Galway road projects confirmed

john locke

finally some good news...

http://www.galwaynews.ie/26818-galway-road-projects-confirmed-government-stimulus-plan

Sponge Bob

By 12 km they mean the section from the Glenlo Abbey to the Airport only. The western section of the bypass will not progress as part of the schene.

Lapin

Sponge Bob wrote: »

By 12 km they mean the section from the Glenlo Abbey to the Airport only. The western section of the bypass will not progress as part of the schene.

That would mean a bridge over the Corrib.

I thought some of the legal issues surrounded the construction of the bridge.

ScumLord

Oh good, for a minute there I thought Galway might be without roadworks in the near future.

The ring road is badly needed the new junction at the end of the N17 is just pointless the way it's set up now. Two lanes going into one on the other side of the junction is just so pointless.

antoobrien

Lapin wrote: »

That would mean a bridge over the Corrib.

I thought some of the legal issues surrounded the construction of the bridge.

yup, hearing expected in September, decision sometime before christmas.

But even if it gets go ahead then it will be 2014/2015 before construction starts as the project will have to be tendered etc.

For more on GCOB and other roads projects see the threads in the roads forum.

yer man!

Lapin wrote: »

That would mean a bridge over the Corrib.

I thought some of the legal issues surrounded the construction of the bridge.

No it was the road after the bridge to link up to the spiddal road. The road has planning approval as far as the N59 which would seriously help things around the city. I think the legal issue about the bridge you're referring to was to do with the limestone on the river bed and and banks, there was some fuss kicked up about it being rare or something, however I don't think was deemed to be the case (I only heard this now, I don't know if it's true or not). This bypass could save Glenlo abbey too.

antoobrien

yer man! wrote: »

No it was the road after the bridge to link up to the spiddal road.

That bit (N59 -> R336) has been rejected by ABP.

It is noted, in particular, that a section of the proposed road
development would cut through Tonabrocky Bog which is part of the Moycullen Bogs Natural Heritage Area and is an active blanket bog listed as a priority habitat in Annex 1 of the EU Habitats Directive. Tonabrocky Bog also hosts a population of slender cotton grass eriophorum gracile which is a legally protected and vulnerable species [1999 Protection Order].

yer man! wrote: »

The road has planning approval as far as the N59 which would seriously help things around the city. I think the legal issue about the bridge you're referring to was to do with the limestone on the river bed and and banks, there was some fuss kicked up about it being rare or something, however I don't think was deemed to be the case (I only heard this now, I don't know if it's true or not). This bypass could save Glenlo abbey too.

The legal objection is on the Eastern portion (N59 -> M6) regarding the Limestone Pavement under the river and the fact that the Corrib (Lake & river) is a cSAC. The case details are visiable on the ECJ website: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-258/11&td=ALL

Interpretation of Article 6(3) and (4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) – Assessment of the implications of a plan or project for a protected site – Criteria to be applied to an assessment of the likelihood of such a plan or project having an adverse effect on the integrity of the site concerned – Consequences of the application of the precautionary principle – Building of a road the path of which crosses a zone proposed as a special area of conservation

tldr
ABP though that the impact was minimal, some environmentalists didn't so we ended up in europe.

Edit:

There is a thread on infra discussing this project: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055413202

The high court challenges are discussed on page 9, cant find where the supreme court challenges are discussed.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

ABP though that the impact was minimal, some environmentalists didn't so we ended up in europe.

Point of information: incorrect, unclear or incomplete statement. There were objections to the GCOB raised in the Irish courts on environmental grounds, but the case was referred to the ECJ by the Irish Supreme Court, for rulings on EU law. This has been discussed in the Roads forum, which you have linked to.

On the subject of these roads and the ensuing employment opportunities, there was an economist on the radio today (IIRC -- Jim Power perhaps?) expressing scepticism about the Gort to Tuam motorway in particular.

Sponge Bob

The Motorway is part of the Derry to Cork route and connects the third and fourth largest cities on this island via the fourth and fifth.

Shame Jim reckons the world ends in Lucan but that is how a lot of those rentaquote economists who work for our banks operate.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Point of information: incorrect, unclear or incomplete statement. There were objections to the GCOB raised in the Irish courts on environmental grounds, but the case was referred to the ECJ by the Irish Supreme Court, for rulings on EU law. This has been discussed in the Roads forum, which you have linked to.

On a point of information - no environmental objection (including the unlamented minister) no ECJ case, ergo not incorrect, unclear or incomplete.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

On the subject of these roads and the ensuing employment opportunities, there was an economist on the radio today (IIRC -- Jim Power perhaps?) expressing scepticism about the Gort to Tuam motorway in particular.

Of course he would, it's not in Dublin or providing connectivity to Dublin. One wonders was it looked at in isolation, instead of as a part of a wider transport system - ARC.

bonzodog2

The merits of the roads themselves are a matter for a different thread perhaps, but the Ballinasloe-Galway M6 construction, for a similar length of road to Gort-Tuam, was a consortium of 2 Spanish companies and 1 Irish.

[edit]http://www.transport.ie/viewitem.asp?id=8987&lang=ENG&loc=2126

I remember there were lots of Portugese workers arounf Athenry when they were finishing this end of it.

Forcing public construction projects to compete by tender is great in principle, but if a large percentage of profits and wages end up going out of the country, is that really in our best interests ?

boardzz

What is the road that is currently being constructed just outside Tuam on the Miltown side? M17?

shortys94

They're just straightening the route of the n17, nothing to do with m17

Mars Bar

boardzz wrote: »

What is the road that is currently being constructed just outside Tuam on the Miltown side? M17?

Is that not where the 4 girls were killed? I think they are straightening out the road there as it's a black spot for accidents.

lotusm

Mars Bar wrote: »

boardzz wrote: »

What is the road that is currently being constructed just outside Tuam on the Miltown side? M17?

Is that not where the 4 girls were killed? I think they are straightening out the road there as it's a black spot for accidents.

No. This section is just north of tuam. The section where the accident was is between miltown and ballindine which has very bad bends. They (NRA). Must be leaving it until they the m17 further up. So hopefully the road will be safe till then but I doubt it.

Iwannahurl

bonzodog2 wrote: »

The merits of the roads themselves are a matter for a different thread perhaps, but the Ballinasloe-Galway M6 construction, for a similar length of road to Gort-Tuam, was a consortium of 2 Spanish companies and 1 Irish.

[edit]http://www.transport.ie/viewitem.asp?id=8987&lang=ENG&loc=2126

I remember there were lots of Portugese workers arounf Athenry when they were finishing this end of it.

Forcing public construction projects to compete by tender is great in principle, but if a large percentage of profits and wages end up going out of the country, is that really in our best interests ?

Fair point. Such projects have to be open to tender, and it has been pretty much standard practice for successful bidders to immediately sub-contract the work anyway. So I wonder how Brendan Howlin hopes to guarantee that the predicted 13000 jobs created will boost employment opportunities in Ireland? (Other than for rent-a-quote economists and Supreme Court judges, that is? )

beeintheknow

'Dey took arrr jobbbssss'

Get over yourselves.

This is fantastic news for the West of Ireland, whatever way you want to frame it.

cferrie

I can't understand why we need to spend so much to build 21.4km of new road when much of the problems could be solved by just linking up the existing road network.

The traffic problems in Galway are caused by bottlenecks at the river crossings which in turn are a function of the poor planning of the city over the years which has seen most of the industry being developed on one side of the city and most of the housing on the other side.

A new bridge link north of Jordan's Island would connect the N6 at the Menlo Roundabout (or whatever it's official name is) with the Newcastle Road at Daingean. This could be done with just 2km of road (incl upgrade of road at Tirellan) and would relieve the bottleneck at the Quincentennial bridge.

This bridge would also be in a location where it would link the two sides of the city. The outer bypass is would not do this - it would just make it a bit easier for people travelling from Dublin to Connemara.

See the red line on the map below for comparison with the length of the proposed outer bypass

ScumLord

bonzodog2 wrote: »

The merits of the roads themselves are a matter for a different thread perhaps, but the Ballinasloe-Galway M6 construction, for a similar length of road to Gort-Tuam, was a consortium of 2 Spanish companies and 1 Irish.

there was a mix of Irish and Spanish on that job. Ireland still has some of the best machine drivers, they even get sent to jobs in Poland.

Looking at the roads in Spain you'd think it's a great idea to have them do our jobs but they just weren't prepared for Irish ground on the M6 at least. They wasted millions because of it.

antoobrien

I think Biko might take umbridge to discussing this here (in light of the ban we had for a couple of months), so I suggest taking it to the GCOB project page on the roads forum. The last thing we want is another thread locked.

But to answer your question:

cferrie wrote: »

I can't understand why we need to spend so much to build 21.4km of new road when much of the problems could be solved by just linking up the existing road network.

I can kill that suggestion in one word - bog. The land behind tirellan is very wet in spots and a lot of the land in Dangan isn't great either. Also IIRC you'd be going straight through the sports facilities that NUIG has in the area.

It also doesn't take into account the large amount of traffic coming from the West of the county - which the Western portion was supposed to help to deal with. Your suggestion still routes all that traffic through the residnetail and retail areas along the SQR to get to the new bridge.

That route was taken to avoid as much of the bogland as possible both east & west of the river.

Sponge Bob

cferrie wrote: »

A new bridge link north of Jordan's Island would connect the N6 at the Menlo Roundabout (or whatever it's official name is) with the Newcastle Road at Daingean. This could be done with just 2km of road (incl upgrade of road at Tirellan) and would relieve the bottleneck at the Quincentennial bridge.

You have a good point but you should have made it perhaps 20 years ago and reserved the corridor then.

Doing so now will only attract the same shower of eco loonies to object on whatever spurious issue they care to mention and will take 10 years to get through and cost 10's and 10's of Millions extra (not least in free legal aid for the eco loonies) and before any road is ever built.

One could try to reserve it as an 'outer inner' or 'inner outer' route at some stage to keep the eco loonies distracted perhaps.

But you are right...if too late to be right.

This bridge would also be in a location where it would link the two sides of the city. The outer bypass is would not do this - it would just make it a bit easier for people travelling from Dublin to Connemara.

And from Dublin back to Connemara don't forget. The bypass is very much for those of us who do not want to enter the congested rathole that is (and will continue to be) Galway City just because we fancy leaving Connemara on business for the day. It frees Connnemara from the tyranny of Galway traffic and that is a good thing!

Mrs OBumble

Sponge Bob wrote: »

It frees Connnemara from the tyranny of Galway traffic and that is a good thing!

But the Connemaruvians won't be able to drive their tractors on the motorway, surely?



(ducking for cover now )

Sponge Bob

JustMary wrote: »

But the Connemaruvians won't be able to drive their tractors on the motorway, surely?

(ducking for cover now )

You can come back out Mary, tis a Dual Carriageway.

cferrie

antoobrien wrote: »

I think Biko might take umbridge to discussing this here (in light of the ban we had for a couple of months), so I suggest taking it to the GCOB project page on the roads forum. The last thing we want is another thread locked.

At the risk of upsetting the moderators I think this issue is a bigger one for Galway city and county and not just limited to a discussion about roads.

antoobrien wrote: »

I can kill that suggestion in one word - bog. The land behind tirellan is very wet in spots and a lot of the land in Dangan isn't great either. Also IIRC you'd be going straight through the sports facilities that NUIG has in the area.

It also doesn't take into account the large amount of traffic coming from the West of the county - which the Western portion was supposed to help to deal with. Your suggestion still routes all that traffic through the residnetail and retail areas along the SQR to get to the new bridge.

That route was taken to avoid as much of the bogland as possible both east & west of the river.

The ground conditions are undoubtedly an issue but is also an issue for the outer bypass on the eastern approach to the river so I don't see that as being a real issue. The land where the bypass crossess the Menlo Road is marshland and prone to flooding. In any case 2km of road through bog will still be cheaper than 21.4km of road on solid ground.

This location would cater also for traffic coming from Moycullen/Oughterard direction which could bypass the city before reaching the Quincentennial bridge.

We are fortunate that there is still a corridor of land available here to accommodate the road. The NUIG grounds that would be affected are not built on and it wouldn't take much to relocate a couple of pitches. The road between Castlelawn Heights and Tirellan has plenty of space either side for widening. The extent of CPOs would be considerably lower and much less contentious than the current proposal.

The current plan for the outer bypass is based on a transport study that was carried out ten years ago, before the heights of the boom or the depths of the bust. Surely it is time to question the thinking behind the proposal and consider a more current, realistic and holistic approach to transport planning in Galway.

ScumLord

JustMary wrote: »

But the Connemaruvians won't be able to drive their tractors on the motorway, surely?



(ducking for cover now )

No they won't but most tractor journeys are short and they can use the old road.

Sponge Bob

cferrie wrote: »

In any case 2km of road through bog will still be cheaper than 21.4km of road on solid ground.

12km not 21.4km read the announcement.

The current plan for the outer bypass is based on a transport study that was carried out ten years ago, before the heights of the boom or the depths of the bust. Surely it is time to question the thinking behind the proposal and consider a more current, realistic and holistic approach to transport planning in Galway.

Not worth the hassle of a redesign. Half the industry in Galway would leg it if they thought we were going back to the drawing board and leaving ourselves at the mercy of the eco loonies and the interminable planning process in this country.

While your suggestion was absolutely correct 20 years ago...and would suffice for now (had you made it and had it been followed during that time)...it is not future proof in that it would absolutely eliminate the possibility of a bypass...ever.

It is worth kicking out there to give the eco loonies something new to object to while we get on with what is left of the original bypass though.

The cost of going straight back to the drawing board would be far too high in my opinion and it would be extremely costly in the medium term in terms of inward investment and jobs in Galway were we to do so. Lethally so in my opinion.

People want something done yesteday. There is only one plan on the table and that has been in the works since 1998 from what I remember.

antoobrien

cferrie wrote: »

In any case 2km of road through bog will still be cheaper than 21.4km of road on solid ground.

The N7 built a couple of sections through bog land, it caused several months of delays and still isn't right

cferrie wrote: »

This location would cater also for traffic coming from Moycullen/Oughterard direction which could bypass the city before reaching the Quincentennial bridge.

Yeah but that's only half the battle, plus, you still have to negotiate the residential/retail/industrail routes points east to get there.

cferrie wrote: »

We are fortunate that there is still a corridor of land available here to accommodate the road. The NUIG grounds that would be affected are not built on and it wouldn't take much to relocate a couple of pitches. The road between Castlelawn Heights and Tirellan has plenty of space either side for widening.

Oh dear - you want to build access to the bridge on a road that the council are closing off so as to keep priority traffic with Liosban and Headford Rd. That makes that particular land bank useless from a development (of any kind) point of view.

cferrie wrote: »

The extent of CPOs would be considerably lower and much less contentious than the current proposal.

Since the entire Corrib Lake & River complex is a cSAC, moving the bidge a bit south does nothing to remove the current legal/environmental objections.

I don't think the CPOs will be any less contentions. It's hard to tell from the quality of the map but it also looks like you're going through a couple of houses at the junction of the Castlelawn and Coolough Rd and bringing the road through at least one building in the IDA estate in Dangan.

cferrie wrote: »

The current plan for the outer bypass is based on a transport study that was carried out ten years ago, before the heights of the boom or the depths of the bust. Surely it is time to question the thinking behind the proposal and consider a more current, realistic and holistic approach to transport planning in Galway.

Actually it's closer to 15 years, it got a mention as being under discussion in the Road Needs Study of 1998, which noted that the existing N6 corridor was already running at/near capacity. The boom made it very clear that we need something that does not run through existing residential, industrial & retail areas.

I agree though that we need a more complete approach to transport, I just fail to see how it can be done without moving cross town traffic from this area. If there's congestion in this area, the whole city grinds to a halt, and unfortunately your plan fails to address this.

E.g. I'd love to see a BART style light rail system paralleling the planned route.

cferrie

Sponge Bob wrote: »

12km not 21.4km read the announcement.



Not worth the hassle of a redesign. Half the industry in Galway would leg it if they thought we were going back to the drawing board and leaving ourselves at the mercy of the eco loonies and the interminable planning process in this country.

While your suggestion was absolutely correct 20 years ago...and would suffice for now (had you made it and had it been followed during that time)...it is not future proof in that it would absolutely eliminate the possibility of a bypass...ever.

It is worth kicking out there to give the eco loonies something new to object to while we get on with what is left of the original bypass though.

The cost of going straight back to the drawing board would be far too high in my opinion and it would be extremely costly in the medium term in terms of inward investment and jobs in Galway were we to do so. Lethally so in my opinion.

People want something done yesteday. There is only one plan on the table and that has been in the works since 1998 from what I remember.

21.4km is what the Galway Outer Bypass website says - the Minister doesn't mention the length in his announcement yesterday. In any case 12km is still a lot more than 2km and it's not just the length of the road that is at issue. I just don't believe that the outer bypass is the best solution for Galway's transport & traffic problems. A road that links both sides of the city while relieving the congestion at the current river crossings is more beneficial to the city (and by extension the county) than a bypass which only deals with part of the problem.

If we follow your logic on the "hassle of redesign" we would not have abandoned Metro North, the DART Underground nor would we be considering alternative locations for the National Children's Hospital.

The very fact that this project has been in the works since 1998 (although the justification for it only came four years later!) is exactly the reason why it needs to be reassessed. The world is a very different place to what it was fourteen years ago and the assumptions made then about the development of the city are no longer valid. What I am proposing is a reappraisal of the transport and traffic planning in the city to find a solution that would be more appropriate and I believe that if a comprehensive transport initiative is pursued, the outer bypass as it is currently proposed would not be necessary.

This proposal would also be capable of delivery in a much shorter time frame and would have a more immediate impact so I don't see why this would deter inward investment in the city.

I also think it wouldn't be hard to convince your "eco loonies" that a project of this scale would be preferable to the current outer bypass proposal.

As you say, there is only one plan on the table, and even when there were alternatives proposed they were all just slight variations of the same idea. Is it too much to ask for a bit of lateral thinking from the local authority?

antoobrien

JustMary wrote: »

But the Connemaruvians won't be able to drive their tractors on the motorway, surely?



(ducking for cover now )

Nah, we'll just leave the Connemaruvians at home, sure they've no use for roads.

<legger>;)

cferrie

antoobrien wrote: »

The N7 built a couple of sections through bog land, it caused several months of delays and still isn't right.

the existing proposal goes through more bogland than my proposal

antoobrien wrote: »

Yeah but that's only half the battle, plus, you still have to negotiate the residential/retail/industrail routes points east to get there.

But the bulk of the traffic problems stem from the existing river crossing constraints not the areas that they pass through

antoobrien wrote: »

Oh dear - you want to build access to the bridge on a road that the council are closing off so as to keep priority traffic with Liosban and Headford Rd. That makes that particular land bank useless from a development (of any kind) point of view.

Obviously any current proposals for this area would need to be reviewed in light of a comprehensive traffic proposal. I'm not sure what land bank your referring to here.

antoobrien wrote: »

Since the entire Corrib Lake & River complex is a cSAC, moving the bidge a bit south does nothing to remove the current legal/environmental objections.

The current legal issues have nothing to do with the river - they are concerned with the land to the west of the Newcastle road. Any issues arising here will have already been dealt with to some degree in the current EIS.

antoobrien wrote: »

I don't think the CPOs will be any less contentions. It's hard to tell from the quality of the map but it also looks like you're going through a couple of houses at the junction of the Castlelawn and Coolough Rd and bringing the road through at least one building in the IDA estate in Dangan.

There are many more landowners affected by the current proposal than by this short stretch of road. There is plenty of unbuilt land on both sides of the river to design a route which doesn't require building demolition.

antoobrien wrote: »

Actually it's closer to 15 years, it got a mention as being under discussion in the Road Needs Study of 1998, which noted that the existing N6 corridor was already running at/near capacity. The boom made it very clear that we need something that does not run through existing residential, industrial & retail areas.

The length of time only strengthens the argument for a reappraisal - see my earlier comments.

antoobrien wrote: »

I agree though that we need a more complete approach to transport, I just fail to see how it can be done without moving cross town traffic from this area. If there's congestion in this area, the whole city grinds to a halt, and unfortunately your plan fails to address this.

On the contrary, my proposal bypasses this area with the exception of the junction at the Menlo Roundabout which would have to be redesigned to give priority to east-west traffic.

antoobrien wrote: »

E.g. I'd love to see a BART style light rail system paralleling the planned route.

But what would this rail line serve on the existing route - it goes through sparsely populated agricultural land for the most part. Unless of course you expect that the land either side of the new bypass would be open for development. This has never been explicitly stated but I suspect, regrettably, that this may be one of the reasons that the bypass is so vocally supported by certain public representatives (past & present) who may have an interest in the land and its development.

?Cee?view

cferrie wrote: »

A new bridge link north of Jordan's Island would connect the N6 at the Menlo Roundabout (or whatever it's official name is) with the Newcastle Road at Daingean. This could be done with just 2km of road (incl upgrade of road at Tirellan) and would relieve the bottleneck at the Quincentennial bridge.

This bridge would also be in a location where it would link the two sides of the city. The outer bypass is would not do this - it would just make it a bit easier for people travelling from Dublin to Connemara.

Any reason other than those you've stated why you might want the road to avoid Menlo?