Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
M20 - Cork to Limerick [preferred route chosen; in design - phase 3]
Options
Comments
-
I think we'll all be in our graves well before this is ever built... I hope I'm wrong.0
-
Nevertheless it's a question that your position raises, and which it is perfectly fair to ask. The safest form of road to drive on is Motorway. It provides:orangerhyme wrote: »This is an emotionally loaded question and difficult to answer without sounding insensitive. Every death in the roads is a regrettable tragedy.- Hard division of directions of traffic - so head on crashes become super-rare.
- Minimum of two lanes per direction so overtaking is safe, commonplace and mostly stress free. No mile long tailbacks behind one slow moving vehicle.
- Controlled access junctions that carefully manage the joining and leaving of the road.
- Strict segregation of fast traffic from slow.
- Guaranteed breakdown lanes (hard shoulders) so that vehicles disabled by a flat tyre, overheating engine etc can get off the carraigeway immediately.
- Guaranteed engineering standards of curvature, line of sight etc. so there is less chance to be taken by surprise by anything than on oh say, a 16th century goat track riddled with one off housing and uncontrolled accesses.
No. If you ban all motorised transport, 90+% of the people would die.If we banned all motorised transport, we would save more lives than building the M20.
1) All farming would cease because tractors are part of the farm work and it is often required for tractors to use the road.
2) Most stores would run out of goods, including food stores, because motorised transport to resupply them would have ceased. Perhaps 1% of stores could stay open if the Luas were retrofitted to carry goods, food and goods could be imported to Dublin port, carried to the Point Luas stop and store owners could pick up consignments from cargo trams en-route - with the Green and Red lines linked this could work. But every other store in thje country would close. By the way, the food sold in Luas-side shops would all be imported because all farming would have ceased.
3) Most workers would have to quit their jobs as only a small minority cycle or use electrified railways entirely for their commute.
4) That includes doctors, ambulance drivers, nurses etc.
5) Not that it would matter because all ambulance usage would cease? Got a heart attack? Let's hope you can walk to hospital because ambulances are "motorised transport"
5) Even if 1-5 did not happen, most non-essential travel would cease. No internal tourism. No shopping that was not absolutely essential. Much more stuff being bought online (assuming online purchases could be delivered).
This statement is patently idiotic and the rest of it follows.
This statement is also patently idiotic.If we had a choice between spending €500m on the M20 or €500m for new equipment in hospitals, a better helicopter ambulance service and more paramedics, which option would save more lives?
Transport is the lifes blood of any functioning society yet in Ireland, spending on transport by the government is the second lowest of all sectors of government expenditure. Only Agriculture receives less from the government.
http://www.per.gov.ie/en/expenditure-trends/
The facts on this are clear. By far and away the largest recipient of government is Social Protection and the second is Health. Then education, justice, debt servicing, then "other" then waaaaaay down at the very bottom is transport and agriculture. The suggestion that savaging the already pitiful transport budget to put a little more into the HSE which consumes €15bn+ a year for a pathetic shambles of a health service, isn't just idiotic in light of these facts, it's bordering on insane.
Actually it's pretty easy when you look at the actual numbers - transport is virtually a non-entity when it comes to government expenditure. By far and away the biggest government expenditure is Social Protection. If it is your claim that an extra €500 million for the HSE would save lives - and if you have a costed case to back up that claim - then the D.S.P. should be the first place you look to make cuts to pay for it, as its budget is 10 times that of Transport. I.E. if you take €500 million from Transport, that's 1/4 of its budget whereas if you take it from Social Protection, it's only 1/40th.When you bring saving lives into a financial equation it gets complicated.0 -
You're also confusing capital expenditure and revenue expenditure. Capital expenditure is once-off, revenue expenditure is ongoing.
E.g. you build a school. It won't need to be rebuilt for 50-100 years. That's capital expenditure. But then the school needs teachers, heating, electricity, supplies etc. That's revenue or current expenditure.
The M20 is capital expenditure. You spend €500 million on, and then that's it, it just sits there creating value for people and business and requires only maintenance. The big cost (of building it) is paid.
Your wish list of "500 million for health" is less clear. Some of the equipment might last a long time, but the medical helicopter pilots, paramedics and other staff would need to be paid monthly. So you're basically comparing a one-time expenditure of €500 million to undetermined capital costs and potential current costs of €100-400 million annually, depending on the ratio of capex to current spending that you specify.
I submit that this does not make sense either.0 -
In effect building the M20 or any Motorway saves us, as consumers, money.
Everything we have comes on the back of a truck. Make this easier and cheaper and we all benefit. I suspect that not too many people would benefit from ,say, a freight route south to Athenry as suggested,unless you are Coca Cola or grow trees. indeed it would probably cost us money.
Then there's the saving in human terms, less deaths and injuries saves cash as well as misery. The benefits in terms of quality of life for those in towns bypassed can be factored in too.0 -
This is hilarious.
The economist from DCU was objecting to the M20 because it would invite sprawl. You seem to take his word as gospel and then you go ahead and want the NRR to be done before the M20.
You do know that the NRR would invite much more sprawl and hollow out the city core much more than the M20? You do know that right?
So why are you advocating the NRR before the M20?
Which is better, sprawl within the city boundary of high density which could support public transport, or further sprawl along the M20 in Blarney, Mallow, charleville which just forces more people to drive?
Corks problem with sprawl is the huge commuter belt from Midleton to Mallow to Macroom to Brandon and all the other urban areas in between. This sprawl, along with the big employment centers scattered outside the city such as little island, ringaskiddy etc is unsustainable and causes huge congestion. My policisies aim to reverse this trend and developing a more sustainable city.
The NRR is a solution to the existing sprawl and commuter belt and the congestion it causes.
My other policies aim to reverse the trend by encouraging city center living and working, as well as investment in urban transit etc.
As regards "hollow out the city core", I've spoken about investment in the docklands to encourage city center living and working. The m50 didn't hollow out Dublin, the m25 didn't hollow out London, you're talking about Detroit and other American cities in the last century and there's so many other factors at play in those case studies.
Now, I don't know Galway as well as Cork, but it sounds like they have the same problems as regards commuters, congestion, employment centers on outskirts of the city.
So I propose similar solutions:
Investment in Ring road, urban mass transit, densifying city center with apartments and offices etc.
I believe these policies are better uses of capital investment than a 200km motorway that will be underused, have far less positive impact and will do far less to grow the actual cities.
I've yet to hear one cohesive argument to convince me otherwise.
I'm sick of repeating the same arguments.0 -
Advertisement
-
orangerhyme wrote: »Which is better, sprawl within the city boundary of high density which could support public transport, or further sprawl along the M20 in Blarney, Mallow, charleville which just forces more people to drive?
Corks problem with sprawl is the huge commuter belt from Midleton to Mallow to Macroom to Brandon and all the other urban areas in between. This sprawl, along with the big employment centers scattered outside the city such as little island, ringaskiddy etc is unsustainable and causes huge congestion. My policisies aim to reverse this trend and developing a more sustainable city.
The NRR is a solution to the existing sprawl and commuter belt and the congestion it causes.
My other policies aim to reverse the trend by encouraging city center living and working, as well as investment in urban transit etc.
As regards "hollow out the city core", I've spoken about investment in the docklands to encourage city center living and working. The m50 didn't hollow out Dublin, the m25 didn't hollow out London, you're talking about Detroit and other American cities in the last century and there's so many other factors at play in those case studies.
Now, I don't know Galway as well as Cork, but it sounds like they have the same problems as regards commuters, congestion, employment centers on outskirts of the city.
So I propose similar solutions:
Investment in Ring road, urban mass transit, densifying city center with apartments and offices etc.
I believe these policies are better uses of capital investment than a 200km motorway that will be underused, have far less positive impact and will do far less to grow the actual cities.
I've yet to hear one cohesive argument to convince me otherwise.
I'm sick of repeating the same arguments.
Yes, you've been making this same argument for days now.
It is essentially "butter or guns".
It's not a binary choice: it doesn't have to be a binary choice, that's what we're all trying to say in response.
For what it's worth, I don't think the N40 north would increase density and reduce sprawl: rather the opposite. I would suggest the N40, though badly needed, will increase sprawl. That's just my opinion. But I don't know of any orbital route that has reduced sprawl and increased density.0 -
orangerhyme wrote: »Which is better, sprawl within the city boundary of high density which could support public transport, or further sprawl along the M20 in Blarney, Mallow, charleville which just forces more people to drive?
Corks problem with sprawl is the huge commuter belt from Midleton to Mallow to Macroom to Brandon and all the other urban areas in between. This sprawl, along with the big employment centers scattered outside the city such as little island, ringaskiddy etc is unsustainable and causes huge congestion. My policisies aim to reverse this trend and developing a more sustainable city.
The NRR is a solution to the existing sprawl and commuter belt and the congestion it causes.
My other policies aim to reverse the trend by encouraging city center living and working, as well as investment in urban transit etc.
As regards "hollow out the city core", I've spoken about investment in the docklands to encourage city center living and working. The m50 didn't hollow out Dublin, the m25 didn't hollow out London, you're talking about Detroit and other American cities in the last century and there's so many other factors at play in those case studies.
Now, I don't know Galway as well as Cork, but it sounds like they have the same problems as regards commuters, congestion, employment centers on outskirts of the city.
So I propose similar solutions:
Investment in Ring road, urban mass transit, densifying city center with apartments and offices etc.
I believe these policies are better uses of capital investment than a 200km motorway that will be underused, have far less positive impact and will do far less to grow the actual cities.
I've yet to hear one cohesive argument to convince me otherwise.
I'm sick of repeating the same arguments.
When you say "Cork's problem" would you mind expanding on what you mean by "problem"? Are you talking about an economic growth problem? A population growth problem? A quality of life problem?
Cork is currently one of the few areas of the country contributing more to government coffers than it receives: I'm not 100% clear on what you mean by "Cork's problem": Cork is never again, on its own, going to be a counterbalance to the Dublin economic centre. For me, "Cork's problem" is that the region around it (Limerick and Galway, but also Waterford) needs to start becoming a net contributor.
I mean that genuinely: Cork's big employers are manufacturing sites. They really don't want to be in the city centre.0 -
You're also confusing capital expenditure and revenue expenditure. Capital expenditure is once-off, revenue expenditure is ongoing.
E.g. you build a school. It won't need to be rebuilt for 50-100 years. That's capital expenditure. But then the school needs teachers, heating, electricity, supplies etc. That's revenue or current expenditure.
The M20 is capital expenditure. You spend €500 million on, and then that's it, it just sits there creating value for people and business and requires only maintenance. The big cost (of building it) is paid.
Your wish list of "500 million for health" is less clear. Some of the equipment might last a long time, but the medical helicopter pilots, paramedics and other staff would need to be paid monthly. So you're basically comparing a one-time expenditure of €500 million to undetermined capital costs and potential current costs of €100-400 million annually, depending on the ratio of capex to current spending that you specify.
I submit that this does not make sense either.
Let me put it in simpler terms for you.
€500m capital expenditure on a modern children's hospital will save more lives than €500m on the M20.
If you are equating building a road with saving lives, you are stretching. The cost per life saved will be huge compared to similar expenditure elsewhere.
A vaccination programme for 20 years for HPV will cost a lot less than €500m and will save many many more lives.
The number of lives lost on the N20 every year isn't sufficient in and of itself to justify building the M20, especially as many of those death will have been the result of bad driver behaviour as much as the state of the road.0 -
Evening Echo reporting NRR will be in the plan:orangerhyme wrote: »This is hilarious.
The economist from DCU was objecting to the M20 because it would invite sprawl. You seem to take his word as gospel and then you go ahead and want the NRR to be done before the M20.
You do know that the NRR would invite much more sprawl and hollow out the city core much more than the M20? You do know that right?
So why are you advocating the NRR before the M20?
Which is better, sprawl within the city boundary of high density which could support public transport, or further sprawl along the M20 in Blarney, Mallow, charleville which just forces more people to drive?
Corks problem with sprawl is the huge commuter belt from Midleton to Mallow to Macroom to Brandon and all the other urban areas in between. This sprawl, along with the big employment centers scattered outside the city such as little island, ringaskiddy etc is unsustainable and causes huge congestion. My policisies aim to reverse this trend and developing a more sustainable city.
The NRR is a solution to the existing sprawl and commuter belt and the congestion it causes.
My other policies aim to reverse the trend by encouraging city center living and working, as well as investment in urban transit etc.
As regards "hollow out the city core", I've spoken about investment in the docklands to encourage city center living and working. The m50 didn't hollow out Dublin, the m25 didn't hollow out London, you're talking about Detroit and other American cities in the last century and there's so many other factors at play in those case studies.
Now, I don't know Galway as well as Cork, but it sounds like they have the same problems as regards commuters, congestion, employment centers on outskirts of the city.
So I propose similar solutions:
Investment in Ring road, urban mass transit, densifying city center with apartments and offices etc.
I believe these policies are better uses of capital investment than a 200km motorway that will be underused, have far less positive impact and will do far less to grow the actual cities.
I've yet to hear one cohesive argument to convince me otherwise.
I'm sick of repeating the same arguments.
Northern Ring Road and possible LUAS for Cork to be confirmed today0 -
Let me put it in simpler terms for you.
€500m capital expenditure on a modern children's hospital will save more lives than €500m on the M20.
If you are equating building a road with saving lives, you are stretching. The cost per life saved will be huge compared to similar expenditure elsewhere.
A vaccination programme for 20 years for HPV will cost a lot less than €500m and will save many many more lives.
The number of lives lost on the N20 every year isn't sufficient in and of itself to justify building the M20, especially as many of those death will have been the result of bad driver behaviour as much as the state of the road.
As has been pointed out many times already by others, it's not one or the other. The plan is worth €115bn. The M20 will be less than 1% of this total. Roads, rail, hospital, schools and many other things fall under the infrastructure category and are all reportedly included in the plan.
And the Childrens hospital is already under construction, unlike the M20, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.0 -
Advertisement
-
hans aus dtschl wrote: »Yes, you've been making this same argument for days now.
It is essentially "butter or guns".
It's not a binary choice: it doesn't have to be a binary choice, that's what we're all trying to say in response.
For what it's worth, I don't think the N40 north would increase density and reduce sprawl: rather the opposite. I would suggest the N40, though badly needed, will increase sprawl. That's just my opinion. But I don't know of any orbital route that has reduced sprawl and increased density.
I'm not disputing a NRR wouldn't cause sprawl. I think it's inevitable as it would be very attractive to developers and even with the best intentions as regards planning and zoning, it's difficult to turn down such big investment.
But I would argue it's a better type of sprawl than the current trend which is the commuter towns 30km outside the city and could be done to a density to support public transport.0 -
hans aus dtschl wrote: »When you say "Cork's problem" would you mind expanding on what you mean by "problem"? Are you talking about an economic growth problem? A population growth problem? A quality of life problem?
Cork is currently one of the few areas of the country contributing more to government coffers than it receives: I'm not 100% clear on what you mean by "Cork's problem": Cork is never again, on its own, going to be a counterbalance to the Dublin economic centre. For me, "Cork's problem" is that the region around it (Limerick and Galway, but also Waterford) needs to start becoming a net contributor.
I mean that genuinely: Cork's big employers are manufacturing sites. They really don't want to be in the city centre.
By Corks problem I mean unsustainable growth caused by commuting, bad planning, congestion etc. My policies aim to reverse this trend.
Cork in general is in a good place but I'm looking towards the future.0 -
You only have to look at Galway.
In hindsight, what might have been a better use of capital investment, the M17/M18 or the policies I've outlined above?
I doubt anyone would disagree with me.
I feel Cork is making the same mistake.
As regards the either/or argument, I'm just not sure it is true.
Until the work starts, any promises such as NRR, Tivoli bridge, docklands sdz, light rail, BRT are just politicians electioneering.0 -
orangerhyme wrote: »You only have to look at Galway.
In hindsight, what might have been a better use of capital investment, the M17/M18 or the policies I've outlined above?
I doubt anyone would disagree with me.
I feel Cork is making the same mistake.
As regards the either/or argument, I'm just not sure it is true.
Until the work starts, any promises such as NRR, Tivoli bridge, docklands sdz, light rail, BRT are just politicians electioneering.
You've framed this as the M17/M18 OR the policies you've outlined.
I understand that budgets are by definition limited, but the M17/M18 did not prevent the policies you've outlined from being enacted. As an "either/or" decision, your argument is fine: it's just one opinion but it's a valid opinion.
However when you remove that "either/or" frame, which is what we have in reality on the ground, the interurban links are correct to push on with.
When you talk about Cork's sprawl problem, for me one of the biggest elephants in the room is the warring councils. One council's definitively trying to sprawl the city, the other's trying to densify it.0 -
hans aus dtschl wrote: »When you talk about Cork's sprawl problem, for me one of the biggest elephants in the room is the warring councils. One council's definitively trying to sprawl the city, the other's trying to densify it.
This is exactly what got Limerick into the situation it's in today, with more people living in the suburbs that in the city center, which killed the city. Only since the amalgamation of the two councils has there been some joined up thinking about improving the city center and getting people and jobs back to the center ( Limerick 2030).0 -
Cookiemunster wrote: »This is exactly what got Limerick into the situation it's in today, with more people living in the suburbs that in the city center, which killed the city. Only since the amalgamation of the two councils has there been some joined up thinking about improving the city center and getting people and jobs back to the center ( Limerick 2030).
That’s why the Cork City border extension is a very good thing. County council have destroyed the city with sprawal on its border. The extension will hopefully stop more sprawl by putting in a large buffer zone.0 -
hans aus dtschl wrote: »You've framed this as the M17/M18 OR the policies you've outlined.
I understand that budgets are by definition limited, but the M17/M18 did not prevent the policies you've outlined from being enacted. As an "either/or" decision, your argument is fine: it's just one opinion but it's a valid opinion.
However when you remove that "either/or" frame, which is what we have in reality on the ground, the interurban links are correct to push on with.
When you talk about Cork's sprawl problem, for me one of the biggest elephants in the room is the warring councils. One council's definitively trying to sprawl the city, the other's trying to densify it.
Also, just as a thought experiment regarding the either/or argument in public expenditure: Eamonn Ryan was asking for 4bn for the Dart underground for Dublin and Shane Ross replied that there's not enough money for it.
I'd argue that the billion spent on the M20 would be better going towards the DU with regards giving the most benefit to the most people.
But within the context of developing the regional cities, the money is better spent in the actual cities.
As regards the big manufacturers in Cork, the majority of this is for export.
So, if you did a survey of the CEOs of these manufacturing companies as what they would prioritise as regards capital investment, how important would the M20 be?
I'd argue their priorities would be skilled/educated workforce, NRR, M28 to ringaskiddy, south Ring upgrade, affordable housing close to work, public transport etc0 -
hans aus dtschl wrote: »You've framed this as the M17/M18 OR the policies you've outlined.
I understand that budgets are by definition limited, but the M17/M18 did not prevent the policies you've outlined from being enacted. As an "either/or" decision, your argument is fine: it's just one opinion but it's a valid opinion.
However when you remove that "either/or" frame, which is what we have in reality on the ground, the interurban links are correct to push on with.
When you talk about Cork's sprawl problem, for me one of the biggest elephants in the room is the warring councils. One council's definitively trying to sprawl the city, the other's trying to densify it.
As regards saying "it's not either/or", everything in public expenditure is either/or.
Some people would argue the money would be better spent on affordable childcare, or lowering the teacher/pupil ratio, the list is endless.
But within the context of developing regional cities for sustainable growth, the M20 isn't a priority0 -
orangerhyme wrote: »
So, if you did a survey of the CEOs of these manufacturing companies as what they would prioritise as regards capital investment, how important would the M20 be?
I'd argue their priorities would be skilled/educated workforce, NRR, M28 to ringaskiddy, south Ring upgrade, affordable housing close to work, public transport etc
I think what's missing from your list is shorter travel to North America (from cork/south via Shannon) and to continental Europe (from Limerick/western seaboard to cork). Both airports will surely benefit from their increased cachement and expand (probably continuing in the vein of the separate destinations they currently have)
For international business at the moment the few hours extra via Dublin right now can mean an extra hotel night or full day travel time. This has real impacts in making Cork/Limerick less attractive for international business.
And that's even before Dublin soon becomes too unreliable due to knock on effect of M7/M50 unpredictability in terms of traffic.0 -
I think what's missing from your list is shorter travel to North America (from cork/south via Shannon) and to continental Europe (from Limerick/western seaboard to cork). Both airports will surely benefit from their increased cachement and expand (probably continuing in the vein of the separate destinations they currently have)
For international business at the moment the few hours extra via Dublin right now can mean an extra hotel night or full day travel time. This has real impacts in making Cork/Limerick less attractive for international business.
And that's even before Dublin soon becomes too unreliable due to knock on effect of M7/M50 unpredictability in terms of traffic.
Ok but since Cork and Limerick each have their own ports and airports, I'd argue it's more sustainable to invest in these.
Also, how much more time/man-hours/productivity is lost in commuting/congestion in total in Cork versus travelling to Limerick?
I'd imagine many, many multiples0 -
Advertisement
-
The M28 is fully funded and ready to go, Rochestown NIMBY's are blocking it, not the Govt. The NRR is in the capital plan, at least according to local cork newspaper reports. UCC and CIT are both getting funding, there is meant to be a Cork Luas as well. I don't see your issue??orangerhyme wrote: »hans aus dtschl wrote: »You've framed this as the M17/M18 OR the policies you've outlined.
I understand that budgets are by definition limited, but the M17/M18 did not prevent the policies you've outlined from being enacted. As an "either/or" decision, your argument is fine: it's just one opinion but it's a valid opinion.
However when you remove that "either/or" frame, which is what we have in reality on the ground, the interurban links are correct to push on with.
When you talk about Cork's sprawl problem, for me one of the biggest elephants in the room is the warring councils. One council's definitively trying to sprawl the city, the other's trying to densify it.
Also, just as a thought experiment regarding the either/or argument in public expenditure: Eamonn Ryan was asking for 4bn for the Dart underground for Dublin and Shane Ross replied that there's not enough money for it.
I'd argue that the billion spent on the M20 would be better going towards the DU with regards giving the most benefit to the most people.
But within the context of developing the regional cities, the money is better spent in the actual cities.
As regards the big manufacturers in Cork, the majority of this is for export.
So, if you did a survey of the CEOs of these manufacturing companies as what they would prioritise as regards capital investment, how important would the M20 be?
I'd argue their priorities would be skilled/educated workforce, NRR, M28 to ringaskiddy, south Ring upgrade, affordable housing close to work, public transport etc0 -
orangerhyme wrote: »Ok but since Cork and Limerick each have their own ports and airports, I'd argue it's more sustainable to invest in these.
Also, how much more time/man-hours/productivity is lost in commuting/congestion in total in Cork versus travelling to Limerick?
I'd imagine many, many multiples
Imagine how many lives would have been saved saved had the motorway from Limerick to Cork have been completed years ago?? Take it from someone who has travelled that road for years come across fatal accidents, major accidents, minor accidents that road is a accident black spot. You would be amazed at how many people commute between the two cities and there would be more still commuting, i know i would still be commuting to Cork for work if the motorway was complete but i sacrificed my job and the good money i was earning to ensure i was home every evening to see my family. I now work close to home but have taken a 20% pay cut on what i was earning0 -
It's definitely going to built anyway, so I think it's better I log back in 5 years and then discuss if it was the best investment, and discuss what hasn't been built in the preceding 5 years and whether it should have been prioritised.
I'll be surprised if everything announced is actually built.
People talk like the 100 bn is just lying in a bank account; the money is based on a projection of future growth and revenue.
They've announced a light rail from Ballincollig to Mahon, which sounds amazing.0 -
Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,413 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 14107
orangerhyme wrote: »Ok but since Cork and Limerick each have their own ports and airports, I'd argue it's more sustainable to invest in these.
Also, how much more time/man-hours/productivity is lost in commuting/congestion in total in Cork versus travelling to Limerick?
I'd imagine many, many multiples
There is funding in the Captial Plan to sort out Cork city too with the light rail and improved bus services.snotboogie wrote: »The M28 is fully funded and ready to go, Rochestown NIMBY's are blocking it, not the Govt. The NRR is in the capital plan, at least according to local cork newspaper reports. UCC and CIT are both getting funding, there is meant to be a Cork Luas as well. I don't see your issue??
In fairness, the current funding for the M28 is to get it shovel ready by 2021. This is still on target as long as it can get past all the fruitcakes, which it should. If it doesn't it'll be resubmitted and still likely make it ready for 2021.
The funding for construction for the M28 should be in the new Capital Plan. NRR is up in the air until 2pm.orangerhyme wrote: »It's definitely going to built anyway, so I think it's better I log back in 5 years and then discuss if it was the best investment, and discuss what hasn't been built in the preceding 5 years and whether it should have been prioritised.
I'll be surprised if everything announced is actually built.
People talk like the 100 bn is just lying in a bank account; the money is based on a projection of future growth and revenue.
They've announced a light rail from Ballincollig to Mahon, which sounds amazing.
It is going to get built. Thank Christ. Did a return trip on the N20 yesterday and I'm still tired from it.0 -
orangerhyme wrote: »it's better I log back in 5 years and then discuss if it was the best investment, and discuss what hasn't been built in the preceding 5 years and whether it should have been prioritised.
This thread's probably worth resurrecting 1-2 years after build as a re-evaluation discussion.
Presumably we all agree that all of what you're discussing in terms of inner city investment and development would have medium-term outcomes. There's no instant bang-for-buck projects that I'm aware of.0 -
hans aus dtschl wrote: »This thread's probably worth resurrecting 1-2 years after build as a re-evaluation discussion.
Presumably we all agree that all of what you're discussing in terms of inner city investment and development would have medium-term outcomes. There's no instant bang-for-buck projects that I'm aware of.
I just think we spend a fortune on motorways thinking it's good for economic growth.
If you look at the m7 from Limerick until it joins the m8 to Dublin, it's way under capacity.
Limerick was an unemployment blackspot during the recession, based on traffic volume I'd argue a DC was enough and the extra money better spent on enticing Dell to stay or other incentives.
Looking at traffic data on the N20 from Mallow to Patrickswell, one counter is 10000 and the 14000.
Allowing for suppressed demand and projected growth, at what point in the future would traffic volume justify a motorway?
Ive honestly no idea.
I've heard a figure of 30000/40000 justifies a motorway.
There's so many motorways in Ireland way under capacity, the M17/18, M9, M11 etc
Could that money have been better spent, particular during the recession?
Are we repeating the same mistakes, overspending on underused motorways cos they look good, overstating their impact on economic growth?
People talk about "future proofing", but at what time in the future do they mean?0 -
Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,413 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 14107
Again, Limerick to Portlaoise was built as a DC instead of motorway, to reduce costs, and then had motorway restrictions applied to it to stop the councils fronting developments onto it.orangerhyme wrote: »I just think we spend a fortune on motorways thinking it's good for economic growth.
If you look at the m7 from Limerick until it joins the m8 to Dublin, it's way under capacity.
Limerick was an unemployment blackspot during the recession, based on traffic volume I'd argue a DC was enough and the extra money better spent on enticing Dell to stay or other incentives.
Looking at traffic data on the N20 from Mallow to Patrickswell, one counter is 10000 and the 14000.
Allowing for suppressed demand and projected growth, at what point in the future would traffic volume justify a motorway?
Ive honestly no idea.
I've heard a figure of 30000/40000 justifies a motorway.
There's so many motorways in Ireland way under capacity, the M17/18, M9, M11 etc
Could that money have been better spent, particular during the recession?
People talk about "future proofing", but at what time in the future do they mean?
The next time you drive from Dublin to Limerick take note of how different the road is between Naas and Portlaoise vs west of Portlaoise. There is a difference. Naas-Portlaoise was built as motorway and Portlaoise-Limerick was built as dual carriageway.0 -
orangerhyme wrote: »I just think we spend a fortune on motorways thinking it's good for economic growth.
If you look at the m7 from Limerick until it joins the m8 to Dublin, it's way under capacity.
Limerick was an unemployment blackspot during the recession, based on traffic volume I'd argue a DC was enough and the extra money better spent on enticing Dell to stay or other incentives.
Looking at traffic data on the N20 from Mallow to Patrickswell, one counter is 10000 and the 14000.
Allowing for suppressed demand and projected growth, at what point in the future would traffic volume justify a motorway?
Ive honestly no idea.
I've heard a figure of 30000/40000 justifies a motorway.
There's so many motorways in Ireland way under capacity, the M17/18, M9, M11 etc
Could that money have been better spent, particular during the recession?
Are we repeating the same mistakes, overspending on underused motorways cos they look good, overstating their impact on economic growth?
People talk about "future proofing", but at what time in the future do they mean?
Motorway (DC Type 3) reaches service level D at AADT of 38100.
Level D means: approaching unstable flow. Speeds slightly decrease as traffic volume slightly increase. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is much more limited and driver comfort levels decrease. Vehicles are spaced about 160 ft(50m) or 8 car lengths. Minor incidents are expected to create delays.0 -
Again, Limerick to Portlaoise was built as a DC instead of motorway, to reduce costs, and then had motorway restrictions applied to it to stop the councils fronting developments onto it.
The next time you drive from Dublin to Limerick take note of how different the road is between Naas and Portlaoise vs west of Portlaoise. There is a difference. Naas-Portlaoise was built as motorway and Portlaoise-Limerick was built as dual carriageway.
Ok I didn't know that, it was just an example.
Assuming the M9 to Waterford is a motorway, which was also an unemployment blackspot, was that the best use of the money?0 -
Advertisement
-
orangerhyme wrote: »Limerick was an unemployment blackspot during the recession, based on traffic volume I'd argue a DC was enough and the extra money better spent on enticing Dell to stay or other incentives.
Nothing was keeping Dells manufacturing in Limerick. They got rid of their manufacturing plants worldwide and now pay Chinese companies to build their product. They still employ around 1000 people in Limerick though.
And there is no difference between a HQDC and a motorway these days other than the colour of the signs and the speed limit.
BTW the M7 between Limerick and Nenagh commenced construction in 2006, 3 years before Dell closed.0
Advertisement