M6 - Galway City Ring Road [planning decision pending]

L1011

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Why not upgrade some sections of the original bypass? Galways does have a lot of DC roads here and there but it would be worthwhile to clean it up and make the current roads efficient enough to move traffic around the city.

The Galway outer bypass to me is an overkill.

The dc roads are all on one side and don't even come close to the bridge

The need for a bypass is proven beyond doubt

antoobrien

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Why not upgrade some sections of the original bypass? Galways does have a lot of DC roads here and there but it would be worthwhile to clean it up and make the current roads efficient enough to move traffic around the city.

The Galway outer bypass to me is an overkill.

There is a 4 lane road (from the N59 to the Mortorway) which is over capacity. For the capacity to be increased, it'd have to be converted to a motorway, which is impractical on several levels.

The existing "bypass" (what a laugh - parts of it goes through residential areas from the 50s & 60s) goes directly into the narrowest part of Galway, bringing cross town traffic within 800m of Eyre Sq. This needs to be replaced with something that will bring cross town traffic away from Woodquay.

It's been argued that some of the junctions could be grade separated (ala the junction in Lucan). Two word answer to that: no room. There is one junction that this could be done at and the land probably isn't suitable for it. The rest either suffer from a lack of available space or having the wrong geometry (the N6 turns left/right). Given the fact that we would be building several bridges (there are 8 junctions to consider on the east of the city 4 more on the est) to create these junctions, the costs of such a conversion project would quickly mount to the point where it's economically unviable.


As Sponge bob has said in another thread we need to get national infrastructure right, because this is the last chance we're going to get to build infrastructure (I'm not limiting this to just a road network) that is suitable for the future needs of the country. If that means that we build roads or rail lines that are deemed to be overcapacity or overkill now (and GCOB is not an example of that), then so be it. It's better to have something that has the capacity to spare, than building something that will run into problems quickly.

Aquarius34

antoobrien wrote: »

There is a 4 lane road (from the N59 to the Mortorway) which is over capacity. For the capacity to be increased, it'd have to be converted to a motorway, which is impractical on several levels.

Distributer roads can be built and link roads can be built. The problem in Galway is lack of planning. Galway is a horrid city when it comes to planning. They just build housing states everywhere and no proper infrastructure to support them.

When the M17/M18 scheme goes ahead it will help ease traffic on the existing bypass. The eastern side has no problems at all. It's the westside that has problems. If they upgraded the existing bypass I don't see it been a big problem. If it were in England, Galway simply would not get this "outer bypass" let alone M17/M18 as well.

The existing "bypass" (what a laugh - parts of it goes through residential areas from the 50s & 60s) goes directly into the narrowest part of Galway, bringing cross town traffic within 800m of Eyre Sq. This needs to be replaced with something that will bring cross town traffic away from Woodquay.

Well they could build a bridge upstream and tunnel a 200 metre section at the Kirwan roundabout and raise it up past the residential area to cross the Corrib. It would work pretty well. But again it could of been just as easy to build proper bypass 20 years ago if they didn't build sprawling housing estates everywhere without proper planning.

It's been argued that some of the junctions could be grade separated (ala the junction in Lucan). Two word answer to that: no room. There is one junction that this could be done at and the land probably isn't suitable for it. The rest either suffer from a lack of available space or having the wrong geometry (the N6 turns left/right). Given the fact that we would be building several bridges (there are 8 junctions to consider on the east of the city 4 more on the est) to create these junctions, the costs of such a conversion project would quickly mount to the point where it's economically unviable.

They can build the junctions where there is room and build feeder roads to it.

As Sponge bob has said in another thread we need to get national infrastructure right, because this is the last chance we're going to get to build infrastructure (I'm not limiting this to just a road network) that is suitable for the future needs of the country. If that means that we build roads or rail lines that are deemed to be overcapacity or overkill now (and GCOB is not an example of that), then so be it. It's better to have something that has the capacity to spare, than building something that will run into problems quickly.

A motorway bypass is an overkill, motorways connect cities and large populations between one another and move long distance traffic away from towns and cities. We are talking about a bypass that connects from the current N6 to Connemara. There is already a bypass provided for traffic, but the problem is not the bypass traffic its the local traffic not been able to get through the city. This is down to the planning disaster the city council have created themselves.

I do think they need to build an upstream bridge, but I don't think a motorway bypass is needed here, especially when the Tuam/Gort scheme is built.

Sponge Bob

antoobrien wrote: »

The existing "bypass" (what a laugh - parts of it goes through residential areas from the 50s & 60s) goes directly into the narrowest part of Galway, bringing cross town traffic within 800m of Eyre Sq. This needs to be replaced with something that will bring cross town traffic away from Woodquay.

Well it was a bypass by 1980s standards...just like the Ennis Road Bypass in Limerick. But we must learn from these mistakes.

I would point out that the Salmon Weir bridge/University Road/Woodquay in Galway was a Bypass as well....back in its heyday.

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Well they could build a bridge upstream and tunnel a 200 metre section at the Kirwan roundabout and raise it up past the residential area to cross the Corrib. It would work pretty well.

Sponge Bob shudders at the thought of tunneling through a deep bog and as to what to do about the Terryland River. !!!!

Aquarius34 wrote: »

A motorway bypass is an overkill, motorways connect cities and large populations between one another and move long distance traffic away from towns and cities.

You are right, that is why the GCOB was not designed as a Motorway nor will it be redesignated as a 120kph motorway in future...not being built as one nor intended to be built as one. Parts of the GCOB will be 2 lane..always were meant to be and always will suffice as 2 lane.

Again I would point out that Ireland has 120kph Dual Carriageways and 80kph Motorways today so whether it is a Motorway or not is somewhat irrelevant TBH. It is capable of moving traffic smartly around Galway and that is all that is required of it.

So unless you have a case for designating parts of it as a Motorway for some reason ...and I certainly don't , can we leave that particular chimera out of the discussion please, many thanks in advance.

Chris_5339762

Aquarius34 wrote: »

When the M17/M18 scheme goes ahead it will help ease traffic on the existing bypass. The eastern side has no problems at all. It's the westside that has problems. If they upgraded the existing bypass I don't see it been a big problem. If it were in England, Galway simply would not get this "outer bypass" let alone M17/M18 as well.

I would say England is one of the worst countries to compare to for planning of roads. They have a massive lack of capacity and no political will to build anything, not to mention the legions of environmentalists who oppose every single scheme going.

antoobrien

Lets get one thing straight - the N6 wothing Galway is NOT A BYPASS of Galway. It runs though the city, through residential & business areas that were there before the road was invisaged.

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Distributer roads can be built and link roads can be built.

That's what we have, the N6 and its continuation the SQR, is a distributer road.

Aquarius34 wrote: »

The problem in Galway is lack of planning. Galway is a horrid city when it comes to planning. They just build housing states everywhere and no proper infrastructure to support them.

Nothing unique to Galway there, just ask anyone from any town/city in Ireland. Dublin has even had tribunals dedicated to the mess that was made of it.

Aquarius34 wrote: »

When the M17/M18 scheme goes ahead it will help ease traffic on the existing bypass.

It won't reduce the city traffic at all. It will however make the traffic in the existing N6 worse, not better, as it will be moving traffic onto it that otherwise would be using the N17. This is a bad thing because the N6 is already over capacity.

Aquarius34 wrote: »

The eastern side has no problems at all. It's the westside that has problems.

The biggest bottelnecks in Galway are from HRR to Ballinfoyle & Moneenagesha cross respectively - both of which are on the east side of town. Westside traffic ends up at these junctions, exacerbating those problems and cause tailbacks from them.

The delays in the racecourse carriageway are often as bad or worse than what's seen in Westside.

Aquarius34 wrote: »

If they upgraded the existing bypass I don't see it been a big problem.

Can't be done. No room to build bridges and lets face it, on the scale of what's required the full bypass will be cheaper that what you're proposing.

Aquarius34 wrote: »

If it were in England, Galway simply would not get this "outer bypass" let alone M17/M18 as well.

M17/18 is not a bypass of Galway, so comparing the two is invalid.

Btw Leicester has both the M1 and a fairly extensive looking network of roads that form a defacto ring, which allows a person to the from the M1 to say Uppingham, without having to go within 800m of the center of Leicester city center.

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Well they could build a bridge upstream and tunnel a 200 metre section at the Kirwan roundabout and raise it up past the residential area to cross the Corrib. It would work pretty well.

Suggesting tunnelling anywhere in Terryland - Ballinfoyle shows you really don't have a clue what you're on about. It's totally the wrong type of ground, there are severe problems with subsidence in the area, and a tunnel will have a greater impact on the SAC than any bridge across the corrib will.

Besides, the geometry is all wrong there, there is a severe right turn on the "main" route.

Aquarius34 wrote: »

But again it could of been just as easy to build proper bypass 20 years ago if they didn't build sprawling housing estates everywhere without proper planning.

The problem with the housing estates isn't the new ones, it's the older ones. The new ones have things like bus services.

Aquarius34 wrote: »

They can build the junctions where there is room and build feeder roads to it.

There is no room anywhere within the area needed.

Aquarius34 wrote: »

A motorway bypass is an overkill, motorways connect cities and large populations between one another and move long distance traffic away from towns and cities. We are talking about a bypass that connects from the current N6 to Connemara.

We're not talking about a motorway bypass, it's proposed as DC - up to the N59 and 2+1 after that (which has been rejected by ABP)..

Aquarius34 wrote: »

There is already a bypass provided for traffic, but the problem is not the bypass traffic its the local traffic not been able to get through the city.

No there isn't - the N6 road brings all the traffic within 800m of the centre of town, through business & residential area that existed before the road was suggested. It's a distributer road (and not a good one), not a bypass and never has been (despite what some will try to paint it as).

Aquarius34 wrote: »

I do think they need to build an upstream bridge, but I don't think a motorway bypass is needed here, especially when the Tuam/Gort scheme is built.

Gort Tuam will have no effect on the Galway city traffic, bar redirecting where some of it enters/leaves the city. It will most certainly not help the cross town traffic - which is the whole point of the bypass.

Are you sure you don't mean downstream, anything built upstream would be north of the current 4th bridge, which would require either sending traffic back towards Galway to the current N6 or build a link road between the N84 and the N17 - which is part of the current plan.

antoobrien

Aquarius34 wrote: »

There is already a bypass provided for traffic, but the problem is not the bypass traffic its the local traffic not been able to get through the city. This is down to the planning disaster the city council have created themselves.

I suggest you read this entire thread, the M6 - is the Galway Bypass necessary and Do city bypasses deliver the goods, and if so what's the evidence? because all the arguments you have brought up have been discussed several times.

JupiterKid

The basic problem with Galway city's traffic to twofold - poor land use planning allowing sprawling housing estates in the city's suburbs and, further afield, a sea of one -off houses in a commuter belt which combine to put huge pressure on the city's road infrastructure, and...

The geography of the city and its principal routes.

There are three main routes coming into the city from the east and North-east along with a number of minor routes which all squeeze together in a wedge close to the small city centre area - this creates traffic problems combined with places of employment being primarily on the East of the city in suburban locations like office/business parks and the west of the city being primarily residential which forces commuter traffic to squeeze either over the pinch points of the Quincentennial bridge or through the small city centre.

Ergo a GCOB is badly needed. But poor land use planning has been a major contributory factor in the city's traffic woes.

Aquarius34

antoobrien wrote: »

Lets get one thing straight - the N6 wothing Galway is NOT A BYPASS of Galway. It runs though the city, through residential & business areas that were there before the road was invisaged.

The N6 runs along the outskirts of the city that has sprawling residential areas around it. It was built as a bypass but again, the problem is Galway is a planning disaster.

That's what we have, the N6 and its continuation the SQR, is a distributer road.

Galway needs more distributor and circular roads.

It won't reduce the city traffic at all. It will however make the traffic in the existing N6 worse, not better, as it will be moving traffic onto it that otherwise would be using the N17. This is a bad thing because the N6 is already over capacity.

The M18/M17 will not worsen traffic on the N6 that is rubbish.

The biggest bottelnecks in Galway are from HRR to Ballinfoyle & Moneenagesha cross respectively - both of which are on the east side of town. Westside traffic ends up at these junctions, exacerbating those problems and cause tailbacks from them.

What's your definition of "bad traffic"

Can't be done. No room to build bridges and lets face it, on the scale of what's required the full bypass will be cheaper that what you're proposing.

You obviously haven't seen how they build roads internationally where there is not much space. There is space, not a lot but there is space to upgrade the road. There is spaces to build bridges at different points along the route. You may not be able to build bridges at some existing junctions but that's not an issue as you can move it further away to where there is space. The N6 is mostly wide median don't forget with verges. The existing bypass N6 doesn't have to be a glorified motorway but it can be upgraded quite easily.

M17/18 is not a bypass of Galway, so comparing the two is invalid.

Technically it is, at it will move long distance traffic away from the existing peripheral roads

Btw Leicester has both the M1 and a fairly extensive looking network of roads that form a defacto ring, which allows a person to the from the M1 to say Uppingham, without having to go within 800m of the center of Leicester city center.

The M1 was built to serve as a north south route from London to the North. It has little impact or difference to Leicester. Leicester is also a much bigger city. Portlaoise has the M7 passing by it too, and again it makes no comparison to Galway.

Suggesting tunnelling anywhere in Terryland - Ballinfoyle shows you really don't have a clue what you're on about. It's totally the wrong type of ground, there are severe problems with subsidence in the area, and a tunnel will have a greater impact on the SAC than any bridge across the corrib will.

Besides, the geometry is all wrong there, there is a severe right turn on the "main" route.

It was a suggestion, that is all. I am up for upstream bridge, But there is again major issues with urban sprawl around there for there to build a link from the existing bypass north of Terryland.

We're not talking about a motorway bypass, it's proposed as DC - up to the N59 and 2+1 after that (which has been rejected by ABP)..

Ok, I did have the sense that it was first proposed as a motorway anyway.

Gort Tuam will have no effect on the Galway city traffic, bar redirecting where some of it enters/leaves the city. It will most certainly not help the cross town traffic - which is the whole point of the bypass.

I agree yes but you can't say it won't have no effect it will and it will be positive especially for the Tuam roads and eastern side of the city.

Are you sure you don't mean downstream, anything built upstream would be north of the current 4th bridge, which would require either sending traffic back towards Galway to the current N6 or build a link road between the N84 and the N17 - which is part of the current plan.

Isn't the proposed bypass more upstream? Your notion is to get through traffic further away from the city, so logic there tells me you'd want to see a bridge built more upstream.

L1011

There is absolutely and utterly not the space to upgrade the junctions to grade separated. You appear to be confusing the N6 DC, which isn't a major part of the problem, with the winding S4 across the city, which is. Which is built along both sides virtually everywhere except the approach to the bridge. Which doesn't need any grade separating.

You're proposing spending even more money and building even more roads to get a half-assed result. Why?

Aquarius34

MYOB wrote: »

There is absolutely and utterly not the space to upgrade the junctions to grade separated. You appear to be confusing the N6 DC, which isn't a major part of the problem, with the winding S4 across the city, which is. Which is built along both sides virtually everywhere except the approach to the bridge. Which doesn't need any grade separating.

You're proposing spending even more money and building even more roads to get a half-assed result. Why?

Well I did mean the N6 section could be upgraded. The other side yes would be a problem. But you have to take into consideration just how much residential areas have sprung off that S4 road in the last 20 years and generally the problem is to much traffic is feeding onto this road.

L1011

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Well I did mean the N6 section could be upgraded. The other side yes would be a problem. But you have to take into consideration just how much residential areas have sprung off that S4 road in the last 20 years and generally the problem is to much traffic is feeding onto this road.

The DC section is not in any way the major problem

The S4 section is.

You are proposing spending money on the bit that's not the issue and ignoring the bit that is!


You can't un-plan what has been built. Only prevent it happening in the future to the new bypass.

antoobrien

Aquarius34 wrote: »

The N6 runs along the outskirts of the city that has sprawling residential areas around it. It was built as a bypass but again, the problem is Galway is a planning disaster.

As can be seen from the map below, the N6 runs directly into the center of Galway.

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Galway needs more distributor and circular roads.

We have enough distributer roads (including the N6), but we do need a circular one. The bypass fits that bill rather nicely.

Aquarius34 wrote: »

What's your definition of "bad traffic"

5 minutes to travel 400m - a regular occurrence in Galway. Tom Tom define congestion as being unable to travel at >= 70% of the posted speed limit, making Galway the most congested town in Ireland.

Aquarius34 wrote: »

You obviously haven't seen how they build roads internationally where there is not much space. There is space, not a lot but there is space to upgrade the road. There is spaces to build bridges at different points along the route.

Let's see I've driven in England, Wales, USA & Canada. I've been to a fair few locations across Europe and 3 cities in India.

The only thing I have seen close to what you are suggesting is the kind of junctions they have on the multi lane highways they built through Mumbai, which we don't have the space to do a two lane version of in Galway at any junction except Bodkin - where the ground won't support it (the shopping center, retail park & apartments either side of the road all suffer from subsidence) - let alone the 4 lane ones that will be required.

Aquarius34 wrote: »

You may not be able to build bridges at some existing junctions but that's not an issue as you can move it further away to where there is space.

What a laugh. The problem in Galway is the multiple crossing traffic streams competing for junction space and your solution is do nothing about it where it needs to be done but do something about it where there is phantom space without building a bypass

Aquarius34 wrote: »

The N6 is mostly wide median don't forget with verges. The existing bypass N6 doesn't have to be a glorified motorway but it can be upgraded quite easily.

The N6 is DC wide median for the first 3.5k within the city boundary, after that it is S4 with no verges or median.

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Technically it is, at it will move long distance traffic away from the existing peripheral roads

No it's not and will not act as anything approaching a bypass for Galway. The M17/18 traffic heading to Galway will still be going to Galway and the north south traffic will still not be entering the city traffic patters.

Any traffic going into Galway using the M17/18 will be refocused onto the N/M6, potentially requiring the upgrade to three lanes which land has been kept for. Net result - throwing more traffic onto a road that is already in trouble. We have seen this already with the creation of the M6.

Aquarius34 wrote: »

I agree yes but you can't say it won't have no effect it will and it will be positive especially for the Tuam roads and eastern side of the city.

Aquarius34 wrote: »

The M18/M17 will not worsen traffic on the N6 that is rubbish.

Having lived through the deterioration caused by diverting the old N6 traffic onto the motorway, yes it will. It will re-route traffic onto the existing road and make a bad situation worse, requiring a further redesign of the junctions.

The dynamics of the region is that the villages, especially Claregalway, Oranmore and Clarinbridge are laced with rat runs used by locals. So the impact of removing the longer distance traffic will be offset by the return of local traffic to the safer wider roads. A good example of the is the M6 in Kilreekil. With an AADT of approx 10k, which is just under the peak road use of the old N6, you'd expect traffic through Kilreekil to be as low as 1500. But it's closer to 4,000.

It's also clear that you have not read the M17/18 thread because the arguments you are bringing up have been debated a few times. There will be some decrease in local traffic, it's unclear if there will be meaningful difference. There is a theory that the junction is too far from Claregalway & Oranmore for many commuters to be able to justify using it.

Aquarius34 wrote: »

The M1 was built to serve as a north south route from London to the North. It has little impact or difference to Leicester. Leicester is also a much bigger city. Portlaoise has the M7 passing by it too, and again it makes no comparison to Galway.

1 - your original point was that it wouldn't happen in England, at Leicster it clearly does. Leicester is of reasonably comparable physical size - city boundaries are 50sq km vs 75km sq (and Galway has about 1/3 farmland inside that area, which skews the population stats).

2 - the M7 at portlaoise has a lower AADT than the bridge on the N6 route in Galway city, so it is very comparable.

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Ok, I did have the sense that it was first proposed as a motorway anyway.

No it never was suggested to be motorway, though for planning reasons I wouldn't mind if it was as the restrictions on surrounding developments are much stricter.

Aquarius34 wrote: »

It was a suggestion, that is all. I am up for upstream bridge, But there is again major issues with urban sprawl around there for there to build a link from the existing bypass north of Terryland.

You clearly know nothing about Galway if you think there is urban sprawl north of the 4th bridge. East & west, possibly. North there is but a lake.

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Isn't the proposed bypass more upstream? Your notion is to get through traffic further away from the city, so logic there tells me you'd want to see a bridge built more upstream.

Yes the proposed bypass is more upstream, but you are against the bypass and there is no realistic location south of the proposed bridge where a new bridge can be built for various reasons*, so I'm wondering if you realise just how contradictory your suggestion sounds.

* including but not limited to land suitability for large scale road building, the ability of the existing roads in the surrounding areas to deal with the extra traffic and the NIMBY factor of avoiding knocking either farm buildings, factories, offices or large numbers of residential dwellings & the associated relocation costs.

Aquarius34

antoobrien wrote: »

As can be seen from the map below, the N6 runs directly into the center of Galway.





Firstly don't post me a map of Galway, I know what Galway looks like and that black line does not define the cities limits. Galway city centre is tiny and the N6 does not go into the centre it bypasses the centre. I agree with some of your points but please don't make yourself look ridiculous by posting a free drawn map that is not actually based on reality.

veryangryman

Aquarius34 wrote: »

antoobrien wrote: »

As can be seen from the map below, the N6 runs directly into the center of Galway.





Firstly don't post me a map of Galway, I know what Galway looks like and that black line does not define the cities limits. Galway city centre is tiny and the N6 does not go into the centre it bypasses the centre. I agree with some of your points but please don't make yourself look ridiculous by posting a free drawn map that is not actually based on reality.

The roundabout beside galway shopping centre... The name may give you a hint that you are in fact .. in galway city. So no way is it a bypass when it goes within 50m of the entrance.

Chris_5339762

The current N6 "DC" or S4 is better termed an inner relief road. Its not a bypass in the traditional sense.

Aquarius34

veryangryman wrote: »

The roundabout beside galway shopping centre... The name may give you a hint that you are in fact .. in galway city. So no way is it a bypass when it goes within 50m of the entrance.

Eyre square and west of Eyre square is the centre. Yes I am aware there is a shopping centre near the N6, it's located on wood quay and is an suburban style shopping mall. We are going off the point and the point was the N6 goes around the edge of the city not through the city.

Aquarius34

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

The current N6 "DC" or S4 is better termed an inner relief road. Its not a bypass in the traditional sense.

I agree but a lot of his points are not fully accurate. Look at how flawed his map is. The black line is woeful inaccurate at determining the city urban area. The red line is drawn inaccurately as that is not the proper N6 route, as signed on maps.

antoobrien

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Eyre square and west of Eyre square is the centre. Yes I am aware there is a shopping centre near the N6, it's located on wood quay and is an suburban style shopping mall. We are going off the point and the point was the N6 goes around the edge of the city not through the city.

Aquarius34 wrote: »

I agree but a lot of his points are not fully accurate. Look at how flawed his map is. The black line is woeful inaccurate at determining the city urban area. The red line is drawn inaccurately as that is not the proper N6 route, as signed on maps.

The black line & N6 are accurate as described by Irish law, there's no shopping center in woodquay and border of the galway city center area is the road from The Huntsman Inn to Bodkin RAB to Salmon Wier and down along the river.

Aquarius34

antoobrien wrote: »

The black line & N6 are accurate as described by Irish law, there's no shopping center in woodquay and border of the galway city center area is the road from The Huntsman Inn to Bodkin RAB to Salmon Wier and down along the river.

Google maps has a better picture. The N6 in red is not fully accurate on that map. As for the black border to denote the urban area, you surely need to go an look at a map of galway, it's less than half that size.

antoobrien

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Google maps has a better picture. The N6 in red is not fully accurate on that map. As for the black border to denote the urban area, you surely need to go an look at a map of galway, it's less than half that size.

The red route is the N6, it's taken from google maps with snap to roads and that is the galway city boundry as defined in Irish law since 1986, before the N6 was built.

antoobrien

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Google maps has a better picture. The N6 in red is not fully accurate on that map.

Hmm, I failed to notice that google maps put me down the tuam road when I distinctly went down the N6, fixed. Not that it matters because both roads lead to the exact same spot, the edge of the city center area and it brings traffic into more densely populated residential areas than the Tuam Rd.

Aquarius34 wrote: »

As for the black border to denote the urban area, you surely need to go an look at a map of galway, it's less than half that size.

Really, lets compare it to the maps in the Galway City Council Development Plan 2005 - 2011:

L1011

antoobrien wrote: »

Hmm, I failed to notice that google maps put me down the tuam road when I distinctly went down the N6, fixed. NOt that it matters because both roads load to the exact same spot, the edge of the city center area and it brings traffic into more densely populated residential areas than the Tuam Rd.

Its particularly irrelevant when the claim was that your map didn't match, erm, Google Maps... which it clearly did 100%.

lucernarian

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Eyre square and west of Eyre square is the centre. Yes I am aware there is a shopping centre near the N6, it's located on wood quay and is an suburban style shopping mall. We are going off the point and the point was the N6 goes around the edge of the city not through the city.

This criticism of an illustration of a road and the area of Galway city is both pedantic and foolish. Trying to strongly criticise something based on your own misunderstanding is even more risible.

If you have any understanding of the topic at hand, you would appreciate how wrong your earlier post was and apologise for the gross impertinence you displayed when you practically ordered a poster not to show you a map of Galway, out of your apparent ignorance of the city boundaries.

Sponge Bob

Meanwhile another road project went to court last year and the following judgement was issued a month back.

http://courts.ie/judgments.nsf/6681d...hlight=0,STACK


19. I am not clear as to why Mr. Sweetman was joined as a notice party in these proceedings. At the hearing he sought to address me on various matters which were not the subject of the leave granted in the case and were not related to that leave. I therefore declined to hear his submissions.

I think a noctice party is someone who does not have to pay costs if the case goes pear shaped.

GalwayMagpie

The Connacht Tribune are reporting that today is decision day.


http://cf.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/connaucht.jpg

dloob

And the decision is made.
http://www.galwaynews.ie/31062-outer-city-bypass-go-back-supreme-court-following-european-ruling

Looks like it will require a IROPI, they should get that sorted as soon as possible so work can start on the Sweetman highway.

Irish and Proud

dloob wrote: »

And the decision is made.
http://www.galwaynews.ie/31062-outer-city-bypass-go-back-supreme-court-following-european-ruling

Looks like it will require a IROPI, they should get that sorted as soon as possible so work can start on the Sweetman highway.

Our democracy is being undermined - people like Sweetman have far too much power - it's looking more and more like we need a constitutional amendment which would copper-fasten the subservient role of state institutions to the people of Ireland. We need an article that goes something like...

"the institutions that govern the 26 counties of Ireland shall serve, at local and national level, the people therein as whole and shall not put the will of any external or minority interest before the general wishes of the people, especially on issues where there is ample evidence of a general consensus"

I'm sure there's room for improvement, but I think Sweetman would love it...

I believe if such an article existed in our consitution, the ABP decision on the Slane Bypass could be overturned as there would be in my mind, a clear point of law regarding who ABP was serving when it made the decision to refuse the Slane Bypass. The National Transport Authority could be in for a rough ride too...

antoobrien

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Our democracy is being undermined - people like Sweetman have far too much power - it's looking more and more like we need a constitutional amendment which would copper-fasten the subservient role of state institutions to the people of Ireland. We need an article that goes something like...

The full judgement is available, it's the last few paragraphs that are most relevant.

So far as concerns the assessment carried out under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, it should be pointed out that it cannot have lacunae and must contain complete, precise and definitive findings and conclusions capable of removing all reasonable scientific doubt as to the effects of the works proposed on the protected site concerned (see, to this effect, Case C‑404/09 Commission v Spain, paragraph 100 and the case-law cited). It is for the national court to establish whether the assessment of the implications for the site meets these requirements.
45 In the main proceedings, the Lough Corrib SCI was designated as a site hosting a priority habitat type because, in particular, of the presence in that site of limestone pavement, a natural resource which, once destroyed, cannot be replaced. Having regard to the criteria referred to above, the conservation objective thus corresponds to maintenance at a favourable conservation status of that site’s constitutive characteristics, namely the presence of limestone pavement.
46 Consequently, if, after an appropriate assessment of a plan or project’s implications for a site, carried out on the basis of the first sentence of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, the competent national authority concludes that that plan or project will lead to the lasting and irreparable loss of the whole or part of a priority natural habitat type whose conservation was the objective that justified the designation of the site concerned as an SCI, the view should be taken that such a plan or project will adversely affect the integrity of that site.
47 In those circumstances, that plan or project cannot be authorised on the basis of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. Nevertheless, in such a situation, the competent national authority could, where appropriate, grant authorisation under Article 6(4) of the directive, provided that the conditions set out therein are satisfied (see, to this effect, Waddenvereniging and Vogelbeschermingsvereniging, paragraph 60).
48 It follows from the foregoing considerations that the answer to the questions referred is that Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive must be interpreted as meaning that a plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a site will adversely affect the integrity of that site if it is liable to prevent the lasting preservation of the constitutive characteristics of the site that are connected to the presence of a priority natural habitat whose conservation was the objective justifying the designation of the site in the list of SCIs, in accordance with the directive. The precautionary principle should be applied for the purposes of that appraisal.

Any project where ABP has rules that there is no alternative can get approval under IORPI & the precuationary principle. By winning this case, sweetman has just made himself irrelevant.

serfboard

dloob wrote: »

And the decision is made.
http://www.galwaynews.ie/31062-outer-city-bypass-go-back-supreme-court-following-european-ruling

Looks like it will require a IROPI, they should get that sorted as soon as possible so work can start on the Sweetman highway.

Let's have some of that item. Clearly, Sweetman is delighted.

Galway Bay FM wrote:

The man who took the case of the outer city bypass to the European Court of Justice, the ECJ, claims today's judgement means the project is dead as a doornail. ...

Peter Sweetman told Galway Talks the very convoluted finding means the current plans for the outer city bypass are dead despite what politicians or officials might say.

And what do those officials and politicians say?

Galway Bay FM wrote:

County council director of services Frank Gilmore says the outer city bypass has the backing of the two local authorities and Transport Minister Leo Varadkar.

Galway West Fine Gael Deputy Sean Kyne says the EIROPI process, a European route for projects considered to be for the global good is an option.

However Deputy Kyne says no matter what happens from now on delays will continue with this vital project for Galway's development.

Meanwhile, here's another take on it from the Indo:

The Irish Independent wrote:

After a European Court of Justice ruling this morning, a new route will have to be found for the controversial Galway bypass if it is to get the green light.

The court has found that destruction of almost 1.5 hectares of limestone paving will have a negative impact on a protected site near the River Corrib.

The judgment comes after environmental campaigner Peter Sweetman and the Department of the Environment challenged a decision by An Bord Pleanala to grant permission for the road in November 2008.

I didn't realise that the Dept of Environment was a party to proceedings .. presumably this is a hangover from Green Party days?

Anyway, the Brits of all people seem to have waded in too

The Irish Independent wrote:

The board defended the action with Galway city and county councils, while the British government also submitted that the road would not have an impact on the entire 85-hectare limestone site, as just 1.47 hectares would be affected.

This morning, the court ruled that the precautionary principal should apply - or that the road should not be approved unless it could be proved it would not affect the entire site.

Galway County Council and Galway City Council could also make a case to the European Commission that the project is of such public importance that it should proceed.

This would involve making case to the European Commission under the IROPI (Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest) provisions in European law, which says a protected area can be impacted by a project which would benefit the public.

It is not clear if the application would succeed, as it has been rarely used.