Outer City Bypass

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

another cut and cover section along the current N6 route - through the Tuam rd & Ballybane junctions - to the racecourse dual carriageway. From here it would be on the surface for a bit before another cut & cover straight through the Briarhill junction (i.e. no swing to thr right to stay on the current N6), cutting close the the houses in Coolough village to rejoin the N6 alignment.

Will it be of any use to racegoers?

happysunnydays

snubbleste wrote: »

They did not include my idea :mad:

Nice one, protect the whole city from flooding too, 2 birds with the 1 stone.

JackyJoe

Tunnels and flyovers.... toll anybody??

Mrs OBumble

ronnie3585 wrote: »

I don't understand the reasoning behind the red route. I know they've changed the name, but I thought the idea is that this development would be a by-pass, and importantly there would be another route over the river Corrib.

Surely the dog on the street can see that building the red route would have disastrous consequences for the city, given our past and current experience with the SQR?

Can you spell "budget".

If you look at the number of tunnels in some of the options (the more acceptable ones in terms of social impact), you get a sense that there's an issue here.

antoobrien

snubbleste wrote: »

They did not include my idea :mad:

http://i.imgur.com/PKQt8hgl.png?3

I suggest you print out that picture and go ask them why not:rolleyes:.

Bring along somebody from boards when you're going so it can be filmed and we can watch their reaction.:D

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Will it be of any use to racegoers?

About the same use as the current dual carriageway.

what_traffic

And were off...

http://galwaybayfm.ie/new-version-outer-city-pass-cost-750-billion-euro/

dloob

snubbleste wrote: »

They did not include my idea :mad:

They did, it's mentioned on this poster.
http://www.n6galwaycity.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/PC2_Board-3-Progress-to-Date.pdf

It would be the non feasible southern coastal route, looks like they didn't credit you though.

Bobeagleburger

Thinking long term, Green makes the most sense by far imo.

Iwannahurl

what_traffic wrote: »

And were off...

http://galwaybayfm.ie/new-version-outer-city-pass-cost-750-billion-euro/

Because we're worth it... :cool:

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

About the same use as the current dual carriageway.

Will Connemara racegoers be able to get on the bypass somewhere west of the city, and off near Ballybrit?

dloob wrote: »

They did, it's mentioned on this poster.
http://www.n6galwaycity.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/PC2_Board-3-Progress-to-Date.pdf

It would be the non feasible southern coastal route, looks like they didn't credit you though.

Snubbed?

On a more serious note, the above poster does look as if a comprehensive multi-component "solution" is being considered, at least.

Perhaps we may yet end up with a new road that is in fact a bypass rather than an additional ring/relief road for cross-town commuters, with a major part of the package being serious measures to ensure (not that pusillanimous word "encourage") modal shift to public transport, cycling and walking.

Maybe all the eggs are no longer in one basket labelled "bypass"?

Mrs OBumble

rarnes1 wrote: »

Thinking long term, Green makes the most sense by far imo.

'Cept if you live in Menlo.

Bobeagleburger

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

'Cept if you live in Menlo.

Tbh, I didn't really look at where exactly was affected. It just makes sense to me as Galway will expand outwards.

yer man!

Is this basically not a way of actually getting the IROPI through now? Showing that there really isn't any option but to built the bypass on what is basically the original route (which I'm all for)?

Zzippy

Having looked through the documentation available online, the information being provided for a public consultation is pathetic. Basically just a few posters with flow chart diagrams and nice pictures. No information on each route in terms of distance, estimated cost, number of houses/CPOs required, estimated journey times, etc. It's almost like they don't want people to know these things... :rolleyes:

Iwannahurl

yer man! wrote: »

Is this basically not a way of actually getting the IROPI through now? Showing that there really isn't any option but to built the bypass on what is basically the original route (which I'm all for)?

There is something in what you say.

Zzippy wrote: »

Having looked through the documentation available online, the information being provided for a public consultation is pathetic. Basically just a few posters with flow chart diagrams and nice pictures. No information on each route in terms of distance, estimated cost, number of houses/CPOs required, estimated journey times, etc. It's almost like they don't want people to know these things... :rolleyes:

The glossy stuff seems to be mainly for public consumption, and I have to say that my first reaction to the route proposals, and the accompanying media coverage, was that there appeared to be an intent to generate opposition to all but one specific route.

However, the IROPI process requires serious investigation of all viable alternatives, and that means far more than the selection of a route for a new road.

Zzippy

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The glossy stuff seems to be mainly for public consumption, and I have to say that my first reaction to the route proposals, and the accompanying media coverage, was that there appeared to be an intent to generate opposition to all but one specific route.

However, the IROPI process requires serious investigation of all viable alternatives, and that means far more than the selection of a route for a new road.

Exactly. Along with all the variables I mentioned, there is no map showing the protected areas/habitats with the proposed routes, so no way to see which route affects SAC areas least - surely important if you're going for IROPI... or no map showing the original proposed route so we can see the difference...

charlie_says

snubbleste wrote: »

They did not include my idea :mad:

I love the way you come up from the tunnel at Mutton Island for a bit of "fresh" air.

Iwannahurl

Or perhaps it's to use the "restrooms".

what_traffic

If anybody is at the Westwood today - can they confirm if there is any detailed information to add to the few graphics and the handful of A4 PDF's on the Website?

Zzippy

what_traffic wrote: »

If anybody is at the Westwood today - can they confirm if there is any detailed information to add to the few graphics and the handful of A4 PDF's on the Website?

I'll be heading up later and will report back Hopefully they have proper staff there who know what they're talking about, and not some admin staff getting overtime to do sweet FA...

snubbleste

Zzippy wrote: »

I'll be heading up later and will report back Hopefully they have proper staff there who know what they're talking about, and not some admin staff getting overtime to do sweet FA...

Jobbridge interns surely

Zzippy

Very busy in the Westwood, had to wait a while to get a proper look at maps and talk to someone. No jobbridge interns thankfully, I actually spoke with someone from the design team. They are quite adamant that they don't have a preferred route.
The maps available are a lot better, and apparently will be up on the website soon. They only have rough figures for costs but don't want to make those public! I did get some info there but not much.
The blue/pink route involves a tunnel through part of the SAC west of the quarry, and a viaduct over limestone pavement further on. The green route involves the most number of affected houses.
I think the inner routes would cost about €750m, while the outer routes are ~€500m. The extra distance of the green route would be offset by the tunnelling costs on the blue/pink route.

Overall I'm still very unimpressed with the level of info available, but talking to the staff is definitely worthwhile.

Gremlinertia

Got a text from council with a link for maps http://is.gd/sp683a

Iwannahurl

Zzippy wrote: »

I think the inner routes would cost about €750m, while the outer routes are ~€500m. The extra distance of the green route would be offset by the tunnelling costs on the blue/pink route.

Overall I'm still very unimpressed with the level of info available, but talking to the staff is definitely worthwhile.

Were there any €500-750 million transportation "alternatives" on display, and if so what did the staff have to say about those?

antoobrien

Zzippy wrote: »

Overall I'm still very unimpressed with the level of info available, but talking to the staff is definitely worthwhile.

Out of curiosity, what type of information were you looking for?

Zzippy

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Were there any €500-750 million transportation "alternatives" on display, and if so what did the staff have to say about those?

No, as far as I saw it was all about which route to pick.

antoobrien wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what type of information were you looking for?

Well, for instance, the following information would be useful for the public to evaluate the different proposals:
1. Total distance of each route
2. Estimated cost of each route - something more accurate than "Well these ones could be around half a billion and these would be half that again, but we're not sure of that"
3. Pros and cons of each route re planning, cost, journey times, integration with public transport, walking and cycling, habitat and protected area impacts.
4. Number of properties affected by each route and the cost of CPO thereof
5. Impact of each route on protected habitats and species, and measures taken to avoid these - some of this info I gleaned from conversation with one of the design team, but none of it is presented except on a map.
6. Measures that would be taken to mitigate impact on people living alongside the route

I was interested in one specific property I have an interest in, that is extremely close to one of the proposed routes, but the person couldn't even tell me if it would be affected or not - the current route options may deviate at later design stage and people who think they're ok now might be facing CPO or significant impact on their property in a few years time. This should all be ironed out now so that people have a chance to have their say at public consultation stage on the basis of good and accurate information. I've run public consultations before, and have to say if I was as vague as ARUP are now my board would not be impressed.

antoobrien

Zzippy wrote: »

Well, for instance, the following information would be useful for the public to evaluate the different proposals:
1. Total distance of each route
2. Estimated cost of each route - something more accurate than "Well these ones could be around half a billion and these would be half that again, but we're not sure of that"
3. Pros and cons of each route re planning, cost, journey times, integration with public transport, walking and cycling, habitat and protected area impacts.
4. Number of properties affected by each route and the cost of CPO thereof
5. Impact of each route on protected habitats and species, and measures taken to avoid these - some of this info I gleaned from conversation with one of the design team, but none of it is presented except on a map.
6. Measures that would be taken to mitigate impact on people living alongside the route

I was interested in one specific property I have an interest in, that is extremely close to one of the proposed routes, but the person couldn't even tell me if it would be affected or not - the current route options may deviate at later design stage and people who think they're ok now might be facing CPO or significant impact on their property in a few years time. This should all be ironed out now so that people have a chance to have their say at public consultation stage on the basis of good and accurate information. I've run public consultations before, and have to say if I was as vague as ARUP are now my board would not be impressed.

Given the fact that they stated that these were initial routes and not set in stone I think you've set your expectations way too high (or don't believe the claims of no preferred route etc).

As for publishing the estimated costs - bad idea in Ireland because it always mushrooms.

what_traffic

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Were there any €500-750 million transportation "alternatives" on display, and if so what did the staff have to say about those?

Sure you could get a city wide tram system for €750 million

Zzippy

antoobrien wrote: »

Given the fact that they stated that these were initial routes and not set in stone I think you've set your expectations way too high (or don't believe the claims of no preferred route etc).

As for publishing the estimated costs - bad idea in Ireland because it always mushrooms.

Maybe I do have high expectations. I expect that when a public body like GCC or the NRA are ready to go to public consultation that they have more definite information available on the options presented. I expect that the public have a right to see how much each option is going to cost the taxpayer - whether it mushrooms or not I expect professionals in road design to be able to cost a route properly at design stage. I don't expect it to the nearest euro, but something a bit more informed than half a billion or so.
I expect that when the public are asked for their opinion that they have access to as many facts available to them as possible. I expect that when maps are put on a website for viewing that they are at least properly zoomable and legible enough, not bare outlines with poor explanations of what each route entails. I expect that when someone wants to find out whether a route will impact on their house, they get a better answer than "well it might, but we can't tell you".

I dunno, maybe I do expect too much, but it's better than being a sheep and letting "professionals" make all the decisions, cos I'm too thick to be trusted to interpret facts and form opinions... then again having run public consultations before and having had to go through the submissions I can see the attraction in keeping people in the dark as much as possible. That's not good practice though and not what public consultation is about.