Funding Priorities - Road -v- Rail (split)

Slice

spacetweek

maglev linking Farranfore with Dublin you've another thing coming. Sure, you could build it, but would it be justified or appropriate?

Well in fairness most of the motorways being built in this country cannot be justified either based on the existing numbers that use national primary routes, the projected increase on these routes and the population of the country as a whole. That hasn't stopped the Government proceeding with ill conceived plans for Motorways practically everywhere using money that could be better spent on addressing other issues such as improving road safety standards on existing roads and (dare I say it) better public transport services.

Yet there seems to be this impression that we must have motorways regardless of the practicalities and these little facts are happily ignored by most of the media and almost everyone who has anything to say about the subject in this forum.

If we're going to argue about economic viability of improved services on intercity mainlines such as Dublin-Cork or even something far more controversial like the Western Rail Corridor then maybe we shouldn't be arguing about how the money for public transport is divided and spent but over the fact that something along the lines of 80% of the DoT's budget goes towards roads and only a meagre 20% towards public transport.

DerekP11

Slice wrote:

If we're going to argue about economic viability of improved services on intercity mainlines such as Dublin-Cork or even something far more controversial like the Western Rail Corridor then maybe we shouldn't be arguing about how the money for public transport is divided and spent but over the fact that something along the lines of 80% of the DoT's budget goes towards roads and only a meagre 20% towards public transport.

In fairness, this thinking is all too easy to quote and somewhat flawed when presented in this manner.

Road transport is the most important form of transport around the world. There is absolutely no denying that. The current 80% versus 20% of DOT spending that you quote must be addressed without bias.

The 80% figure on roads is used up on new national promary routes and upgrades of all other routes. Ireland does, afterall, have a very under developed road network. Equally we have a very underdeveloped rail network, that until recently had no serious investment. Remember first and foremost that the milage of railway is way way below our milage of roads. This will always be reflected in spending and rightly so. Secondly, the 20 % figure of spending on "public transport" is divided between all modes of public transport such as rail, bus, luas and metro. Road improvements actually benefit public transport modes like buses. Private operators are embracing this and its about time that the management of both DB and BE, along with the DOT, got their act together and factored in some serious plans and investment so they can benefit from road improvements. Examples being the many QBCs built into new roads and no services operating on them and the lack of non-stop sevices on the inter urban routes. (fault is with Government)

I accept that the spend differential could be tweaked a little, but the development of transport in this country should not be debated as a "one mode versus the other". We need both modes and investment should be directed towards the greatest need and prioritised on that basis. To equate this, I could put forward 2 views.

1. The amount of road users versus public transport users.

and

2. The realistic endeavours that we can aspire to in relation to funding public transport projects to take people out of their cars and onto public transport.

First class funding for public transport will never solve our traffic problems. People will drive regardless and after paying VRT, road tax, insurance and excise on fuel, they still have a case for requesting and expecting better roads. Public transport users pay their taxes and they too have a right to demand better services. But the balance between both has to be maintained and managed better. This is perhaps the meeting point of any debate, because a simple one Vs the other scenario is outdated thinking.

Diaspora

Between 2000 & 2005 the mode split according to Frank McDonald was 90% road and 10% rail

bk

When is this 80-20 split? This year? over the life time of the T21 plan?

I wouldn't be surprised if this is the split this year and to a lesser extent the next 4 years, as the initial phases of the T21 plan are heavily road based in order to complete the interurban motorways. However the second half of the T21 plan is much heavier towards rail, with the Metro, Luas, Dart extensions, Dart tunnel, etc.

Slice

DerekP11, with all due respect I find it peculiar that a member of Platform 11 should be so soft on the way the DoT allocates it's budget. Given P11's often combative stance in favour of the rail user this stands very much at odds with P11's attitude, no?

What's more you say that my argument over the way funds are divided by the DoT as being flawed, yet Platform 11's own website stresses "the need for best use of limited resources to provide the maximum impact" as arguments against the WRC. I'm not entirely in favour of the WRC either, however Platform 11 website uses the same argument to forward it's position when the argument suits.

Did Platform 11 not in fact write the following in the Irish Times in June 2005;

Road upgrades such as the widening of the N7 south of Rathcoole and the proposed M3 motorway will simply funnel yet more car-dependent commuters into the ever-growing tailback towards the M50. We simply cannot build ourselves out of the current crisis.

In relation to the statistics on journeys made by car vs. public transport Diaspora, it's easy to say that most journeys are made by car but perhaps the reason for that has something to do with the poor state of public transport in this country and lack of investment. It's been consistently shown both internationally and in Ireland that building more roads only encourages more traffic and the same is true about public transport - the Luas is an example in hand.

I know I'm hijacking this thread a little here but arguments in this forum always seem to come down to economics and viability. Yet when has there ever been a discussion over the economics/viability of road vs. rail, or private vs. public transport? There seems to be a silence on the issue simply because everyone wants to see motorways built everywhere even when there is no obvious need for them.

bryanw

Slice wrote:

If we're going to argue about economic viability of improved services on intercity mainlines such as Dublin-Cork or even something far more controversial like the Western Rail Corridor then maybe we shouldn't be arguing about how the money for public transport is divided and spent but over the fact that something along the lines of 80% of the DoT's budget goes towards roads and only a meagre 20% towards public transport.

Let's not forget that a huge amount of taxes come from the road user, so why should they not get what the need - better roads. If we encourage road users off the road, why tax revenue might fall. Drivers pay VRT, car tax, road tolls, fuel taxes ... etc. totalling billions.

It's the same arguement as why the west gets less investment than the east and south, because the east and south contribute more...

Out of all the inter-urban motorways being built, I would say they are necessary. More Roads = More Traffic Using Them. Businesses need good road transport links to move their goods around. And motorways cannot be beaten for their unbroken speed and grade separation compared to other roads. The country's towns and cities are choking from the fumes of traffic.

I'm all for good public transport - but that is something of a rare find in Ireland. There are only 2 examples of good public transport. The LUAS and DART, the rest are no good (as a generalisation). Why shouldn't we build high-speed lines to Belfast and Cork... lets not forget our population is forecast to grow by an extra million by 2020. If there are real improvements, people will see that.

gobdaw

bryanw wrote:

It's the same arguement as why the west gets less investment than the east and south, because the east and south contribute more...
QUOTE]


Did I not see recently on another thread very detailed figures ( ex CSO?) showing that East and South were net contributors to exchequer (i.e. more raised in revenue that expended in those areas), while North and West were net beneficiaries.

popebenny16

It is possible to be a member of an organisation but differ in your own views to some respect to that of the organisation. Isnt that why we hate the dail lobby fodder we find so inherant in our political parties?

Derek is making a valid point and so is Slice, but they are different areas. The Dot are pumping money into CIE in order to modernise the respective fleets. BAC for instance now has one of the youngest fleet of buses in Europe and by the end of next year (really 2008 if we're honest) IE will have the youngest fleet of trains, these figures based on average age of vehicle and all that.
The DOT is also pumping money into the roads network, not all of it NPR by any means. If you look at the new Nass Road you cannot say it is a waste of money. Equally you cannot say that a train service could in any way take all of that traffic off the road. Our roads network is as outdated and as clapped out as our rail network but our roads network covers a vastly larger amount of towns than the rail. For one I agree that the new motorway programme is badly designed, it is badly estimated and for the most part it is simply not needed. Take the M7 and as soon as you are past Kildare it is a ghost road. We should ahve concentrated in making the NPR's more safe.

As for the 80/20 split "roads" mean more than roads, of course and include maintenance for them. It is very expensive to build new rail links and it seems to take forever to do so. That dosnt mean that more shouldnt be spent on rail. Mile per mile rail is better value and for many reasons.

So why isnt it being done? Rather like the WRC, it comes down to politics, which as you know is local. There are far more votes in roads, as you will see in Meath next year. Compare the coverage that the removal of the toll from the M3 gets comparied to the Navan Rail Link.

As for P11, you have pointed out our offical policy, and the only place you'll find our official policy is on our site. What is said here is personal opinion unless stated to be otherwise.

Slice

bryanw

Let's not forget that a huge amount of taxes come from the road user, so why should they not get what the need - better roads.

I think it's a pretty big assumption to make that every road user wants better roads - and what - to the detriment of everyone else? The point of improved public transport it is accessible to everyone. Cars on the other hand are not.

bryanw

Out of all the inter-urban motorways being built, I would say they are necessary.

Does this include the M1, M2 and M3 or perhaps there were other alternatives to this plan that should have been considered?

popebenny16 you're right of course and I'll get off my high hourse. I sometimes find it's the case that personal opinion and P11 opinion are very much interchangable in this forum and it's not always immediately clear the distinctions between the two.

popebenny16

I sometimes find it's the case that personal opinion and P11 opinion are very much interchangable in this forum and it's not always immediately clear the distinctions between the two.

That's a fair point and there are a lot of P11 people on here so I can see how it happens. However I'd say that as this is a much broader forum than just rail issues (like our own ones) we would tend to sound like we contradict ourselves and people would go "what did he just say?" whereas most of the time we sing from the same hymsheet when it comes to rail related issues - not surprisingly. But as a guide i would say (in my own case anyway) that what's on the main page of our site is the official line and to a certain extent, unless we say other wise we are just putting out tuppence worth in. That also applies to our own forums on the P11 boards.

bk

Why do people say that the interurban motorways are unjustified?

- How many cars a day does it take to justify a motorway?
- How many cars a day currently travel on the various routes (Cork to Dublin for instance)?
- How many cars a day are projected to be carried on these routes in 20 years from now?
- If these routes don't have the requirements for a motorway then what should be built? Low quality Dual Carriage way? Cause there is no doubt in my mind that many of the routes need to be vastly improved.
- What is the difference in cost between DC and Motorway?

What I'm guessing is that even do there mightn't be the numbers that currently require Motorway, that the roads definitely need to be upgraded and that the cost of Motorway isn't that much more then DC, so they are taking a wise decision and building the roads properly to take into account future needs.

Now all of that is just a guess, but it sounds logical to me.

Lennoxschips

50,000 vehicles per hour is the amount needed to justify a motorway.

The motorway from Dunkettle to Watergrasshil in Cork comes nowhere near that.

bk

Lennoxschips wrote:

50,000 vehicles per hour is the amount needed to justify a motorway.

I think that is a vast exaggeration, the M25, the busiest road in the UK (and one of the busiest in Europe) carries 196,000 cars per day (unrealistic average of over 8,000 per hour) and it is a 6 lane motorway with some parts being 12 lanes!!

Does anyone have real figures for what is required to justify a 4 lane Motorway?

I'd guess that less then 50,000 per day would justify a 4 lane Motorway.

mysterious

Lennoxschips wrote:

50,000 vehicles per hour is the amount needed to justify a motorway.

The motorway from Dunkettle to Watergrasshil in Cork comes nowhere near that.

Are you sure you meant 50,000 a "day"

Anyways the figures I picked, Ages ago, four lane Motorway 2by2. Is about 55,000 to 80,000

DC as in standard( not HQDC as it thereabouts equals Motorway) has a limit of 30,000. I can't find the figures for this.. but I'm sure these are close to it.

Cork Dublin average is probs about 10,500, and in around the same for Limerick. where N8 joins the M7 it doubles and doubles again near Naas.. A motorway is fine IMO to Limerick and Cork and Belfast. As I was just thinking, Nra counter page updated if anyones interested, having mentioned this the traffic levels on routes have rocketed.

A few years ago traffic on the old N7 at Morrette was 18,000
Now if you were to add figures of today.
28,000 between Monasterevin and Kildare and 1800 for local traffic on the local road (N7).
When the M7 was being constructed, planners and road experts predicted traffic to be 16,000 a day on the Monasterevin bypass. This is just to give an example of why future proofing needs to be taken seriously. the NRA need study doc. is well outdated at this stage, but was fit for the time, but not now.

Whch is why they should have left the entire M7 to be a motorway as planned instead of faffing different road designs for the sake of tractors and green people who fear a 4 lane road at this day and age. I'll give the NRA one thing, some roads they've planned or built are future proofed like the Ennis bypass as an example.

So many road that were planned prior to the T21 (back to NDP:rolleyes: ) were studied for traffic counts etc, to come up with the best type of route fitted the purpose and for the next 20 years. You have to accept people want to drive their cars and there are more people coming to ireland and work and live here, so there are going to way more cars on the roads in 5 years time.

Here's an example of a Motorway in Ireland that has being around for 20years or so. take the M7 at Naas It's all ready nearly reached peak flows.it's has peaked 55,000 and will have to be widened in afew years given that the Naas road is now upgraded. That's opening another stress point:D a lot done more to do.

Roll on the the 4 lane roads. No point in downsizing roads just because a road just barely misses the requirement of 50,000 a day. I also don't think we should build a 4 lane for the sake of it. I believe that you have to hypotisised traffic levels on a planned route for 20 years, and if the results are likely to reach a target for a motorway then thumbs up for it being built.

The M25 is a disaster as it's one of those roads that has being so conjested for so many years that adding a lane won't do any good at this stage, M25 will clogg up as far to many roads interchange with it. I mean roads in France at that level would be at least 8 lanes if not more. It's ironic actually that nearly all inter urban motorways are 6 lanes in UK the and that's the trend. I don't see a problem in wideing them as cars are getting cleaner,and possibly more sooner than later... I'm sure I've covered everything(boredom):D

mysterious

popebenny16 wrote:

. For one I agree that the new motorway programme is badly designed, it is badly estimated and for the most part it is simply not needed. Take the M7 and as soon as you are past Kildare it is a ghost road. We should ahve concentrated in making the NPR's more safe.
.

Firstly that is highly exaggerated, on a wide open plain in the middle of the country where cars are more spaced apart with a median, it looks like they are less cars.... 28,000 vehicles a day pass, it meets the demand and for the future... why what would you plan for better money?

Put it back on the old N7.... was that a ghost road? If you remember this road was like a sane person going in a insane direction...

bryanw

Slice wrote:

Does this include the M1, M2 and M3 or perhaps there were other alternatives to this plan that should have been considered?

Well the M1 is more or less finished (on "our" side at least) so its too late for people complaining that's unnecessary. The M3 is at an advanced stage (no construction yet though )... and the M2, well the Ashbourne HQDC has been done, I am not sure of any other plans to extend motorway further north. I wouldn't be opposed to it but I don't think it's a priority.

The M3 is obviously to serve the hugh Meath commuter corridor - which I'm sure most people will agree is needed. But unfortunately the people of Meath will have to wait for a good while before either road or rail is extended. As for the Galway/Limerick/Cork/Waterford Routes, I believe they are necessary... I know there will be rants for me saying this now (esp. for the Waterford Rd.) but it needs to be done while we have the money.

Everyone will agree that the M50 is the worst traffic problem in Ireland at the moment. The reason - as is widely known - is because traffic growth was hugely underestimated and we obviously can't have that happening again on our other main national routes. Even when the M50 upgrade is finished, there is still gridlock predicted.

The national routes need to be upgraded to promote trade and create swifter links between out major cities. Our network has started, whats the problem with finishing it? Just quickly for the Waterford Road, it needs to be upgraded because the current one is in a terrible state for the most part. I this cos I know this is the one that will attract criticism... plus with our current minister, I don't see it not being done, nor do it see any new government taking the promise away from the people on that route.

I don't see why EVERY LITTLE THING has to be scrutinised and justifiable or it can't be done. We are supposed to be a wealthy, first world economy - we should have all this already, be it roads or rail.

Capt'n Midnight

mysterious wrote:

DC as in standard( not HQDC as it thereabouts equals Motorway) has a limit of 30,000. I can't find the figures for this.. but I'm sure these are close to it.

The Newcastle road is fairly busy in both directions each morning. Adamstown will have 10K houses, most with more than one occupant. So I'd guestimate 15,000 cars out and 15,000 back.

There is a new road nearby but it looks like single lane and only joins up to existing bottlenecks.

The new train station will sort this out :rolleyes: but only if it carries 15,000 people each morning and evening. Could this be done without affecting intercity timetables ?

DerekP11

Slice wrote:

DerekP11, with all due respect I find it peculiar that a member of Platform 11 should be so soft on the way the DoT allocates it's budget. Given P11's often combative stance in favour of the rail user this stands very much at odds with P11's attitude, no?

What's more you say that my argument over the way funds are divided by the DoT as being flawed, yet Platform 11's own website stresses "the need for best use of limited resources to provide the maximum impact" as arguments against the WRC. I'm not entirely in favour of the WRC either, however Platform 11 website uses the same argument to forward it's position when the argument suits.

Did Platform 11 not in fact write the following in the Irish Times in June 2005;

I don't think I am soft on the DOT or its budget allocation. Its not perfect, but I have no time for percentage comparisons with roads as a method of securing more funding for public transport. Its counter productive to the cause. I much prefer that the funding comparisons be curtailed within the issue of public transport itself. (hence,"the need for best use of limited resources to provide maximum impact")The budget for public transport will be smaller than the road budget for quite some time as our road network is way below par and much vaster than our rail or bus networks. Rail and bus also depend on the road network and modern European models demonstrate this to a great degree.

As for the article in the Irish Times, (that I co-wrote) you have presented the quote from it, out of context, with what I'm talking about here. We cannot build our way out of traffic gridlock. I stand over that. The N7 and N3 routes are two prime examples. They have parallel rail alignments. One is operational, but has limited services, the other has nothing.(both planned for improvement under T21) But I didn't even suggest in that piece that we shouldn't build the roads. The point being made, is that it won't be enough. When one considers the budgets for rail transport projects, which are still huge sums of money, then we must be directing it at critical projects along busy corridors. This offers people a choice of transport modes. Less overcrowding and higher frequencies of trains and a bus system that isn't strangled by road congestion.

I would suggest that the real issue, should not be, "who gets the biggest piece of the pie", but, "better planning and management of transport projects." You can throw billions at anything, but it won't guarantee success.

nordydan

mysterious wrote:

Firstly that is highly exaggerated, on a wide open plain in the middle of the country where cars are more spaced apart with a median, it looks like they are less cars.... 28,000 vehicles a day pass, it meets the demand and for the future... why what would you plan for better money?

Put it back on the old N7.... was that a ghost road? If you remember this road was like a sane person going in a insane direction...

Well said. The M1 north of drogheda can look quite empty at times, but if it closed and all the traffic had to go back through castle bellingham and dunleer then it would be silly season again. Same goes for Dundalk and newry town centres.

By completing the motorway network, we can guarantee travel times. The benefits of this to the economy are of course enormous and will over a very short period outweigh the cost of the new infrastructure.

Diaspora

DerekP11 wrote:

I would suggest that the real issue, should not be, "who gets the biggest piece of the pie", but, "better planning and management of transport projects." You can throw billions at anything, but it won't guarantee success.

I agree that this is the correct approach to adopt on logical grounds but as we all know well Infrastructure provision has come very low on the list of this governments priorities over the past 9 years. Now with an election on the horizon Transport 21 popped out of the woodwork after much harrassment from Platform 11 Frank McDonald & others.

The question is will the billions actually be thrown at public transport experience suggests it won't and that realistically most of the NDP has not been delivered

Roads
4.4 In the National Roads programme over €5 billion has been invested to date in major projects including the M1 motorway, the second M50 Bridge and the M50 South Eastern motorway, the M7 Kildare By-pass, N8 Watergrasshill bypass, N11 Ashford/Rathnew bypass. Major projects nearing completion include the M1/M50 Dublin Port Tunnel. Major projects under construction include the M50 Dublin City C-Ring Upgrade improvements, the N25 Waterford City bypass, N9 Carlow bypass, and the N11 Arklow/Gorey bypass.

4.5 Over 25,000 kilometres of non-national roads have been improved or restored by a total investment of €1.5 billion under the local infrastructure priority in the S&E regional Operational Programme.

Public transport
4.6 In the Public Transport area €2.7 billion or 117% of forecast, has been invested in the S&E region to the end of 2005. Major projects have included the Luas light rail in Dublin and the doubling of peak capacity on the DART line. The first tranche of 67 new intercity locomotive-hauled carriages were delivered in July 2005. These are undergoing commissioning and the entire fleet will be gradually introduced into service on the Cork-Dublin Route during 2006 culminating in an hourly service in both directions on that route by year-end. A contract awarded in late 2004 for 120 new intercity railcars was extended in December 2005 to 150 railcars. These trains will begin to arrive in mid 2007 and will be the final phase in the complete revamping of Iarnród Éireann’s intercity passenger services. Under the Rail Safety Programme, 760 kilometres of track were re-laid by end 2005 nationally.

4.7 Bus Átha Cliath awarded a contract for 50 double decker buses to suppliers in 2004, as part of its fleet replacement programme. All buses are now delivered and in-service. A further contract was awarded in December 2004 for 20 large capacity (tri-axle) double decker buses. All were delivered by year-end 2005, with eighteen of these buses entered into service.

4.8 In July 2005, approval was given for the purchase by Bus Átha Cliath of 100 replacement buses. Delivery of these vehicles is due to begin in April 2006.

The Dept of Finance document is still talking about 10 kms bypasses in Mid 2006 when motorways were supposed to be completed.

Has Dart capacity doubled or are most of the original fleet still MIA?

How can traind that will be delivered in Mid 2007 be included in a progress report to Mid 2006 by the same token if I order 365 litres of milk to be delivered at a rate of 1 a day for a year does that constitute having 365 litres?

Replacement buses being included as investment

Transport21 Fan

bk wrote:

just improving the current network so that the current trains can go closer to their top speed for longer. I think they badly need to do this, the other things you mentioned above won't help against the new motorways unless the journey time is also reduced.

and to this I would add regional and connecting bus services meeting arriving and departing trains at stations, regional transport publications with maps timetables and fare structures - as well as travel and communting options across the whole country. If an accountant can live in Millstreet and commute to Tralee to his job and back by rail, make sure he and the rest of the country are aware of such options and develop ticketing options to allow it to happen.

We could have a pretty good public transport system in a relatively short period just by taking what we have now and starting over again from scratch by reinventing the bus and rail networks. We do not have always solve every problem by reopening Western Fencepole and Hippy Railbike Corridors, building light rail in Galway, or relaying the track on the Limerick - Rosslare line with a couple of second hand track panels so the same useless Boat Train psychosis can trundle along devoid of passengers as usual.

Getting it right now, is not rocket science. But it's a monumental effort for Ireland because we have a Government who think that public transport is about winning votes in rural areas and losing them in urban/commuting areas (go figure!), a CIE management who are visionary only when it comes to building office blocks and the CIE unions who are such a complete waste of space in terms of being public transport professional that its only a big protection racket to them and nothing else.

Moving people to public transport in vast numbers in this country is more about culture than kit. It'll take an effort similar to what got us the Celtic Tiger, not by propping up the failed old methodoligies and monoliths, but embracing radical new ones. The most fundemental of these being the acceptance that CIE is long past being reformed into a competent public transport provider and it has to be binned.

High Speed Rail or Inter-City Rail Oblivion.

Motorways are part of the public transport network as well when buses use them - this is just reality and it's a growing reality which I embrace as a good thing and we should all support regardless of how we feel about modal rivalries. So it's not all black and white regarding the Road versus Rail debate by any means.

Future express inter-city Bus services on the completed motorway network will cream IE's inter-city rail service. Especially if this new central bus station for Dublin is built on the outskirts of the city on a metro line.

We have the right notions about commuter rail in this country and this is good, where it falls apart is inter-city rail. Personally I feel the product is doomed because it lacks ambition and is lost in some-kind of British 1970's retro downward spiral wholly inapropriate for this island going forward.

Personally, I think we should be looking at building an ICE type service from Belfast to Dublin to Cork with a fully electrified service with whole new stretches of line incorporating the Interconnector. There is nothing radical or fruitcake about this idea at all. What's fruitcake is CIE and NIR talking about 750 million to have a 1970's BR HST service from Dublin to Belfast for 2020.

Now that's real fruitcake thinking. 750 million Euro for a 1970's service a quarter of the way through the 21st century is not going to save Inter-City rail on this island. Time to get real and have a bit of ambition.

spacetweek

I think some people here are creating a no-win situation for the NRA. True, they didn't think big in the past (e.g. M50), but since the beginning of the decade the NRA has shown itself to be one of the few government infrastructure organisations which is thinking really, really big - they're putting in place roads which will be future proofed for at least 20 years. The same certainly cannot be said of Luas, for example.

If the NRA think big, people accuse them of being gradiose, but if they don't think big people complain about half-measures and "doing it right first time." We should be commending the NRA for having the guts to insist on future proofing something as vital as the interurban roads. Let's give credit where credit is due people!

Diaspora

spacetweek wrote:

I think some people here are creating a no-win situation for the NRA. True, they didn't think big in the past (e.g. M50), but since the beginning of the decade the NRA has shown itself to be one of the few government infrastructure organisations which is thinking really, really big -

The NRA have not thought big they do not have the capacity to think big; take County Meath

M1 they did a good job
M2 they built a commuter motorway that is virtually empty outside peak morning and peak evening times.
M3 They were instructed in 1999 to get this delivered in 3-4 years 7 years later because of a suicidal route selection the teaspoon is the main excavation tool being used on this route.
M4 is being resurfaced less than 9 months after delivery

http://www.villagemagazine.ie/article.asp?sid=1&sud=10&aid=575

http://www.basis.ie/servlet/blobservlet/NDPexecsum.doc?language=EN

bryanw

spacetweek wrote:

I think some people here are creating a no-win situation for the NRA. True, they didn't think big in the past (e.g. M50), but since the beginning of the decade the NRA has shown itself to be one of the few government infrastructure organisations which is thinking really, really big - they're putting in place roads which will be future proofed for at least 20 years. The same certainly cannot be said of Luas, for example.

If the NRA think big, people accuse them of being gradiose, but if they don't think big people complain about half-measures and "doing it right first time." We should be commending the NRA for having the guts to insist on future proofing something as vital as the interurban roads. Let's give credit where credit is due people!

Fully Agree!

Diaspora wrote:

M3 They were instructed in 1999 to get this delivered in 3-4 years 7 years later because of a suicidal route selection the teaspoon is the main excavation tool being used on this route.
M4 is being resurfaced less than 9 months after delivery

M3 is being held up by tree-huggers who won't let us build the things that are badly needed. Ask anyone who uses the N3 every day.

M4 was built by contractors who were paid to do it - it's their fault and they will be fixing it.

Diaspora wrote:

Replacement buses being included as investment

You're forgetting to mention that the "replacement buses" will have a higher capacity than the ones they replace.

Diaspora

http://www.nra.ie/Transportation/TrafficDataCollection/TrafficCounterData/html/N03-06.htm

http://www.nra.ie/Transportation/TrafficDataCollection/TrafficCounterData/html/N03-17.htm

Can't be justifed on those figures no matter what spin you attempt to put on it

The buses have in limited cases a slightly higher capacity but to trumpet replacement as visionary investment is highly flawed; all businesses deal with depreciation and provision for it accordingly.

craigybagel

sorry to spoil the fun but wasnt this a thread on the official launch of the Mk4s?

Victor

Thread split.

bk

Diaspora wrote:

http://www.nra.ie/Transportation/TrafficDataCollection/TrafficCounterData/html/N03-06.htm

http://www.nra.ie/Transportation/TrafficDataCollection/TrafficCounterData/html/N03-17.htm

Can't be justifed on those figures no matter what spin you attempt to put on it

But I'll ask again, what is the cost difference between a Dual Carriageway (which I believe these numbers do justify) and a motorway?

Could it be that motorway doesn't cost much more then DC (as land is the most expensive part of building roads and you need much the same for DC as motorway) and this is a case of good future proofing. 20,000 a day doesn't seem to be that far off what is required for a motorway, it wouldn't surprise me to reach much higher in 20 years from now.

Diaspora

On those figures a Dual carriageway is not justified but a 2 plus 1 arrangement could be justified compare those figures with the N24 at Ballysimonwhich as a single carriageway and works well.

The real problems are Dunshaughlin which should have been bypassed 15 years ago and the reality that if this Motorway is completed that tens of thousands more houses will be built along its route and twice as much traffic will hit the M50/N3 interchange.

John R

Diaspora wrote:

http://www.nra.ie/Transportation/TrafficDataCollection/TrafficCounterData/html/N03-06.htm

http://www.nra.ie/Transportation/TrafficDataCollection/TrafficCounterData/html/N03-17.htm

Can't be justifed on those figures no matter what spin you attempt to put on it

The buses have in limited cases a slightly higher capacity but to trumpet replacement as visionary investment is highly flawed; all businesses deal with depreciation and provision for it accordingly.

The only increase in capacity in the last 5 years has come from replacing small buses with large ones. Considering how much Dublin has expanded in that time it is a ludicrous thing for the Government to be crowing about, especially as this "investement" was funded through Dublin Bus' internal finances without a penny of additional funding from central government.


More roads=more cars. it's as simple as that. There is a case for Motorways to connect our main population centres, most of which is already in the pipeline. Beyond that we do not need motorways or dual carriageways. Im thnking of M2. M3, etc. Commuter motorways for Dublin should not be built under any circumstance. The city and it's suburbs are choking under the weight of car commuters. Adding 000000s more from everywhere in a 75mile radius is not a solution to anything.

With the way things are going the only solution to our traffic problems will be a global oil crisis and economic recession. Ex-celtic tiger IT heads standing in the dole office queue reminiscing misty-eyed over their 3 hour commute from Navan in 10 mile tailbacks on the M3.

DerekP11

John R wrote:

The only increase in capacity in the last 5 years has come from replacing small buses with large ones. Considering how much Dublin has expanded in that time it is a ludicrous thing for the Government to be crowing about, especially as this "investement" was funded through Dublin Bus' internal finances without a penny of additional funding from central government.


More roads=more cars. it's as simple as that. There is a case for Motorways to connect our main population centres, most of which is already in the pipeline. Beyond that we do not need motorways or dual carriageways. Im thnking of M2. M3, etc. Commuter motorways for Dublin should not be built under any circumstance. The city and it's suburbs are choking under the weight of car commuters. Adding 000000s more from everywhere in a 75mile radius is not a solution to anything.

With the way things are going the only solution to our traffic problems will be a global oil crisis and economic recession. Ex-celtic tiger IT heads standing in the dole office queue reminiscing misty-eyed over their 3 hour commute from Navan in 10 mile tailbacks on the M3.

The above, is an argument that quite nicely sums up the difference between the Inter Urban motorway/HQDC programme and projects such as the N2 and N3. Both routes actually go to a wilderness in some shape or form and the heavy investment that they are attracting in the Dublin region is nothing more than pandering to the motorcar and in the case of the N3, a method of extracting more money (Fianna Fail supporters look away now) and delivering nice contracts to the construction industry, that aids the tax take from the motorist and keeps the construction industry going, which in turn keeps the economy rolling. 2+1 and grade seperation may have done the job on these routes as far as Ashbourne and Navan and Kells respectively. (nobody could doubt that the roads needed upgrading)Combined with a rail line from Navan via Clonsilla and Drogheda and we might have had the beginnings of a nice little thing going, in this area. A Motorway on the N3 and a HQDC on the N2 is overkill. While tolls will be in force on the eventual M3, lets not forget that it was originally planned to have a toll on the N2.

Others here can tell that story.

Navan Junction

John R wrote:

More roads=more cars. it's as simple as that. There is a case for Motorways to connect our main population centres, most of which is already in the pipeline. Beyond that we do not need motorways or dual carriageways. Im thnking of M2. M3, etc. Commuter motorways for Dublin should not be built under any circumstance.

John R wrote:

Ex-celtic tiger IT heads standing in the dole office queue reminiscing misty-eyed over their 3 hour commute from Navan in 10 mile tailbacks on the M3.

I would agree with you mainly here.

Throwing commuter motorways down is not the way forward in the sense that traffic will simply grow to fill the capacity.

However, both the N2 and the M3 will have a non commuter use to Derry and the North-West so in the broader scheme of things I wouldn't find fault with either of them as part of regional links, though I suppose you would have to accept the 2+1 or dualc arguement as well when you consider Dublin to Cork/Galway/Limerick has yet to be completed.

The real cause of the delay in construction of the M3 lies in the fact it is a toll road. It has been designed in sections so work could already be started on most of it. Dunboyne to Dunshaughlin could have started, as could south of Navan to north of Kells.

But because of the PPP/Tolling aspect, it is an all or nothing project. There is no injunction stopping construction - it is the fact that a delay in one stretch could damage the overall tolling arrangements (ie who would join the M3 at Dunshaughlin to pay a toll as far as gridlock in Blanchardstown after Clonee?) which is the problem.

I firmly believe that the M3 should have taken a more westerly route from Navan to Dunshaughlin (as the railway alignment does) as it could have linked Trim on to the M3 and catered for ALL of the towns in the Meath West area.

There is nothing significant between Dunshaughlin and Navan afterall population wise. I believe that the route (root!) of all problems has been the easterly deviated section which I reckon was chosen to keep the tolls away from Trim as it is a political powerbase hometown of a prominent government Minister from Meath.

The M3 should have catered for Trim.

Remember both the M3 and the N2(M2) were planned at the same time.

Politically, having the commuters of Trim pay a toll would have severly damaged the government candidates locally. So they are getting 2 upgraded and realigned roads instead to the N3/M3 at the Blackbull and the M4 at Kilcock.

The M3 is designed in sections as above but will be tolled at 2 points - Fairyhouse/Blackbull and just north of Navan.

One thing is absolutely certain. Commuters from Kells will have to pay 2 tolls before they leave Meath on the M3, and the same to return home in the evenings. That is a disgrace by anyones standards.

And a quick footnote - Kells has been on the bypass list since 1964 - it is a disgrace too that it hasn't been bypassed. And Diaspora you are spot on re Dunshaughlin bypass.

I would love a motorway (for non-commuter hours trips anyway - for that I'll have a railway pls) to Navan but I reckon they've made a complete balls-up of it so far. It didn't have to be and shouldn't be this messy.

Diaspora

Navan Junction wrote:

However, both the N2 and the M3 will have a non commuter use to Derry and the North-West so in the broader scheme of things I wouldn't find fault with either of them as part of regional links, though I suppose you would have to accept the 2+1 or dualc arguement as well when you consider Dublin to Cork/Galway/Limerick has yet to be completed.

Please read previous posts.

Derry including Letterkenny here

Cavan including Donegal/Fermanagh here

A link road should be built from the M1 towards Monaghan Town for Derry and North Donegal and the N4 built up for South Donegal and East Leitrim.

A rail link from Navan via Drogheda and situation sorted; M3 is Westlink all over again and we all know that by 2000 the M50 was referred to as Dublins Main Street. If the M3 is completed look forward to an Ashbourne type model stretching from Clonee to Kells.

Navan Junction

Diaspora wrote:

If the M3 is completed look forward to an Ashbourne type model stretching from Clonee to Kells.

I have no problems with a Ashbourne type model in the toll sense. ie none. God, even 1 would be welcome news to the 2 planned.

I do think they've made a balls of it but at the same time I think the Government is determined to drive it through, irrespective of whther it is overkill or not.

An if it is overkill, who will feel the bill most?

I know the original plan was an upgrade of the existing road, and that that plan and the bypasses were ditched in favour of a tolling arrangment which nessessitaed the new road being a motorway.

My point was if there is going to be a motorway, then Trim should have been linked in, the tolls (if any) should have been realistic and route selection could have saved lots of hassle and unessessary expense.

And if you dispensed with the motorway option, you would still need to upgrade the N3.

In fairness, simply linking Navan back by rail without doing something road-wise wouldn't be enough.

The reality is that Navan/Kells/Virginia area has boomed, is booming and for a while anyway will continue to do so, even without a motorway.

But the strategy for Meath whether it is motorway etc does mean road and rail.

Sure, even a spur off the N2 would be welcome.

westtip

mysterious wrote:

Are you sure you meant 50,000 a "day"

The M25 is a disaster as it's one of those roads that has being so conjested for so many years that adding a lane won't do any good at this stage, M25 will clogg up as far to many roads interchange with it. I mean roads in France at that level would be at least 8 lanes if not more. It's ironic actually that nearly all inter urban motorways are 6 lanes in UK the and that's the trend. I don't see a problem in wideing them as cars are getting cleaner,and possibly more sooner than later... I'm sure I've covered everything(boredom):D

The M25 is not a disaster it is one of the most successful motorways in Europe - comparing the m25 to the m50 is simply not comparing like with like. The M25 circumnavigates one of the worlds major cities and urban areas and is available for daily use by an urban population in excess of 20 million. so lets get things in perspective, the M50 is a horse shoe around a provincial size city and urban area of about 2 million, the M50 works relatively well at non peak times but at peak times like any motorway serving any city things get slow on it. The problem of congestion on the M25 has been addressed in the past ten years, the busieset section - the south east quartile has been expanded to four lanes, with five lanes at some of the merger points on major junctions (M3, M11 and M4 interchangess), the installation of overhead gantries with cameras and very strict speed controls has improved the traffic flow on the M25. In the morning the speed limit is reduced to 50 mph and drivers are encouraged to driver between 40 and 50 to keep traffic flowing, this stops the situation of a slight clog up followed by clear patches in which people press the accelorator to try and catch up - only to run into another clog up. If you break the speed limit, believe me with the efficient ticketing system they have in the UK, you will get a ticket and three points (In the UK the whole penalty points process is managed very efficiently centrally from the Swansea DVLC centre, fortunately local authorities have nothing to do with driving licences so the system works) Of course the M25 gets busy and slow at peak times- but as said this is to be expected and it cracks me up when people complain about traffic jams at 8.30 am and 5.30 pm, that's life. The M50 is a disaster due to bad junction design (no free flow) and of course the cash-link bridge, which IMO is the main reason for the delays on the M50, but that one has been much debated.

Slice

In relation to issues regarding the M2 and M3 - it should be pointed out that both motorways do not serve any major urban centres other than Dublin and as such will only be used as a commuter routes. It will also encourage further development in areas not designated for growth in the national spacial strategy and are only a few miles apart which effectively means unnecessary duplication and use of resources that could have been better invested in the Navan rail link for example. What's more the M3 intersects the Tara-Skryne Valley - a route that we all know is highly controversial in terms of impact on environment and heritage - whatever your viewpoint on this there's undeniably been a concerted effort by the NRA to portray this issue as being heritage vs. development when in actual fact a solution that would have accomodated all concerns could have easily been forwarded at considerably lower costs by building one motorway instead of two. When you look at it from this perspective I find it hard to understand how the argument over how funds should be split between roads and public transport don't come into play.

Furthermore - the consequence of development and planning tilted in favour motorways in the whole Meath region at the detriment to public transport is that development will spread along these routes in such a fashion as to encourage calls for another orbital route around Dublin further beyond the M50 - these calls have already been made but the arguments for second orbital route will only be strenghtened by the current direction of emphasis on roads instead of rail

Metrobest

westtip wrote:

The M50 is a disaster due to ...the cash-link bridge, which IMO is the main reason for the delays on the M50, but that one has been much debated.

The Sydney Harbour Bridge is a similarly congested bridge ia tolled only on the inbound lanes, and the toll booths are positioned cleverly - they are not all lined up in a straight line; rather, they are dispersed along a stretch of road. It definately makes the traffic flow more freely.

Another idea that could work on the M50 is to remove the median from the stretch between N4 and N3 junctions. Extra lanes could be added at peak times to the relevent direction (eg. 6 lanes southbound, 3 lanes Northbound etc. ). The M50's problems are not insurmountable and many sections of it work quite well and serve their purpose.

As far as roads V rail goes, there's no point pretending that public transport can alleviate the need for cars in Ireland. Not with the kind of population density and dispersal that exists, even in our urban centres. For many people, cars are an essential mode of tranport and as a vast number of people fall into this catagory, we have no option but to give the safest and most pleasant roads to drive on.

I'm all in favour of motorways to link urban centres and I think the M3 and M2 will benefit a lot of people so the case for building them is clear cut.

Slice

As far as roads V rail goes, there's no point pretending that public transport can alleviate the need for cars in Ireland. Not with the kind of population density and dispersal that exists

That's a very reactionary approach to the issue though. If future develoment was planned in such a way as to concentrate development along transport corridors with sufficient capacity and funding with emphasis on public transport that in itself would make public transport a more viable solution

Diaspora

Whilst agreeing with you I'd go further and say that the continuation of 32,000 one off houses per year being built is simply the root cause of many of our problems.

This figure which if 3.5 people live in each house and that is conservative given that most of them seem to be in excess of 2250 sq feet then 2.81% of the population moved into one offs last year. Given that this has persisted for at least the past five years then at least 12-15% are newly settled in dispersed housing.


If this continues for another decade at least 50% of the population will live in one off houses if you accept that pre 2000 that 10% of the population already lived in one offs pre 2000 and combine that with 13% 2000-05 and 28% growth to come.

This is crazy considering that 7% of the population work in agriculture and the persistent dismantling of the CAP supports which this government has supported.

Victor

I'm not sure why we need the N2 and M3. Precious few people live at the end of them and aren't served by the M1 and M4.

Diaspora wrote:

This figure which if 3.5 people live in each house and that is conservative

I imagine 3.5 is overstated. Typical household size tend to be in the order of 3.

DerekP11

I sense a merging of minds here and agreeable opinion from previously disagreeable posters. It almost seems that this thread may be workable. I'm liking it.;)

SLICE

I like your thinking on pre planned "corridors". Unfortunetly, our Government don't. Therefore we are in the realm of adapting what CRH and FF offer us. The "real" lobby groups have billions behind them and political influence.

METROBEST

I agree with the thrust of your post (Wow!) But I would be interested in hearing how you could justify the "dupliticious" nature of the N2 and N3 upgrades.

WESTTIP

Ive been on the M25, like many a paddy,and I agree its not a like with like comparison with the M50, but surely you'd agree that it was a cock up at design and build stage, hence the "works" to try and alleviate the "equitable" gridlock, when one compares it to the M50. (taking into account the intention of the road and obvious similarities with the M50)

Diaspora

Victor wrote:

I imagine 3.5 is overstated. Typical household size tend to be in the order of 3.

Agreed that median household sizes are generally two or three; but I think we are talking about the largest properties built in one offs generally.

When is the last time you saw a planning application for a one off with a floor area of less than 1000 sq feet vs median house types of apartments of 600-800 sq feet and townhouses or semis of 700-1000 sq feet.

It seems to me that if you are young or don't have a lot of money you get a small house or apartment and use public transport to commute and once you have acheived a certain status it has become the done thing to build a 2000 -3000 sq foot house miles from anywhere with both you and your partner driving in different directions and driving the family to school.

The current roads programme bias and binning of rural planning regulation has created a laisez faire culture that will come back to haunt the way this country is governed just as much as the abolition of domestic rates did in 1977.

bryanw

I don't know why the people of Meath and other surrounding counties should be sidelined because they choose (or must) live somewhere else because they can't afford a house in Dublin. Unless there is going to be a crash in property prices (which is pretty unlikely), I don't see an end people living on commuter belts.

The M3 will of course primarily serve the commuters - but there are many arguements in this topic that are similar to others. Just like people saying we shouldn't have a Metro because (they think) its only to serve the Airport and passenger numbers won't be large enough to justify it ...blah blah and so on. The M3 should cut journey times to border counties and the northwest. The M3 goes almost halfway to the border and will be a big improvment on the current M3.

I also honestly don't see why people have SUCH A HUGE PROBLEM with tolls. I would gladly pay a toll if the service (the road) being provided is a good one. Anyone who has even driven in France will know that its quite expensive to use their motorways. But the motorways are brilliant! There is little or no congestion, and most of the motorways are only 2 lanes. They are also not built as high-spec as those in Ireland or UK (but thats for a different topic). They have an effective method of tolling, which is pay-by-distance. I am aware that the whole network doesn't use this though. Almost all of the network is tolled but of course the French are smart enough not to toll the roads that are going to get congested like the ring roads. Maybe we should learn from the French.

Lets not forget that France has a huge network of motorways and also has along side it, one of the best railway systems in the world.

Slice

Isn't it the case that land in the Dublin area is being hoarded by developers even after rezoning to maintain artificially inflated prices? Isn't this in turn creating a situation where development is being encouraged further out by oppotunistic developers/landowners and county councils in the greater dublin areas?

Diaspora

bryanw wrote:

I don't know why the people of Meath and other surrounding counties should be sidelined because they choose (or must) live somewhere else because they can't afford a house in Dublin.

Sidelined from what?

This route has not been identified as a strategic national corridor in fact the strategic planning guidelines classify the county excepting Navan as an area not be developed for housing other than for local needs.

bryanw wrote:

The M3 will of course primarily serve the commuters - but there are many arguements in this topic that are similar to others. Just like people saying we shouldn't have a Metro because (they think) its only to serve the Airport and passenger numbers won't be large enough to justify it ...blah blah and so on.

Nobody is saying that the airport should not have a rail connection of some form either Luas, Dart or Metro they simply differ on the options on cost grounds. Similarly no one is saying that the N3 is acceptable

It is simply asserted that an €800m motorway is complete overkill; particularly in the context of proximity to the M2 and M4 motorways. Bypass Dunshaughlin and see what happens.

bryanw wrote:

The M3 should cut journey times to border counties and the northwest. The M3 goes almost halfway to the border and will be a big improvment on the current M3.

The Border which appears comprise mostly Fermanagh residents commuting to Cavan which peaks at 10 cars per minute.

bryanw wrote:

Lets not forget that France has a huge network of motorways and also has along side it, one of the best railway systems in the world.

France has a population in excess of 60m and no commuter only motorways.

D'Peoples Voice

Navan Junction wrote:

I firmly believe that the M3 should have taken a more westerly route from Navan to Dunshaughlin (as the railway alignment does) as it could have linked Trim on to the M3 and catered for ALL of the towns in the Meath West area.

There is nothing significant between Dunshaughlin and Navan afterall population wise. I believe that the route (root!) of all problems has been the easterly deviated section which I reckon was chosen to keep the tolls away from Trim as it is a political powerbase hometown of a prominent government Minister from Meath.

The M3 should have catered for Trim.

I agree completely, the motorway should have gone to Trim, because that would have developed the midlands.
However, I must add that from recollection, the county council put forward the routes and hold the public consultations and then decide on the final route. The NRA are just there to priortise projects and agree the budgets/timeframes etc. I don't think we can blame the NRA for the routes put forward by a county council in meath, a county council democratically elected by the people of meath!
Having said that, in what town in meath are the county council offices and will the M3 be going close to that town?

bryanw

Diaspora wrote:

Sidelined from what?

This route has not been identified as a strategic national corridor in fact the strategic planning guidelines classify the county excepting Navan as an area not be developed for housing other than for local needs.

Sorry, what I meant was the "commuters" who live in Meath who are not necessarily Meath "natives". The people who will be using the M3 to travel to Dublin everyday. They have to survive in some way, and if they want to live in Meath, they should be allowed and given the proper infrastructure to get to work...

EDIT: And the route has been identified as a National Transport Corridor under the National Spatial Strategy. Link (go2 last page map): http://www.irishspatialstrategy.ie/docs/powerpoint/protect/Dublin%20%20ME%20Region%20Roadshow.pdf

Diaspora wrote:

Nobody is saying that the airport should not have a rail connection of some form either Luas, Dart or Metro they simply differ on the options on cost grounds.

Read this topic from where I've linked and on a page (maybe 2). You'll find some posts which think we don't need any rail link...

Diaspora wrote:

Similarly no one is saying that the N3 is acceptable.

Somebody is: Link

Diaspora wrote:

It is simply asserted that an €800m motorway is complete overkill; particularly in the context of proximity to the M2 and M4 motorways. Bypass Dunshaughlin and see what happens.

The the upgraded part of the N2 hardly goes half way to Navan and then it's further again to Kells. Do you want to congest the M4 by putting all the N3 traffic onto it as well. The M4 carries traffic from Sligo, Mayo and Galway, as well as the other "commuter towns" along that motorway.

It's funny how people complain before things are built, but they're great after they're built. I've never heard a bad word about the last section of the M50. And lots of complaints before LUAS was finished, now it's so good, people complain that they can't get onto it because there is no capacity.

Diaspora wrote:

France has a population in excess of 60m and no commuter only motorways.

I am well aware of the population of France, thank you very much... You're missing the point I am trying to make. They have a brilliant road and rail network side-by-side, and both are heavily used. Obviously we don't have 60 million people, but we still have the same problems as the rest of the developed world. We need to move our people around, and we have to put them somewhere as well.

And in France, despite having 60m people, there is not a whole lot of congestion on their motorways. I was really trying to discuss the point people are making about tolls and what the big problem with them is.

Oh, and they do have commuter motorways, look here: http://www.viamichelin.com/viamichelin/gbr/dyn/controller/mapPerformPage?pim=true&act=RefineToMap&rnd=1153226766734&E_mg=210506200lS12J106199144604350176MAPB2C17103gbr542000130r110414240007UGFyaXM00001100&stat=ambiguous_map&strChoice=0
I haven't got time to point out the exact ones, but if you want me to I will later. Also look at some more of the major cities and you'll find some more. Every country has commuters...

Diaspora

bryanw wrote:

Sorry, what I meant was the "commuters" who live in Meath who are not necessarily Meath "natives". The people who will be using the M3 to travel to Dublin everyday. They have to survive in some way, and if they want to live in Meath, they should be allowed and given the proper infrastructure to get to work...

The scarcity of resources as identified by Adam Smith almost 250 years ago dictates that if you get this vanity project tens of thousands of people at other locations will be denied much more valid projects.

bryanw wrote:

Read this topic from where I've linked and on a page (maybe 2). You'll find some posts which think we don't need any rail link...


Somebody is: Link

I speak for Diaspora please don't insult my intelligence by trying to second guess other contributors.

bryanw wrote:

The the upgraded part of the N2 hardly goes half way to Navan and then it's further again to Kells. Do you want to congest the M4 by putting all the N3 traffic onto it as well. The M4 carries traffic from Sligo, Mayo and Galway, as well as the other "commuter towns" along that motorway.

The M1 is not at peak capacity but carries 100,000 per day the M4 carrying a third of this has 20 to 30 years spare capacity when the surface stays on.

As I said before a bypass of Dunshaughlin would take the N3 directly to Navan and for less than €100m you could have a rail connection direct to Connolly station or Rosslare if you wanted.

bryanw wrote:

It's funny how people complain before things are built, but they're great after they're built. I've never heard a bad word about the last section of the M50. And lots of complaints before LUAS was finished, now it's so good, people complain that they can't get onto it because there is no capacity.

The construction of Luas was a farce I never questioned the quality of the end product even before it opened.

bryanw wrote:

I am well aware of the population of France, Oh, and they do have commuter motorways, look here: http://www.viamichelin.com/viamichelin/gbr/dyn/controller/mapPerformPage?pim=true&act=RefineToMap&rnd=1153226766734&E_mg=210506200lS12J106199144604350176MAPB2C17103gbr542000130r110414240007UGFyaXM00001100&stat=ambiguous_map&strChoice=0
I haven't got time to point out the exact ones,

You are relying on International trunk routes as commuter motorways the A1 goes to Belgium and the UK A4 to Luxembourg A5 to Eastern Spain A6 to Italy and Switzerland A9 to Western Spain and Portugal. You need to get specific

markpb

bryanw wrote:

Sorry, what I meant was the "commuters" who live in Meath who are not necessarily Meath "natives". The people who will be using the M3 to travel to Dublin everyday. They have to survive in some way, and if they want to live in Meath, they should be allowed and given the proper infrastructure to get to work...

This is patently untrue. If I decide to live in Donegal and work in Dublin, should the government be expected to provide a motorway all the way between the two places? What if 100 people do the same, or 1000? What if I don't like driving for four hours, should they build an airport so I can fly to work?

The government cannot make decisions based soley on peoples feelings - there has to be some element of logic and feasibility. All the M3 will do is make living in Navan even more feasible which is a bad thing. More people will commute, more dormatory towns will be created, the cost of providing services as urban sprawl contines will increase, the demand for public transport in Dublin will decrease and the demand for more expensive public transport between Navan and Dublin will increase. None of these are desirable despite what you might think.

On the other hand, a combination of bad planning and poor public transport forced people to move to Navan in the first place so the government does share some responsibility.

It's funny how people complain before things are built, but they're great after they're built. I've never heard a bad word about the last section of the M50. And lots of complaints before LUAS was finished, now it's so good, people complain that they can't get onto it because there is no capacity.

There's no correlation between public acceptance of a government project and its feasibility. Just because people like the end result does not mean the government should spend vast sums of money giving it to them. I do think the Luas was worthwhile but I don't think it was properly built or well scoped which is why we have the capacity issues we do today.

I think we should definitely have a metro with the coverage and frequency of the London Underground but it won't happen because it isn't feasible - cost benefit analysis is essential.

Navan Junction

Diaspora wrote:

As I said before a bypass of Dunshaughlin would take the N3 directly to Navan and for less than €100m you could have a rail connection direct to Connolly station or Rosslare if you wanted.

The Blackbull junction (where trim & Rathoat roads join) is the worst bottleneck on the N3 apart from Blanchardstown outside of the summer months.

Similarly, Navan is brutal to get through.

On the run out of Dublin, there can be 2 mile tailbacks where the N3 singles at the top of the Clonee section.

To sort out the Meath portions you are talking about significant work on the N3:

1) Where the N3 singles at Clonee
2) Dual-c to from Clonee to Blackbull and flyovers
3) Bypass of Dunshaughlin
4) Bypass of Navan
5) Bypass of Kells

That would be a 'do minimum' strategy

However, there are newly aligned roads being built around the country so why not do more than just bypass Dunshaughlan?

I accept the whole M3 project is over engineered and that the M2/M3 are too close and there is an element of overlap.

Could the N3 could have been built simply as a dual carriageway instead of a motorway at a cheaper price?

And I think that it is often forgotten that it doesn't have to be a motorway to have 2 lanes, though I would imagine a serious difference in cost.

Re route selection, it was designed by MCC. I know.:rolleyes:

Re tolls, I have no problems with tolling if it was a burden shared across the country. But consider that there are/will be 4 tolls in Meath and none in Kildare for example.. And bear in mind, you are talking about 2 full tolls each way from Kells, each day. Nowhere else has that imposed.

I would have to ask the question would the savings in simply making the M3 a dual-c have saved enough to negate the need for tolling?

Irrespective of this debate though, the M3 looks destined to plow ahead as planned - to a great extent this debate seems academical.

Slice

I do think the Luas was worthwhile but I don't think it was properly built or well scoped which is why we have the capacity issues we do today.

I would disagree. Although Luas has many failings - the concept of a light rail service for a city the size of Dublin has been proven elsewhere and I'm unconvinced a costlier Metro network would be necessary. If Luas were to be implemented properly (and it's not too late to do so) that in itself would placate the need for a Metro (apart from the already planned Metro North). I'm mainly talking about the orbital Metro that's proposed, it strikes me to be a waste that can be compared to the duplication of motorways in the form of M2/M3. Again, getting back to the point it's money that could be better spent on the Navan rail link as an example (i'm not suggesting it should be though).

Although their routes are drastically different - the completion of a Dart service to Maynooth and Hazelhatch (via interconnector) raises the question just how many orbital rail routes does Dublin need? The only similar example I can think of being the North London Line in a city with a far bigger population shows that orbital rail routes rarely compete with the rail patronage of radial routes. Where the Luas falls down is in the length of the two lines - There should be more Luas lines covering shorter distances. Distances such as the red line or the green line (with completed Cherrywood extension) should be served by commuter services such as Dart, or perhaps Metro.

Getting back to the issue of how funds should be allocated and the point raised by DerekP11 previously - I am definately of the opinion that public transport would get a better airing if there was greater accountability of Government over wastage in terms of road building and to deal with the reality that building more roads leads to more congestion and poor planning. Instead there appears in many circles to be silent complicity on the issue.