Galway road projects confirmed

cferrie

churchview wrote: »

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

Hah! You've done your research! :-)

Yes, I used to live in Menlo and have family still living there. The outer bypass doesn't affect them in any substantial way though. I do have objections to an 8m high dual carriageway running through the grounds of Menlo Castle (as I have written about before in a letter to the Galway Advertiser) but I think anyone who appreciates our built heritage would have the same view.

My principle objection to the outer bypass is that it is a lot of money to spend on a project that won't actually solve the problem it purports to solve.

?Cee?view

cferrie wrote: »

Hah! You've done your research! :-)

Yes, I used to live in Menlo and have family still living there. The outer bypass doesn't affect them in any substantial way though. I do have objections to an 8m high dual carriageway running through the grounds of Menlo Castle (as I have written about before in a letter to the Galway Advertiser) but I think anyone who appreciates our built heritage would have the same view.

My principle objection to the outer bypass is that it is a lot of money to spend on a project that won't actually solve the problem it purports to solve.

Fair enough. My suspicions were correct

I can't see how your suggestion would work at this stage. It seems that your proposal would have worked years ago (as stated by others), but unfortunately it would now appear that it might be too late. The bypass really is the only show in town at this stage, and it's needed before Galway chokes completely.

As to Menlo Castle. That's a litany of disgraces and missed opportunities. It might have been best if it had just burned completely to rubble when the fire happened for all the respect it's been shown since!

cferrie

churchview wrote: »

The bypass really is the only show in town at this stage, and it's needed before Galway chokes completely.

Problem is, it's not going to work. It will help people who want to bypass the city completely but it will not help the majority of people who are simply trying to navigate around the city. I'm not saying my proposal is a panacea but it could be one element of a more holistic approach to transport which moves away from a solution based only on building more (and bigger) roads.

antoobrien

cferrie wrote: »

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.

The bit your red line on the map passes through

cferrie wrote: »

The current legal issues have nothing to do with the river - they are concerned with the land to the west of the Newcastle road.

That section was rejected by ABP and is not subject to the High Court and subsequent Supreme court and ECJ actions.

cferrie wrote: »

Any issues arising here will have already been dealt with to some degree in the current EIS.

The same legal issues will apply. don't take it from me, take a read of the high court ruling.

cferrie wrote: »

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.

There are 4 houses that require demoltion for the proposed GCOB. For this proposal you would require 5 houses and a factory/office building.

cferrie wrote: »

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

Yes and traffic volumes have double in that time, even with the impact of the recession. Saying that they need reappraisal is true - do they have enough capacity for the current levels, which would not have been envisaged in 2001 when route selection occurred.

cferrie wrote: »

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.

The words "with the exception of" means that they're still going into the area. Also you're forgetting that they're closing off Castlelawn Rd under the plans to remove the Kirwan Roundabout.

cferrie wrote: »

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.

I believe that no matter what happens we have to do something like this in the future as the lake will prohibit any roads/rail projects further north of the proposed bridge.

I think that we could, with the proper investments, make a BART style system (which serves the towns in the SF bay area) work as things currently stand. But I still believe that we'd need some form of bypass that takes traffic coming from Connemara (North & West) away from the residential & business areas of the city unless they have a delivery/pickup.

If we're serious about public transport we'll have to have some sort of rail system or a series of Park and rides schemes in Galway to distribute commuter across the city, away from the city centre.

We can use the bypass route to remove cross town traffic (HGVs, cars busses) from the central areas, while putting Park and Ride facilities in place near the junctions to bring people to various other points. Having the bypass allows this traffic to also stay of out areas it doesn't need to be in in order to get people to factories etc.

Sponge Bob

cferrie wrote: »

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.

No to the first part, the legal issues are east of Menlo, and a very qualified yes to the second part re the EIS.

ScumLord

cferrie wrote: »

Problem is, it's not going to work. It will help people who want to bypass the city completely but it will not help the majority of people who are simply trying to navigate around the city.

Getting the people who just want to bypass Galway or get from one side to the other out of the city will help those trying to navigate inside the city. There are plenty of cars that don't want to go anywhere near the city but have no choice.

Iwannahurl

beeintheknow wrote: »

'Dey took arrr jobbbssss'

Get over yourselves.

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

Missing the point entirely.

€2.25bn stimulus to create 13,000 jobs, says Howlin

THE €2.25 billion infrastructure stimulus package announced by the Government yesterday will generate about 13,000 jobs, according to Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform Brendan Howlin.

He said the positions created would be “local” jobs “in as far as it is legally possible”. The jobs will mostly be in construction.

antoobrien

cferrie wrote: »

Problem is, it's not going to work. It will help people who want to bypass the city completely but it will not help the majority of people who are simply trying to navigate around the city.

I would tend to disagree with that sentiment. The 2006 census (2011 figures not available yet) had a study of the travel patterns within the city. It found that 30% of the journeys originating from within the city were 5km or greater (with a further 17% not stating a distance).

That means that a lot of the traffic is trying to either get to the other side of town, or out of town entirely. So putting in place something that helps get this traffic out and away from the city ASAP, will help the traffic that's trying to get about town.

This survey did not deal with the traffic originating from the county area trying to get across town. When this traffic is also taken out of the mix, the internal traffic situation improves again.

cferrie wrote: »

I'm not saying my proposal is a panacea but it could be one element of a more holistic approach to transport which moves away from a solution based only on building more (and bigger) roads.

The problem I have with your suggestion, as well intentioned as it is (despite the NIMBYism), is that it's just another piecemeal addition to the infrastructure that won't solve anything and is ignoring the traffic patterns and plans that are in place for the junctions in question.

beeintheknow

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Missing the point entirely.

€2.25bn stimulus to create 13,000 jobs, says Howlin

THE €2.25 billion infrastructure stimulus package announced by the Government yesterday will generate about 13,000 jobs, according to Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform Brendan Howlin.

He said the positions created would be “local” jobs “in as far as it is legally possible”. The jobs will mostly be in construction.

How am I exactly?

"In as far as it is legally possible" means that the work will go to skilled EU citizens. Free movement of labour is a wonderful thing and that is how it should be.

The road will bring major economic benefits beyond the construction phase, and that is great news however you want to frame it.

zarquon

beeintheknow wrote: »

How am I exactly?

"In as far as it is legally possible" means that the work will go to skilled EU citizens. Free movement of labour is a wonderful thing and that is how it should be.

The road will bring major economic benefits beyond the construction phase, and that is great news however you want to frame it.

Don't bother arguing the point. He is a serial complainer against infrastructural progress that doesn't include the provisioning or prioritisation of cycling facilities. Maybe the government should redesign to include bike lanes on the new motorway to garner his support:rolleyes:

cferrie

The fundamental issue is this:

- Galway has a serious traffic problem

- The outer bypass is being touted as the solution to that problem

- The bypass was designed based on 10 year old data and outdated thinking and was never considered in the light of current traffic levels in the city

- The bypass has become a trophy project for local politicians who are telling us it will solve the traffic problem, attract inward investment and, through the stimulus package, regenerate the local economy.

- Not surprisingly then, the people of Galway are mostly supportive of the project (who doesn't want to solve the traffic problem and improve the economy?) primarily because there is no other solution being put forward

- There has been no critical review of the justification for the bypass which reflects the huge changes that have taken place in the city and in car usage since it was first mooted.

I simply don't believe that we should spend €300m on a project without being certain that it is going to do the job it purports to do. The current Development Plan contains many positive proposals for public transport use and the Galway Transportation Unit has been set up to implement these proposals. Unfortunately their remit is limited by adherence to the 2002 Transportation & Planning Study.

Galway city needs a new Transportation & Planning Study which would take a comprehensive, holistic and integrated approach to how we get around the city and which would carry out a cost-benefit analysis on major proposals like the bypass.

If this study can demonstrate convincingly that the bypass provides a viable solution to the current problems then so be it. As it stands, I am just not convinced.

antoobrien

cferrie wrote: »

The fundamental issue is this:

- Galway has a serious traffic problem

- The outer bypass is being touted as the solution to that problem

- The bypass was designed based on 10 year old data and outdated thinking and was never considered in the light of current traffic levels in the city

- The bypass has become a trophy project for local politicians who are telling us it will solve the traffic problem, attract inward investment and, through the stimulus package, regenerate the local economy.

- Not surprisingly then, the people of Galway are mostly supportive of the project (who doesn't want to solve the traffic problem and improve the economy?) primarily because there is no other solution being put forward

- There has been no critical review of the justification for the bypass which reflects the huge changes that have taken place in the city and in car usage since it was first mooted.

I simply don't believe that we should spend €300m on a project without being certain that it is going to do the job it purports to do. The current Development Plan contains many positive proposals for public transport use and the Galway Transportation Unit has been set up to implement these proposals. Unfortunately their remit is limited by adherence to the 2002 Transportation & Planning Study.

Galway city needs a new Transportation & Planning Study which would take a comprehensive, holistic and integrated approach to how we get around the city and which would carry out a cost-benefit analysis on major proposals like the bypass.

If this study can demonstrate convincingly that the bypass provides a viable solution to the current problems then so be it. As it stands, I am just not convinced.

I take it then that you didn't read the smarter travel plan produced by the city council in an attempt at a public transport moneygrab in 2010. Underpinning all those lovely bus lanes and cycle facilities was an assumption that GCOB & Gluas would be there.

It's not that the plans aren't there, it that the public don't know where they are.

cferrie

antoobrien wrote: »

I take it then that you didn't read the smarter travel plan produced by the city council in an attempt at a public transport moneygrab in 2010. Underpinning all those lovely bus lanes and cycle facilities was an assumption that GCOB & Gluas would be there.

It's not that the plans aren't there, it that the public don't know where they are.

I'm aware of the Smarter Travel Plan, and the Galway City Bus study 2002; and the Galway Strategic Bus Study 2007 - none of which can be described as a comprehensive approach to transportation and planning. In fact the 2002 plan to which I referred earlier defers to a previous study carried out in 1999 and doesn't question the validity of the assumptions which led to the outer bypass proposal.

The plans are indeed there, but they are outdated and piecemeal and are not a good basis on which to make a decision to spend €300m of precious resources.

Sponge Bob

cferrie wrote: »

The plans are indeed there, but they are outdated and piecemeal and are not a good basis on which to make a decision to spend €300m of precious resources.

It won't cost €300m , more like €150m,. Some of that is already spent, as you know, on planning.

The bridge will be the most complex element but the Boyne Bridge on the M1 cost €35m which would be indicative.

The construction of the Gort-Ennis M18 came in around €5m a km which indicates that the mainline of 12km will cost around €60m to construct. Supporting data > http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/4080

So thats €100m or so for construction of 12km including the bridge.

Land acquisition and a few junctions and arty bits will take the whole lot to around €150m at most.

Even if they do add another 10km to the west that lot will cost no more than €50m to construct and much of the land required is bog (once the cotton is dodged)

This figure of €300m is a complete fantasy from God Knows Where and I would appreciate some hard costings if you intend to quote it again please.

cferrie

Sponge Bob wrote: »

It won't cost €300m , more like €150m,. Some of that is already spent, as you know, on planning.

...

This figure of €300m is a complete fantasy from God Knows Where and I would appreciate some hard costings if you intend to quote it again please.

The €300m figure comes from a report by Enda Cunningham in the Galway City Tribune when the Taoiseach announced his commitment to the project back in May http://www.galwaynews.ie/25995-kenny-pledges-bypass-funding-if-go-ahead-given

If you have other figures please share them. If the real figure is €150m it doesn't change my argument - it's still a lot of money in today's context and needs to be fully justified. Of course it's not just about the money - there are acknowledged environmental costs to going ahead with the project which are being justified on the basis of the supposed necessity of the infrastructure.

antoobrien

cferrie wrote: »

The €300m figure comes from a report by Enda Cunningham in the Galway City Tribune when the Taoiseach announced his commitment to the project back in May http://www.galwaynews.ie/25995-kenny-pledges-bypass-funding-if-go-ahead-given


If you have other figures please share them. If the real figure is €150m it doesn't change my argument - it's still a lot of money in today's context and needs to be fully justified.

The cost estimates are based on 2008 prices - land, labour, equipment, materials etc. The acknowledged boom time cost per km of DC was €5m making the total cost of the proposed 36km of road (Bearna to Glennascaul) in the region of €150m (do a search on the roads forum, you'll find the figures).

We'd expect a fair reduction on those prices (up to 25%) and a 50% (or more) drop in land prices.

cferrie wrote: »

Of course it's not just about the money - there are acknowledged environmental costs to going ahead with the project which are being justified on the basis of the supposed necessity of the infrastructure.

Would you care to shed some light on those, especially any that are not covered by the EIS?

Also what about the environmental cost of keeping cars bottled up in Galway city?

Sponge Bob

I did share the figures. Maybe the total figure is the PPP cost over 30 or 40 years which is not the same as the construction figures I posted.

Against that the likes of Boston Scientific can invest as much as €90m in a single project in Galway and they have marked the governments card on the need for a bypass.

alleyjoe

really a good news

cferrie

Sponge Bob wrote: »

I did share the figures. Maybe the total figure is the PPP cost over 30 or 40 years which is not the same as the construction figures I posted.

Against that the likes of Boston Scientific can invest as much as €90m in a single project in Galway and they have marked the governments card on the need for a bypass.

I don't want to get bogged down on the issue of cost. Any figures that are quoted, either from the press or through comparison with other projects, are purely conjectural pending the tender process for the project.

The real issue is whether the project is going to deliver what it promises. The GM of Medtronic, quoted in that article you linked to, identified traffic gridlock as the problem and have assumed, like everyone else, that the outer bypass is the solution to that problem.

I'm simply questioning the basis of that assumption and I believe there are other measures which could and should be carried out which will have a much greater impact on the traffic problems for a much lower capital outlay.

Sponge Bob

cferrie wrote: »

I'm simply questioning the basis of that assumption and I believe there are other measures which could and should be carried out which will have a much greater impact on the traffic problems for a much lower capital outlay.

Your solution, which I have argued is outdated, pumps the existing N59 traffic into Daingean on a 2 lane road and splits it into a cross river and a town stream at that point.

You are already talking 15000 vehicles a day on the Galway side of Moycullen. ( Source 2013 Low Growth) when a 2 lane road becomes severely congested at under 10,000 vehicles.

These traffic movements by and large continue to/from Galway from Moycullen and taking them away from Bushypark and Daingean makes complete sense. Removing around 2 out of 3 existing traffic movements in Bushypark and Daingean will go down rather well in those areas.

I would personally estimate that the outer bridge will have an AADT of around 10,000 movements ( including south connemara traffic not enumerated in that link above) upon opening which justifies a dualled solution on day one.

The other movements will continue through Bushypark and Daingean as now...on that 2 lane road.

antoobrien

cferrie wrote: »

I don't want to get bogged down on the issue of cost. Any figures that are quoted, either from the press or through comparison with other projects, are purely conjectural pending the tender process for the project.

The real issue is whether the project is going to deliver what it promises. The GM of Medtronic, quoted in that article you linked to, identified traffic gridlock as the problem and have assumed, like everyone else, that the outer bypass is the solution to that problem.

I'm simply questioning the basis of that assumption and I believe there are other measures which could and should be carried out which will have a much greater impact on the traffic problems for a much lower capital outlay.

Well I can give you a direct example of the impact of the M50 since its upgrade was completed a couple of years ago. The traffic in the city is far better since - and I don't think unemployment can be given all the credit for this drop (as some people want to do) because all the builders had stopped before the upgrade was completed.

Iwannahurl

zarquon wrote: »

Don't bother arguing the point. He is a serial complainer against infrastructural progress that doesn't include the provisioning or prioritisation of cycling facilities. Maybe the government should redesign to include bike lanes on the new motorway to garner his support:rolleyes:

New strategy. Let's see how transparent and accountable the RP process is.

Post reported.

Reason: personal attack, misrepresentation, incitement and unwarranted sarcasm.

biko

IWH, no need to post on thread for these things.
A report is enough.

Sponge Bob

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Post reported.

Reason: personal attack, misrepresentation, incitement and unwarranted sarcasm.

Why don't you come up with constructive long term mixed modal uses for all that roadspace that will be freed up from Newcastle to Ballybane once the bypass is built ........instead of annoying poor Biko.??

Iwannahurl

cferrie wrote: »

- There has been no critical review of the justification for the bypass which reflects the huge changes that have taken place in the city and in car usage since it was first mooted.

There's no doubt the GCOB is a trophy project. Politically, support for the GCOB wasn't enough to give Frank Fahey the electoral immortality he craved, but Brian Walsh might yet benefit.

With regard to your statement above, what "huge changes" -- in the city and in car usage -- are you referring to, and what is the evidence for that?



.

antoobrien

beeintheknow wrote: »

How am I exactly?

"In as far as it is legally possible" means that the work will go to skilled EU citizens. Free movement of labour is a wonderful thing and that is how it should be.

The road will bring major economic benefits beyond the construction phase, and that is great news however you want to frame it.

You'll be happy to know that it appears BAM has been kicked* off the M17/18 project and it has gone to the second bidder Directroute. This includes Sisk & Roadbridge - two Irish companies.

* as indicated in todays connacht tribune article

Tuesday’s official unveiling of the Government’s stimulus package means the consortium, Direct Route, is expected to start constructing the road in the Spring/Summer of 2013, with an end of 2016 completion date.

Panthro

Any maps of these proposals floating around, purely out of curiosity?

antoobrien

Panthro wrote: »

Any maps of these proposals floating around, purely out of curiosity?

Available on the Galway County Council project page.

The city council also have the EIS
Part1 and part 2.

Part one has maps of the proposed routes - including those that were rejected.

The An Bord Pleanala documentation is available on their website

Panthro

cheers antoobrien!:)

antoobrien

Panthro wrote: »

cheers antoobrien!:)

You're welcome

Also discussion threads here on boards (roads forum):
GCOB project thread
Is the Galway Bypass Necessary?