M6 - Galway City Ring Road [planning decision pending]

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.