M6 - Galway City Ring Road [planning decision pending]

Sniipe

Posting this on behalf of a friend:
Hi,

Apologies if this has been asked already, can't seem to find it. But I'm wondering what is the distinction between the solid coloured line versus the honeycomb in the map contained in this link? Will the houses/land in the area covered by the honeycomb be subject to CPO or is it just the solid line at the centre of it?

dubhthach

Sniipe wrote: »

Posting this on behalf of a friend:
Hi,

Apologies if this has been asked already, can't seem to find it. But I'm wondering what is the distinction between the solid coloured line versus the honeycomb in the map contained in this link? Will the houses/land in the area covered by the honeycomb be subject to CPO or is it just the solid line at the centre of it?

The honeycomb is 150meter corridor, basically the road could be anywhere in that corridor, in the case of your imagine they've "driven the road" right down the middle for illustrative purposes, but you could have deviations within the corridor (to avoid a structure etc.)

If you look at the "layers" in that PDF in adobe that specific one is labeled as:

"x-route options|Orange corridor 150m hatch"

antoobrien

Sniipe wrote: »

Posting this on behalf of a friend:
Hi,

Apologies if this has been asked already, can't seem to find it. But I'm wondering what is the distinction between the solid coloured line versus the honeycomb in the map contained in this link? Will the houses/land in the area covered by the honeycomb be subject to CPO or is it just the solid line at the centre of it?

The honeycomb is the route corridor, the area that they can place the road within. This is the same for all routes except for most of the Red one that closely mirrors the existing N6 for a lot of the route.

The solid line is the expected path of the proposed route.

The orange route is a tunnel, coming out somewhere near Circular Rd. There would be no CPO on the vast majority of houses in the area, the only ones "in danger" would be the ones nearest the Circular Rd, where the tunnel comes back to the surface.

dubhthach

I should note that section or Orange route through Newcastle is suppose to be tunnel, see generic route map here:

http://www.n6galwaycity.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/PC2_Board-6b-Possible-Road-Component-of-the-Ransport-Solution-Sheet-1-of-2.pdf

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Incorrect, in ways too numerous to mention.

And I suppose if the traffic modelling done for the project states that you are wrong and the PT/bypass combo is needed it's just been whitewashed to support their "preferred outcome"?

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

And I suppose if the traffic modelling done for the project states that you are wrong and the PT/bypass combo is needed it's just been whitewashed to support their "preferred outcome"?

A leaflet published by the N6 Galway City Transport Project office some months ago stated:

Initial work has focused on extensive data collection, travel surveys, traffic analysis and delay assessment on the existing network to establish a set of tangible measurable indicators or key performance indicators (KPI) to define the existing problems and ultimately with which to compare future potential solutions.

Are you aware of any traffic modelling, extensive data collection, travel surveys, traffic analysis, delay assessments, measurable indicators and KPIs produced to date which relate to public transport, walking and cycling?

IMO such information is required to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the overall situation and to devise solutions which will address traffic and transportation issues in their entirety, not just capacity for cars.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

A leaflet published by the N6 Galway City Transport Project office some months ago stated:

Initial work has focused on extensive data collection, travel surveys, traffic analysis and delay assessment on the existing network to establish a set of tangible measurable indicators or key performance indicators (KPI) to define the existing problems and ultimately with which to compare future potential solutions.

Are you aware of any traffic modelling, extensive data collection, travel surveys, traffic analysis, delay assessments, measurable indicators and KPIs produced to date which relate to public transport, walking and cycling?

IMO such information is required to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the overall situation and to devise solutions which will address traffic and transportation issues in their entirety, and not just capacity for cars.

I have seen people on the sides of roads with clipboards, seemingly counting traffic. I've also noticed cameras at various junctions around town.

But could you answer the question please.

If the traffic modelling done for the project states that a PT only option will not succeed, will you accept this?

antoobrien

what_traffic wrote: »

Any other basic design flaws spotted?

Not sure if that is a design flaw, an attempt to show junction options or a mistake. If you look at the trumpet it looks like there's an "offramp" heading towards the motorway (at an angle that looks unusable) - can't see a good reason for this.

All the motorway junctions in Co Galway have been designed as dumbbell junctions, it looks like this junction may have been originally designed as as a dumbbell junction then partially redrawn.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

I have seen people on the sides of roads with clipboards, seemingly counting traffic. I've also noticed cameras at various junctions around town.

But could you answer the question please.

If the traffic modelling done for the project states that a PT only option will not succeed, will you accept this?

In due course (ie when it's made available) I will consider all traffic modelling, extensive data collection, travel surveys, traffic analysis, delay assessments, measurable indicators, KPIs and other relevant data which relate to public transport, walking, cycling, car commuting etc.

Then I will make up my mind.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

In due course (ie when it's made available) I will consider all traffic modelling, extensive data collection, travel surveys, traffic analysis, delay assessments, measurable indicators, KPIs and other relevant data which relate to public transport, walking, cycling, car commuting etc.

Then I will make up my mind.

Let me quote your earlier post

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Perhaps it's a Catch 22 with two variations. Bypass advocates say road first, because there is no room currently for public transport, cycling and walking. But then that removes the incentive to travel by those modes, which is Catch 22A. So I prefer Catch 22B, which is to provide properly for public transport, cycling and walking first, and then consider what additional road capacity might be needed. 'A' risks undermining the urgency to provide for alternatives to commuting by car, while 'B' runs the risk of aggravating traffic congestion while the "transport solution" is being rolled out.

It would appear that your mind is made up as it is.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

It would appear that your mind is made up as it is.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I prefer Catch 22B, which is to provide properly for public transport, cycling and walking first, and then consider what additional road capacity might be needed.

Although I'm a fully paid-up motorist, among other things, I have a preference for public transport, walking and cycling.

I don't have a budget of €500-750 million, but if I did my first choice would not be to build a new road for car commuters, of which I am one on occasion.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Although I'm a fully paid-up motorist, among other things, I have a preference for public transport, walking and cycling.

I don't have a budget of €500-750 million, but if I did my first choice would not be to build a new road for car commuters, of which I am one on occasion.

I'm going to ask one final time, no political hedging.

If the report states that the PT only option is not feasible will you accept it?

Iwannahurl

When solid evidence conflicts with my opinion, I always change my opinion.

Zzippy

Iwannahurl wrote: »

In due course (ie when it's made available) I will consider all traffic modelling, extensive data collection, travel surveys, traffic analysis, delay assessments, measurable indicators, KPIs and other relevant data which relate to public transport, walking, cycling, car commuting etc.

Then I will make up my mind.

As with the rest of the info that should be available for a public consultation, I doubt this will be made public in time for people to make submissions based on it.

Mr.Me32

dubhthach wrote: »

The honeycomb is 150meter corridor, basically the road could be anywhere in that corridor, in the case of your imagine they've "driven the road" right down the middle for illustrative purposes, but you could have deviations within the corridor (to avoid a structure etc.)

If you look at the "layers" in that PDF in adobe that specific one is labeled as:

"x-route options|Orange corridor 150m hatch"

Given the scope of work involved, could it also be the case that the honeycomb/hatch would also encompass the work site and foundations needed for the road and that properties in that honeycomb area could be subject to CPO?

antoobrien

Mr.Me32 wrote: »

Given the scope of work involved, could it also be the case that the honeycomb/hatch would also encompass the work site and foundations needed for the road and that properties in that honeycomb area could be subject to CPO?

A project engineer told me that the work area for any new route would be approximately 50m wide depending on the need for embankments etc, so any CPOs would not affect all properties in the marked corridors.

Specifically for the Orange route, there will be a tunnel from the Headford Road area to the Circular Road area, so it will only be the areas where the tunnel goes underground & resurfaces that will be subject to CPO. So if a property will be 10m or more above the tunnel there should not be a CPO required.

antoobrien

4 more maps published including the ecological maps, I think that's all of the maps that were on display.

GCOB-SK-R-246 (Corridor Options with Engineering, Gas, ESB and Cultural Heritage Constraints – Low Resolution)

GCOB-SK-R-247 (Corridor Options with Landscape and Agronomy Constraints – Low Resolution)

GCOB-SK-R-248 (Corridor Options with Socio Economic, Noise, Geology and Hydrogeology Constraints)

GCOB-SK-R-249 (Corridor Options with Ecology Constraints)

Sniipe

antoobrien wrote: »

GCOB-SK-R-249 (Corridor Options with Ecology Constraints)

The routes are dominated by avoiding the Red areas. International importance. Bogs.

antoobrien

Sniipe wrote: »

The routes are dominated by avoiding the Red areas. International importance. Bogs.

Also answers the question raised by some public representatives as to why the old proposed route couldn't be revised slightly, it would hit up against too many red areas. Before they got to Ballindooley there'd be 3 areas they'd have to cross.

Zzippy

The red draft text in those maps is very obtrusive when viewed in a browser, but if you download it and view in Adobe Acrobat it's much less distracting. They've flattened the layers though, so you can't turn off individual layers on these ones.

Iwannahurl

Iwannahurl wrote: »

In due course (ie when it's made available) I will consider all traffic modelling, extensive data collection, travel surveys, traffic analysis, delay assessments, measurable indicators, KPIs and other relevant data which relate to public transport, walking, cycling, car commuting etc.

Then I will make up my mind.

Zzippy wrote: »

As with the rest of the info that should be available for a public consultation, I doubt this will be made public in time for people to make submissions based on it.

I hope you and Fintan O'Toole are wrong.

Zzippy

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I hope you and Fintan O'Toole are wrong.

I hope I am, but what has Fintan to say? Link?

dubhthach

How is Fintan O'Toole relevant to the thread?

Aard

It would appear as though the red and orange routes have the least negative impact on protected sites. The "green" route would have a significant impact especially by way of creating significant habitat fragmentation as well as being right up against the sites in some instances.

what_traffic

dubhthach wrote: »

How is Fintan O'Toole relevant to the thread?

About as much as Connacht / Connaught was.

Sheldons Brain

dubhthach wrote: »

Subsequently /x/ disappeared as a sound in english and thus -gh became silent, however in Scotland it's still presence thence the prononuncation of Loch matches how it's pronounced in Irish. A better comparison would be between Laois and Leix

How did Ireland and Scotland end up with the same Gaelic word for lake into two different spellings? Not many examples of that.

SeanW

Iwannahurl wrote: »

There is indeed.

So your prime, if not exclusive concern is the boogeyman of global warming, which Al Gore tweeted about from one of his private jets.

Meanwhile, India and China continue to add a coal fired power plant every week, but we're supposed to believe the planet is going to be fried by a few cars on a ten mile motorway ... Mother of Jesus give me strength :mad:

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Someone in Galway City Council wrote:

People in Knocknacarra are not going to go out by Moycullen. It has to be close enough to the city to attract people to it.

Nothing revelatory about that, of course, because it's precisely what "bypass" enthusiasts have been saying for years:

Fortunately, if it were to be a bypass, it would be done under the purview of the National Roads Authority.

Those NRA boys don't faff about, if you tell them to build a bypass they'll build a bypass, not a half-bypass-half-a-mega-regional-distributor-thingimabob like you accuse Galway local authorities of trying to do.

I remember back in the final years of the Tiger, there was some controversy in Clare where the Co. Co. was giving out planning permission to build houses on N-Road dual carriageways, to which the NRA filed a flurry objections before ABP, all successful I think. At the time, the NRA was handed a big fat cheque every year with few preconditions to spend as they pleased, they threatened to stop building N-roads in Clare unless the Co. Co. cut the proverbial crap. Co. Clare ended up being one of the 'beneficiaries' of some late 2010s re-designations of dual carriageways, most likely because to protect the DCs they built because a Co. Co. can't give planning permission for one-off houses on a motorway like they can (try) with an HQDC.

They have a remit to build and maintain a National road network and they don't mess about with it.

So if you fear that the Galway Bypass will end up becoming a local main street, (which I agree cannot be allowed to happen) then give the NRA total responsibility to build the bypass, as a motorway, with no input whatsoever from the local authority, with strict instructions to protect its national road focus. That would mean keeping it away from motorist populations, and building junctions strictly at junctions with other N-roads (M6 tie-in, N17, N84, N59) and finally the Connemara Road for access to the far West.

Another point that I think has been neglected is that bypasses only have one function - that is to provide for long distance traffic to avoid towns/cities they have no business in and are not their origin/destination. So, at least as far as the old bypass proposal was concerned, all the other stuff about cycling, pedestrians, bus users etc was irrelevant.

A bypass isn't supposed to take care of any of that, it's job is to get long distance traffic out of an urban space.

What the people do with the freed up road space is necessarily a different matter. It's not the focus of a bypass.

dubhthach

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

How did Ireland and Scotland end up with the same Gaelic word for lake into two different spellings? Not many examples of that.

There isn't a difference between Irish or Scottish Gáidhlig when it comes to Loch, they both spelt the same, given that the spelling in Old Irish was also Loch. The word derives from proto-Indo-European *laku-, which gave ancient Greek λάκκος (lákkos) and Latin lacus

The difference is in the "standard" of english spoken/used in Ireland versus Scotland. In Hiberno-English it was anglicised as "Lough" in Scotland they borrowed Loch directly into Scots and then into Scottish-English.

As an aside Manx uses a "middle-english" derived spelling, in it the use -gh for /x/ thence they spell the word as Logh.

SeanW

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Perhaps it's a Catch 22 with two variations. Bypass advocates say road first, because there is no room currently for public transport, cycling and walking. But then that removes the incentive to travel by those modes, which is Catch 22A. So I prefer Catch 22B, which is to provide properly for public transport, cycling and walking first, and then consider what additional road capacity might be needed. 'A' risks undermining the urgency to provide for alternatives to commuting by car, while 'B' runs the risk of aggravating traffic congestion while the "transport solution" is being rolled out.

So, how to do you plan to provide for Clifden-Leinster traffic then? (As just one of dozens of long distance traffic combinations that a bypass would benefit. Do you really believe that forcing long distance traffic to continue driving through Galway City streets is the way to solve anything, let alone global warming?

Iwannahurl

Zzippy wrote: »

I hope I am, but what has Fintan to say? Link?

De réir Fhionntán Uí Thuathail [lenition ]:

Typically, large scale public or private projects come with a veneer of consultation whose only aim is to persuade the community to accept what has already been decided by those who know better.

Enough is Enough: How to Build a New Republic