Outer City Bypass

Private Joker

Its at route selection stage, in order for them to cost a job properly they would have to do detailed ground investigation works and property valuations on all the routes, not to mention a detailed design . Anyway, the only route that can go ahead is the one with the least impact on the designated sites as the iropi process wont consider any route that has a significant impact on the SAC or SPA , no matter what the costing may be, and will only approve the route with the least impact and all other options have to be explored.

What you're looking for could run into tens of millions of euros.

Zzippy

Private Joker wrote: »

Its at route selection stage, in order for them to cost a job properly they would have to do detailed ground investigation works and property valuations on all the routes, not to mention a detailed design . Anyway, the only route that can go ahead is the one with the least impact on the designated sites as the iropi process wont consider any route that has a significant impact on the SAC or SPA , no matter what the costing may be, and will only approve the route with the least impact and all other options have to be explored.

What you're looking for could run into tens of millions of euros.

If you see the habitat map they have compiled it is clear they have very detailed mapping already done - would it really be that hard to estimate costs based on roads already constructed on similar ground? Or to present exactly how many properties will be affected, without valuing them?
If environmental impact is the overriding factor then the tunnel option throught town would be the least damaging, but what are the bets that won't be the option chosen. If they're going over ground then the green option is the only one as it skirts around the SAC where the others have to go through it.

what_traffic

Zzippy wrote: »

If you see the habitat map they have compiled it is clear they have very detailed mapping already done - would it really be that hard to estimate costs based on roads already constructed on similar ground? Or to present exactly how many properties will be affected, without valuing them?

Good point. I would expect that they have all this information - but are just not willing to share it with the great unwashed public?

I would have expected at a minimum this kind of information you mention Zzippy to be available at these information events. In a general sense not a costing per property, per tunnel section, per Bus Rapid Transit Section etc but per route.

Do they give any information on traffic counts? Or analysis of CSO Commuting information in Galway County and City? What do they expect to be the projected numbers using the various routes/junctions? etc etc

GDSGR8

I'm trying to recall if there will be another public consultation when the emerging preferred route is identified? It's usually at that stage that more detailed information on the various routes/options is developed enough to be meaningful iirc.

Zzippy

GDSGR8 wrote: »

I'm trying to recall if there will be another public consultation when the emerging preferred route is identified? It's usually at that stage that more detailed information on the various routes/options is developed enough to be meaningful iirc.

AFAIK no, this is it. Once they have selected a route they will be proceeding immediately to full design and submitting planning application. There will just be a "public display" when the route is selected, no mention of further consultation.

http://www.n6galwaycity.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/PC2_Board-9-Project-Framework.pdf

antoobrien

Zzippy wrote: »

If you see the habitat map they have compiled it is clear they have very detailed mapping already done - would it really be that hard to estimate costs based on roads already constructed on similar ground? Or to present exactly how many properties will be affected, without valuing them?

They have an idea of how many properties could be affected, but until they do a detailed design - including road widths, alignments, and run-offs, they wouldn't know how many would be affected if a route were to be chosen until the final design is completed.

For example the the start of blue route skims the edge of Coolough village (opposite Briarhill school) - so there should have been houses that got letters. If an alignment allows them to west of the houses they could entirely avoid say 3 houses out of 5 notified (I'm guessing I don't know how many houses actually got letters).

I know of at least one case in Rahoon where somebody has a house on the Green route, but the owners believe it could be moved about 100m north (again if road design criteria allow).

Now I'm not for a second saying that you should just walk away, (I'm not you should send in feedback, I intend to), but there are natural limits to what you can be told at this stage.

galwaycyclist

Zzippy wrote: »

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.

I attended the event last night in the Westwood hotel. For me I would say unimpressed is an understatement. Although we understood that they were supposed to be looking at an integrated transport solution I saw little evidence of that.

On walking cycling all they had was this on a board (same infographic thats on the website)

Possible Smarter Travel Component of the Transport Solution
What Are Smarter Travel Initiatives?
Cycling and Walking
• Bearna Greenway
• Moycullen Greenway
• Canal Greenway
• Dublin Greenway
• Oranmore Greenway
• Merlin Park Greenway
• Terryland Forest Park
• Bearna Woods
• Eyre Square Pedestrianisation
• Shared Spaces
• Health Benefits

For cycling much of these are likely to more recreational routes than commuter routes. The relevance to walking as a form of commuter transport is even weaker.

In short there was little evidence of any genuine effort to assess or cost any complementary measures to any road building proposals. They know how many properties have to be knocked to build their roads. There was no apparent assessment of linkages for walking routes. There was a Bus Rapid Transit proposal that was a line on a map - but no apparent assessment of how many properties might need to be knocked so that people could conveniently walk to the bus stops.

An integrated transport project for Galway this is clearly not.

spurscormac

Thats an interesting perspective re cycling and one I hadn't thought of when I called to the Westwood (I was primarily interested in finding more precise detail on the routes and how they affect my house).

To be honest, even from that perspective, the info available was pretty poor. As Zzippy has already stated, very little in the way of detail on each route, breakdown of number of houses affected, etc.
There seems to be a focus on the number of houses to be demolished, but that in no way reflects the number of houses impacted by the build.
Personally, I'd prefer my house was taken than live with a dual carriageway and all the assoiciated noise 10 yards from my garden. There is no information available as to how many people are inconvenienced in this way, and it looks like there will be no possibility of redress.

I also arrived at the hotel with a printed out map of the ecological constraints from their website ready to argue against the chosen route near my house, only to be told that that map (yes the one from their website, printed on the day they began consultation) was out of date & pointing me to the new one on display.
I asked if this was available on the website, to be told they would be going online next week.

There were a number of other maps on display which detailed the various corridors, the road within them and details of the junctions. After asking questions, I found out that the corridor is 150m wide, the road would be 50m and the road could move within the corridor.
Speaking to others, there seems to be a mixed message coming out as to whether or not the corridors themselves could be moved.
I was also told that there would be a single junction between the Tuam & Headford roads to connect to the new road, with a road running parallel to the new road to allow traffic from both to reach it.

People were also told varying timelines as to the availability of these new detailed maps, from next week to two weeks time.

I think this is an absolute disgrace that this extra info, i.e. the latest maps, are being kept from the public until after the consultations are over.
It prevents people from studying the proposals properly and arming themselves with enough information to ask reasoned questions, effectively forcing them to try and quickly study the info on the day & form questions there and then.

In simple terms, its a token consultation process in order to tick a box.

what_traffic

spurscormac wrote: »

I also arrived at the hotel with a printed out map of the ecological constraints from their website ready to argue against the chosen route near my house, only to be told that that map (yes the one from their website, printed on the day they began consultation) was out of date & pointing me to the new one on display.
I asked if this was available on the website, to be told they would be going online next week.
.
..
..
In simple terms, its a token consultation process in order to tick a box.

Your experience says it all about the way the public is consulted in this country. Mindboggling!
One would imagine that they should have learnt something from the first saga that was the GCOB!

what_traffic

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Although we understood that they were supposed to be looking at an integrated transport solution I saw little evidence of that.

On walking cycling all they had was this on a board (same infographic thats on the website)

Even the Public transport section on the website is weak! I say the graphic designer in ARUP cobbled all that together in one morning.
It is a very very weak so called transportation study if this is the amount of information been provided at Stage 2.

Iwannahurl

what_traffic wrote: »

Your experience says it all about the way the public is consulted in this country. Mindboggling!

One would imagine that they should have learnt something from the first saga that was the GCOB!

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.

~Fintan O'Toole: Enough is Enough -- How to Build a New Republic.

I suspect the "consultation" could also be carefully managed so that the "public" appears to give the "right" answer.

The senior engineer at Galway County Council's national roads office, quoted in today's City Tribune, seems to be entirely focused on routes and roads. Not surprising really, given his job spec and the function of the NRDO. Perhaps they're not even going to bother pretending to consider alternatives to roads, roads and more roads?

Incidentally, the Tribune has a poll going on people's preferred "route": https://polldaddy.com/poll/8617926/

Chisler2

The gift that keeps on giving! Irish Times informs that public consultation on N6 Galway City Transport Project continues at the Menlo Park Hotel,Terryland, Galway next Tuesday and Wednesday from 2pm to 8pm.

what_traffic

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The senior engineer at Galway County Council's national roads office, quoted in today's City Tribune, seems to be entirely focused on routes and roads. Not surprising really, given his job spec and the function of the NRDO. Perhaps they're not even going to bother pretending to consider alternatives to roads, roads and more roads?

Ya agree. I thought they would at least be trying to put in public transport elements in combination with a bypass. Stone age stuff really in a City transportation context. It is the NRA,Galway City and County Council we are dealing with here I'm afraid.

what_traffic

Chisler2 wrote: »

The gift that keeps on giving! Irish Times informs that public consultation on N6 Galway City Transport Project continues at the Menlo Park Hotel,Terryland, Galway next Tuesday and Wednesday from 2pm to 8pm.

Ya it's a joke. They present the exact same stuff as on the website. http://www.n6galwaycity.ie/phase-2/public-consultation-number-2-display-graphics/

How this passes as a "N6 Galway City Transport Project" is beyond me really. Sure the title itself does not make any sense.

Zzippy

With regard to the road options only, having read the EU guidance on Natura 2000 sites and IROPI, if we're ruling out the routes through town, it seems clear the only option is the green route, as it has been designed to avoid the SAC areas. The blue/pink route goes through an SAC, and as there is an alternative that doesn't, my reading of it is that it's not a viable option, or at least, not one that ABP/EU will accept.

The decision to go ahead with a plan or project must meet the requirements of Article 6(4). In particular, it must be documented that:
The alternative put forward for approval, is the least damaging for habitats, for species and for the integrity of the Natura 2000 site, regardless of economic considerations, and that no other feasible alternative, exists that would not affect the integrity of the site

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/new_guidance_art6_4_en.pdf

Unrealistic

Zzippy wrote: »

With regard to the road options only, having read the EU guidance on Natura 2000 sites and IROPI, if we're ruling out the routes through town, it seems clear the only option is the green route, as it has been designed to avoid the SAC areas. The blue/pink route goes through an SAC, and as there is an alternative that doesn't, my reading of it is that it's not a viable option, or at least, not one that ABP/EU will accept.

I thought the tunnel to the east of the river in the blue and pink routes was intended solely to avoid impacting the SAC area (by travelling underneath it)? Also, the green route seems to pass through an SAC on the east bank where it crosses the river but the crossing point for the blue/pink/yellow routes seems to avoid that by crossing further downstream.

antoobrien

Zzippy wrote: »

The blue/pink route goes through an SAC, and as there is an alternative that doesn't, my reading of it is that it's not a viable option, or at least, not one that ABP/EU will accept.

They all go through it at some point, but going through an SAC is not a bar to a project, it's the impact on the habitats (per the ECJ rulings on this) that could be. The question, which i.m.o. will probably be put to the EC (it is a question for the commission), will be are the suggested measures (i.e. tunnels under, viaducts over) habitat sufficient to allow the project go ahead.

There is also a precedent that has been set that allow for nomination of other habitat to replace any that is impacted upon. this looks likely to be part of the reason that the ecological study was carried out an on an area that is significantly wider than the SAC boundary.

Zzippy

Unrealistic wrote: »

I thought the tunnel to the east of the river in the blue and pink routes was intended solely to avoid impacting the SAC area (by travelling underneath it)? Also, the green route seems to pass through an SAC on the east bank where it crosses the river but the crossing point for the blue/pink/yellow routes seems to avoid that by crossing further downstream.

At the public consultation (yeah right!) meeting last week I was told that the tunnel goes under the quarry, then uses a viaduct to go over the limestone pavement SAC.

antoobrien wrote: »

They all go through it at some point, but going through an SAC is not a bar to a project, it's the impact on the habitats (per the ECJ rulings on this) that could be. The question, which i.m.o. will probably be put to the EC (it is a question for the commission), will be are the suggested measures (i.e. tunnels under, viaducts over) habitat sufficient to allow the project go ahead.

There is also a precedent that has been set that allow for nomination of other habitat to replace any that is impacted upon. this looks likely to be part of the reason that the ecological study was carried out an on an area that is significantly wider than the SAC boundary.

They all cross the river, which is SAC, but the blue/pink route also goes through (or over) the limestone pavement part of SAC, which is a priority habitat. The green route avoids the limestone pavement entirely. A bridge over or tunnel under a river doesn't really affect the SAC, which is the river corridor. It's hard to see how a viaduct over limestone pavement can be constructed without significant impact on the limestone.

I know there's a precedent there, but you can't replace limestone pavement with new limestone pavement - how would nominating other habitat replace it?

antoobrien

Zzippy wrote: »

They all cross the river, which is SAC, but the blue/pink route also goes through (or over) the limestone pavement part of SAC, which is a priority habitat. The green route avoids the limestone pavement entirely.

The green one also as a viaduct over a different portion of annex 1 habitat. Not sure if it's limestone or bog cotton, but there is an identifiable Annex1 habitat on the route. What is unclear is if this is in an SAC, however the project engineer I was talking to implied that this is immaterial as they are treating all habitats as if they are given the same level of protection regardless of whether they are in an SAC/NHA.

Zzippy wrote: »

A bridge over or tunnel under a river doesn't really affect the SAC, which is the river corridor. It's hard to see how a viaduct over limestone pavement can be constructed without significant impact on the limestone.

That seems contradictory. Going over a river is not affecting the river but going over something else is?

Zzippy wrote: »

I know there's a precedent there, but you can't replace limestone pavement with new limestone pavement - how would nominating other habitat replace it?

They replace it as "protected" status.

Zzippy

antoobrien wrote: »

The green one also as a viaduct over a different portion of annex 1 habitat. Not sure if it's limestone or bog cotton, but there is an identifiable Annex1 habitat on the route. What is unclear is if this is in an SAC, however the project engineer I was talking to implied that this is immaterial as they are treating all habitats as if they are given the same level of protection regardless of whether they are in an SAC/NHA.

I would have thought that SAC took priority, regardless of what the engineers think. Legally SAC is protected whereas non-SAC has less protection.

antoobrien wrote: »

That seems contradictory. Going over a river is not affecting the river but going over something else is?

I was thinking of the supports for the viaduct - how would it be supported without affecting the rock it's going over?

antoobrien wrote: »

They replace it as "protected" status.

Do they pick an equivalent area of protected habitat elsewhere that's not SAC and designate it SAC?

My point initially was that the regulations seem to say that environmental impact is the overriding factor when analysing an IROPI application, and that human/economic factors are secondary - maybe I'm incorrect in that, that's why I was posting that and asking for opinions - IANAL. Appreciate your responses...

antoobrien

Zzippy wrote: »

I was thinking of the supports for the viaduct - how would it be supported without affecting the rock it's going over?

Is it worth pointing out that any bridge that will cross the river - going over the SAC and possibly Annex 1 habitats - will also need supports?

Zzippy wrote: »

Do they pick an equivalent area of protected habitat elsewhere that's not SAC and designate it SAC?

I don't know how it's done, just that it has happened in similar cases.

Zzippy wrote: »

My point initially was that the regulations seem to say that environmental impact is the overriding factor when analysing an IROPI application, and that human/economic factors are secondary - maybe I'm incorrect in that, that's why I was posting that and asking for opinions - IANAL. Appreciate your responses...

Zzippy wrote: »

The decision to go ahead with a plan or project must meet the requirements of Article 6(4). In particular, it must be documented that:
The alternative put forward for approval, is the least damaging for habitats, for species and for the integrity of the Natura 2000 site, regardless of economic considerations, and that no other feasible alternative, exists that would not affect the integrity of the site

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/new_guidance_art6_4_en.pdf

You also need to read the two subsections that follow that text, section two explicitly states that social/economic reasons can be included as imperative reasons and the third section deals with compensatory measures.

Here's the full text, section 3 deals with the "compensation" procedure I've mentioned earlier.

The decision to go ahead with a plan or project must meet the requirements of Article 6(4). In
particular, it must be documented that:
1 The alternative put forward for approval, is the least damaging for habitats, for species and for the integrity of the Natura 2000 site, regardless of economic considerations, and that no other feasible alternative, exists that would not affect the integrity of the site.
2 There are imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including ‘those of a social or economic nature’.

Being an exception to Article 6(3), this provision can only be applied to circumstances where all the conditions required by the Directive are fully satisfied. In this regard, it falls on whoever wants to make use of this exception to prove, as a prerequisite, that the aforementioned conditions do indeed exist in each particular case.

3 Once the lack of suitable alternatives and the acceptance of imperative reasons of overriding public interest are fully ascertained and documented, all compensatory measures that are needed to ensure the protection of the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network have to be taken. Therefore, compensatory measures should be considered only when the application of other safeguards, such as mitigation measures, is not sufficient. The compensatory measures adopted must always be communicated to the Commission.

That document is worth a comprehensive read as there are several sections that go into a lot more detail than the "textbites" we've highlighted, especially the bit the follows the section above (text bold in the original):

The provisions of Art. 6(4) apply when the results of the preliminary assessment under
Art. 6(3) are negative or uncertain. That is:
1. The plan or project will adversely affect the integrity of the site
2. Doubts remain as to the absence of adverse effects on the integrity of the site linked to the plan or project concerned
"The sequential order of its steps has to be followed".

Zzippy

antoobrien wrote: »

Is it worth pointing out that any bridge that will cross the river - going over the SAC and possibly Annex 1 habitats - will also need supports?

Cheers, I plan to read the rest alright. Just to reply to the point above - a bridge over the river could be a single span with supports on the bank so the supports would not be placed in the river - this would probably be expensive. Supports in the river would not have a large impact on the integrity of the site (speaking as someone who works in the environmental field with extensive experience in freshwater ecology - NPWS may disagree, I've seen some ridiculous opinions from their staff on what is not allowed).

Without seeing the exact area of limestone pavement, I'm not sure a single span with no supports on the limestone pavement itself is possible? I would imagine placing supports directly into limestone pavement would be seen as having a large impact on the integrity of the site/habitat...

antoobrien

Zzippy wrote: »

Cheers, I plan to read the rest alright. Just to reply to the point above - a bridge over the river could be a single span with supports on the bank so the supports would not be placed in the river - this would probably be expensive. Supports in the river would not have a large impact on the integrity of the site (speaking as someone who works in the environmental field with extensive experience in freshwater ecology - NPWS may disagree, I've seen some ridiculous opinions from their staff on what is not allowed).

Without seeing the exact area of limestone pavement, I'm not sure a single span with no supports on the limestone pavement itself is possible? I would imagine placing supports directly into limestone pavement would be seen as having a large impact on the integrity of the site/habitat...

You can see it with aerial photos like google/bing maps, the photos on bing maps show the exposed limestone better. There's about 400m between the two roads in the area of the pavement that's to be crossed.

Granted it's hard to know from the photos what would be acceptable wrt positioning of any supports, it looks look like there's some leeway for supports between patches of the exposed limestone as well as about 50m of grass field to one side to allow an embankment that would reduce the span. I think by suggesting a viaduct they are giving themselves an extra option, as a 400m bridge might not be feasible, given they have to then swing south to avoid Menlo Castle. That's a question for a bridge designer though.

jkforde

Zzippy wrote: »

Without seeing the exact area of limestone pavement, I'm not sure a single span with no supports on the limestone pavement itself is possible? I would imagine placing supports directly into limestone pavement would be seen as having a large impact on the integrity of the site/habitat...

I lived in Menlo for a few years right beside the pavement and there's no annex species in that patch afaik... the limestone pavement designation is a blanket one so any construction will have negligible impact on the integrity of the overall pavement habitat.... it's why I got out of environmental planning, no common sense, just blind following of rules and ticking boxes

what_traffic

FYI - not much more information than that shown here at the Website but might be worth going
http://www.n6galwaycity.ie/phase-2/public-consultation-number-2-display-graphics/

Iwannahurl

From the Galway Independent, 11th February 2015, page 4 ("Galway facing 'civil war' over bypass project"):

Cllr Mike Cubbard wrote:

We are going down the road of Civil War, with different colours against other colours. I am sick to the teeth of hearing about butterflies and flowers and trees, there has to be some way of prioritising people.

Interestingly, the article also states:

Eileen McCarthy, project manager for Arup consulting engineers, pointed out that just 5% of commuters along the proposed route would travel the entirety of the journey, while 58% of trips across the River Corrib were entirely within Galway City. This, she said, meant that an Outer Bypass was not the solution to Galway's traffic woes.

Well well well.

Let's just look at that again. Arup's analysis reportedly indicates that "just 5% of commuters" would travel "the entirety of the journey". My understanding of this figure is that only five in every hundred trips on an "outer bypass" would comprise motorists actually bypassing Galway en route to other destinations.

Meanwhile, 58% of trips across the river (many via The Auld Triangle, presumably) are "entirely within Galway City".

The implication, according to the project consultants quoted in the article, is that an Outer Bypass is not the solution to Galway City's absurd levels of car traffic.

We have had for years, in this thread and elsewhere, repeated claims that (a) an "outer bypass" is needed to rescue all those unfortunates in Connemara who are "cut off" from the rest of the country, and (b) that "traffic that doesn't need or want to be there" is the cause of all the traffic congestion.

Now it turns out that the volume of car commuting across the river but within the city is more than ten times greater than that comprised of "bypassable" traffic.

So it seems that, all along, many if not most "bypass" advocates were really looking for the expenditure of €300 million (2010 estimate), and now €500-750 million, to enable them to stay in their cars while travelling at most 13 km across, or within, a small west European town of around 75,000 people.

Is that what we are proposing to tell the EU when attempting to justify a major road-building project? Or is there some new spin that will explain away the 58% of within-city trips and the consultants' reported warning that "an Outer Bypass is not the solution"?

crusier

Iwannahurl wrote: »

From the Galway Independent, 11th February 2015, page 4 ("Galway facing 'civil war' over bypass project"):



Interestingly, the article also states:

Eileen McCarthy, project manager for Arup consulting engineers, pointed out that just 5% of commuters along the proposed route would travel the entirety of the journey, while 58% of trips across the River Corrib were entirely within Galway City. This, she said, meant that an Outer Bypass was not the solution to Galway's traffic woes.

Well well well.

Let's just look at that again. Arup's analysis reportedly indicates that "just 5% of commuters" would travel "the entirety of the journey". My understanding of this figure is that only five in every hundred trips on an "outer bypass" would comprise motorists actually bypassing Galway en route to other destinations.

Meanwhile, 58% of trips across the river (many via The Auld Triangle, presumably) are "entirely within Galway City".

The implication, according to the project consultants quoted in the article, is that an Outer Bypass is not the solution to Galway City's absurd levels of car traffic.

We have had for years, in this thread and elsewhere, repeated claims that (a) an "outer bypass" is needed to rescue all those unfortunates in Connemara who are "cut off" from the rest of the country, and (b) that "traffic that doesn't need or want to be there" is the cause of all the traffic congestion.

Now it turns out that the volume of car commuting within the city is more than ten times greater than that due to "bypassable" traffic.

So it seems that, all along, many if not most "bypass" advocates were really looking for the expenditure of €300 million (2010 estimate), and now €500-750 million, to enable them to stay in their cars while travelling at most 13 km across, or within, a small west European town of around 75,000 people.

Is that what we are proposing to tell the EU when attempting to justify a major road-building project? Or is there some new spin that will explain away the 58% of within-city trips and the consultants' reported warning that "an Outer Bypass is not the solution"?

In other words **** the people of Connemara, tourism and industry west of Galway, why not just hang a big gate at bushypark and throw bread over it a few times a day! I wonder how many commuters travel the entirety of the M50 every day!

El_Dangeroso

You don't need everyone to travel the bypass in it's entirety. You just need a release valve for the congestion at certain points. A bypass would do this perfectly if the on ramps were chosen judiciously.

Bobeagleburger

They should be thinking long term. The city will expand outwards naturally

Mrs OBumble

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

You don't need everyone to travel the bypass in it's entirety. You just need a release valve for the congestion at certain points. A bypass would do this perfectly if the on ramps were chosen judiciously.

So would mode-shifts among intra-city commuters. And it would be a lot cheaper and less disruptive of the homes of people and snails.



And re the following post, I'm pretty sure that the plans are for the city to expand to the east, not the north or west.