it in accordance with EU law and all would now be hunky-dory. That little "glitch", as he calls it, cost a mere €14 million, btw. What a difference a digit makes.

Incidentally, the above Advertiser report also includes the following (emphasis by me):

[Mr Gilmore] added that a new application would be prepared for the scheme which would be funded by the National Roads Authority.

Frank Black

OK, so I'm a bit quiet this afternoon I'll give you a little headstart - but I do want you answering or accepting my points if you wish this 'debate/me wiping the floor with you exercise' to continue.

antoobrien wrote: »

You have indicated than an EIS update/new document is not needed, if this is, as you claim a new project, then according to the NRAs guidelines an EIA is required:.

Anto - a serious question.
Can you read?
I'm being serious.
Has staring at lines of code all day affected your ability to read English.
If you can, please go back and read the extract from the procurement document (and btw, I haven't 'indicated' anything, I've quoted the procurement document)

Here, I'll help
:.[/QUOTE]All services necessary or desirable for the purposeful management and delivery of the EIA/EAR component of the NRA PMG Phase 4.:.[/QUOTE]

Now, go back and read your post again.

Silly boy.

antoobrien wrote: »

The final word on this goes to Mr Frank Gilmore, Director of Service, Roads, Transportation, Marine & General Services for Galway Co Co..:.

This bit actually made my day.
I know Frank well.
Let's just say I wouldn't be quoting his public pronouncements to bolster my arguments
'Revised' will mean whatever Frank want's it to mean in the future you'll find.

antoobrien

Frank Black wrote: »

Anto - a serious question.
Can you read?
I'm being serious.
Has staring at lines of code all day affected your ability to read English.
If you can, please go back and read the extract from the procurement document (and btw, I haven't 'indicated' anything, I've quoted the procurement document)

Here, I'll help
:.

All services necessary or desirable for the purposeful management and delivery of the EIA/EAR component of the NRA PMG Phase 4.:.

In fact I can. I don't see the word new there, do you?

Frank Black wrote: »

This bit actually made my day.
I know Frank well.
Let's just say I wouldn't be quoting his public pronouncements to bolster my arguments
'Revised' will mean whatever Frank want's it to mean in the future you'll find.

Ah so the official stated position is not relevant because it does not suit you? Sounds like this belongs in AH or CT not infra/roads.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

FWIW my interpretation of Mr Gilmore's reported comment is that it was a general one regarding the (alleged ) overall merits of the GCOB. The ECJ's decision concerned the legal questions referred to them regarding interpretation of EU directives.

Yes, but he does state revised. Not new scheme.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Incidentally, the above Advertiser report also includes the following (emphasis by me):

Yes, but then we knew that a new application would have to be submitted if they wanted to go ahead with the IORPI. I'd ask how that makes it a new scheme, but I really don't care at this point.

Frank Black

antoobrien wrote: »

In fact I can. I don't see the word new there, do you?

I guess all the Consultants have been tendering for the wrong exercise so.
Imagine how embarrassed they'll be when they find out a humble software engineer spotted this error :rolleyes:

I think we've reached the end of any reasonable argument on this point. You're wrong, pure and simple. I know it hurts. I know its embarrassing to be exposed on a public forum as a guy who talks big, but knows little. But nobody's perfect. We all make mistakes. Why not show a little class even at this late stage and admit it?
The more you try to wriggle out of it the more you'll end up looking like a petulant child who won't admit a mistake, even when their error has been very patiently explained to them numerous times. - There's no shame in someone who's not familiar with the process making an error - but to continue to insist you're right in the face such clear evidence to the contrary? - Well, it's not really reflecting very well on you.


Anyway, what about all my other points Anto?
Still waiting.


If you listen really closely you'll hear the sound of goalposts being frantically moved again no doubt.

Frank Black

antoobrien wrote: »

I'd ask how that makes it a new scheme, but I really don't care at this point.

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Not new scheme.

Yes, but then we knew that a new application would have to be submitted if they wanted to go ahead with the IORPI. I'd ask how that makes it a new scheme, but I really don't care at this point.

OK, since Mr Gilmore also said "revised" let's ignore his use of the word "new" in the same context.

Does the word "scheme" have special significance here?

Iwannahurl

Frank Black wrote: »

The process will entirely depend on the route chosen. there won't be a need for IROPI if no Annex 1 habitats are affected by the proposed route - we will have to wait and see.

Always remember if the thought of a new route for Galway Bypass becomes too overwhelming and frightening for you - I'll be only a PM away.

I think I'll ask this one in-thread, if that's OK with you.

The implications of the bit in bold have only just struck me.

Personally I don't find the thought of a new route per se to be "too overwhelming and frightening" since I am sceptical of the alleged purposes and merits of a "bypass", and in any case I am not car-dependent as I mainly commute by bike, on foot or (occasionally) by bus.

If it's possible that a new route could be chosen, what might the implications be in terms of a construction date? Is 2019 realistic in that context?*

Would every element of a new scheme, such as an EIA, have to be done from scratch, or could the project be segmented in some way so that some of the preparatory work for the original project could be reused or recycled?

EDIT: Or maybe you've already answered that:

Frank Black wrote: »

Out of date and quite probably for a route which will not be anything like the new route of the proposed bypass

*Edit 2: Also answered already, I guess:

Frank Black wrote: »

Hard work and plenty of resources by the Consultants appointed, with a smattering of Client optimism regarding programme delivery - I suspect it will take a bit longer myself.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

OK, since Mr Gilmore also said "revised" let's ignore his use of the word "new" in the same context.

Does the word "scheme" have special significance here?

The scheme is the set of actions required to meet the intended goal of said scheme - in this case provide bypass of Galway. Everything else hangs from this.

So (for me) in order for the scheme to be "new" there'd have to be a new/different goal - which there isn't. The routes & endpoints have changed several times during the lifetime of the scheme, but that has not caused a new overall scheme.

Now as to what Mr Gilmore said, the use of the word new was in relation to the planning application - required to complete the goals of the scheme. We knew this would more than likely be required because it's very unlikely that a bridge can be built without impacting the SACs in the area, which are bigger than the areas indicated in the EIS. Also if they go forward with IORPI they will have to "replace" the habitat by designating other area(s) to replace the lost/damaged area(s).

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

The scheme is the set of actions required to meet the intended goal of said scheme - in this case provide bypass of Galway. Everything else hangs from this.

We may be getting, er, bogged down in semantics here.

But I assume the issue is of significance, so I'll press on.

Your use of the word "scheme" twice in the same sentence has me confused. For example, would it make sense to say "the plan is the set of actions required to meet the intended goal of said plan"? Would that not be circular and confusing?

Can you clarify?

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Your use of the word "scheme" twice in the same sentence has me confused. For example, would it make sense to say "the plan is the set of actions required to meet the intended goal of said plan"? Would that not be circular and confusing?

Put braces around "of said plan" if it helps.

Iwannahurl

Not a lot:

antoobrien wrote: »

The scheme is the set of actions required to meet the intended goal (of said scheme).

The scheme is the set of actions required to meet the intended goal of the set of actions?

Sorry, does not compute.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Not a lot:




The scheme is the set of actions required to meet the intended goal of the set of actions?

Sorry, does not compute.

I've no inclination to get into a nit picking match with you, take it or leave it.

Victor

Frank Black wrote: »

I guess all the Consultants have been tendering for the wrong exercise so.
Imagine how embarrassed they'll be when they find out a humble software engineer spotted this error :rolleyes:

I think we've reached the end of any reasonable argument on this point. You're wrong, pure and simple. I know it hurts. I know its embarrassing to be exposed on a public forum as a guy who talks big, but knows little. But nobody's perfect. We all make mistakes. Why not show a little class even at this late stage and admit it?
The more you try to wriggle out of it the more you'll end up looking like a petulant child who won't admit a mistake, even when their error has been very patiently explained to them numerous times. - There's no shame in someone who's not familiar with the process making an error - but to continue to insist you're right in the face such clear evidence to the contrary? - Well, it's not really reflecting very well on you.


Anyway, what about all my other points Anto?
Still waiting.


If you listen really closely you'll hear the sound of goalposts being frantically moved again no doubt.

On-topic, constructive posts only, please.

Moderator

Frank Black

antoobrien wrote: »

I've no inclination to get into a nit picking match with you, take it or leave it.

antoobrien wrote: »

Classic AH, not actually dealing with the response.

Come on Anto - what's sauce for the goose and all.

I'm enjoying seeing you tie yourself in linguistic knots.
Answer the question.

Can anyone else say "ZZZZzzzz"

Frank Black

Iwannahurl wrote: »

If it's possible that a new route could be chosen, what might the implications be in terms of a construction date? Is 2019 realistic in that context?*

Would every element of a new scheme, such as an EIA, have to be done from scratch, or could the project be segmented in some way so that some of the preparatory work for the original project could be reused or recycled?

EDIT: Or maybe you've already answered that:



*Edit 2: Also answered already, I guess:

Whether the route requires a Habitat6(4) process or 6(3) would have a huge implication on delivery date - probably a couple of years at least. I've already posted earlier in the thread my calculations on a 6(4) scenario, that I envisage 2021 as an optimistic opening date. If not a 6(4) then 2019 is achievable. Of course we won't know until the Annex 1 habitats are mapped and the extents of same agreed with NPWS. This process has already started and is well underway - it was being done as an advance contract to the appointment of the main consultants and will be continued by them once they are appointed.
Of course they could have saved all that time and money by just asking a certain software engineer.....

antoobrien wrote: »

you'd know that most of the Menlo/Coolough area on the approach to the Corrib is part of the Lough Corrib SAC and is riddled with Annex 1 habitats.

Thank you Anto - you obviously do habitat mapping in your spare time too
Ahem

I guess it's wait and see time - I suspect the new consultants will know by early next year whether a route which avoids Annex 1 is possible and viable.

In terms of salvageable work from the old EIS - like I said earlier, some of the GI - rocks don't move. But the vast majority of the original surveys which informed the EIS are a decade old at this stage and nobody wants to be standing in front of ABP using that data to defend the scheme. So I'm afraid most of the previous money spent is (much like the old scheme) dead and flushed down the toilet.

Iwannahurl

Deleted User wrote: »

Can anyone else say "ZZZZzzzz"

This is the "Not really on-topic stuff from 'N6 - Galway City Outer Bypass' thread" thread.

In which case I guess mere boredom is as constructive an input as any other, so you can snore away until 2019 (at the earliest).

Well played, well played

Iwannahurl

Thanks.

I can easily maintain this standard for another six years. At least.

The cycling keeps me fit, dontcha know.

antoobrien

Frank Black wrote: »

Thank you Anto - you obviously do habitat mapping in your spare time too

Ahem

http://webgis.npws.ie/npwsviewer/

Frank Black

antoobrien wrote: »

Ahem

http://webgis.npws.ie/npwsviewer/

Very good Anto - you're great at being able to log onto websites and mis-understand the information presented within.

For other interested readers - The NPWS map viewer shows the extents of protected areas within the Country - SAC's and NHA,s and such like.

It doesn't show (listen carefully now Anto, you may learn something) the location and extents of Annex 1 habitats within these protected zones. It will be these Annex 1's and the imapact of the proposed scheme on them, which will detemine whether a 6(4) or 6(3) process is required.

As posted above - this work on Aneex 1 mapping is currently underway,

antoobrien

Frank Black wrote: »

Very good Anto - you're great at being able to log onto websites and mis-understand the information presented within.

For other interested readers - The NPWS map viewer shows the extents of protected areas within the Country - SAC's and NHA,s and such like.

Areas that are now much larger than when the original EIS was compiled. So much larger that the current proposed approach goes through this extended area, where it previously skirted the area.

Frank Black wrote: »

It doesn't show (listen carefully now Anto, you may learn something) the location and extents of Annex 1 habitats within these protected zones. It will be these Annex 1's and the imapact of the proposed scheme on them, which will detemine whether a 6(4) or 6(3) process is required.

The extent of the Limestone is known to most people familiar with the area. For those of you that aren't there is a quarry about 800m from the river, extending another approx 800m east (one of the extensions to the NHA borders it). So to avoid a 6(4) process, at the very least, the support piers would need to be built outside the protected zone, as any construction will cause damage to limestone.

Unless they can redesign the crossing so that none of the protected limestone will be impacted, a 6(4) process will be required (alternative crossings will require significant demolition works and the approach route may go through a protected habitat to make the crossing possible).

Going by the current proposed route protected zone is abut 600m-700m wide, so the supporting piers would need to be outside this zone to avoid hitting limestone.

I've concentrated on the limestone as it only takes a single Annex 1 habitat to be affected to invoke 6(4). However there will also likely be an issue with bogs in the newly extended protected area, so I'm really not at all hopeful that a 6(4) process can be avoided.

Frank Black

Sorry Anto, I'm feeling sorry for you at this stage and hate to keep picking on you. I do feel however, for the sake of other interested readers, that I need keep correcting the errors in your posts, particularly when (despite no specific training or background experience) you try to portray yourself as some kind of expert in this field.

antoobrien wrote: »

The extent of the Limestone is known to most people familiar with the area. For those of you that aren't there is a quarry about 800m from the river, extending another approx 800m east (one of the extensions to the NHA borders it). So to avoid a 6(4) process, at the very least, the support piers would need to be built outside the protected zone, as any construction will cause damage to limestone. .

Limestone does not equal Annex 1.
Common mistake made by a lot of people.
Areas of limestone are potential Annex 1 habitats. It requires a detailed field survey and assessment to determine whether to classify certain areas of Limestone as Annex 1.

antoobrien wrote: »

Going by the current proposed route protected zone is abut 600m-700m wide, so the supporting piers would need to be outside this zone to avoid hitting limestone.
.

I presume you're referring to the old route?
You really need to accept that this route is dead.
Even if the new route ends up on the exact same line as the old - hitting limestone does not necessarily equate to hitting an Annex 1 habitat - see above.

antoobrien wrote: »

so I'm really not at all hopeful that a 6(4) process can be avoided.

Well, you seem to be toning down the certainty of your language somewhat Anto, which is to be welcomed. Baby steps, baby steps.

There's always hope. The key driver in the Route Selection process will be the avoidance of Annex 1 habitats. Whether this is possible or not will depend on the extent of those - which (and apologies for labouring this point) has still not been determined.

So, remain hopefull everyone.

antoobrien

Frank Black wrote: »

Limestone does not equal Annex 1.
Common mistake made by a lot of people.
Areas of limestone are potential Annex 1 habitats. It requires a detailed field survey and assessment to determine whether to classify certain areas of Limestone as Annex 1.

Frank Black wrote: »

- hitting limestone does not necessarily equate to hitting an Annex 1 habitat - see above.

That's a poor attempt to prove a point. Interesting. The Limestone at the proposed river crossing is Annex 1 (as acknowledged by pro & anti) but you are implying that the Limestone 100m -200m away isn't. That's a leap.

Frank Black wrote: »

I presume you're referring to the old route?
You really need to accept that this route is dead.
Even if the new route ends up on the exact same line as the old

You do realise that you've just directly contradicted yourself there right? How can the old route be dead, if you state that it's possible the new route may end up on the same line.

Frank Black wrote: »

Well, you seem to be toning down the certainty of your language somewhat Anto, which is to be welcomed. Baby steps, baby steps.

I'm fairly certain that 6(4) will be needed because of your next bit.

Frank Black wrote: »

The key driver in the Route Selection process will be the avoidance of Annex 1 habitats. Whether this is possible or not will depend on the extent of those - which (and apologies for labouring this point) has still not been determined.

That will be interesting, especially considering in 2006 they chose the current location because they thought it minimized the "penetration" to the SAC.

Frank Black

antoobrien wrote: »

That's a poor attempt to prove a point. Interesting. The Limestone at the proposed river crossing is Annex 1 (as acknowledged by pro & anti) but you are implying that the Limestone 100m -200m away isn't. That's a leap..

I'm not implying anything or leaping anywhere - that's what you're doing in fact. I'm stating that this work is on-going. Do you see the difference?

In terms of proving a point. - I'm simply pointing out where you're either mis-informed, have misunderstood or are in other ways wrong. I appreciate you don't particularly like it that someone has come onto the thread who knows more than you, but it's for the benifit of other readers

antoobrien wrote: »

You do realise that you've just directly contradicted yourself there right? How can the old route be dead, if you state that it's possible the new route may end up on the same line. .

I must say, I'm missing any contradiction - the new route may end up on the same line as the old route, it may not. I've already posted on this very point if you re-read the thread.

antoobrien wrote: »

I'm fairly certain that 6(4) will be needed because of your next bit..

I think if there's one thing we've established Anto, it's that it's dangerous for you to be certain of anything.
- because you usually end up wrong.

antoobrien wrote: »

That will be interesting, especially considering in 2006 they chose the current location because they thought it minimized the "penetration" to the SAC.

Yes, it's a very interesting scheme - It's why I'm interested in it.
All very interesting indeed.

antoobrien

Frank Black wrote: »

I must say, I'm missing any contradiction - the new route may end up on the same line as the old route.

That is the contradiction. If the "old" route is dead, then surely it or parts of it can not be used for the new one.

Perhaps you'd like to clarify what you mean by the route being "dead".

Frank Black wrote: »

I think if there's one thing we've established Anto, it's that it's dangerous for you to be certain of anything.
- because you usually end up wrong.

Well then show us where the alternative crossing points are and how 6(4) can be avoided.

Frank Black

antoobrien wrote: »

Well then show us where the alternative crossing points are and how 6(4) can be avoided.

That's a job for the new Consultants - a job they will be paid millions of €'s for.
If a humble road engineer such as myself were able to determine such matters without any of the resources which the new consultants will employ, without having completed any of the underlying studies and surveys, I'd be a very rich man.
Sometimes it's best to accept that there are some things you can't and don't know in realtion to this scheme - at least not yet.

antoobrien wrote: »

That is the contradiction. If the "old" route is dead, then surely it or parts of it can not be used for the new one.

Perhaps you'd like to clarify what you mean by the route being "dead"..

Very good - should have said scheme.
This has been done to death at this stage. A process is underway, A new series of studies and evaluations will be undertaken. A route will be chosen. It's possible (and very unlikely) that this route will be the exact same as the previous one, it's possible (and likely) that it will be co-incident with the previous one over some of its length, it's possible that, other than the tie in locations, it will not follow any part of the previous route.
Surely this doesn't need to be explained any further?
If a new route is chosen which follows some (or all) of the old route, you can, if it makes it more palatable for yourself, look on this as a 'resurrection' of the old route. But given this exercise has only just commenced, it's probably best to forget all about the old route for now, until the consultants have developed a feasible route option to present.