Galway road projects confirmed

Night Falls

I'm aware of the local (and well-meaning) connections with GLUAS, and applaud their pro-active approach to tackling traffic problems in galway, but, frankly, if Lewis Lesley told me it was sunny out, I'd bring an umbrella.

Sponge Bob

Night Falls wrote: »

if Lewis Lesley told me it was sunny out, I'd bring an umbrella.

Dude who designed the 'light' tram/tramway that Gluas proposed to deploy.

I do note that nobody else has deployed his 'system' yet ...yes. I don't know why and I am sure there is a thread somewhere on Boards where one could speculate.

Night Falls

Sponge Bob wrote: »

.
Once we have a number of 10-15min frequency backbone bus routes we may then start to plan and build towards a tram replacement for those routes. An interim solution would be a busway, a road reserved entirely for buses. One is eventually planned through Merlin Woods to Doughiska.

Indeed there is, but as things stand I'm not sure that the current road network would be able to handle existing roads being closed off to regular traffic. Bus lanes are the most we can hope for right now. Again, it all comes back to the dependency of public transport improvements on the GCOB. Without it, you can't have a truly efficient and reliable service.

Night Falls

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Dude who designed the 'light' tram/tramway that Gluas proposed to deploy.

I do note that nobody else has deployed his 'system' yet ...yes. I don't know why and I am sure there is a thread somewhere on Boards where one could speculate.

Interesting, I must go digging so!

Sponge Bob

It is the old road space and what to do with it argument. I certainly feel that an inner radial dual carriageway reserved largely for cars will have its day once the GCOB is built.

I would not disagree majorly with any of what Chris said here ( at bottom) in the Infrastructure forum a few years ago either.

GLUAS has been variously costed between €200m and €600m...€600m is a pure mad number and probably based on the €96m a Mile they spent on one particular project in Dublin.

However there are proven technologies other than Lewseys, eg Metro Val, mentioned in the latter linked thread. Even that seems like overkill in Galway.

Night Falls

€200m is a lot more unrealistic than the 600 figure in my opinion, particularly as it's obvious that service diversions have been all-but-ignored in their calculations, which is farcical in itself. Also, I'd be interested to know what investigation into ground conditions along the proposed route was carried out before the €200m figure was arrived at.

galwayrush

beeintheknow wrote: »

Claregalway and Clarinbridge are being bypassed by the very road that this thread is about.

I don't see a motorway 11 miles away having a major impact on Claregalway's traffic, esp since most of Galway's industrial estates are close to the N17. The village will need a local bypass.

Night Falls

galwayrush wrote: »

I don't see a motorway 11 miles away having a major impact on Claregalway's traffic, esp since most of Galway's industrial estates are close to the N17. The village will need a local bypass.

It will have an impact, as I mentioned earlier, you don't need to halve the traffic to double capacity of a road. Taking off background traffic who's origin / destination is further north than claregalway will certainly help to free up the road for local users.

All this is pretty much moot anyway, considering there are plans for a relief road for Claregalway.

Sponge Bob

The other factor to be considered with relief roads is that medium haul buses ( on tight margins) may make a go of an uncongested route for commuter traffic, eg Claremorris - Galway where they won't make a go of it where intermediate points are congested.

Longer haul Friday and Sunday only 'student' routes have mushroomed since the motorways were built. Again because of predictable journey times.

The whole western rail corridor palaver has grossly distorted a necessary Galway debate, that about transferring motorists onto buses in particular.

In Galways case around 7-10,000 people leave and come back very frequently at weekends. 10% of the population demi commute like that. We know that the same bus routes can be used for other purposes midweek, eg hospital out patients and day treatments etc.

But we do require predictable journey times and roads capable of delivering them. Then we will get those bus services....whether inside or outside the town.

beeintheknow

Night Falls wrote: »

It will have an impact, as I mentioned earlier, you don't need to halve the traffic to double capacity of a road. Taking off background traffic who's origin / destination is further north than claregalway will certainly help to free up the road for local users.

All this is pretty much moot anyway, considering there are plans for a relief road for Claregalway.

Indeed there is a plan in place that was funded by the council. The position of the NRA has been very clear for a long time. The Gort Tuam M17 will function as the Claregalway bypass, hence its description as a bypass of the towns of Claregalway, Clarinbridge and Ardrahan over the last week. The plan for the Claregalway inner relief road is just a plan. There is no funding in place to take it any futher than the current stage. I would have thought there was some chance of securing the €20million or so for the Claregalway road if the M17 was delayed further. Now there is absolutely no chance.

antoobrien

Sponge Bob wrote: »

I'd say roughly half will divert to the motorway.

Around 22k vehicles move through Claregalway every day ( 14-15k to/from Tuam direction and 6-7k from Roscommon direction) and the road capacity in Claregalway (comfortably) is around 5-6k before the congestion and smell takes its toll on the locals.

Don't forget all the jam dodgers scuttling along narrow boreens/bridges around Cregmore either AND don't forget you can get Motorway Tuam - Lackagh and then jam dodge through Cregmore on your way to Boston or Medtronic.

I tend to disagree with you here, I think it'll be more than half the traffic (on the M17 section), possibly up to 80% of the traffic numbers, I just don't think that they'll hit the 75% drop target because of the rat runners.

If you compare the traffic counts at Kilreekil before & after the toll, there's actually more journeys being made now than at any point in the operations of the counter. The drop off was only about 65% (from about 10,000 in 2009 to about 4,000 in 2010), however the M6 had about 9,200 journeys in 2010 - 86% of the traffic level of the old road.

Also, from talking to people who drive the route regularly, most of the traffic at the northern traffic counter is coming from Tuam/north of Tuam. There's also a lot of traffic coming along the N63 (contributing to the rise for the southern counter) from Abbeyknockmoy & points east of Annagh cross (roughly where the junction will be).

I think that this junction will take a lot of the traffic that would otherwise have gone to Claregalway (and rat runs) over to the M6, simply because of the consistency of the travel time that will be afforded the fact that it'll be motorway/dual carriageway - you'll get 25-30 minutes cruising vs 30+ mins on the old road (assuming they don't drop the speed limit to 80km/h as they have done parts of the N6 in the midlands) - if one doesn't get stuck behind a sunday driver.

I just hope it doesn't turn Briarhill into a total mess, there are already a lot of complaints about the right turn to get to Parkmore off the N6, and the Monivea road (inbound) is reverting to pre-motorway tailbacks from the lights at Parkmore.

cferrie

Brian Walsh TD expressing doubt about the Galway Outer Bypass in today's Advertiser http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/54826/plan-b-needed-as-future-of-outer-bypass-looks-doubtful

Looks like the European Court of Justice is inclined to block the project. Perhaps it's time for a re-think of the transport strategy for the city to find a more cost effective and sustainable solution.

antoobrien

cferrie wrote: »

Brian Walsh TD expressing doubt about the Galway Outer Bypass in today's Advertiser http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/54826/plan-b-needed-as-future-of-outer-bypass-looks-doubtful

Looks like the European Court of Justice is inclined to block the project. Perhaps it's time for a re-think of the transport strategy for the city to find a more cost effective and sustainable solution.

Take that article with a pinch of salt

The bypass is being challenged under Article 6.3 of the EU Habitats Directive, on the basis that the road would pose a threat to bog cotton in certain areas of the route.

The part of the road that would affect the bog cotton has been rejected by ABP and is not part of the current court case. The current court case is only to do with the approved section from Gortacleva to Glennascaul.

Sponge Bob

I think Brian is just covering his back. The chances of it going through are substantially higher than 50:50 given the overall size of the SAC/Pavement .

If it divided the SAC in Half by crossing from Headford to Moycullen via Knockferry then it would be a sub 50:50 punt.

We may not get the judgement until next year. We'll know then.

cferrie

antoobrien wrote: »

Take that article with a pinch of salt



The part of the road that would affect the bog cotton has been rejected by ABP and is not part of the current court case. The current court case is only to do with the approved section from Gortacleva to Glennascaul.

I know, poor reporting by the Advertiser I'm afraid.

Sponge Bob

The current legal issue is over Rocks not Bog Cotton. You can see them here along with Lackagh Quarry ...which has caused way more damage to the self same rocks....never mind what Roadstone are at a mile away or so.

antoobrien

Sponge Bob wrote: »

The current legal issue is over Rocks not Bog Cotton. You can see them here along with Lackagh Quarry ...which has caused way more damage to the self same rocks....never mind what Roadstone are at a mile away or so.

Both of which existed long before the EU habitats treaty (and are outside the cSAC areas to boot).

cferrie wrote: »

I know, poor reporting by the Advertiser I'm afraid.

Very true the journalist has not exactly made the issues clear, the article makes it look like the bypass is in front of Europe - it's not.

The controversial project will be the subject of an oral hearing in the European Court of Justice next week

No it's not Kernan (the so called journalist that wrote this piece) - that's the supreme court case. The decision on this case will potentially change the planning for large civil projects across Europe.

For anybody that hasn't seen it, here's a link to the ECJ case

Questions referred
What are the criteria in law to be applied by a competent authority to an assessment of the likelihood of a plan or project the subject of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive1, having "an adverse effect on the integrity of the site"?
Does the application of the precautionary principle have as its consequence that such a plan or project cannot be authorised if it would result in the permanent non-renewable loss of the whole or any part of the habitat in question?
What is the relationship, if any, between Article 6(4) and the making of the decision under Article 6(3) that the plan or project will not adversely affect the integrity of the site?
____________

1 - Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992. OJ L 206, p. 7

The second bit is (imo) the most important bit and there is precedent for SACs to be extended to "replace" any lost area. There was a case in Germany where a road was proposed to go through a much smaller SAC (about 10% of the size of the Lough Corrib one). The EU decided that it was okay to replace the area lost to the SAC.

Some links:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/hessen_en.pdf
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69813859&postcount=366

Sponge Bob

antoobrien wrote: »

The second bit is (imo) the most important bit and there is precedent for SACs to be extended to "replace" any lost area. There was a case in Germany where a road was proposed to go through a much smaller SAC (about 10% of the size of the Lough Corrib one). The EU decided that it was okay to replace the area lost to the SAC.

That was quite recent too.

Which can be done rather easily. either transfer an NHA to the sac or SAC designate some of that vulnerable limestone flag up near Cong. Tickety boos.

Iwannahurl

cferrie wrote: »

Brian Walsh TD expressing doubt about the Galway Outer Bypass in today's Advertiser http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/54826/plan-b-needed-as-future-of-outer-bypass-looks-doubtful

Looks like the European Court of Justice is inclined to block the project. Perhaps it's time for a re-think of the transport strategy for the city to find a more cost effective and sustainable solution.

I saw the article in the print edition but didn't have a chance to read it in full.

My gut reaction is that he is trying to manage expectations, rather than predict an outcome.

galwayrush

Galway has plenty of bogs with bog cotton, the only way to successfully destroy the weed is to preserve the bogs because it only grows in bogs that have been cut in the past.:rolleyes:

Iwannahurl

galwayrush wrote: »

Galway has plenty of bogs with bog cotton, the only way to successfully destroy the weed is to preserve the bogs because it only grows in bogs that have been cut in the past.:rolleyes:

"Weed" -- really?

"Only grows" -- is that a fact?

Did Eriophorum suddenly evolve after humans started harvesting turf? I doubt it.

Bog cotton successfully colonises cutaways, but that doesn't mean it "only" grows in bogs where turf was previously harvested.

See also: http://www.irishbogrestorationproject.ie/flora_and_fauna.html

jkforde

Sponge Bob wrote: »

The N67 will be done in 2 phases
...
Course we could be years waiting for phase 2 to happen.

GCC Roads Department contact phone & email here, Mr. Sean Breathnach the SEE in charge according to the tender.
so get writing...... :eek:

antoobrien

galwayrush wrote: »

Galway has plenty of bogs with bog cotton, the only way to successfully destroy the weed is to preserve the bogs because it only grows in bogs that have been cut in the past.:rolleyes:

The "rare" bog cotton (what a laugh) is of no relevance to GCOB as the section that may have affected the area where it grows (west of the N59) was rejected by APB.

funnyname

Sponge Bob wrote: »

The N67 will be done in 2 phases ( apart from a Kinvara bypass which would be phase 3).

Phase 1 to construction soon, c.1km
Phase 2 for investigation, c.4km.

Course we could be years waiting for phase 2 to happen.

Will they also be laying fibre so as to future proof telecommunications for this route, as in is it standard now for councils to take advantage of digging up the road to add in extra that can be taken advantage of in the future?

Sponge Bob

funnyname wrote: »

Will they also be laying fibre so as to future proof telecommunications for this route, as in is it standard now for councils to take advantage of digging up the road to add in extra that can be taken advantage of in the future?

They should install ducts as standard. Yes.

D Trent

Bump

http://galwaybayfm.ie/five-county-road-schemes-approved-government-funding/

_Puma_

Was just heading out to Headford there last week and commented that they really could do with realigning the road at Luimnagh. Good to see it included.

beardybrewer

Speaking of, anyone know what's going on with the N17/18 Gort to Tuam scheme? When is that meant to be completed?

http://www.nra.ie/mapping/#76

D Trent

beardybrewer wrote: »

Speaking of, anyone know what's going on with the N17/18 Gort to Tuam scheme? When is that meant to be completed?

http://www.nra.ie/mapping/#76

Use this thread

http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2055673984/194/#post93187281