Motorways, greenways, bypasses, and railways (off-topic posts from disused WRC thread

cgcsb

westtip wrote: »

I accept the motorway is overspecced and overkill for the population in the west; good quality seamless road, dual c/w or even 2+1 (remember that) would be perfectly ok, or even the single lane with wide hard shoulder, but a seamless road that bypasses the likes of Claregalway is essential. Transport needs in the west of ireland, due to our housing planning and dispersed population and communities is totally driven by road transport, like it or not, that is a fact of life, a new alignment for a railway may be worth considering, the existing alignment though is not suitable for a modern railway to deliver an acceptable journey time.

indeed, an improved road with suitable capacity and overtaking lanes where required, coupled with a properly aligned railway with manageable gradients could have been achieved for less than half a billion. Instead we get a motorway that'll be lightly used and an impractical rail link that is only of use to sight seers, oaps and rail enthusiasts.

BoatMad

cgcsb wrote: »

indeed, an improved road with suitable capacity and overtaking lanes where required, coupled with a properly aligned railway with manageable gradients could have been achieved for less than half a billion. Instead we get a motorway that'll be lightly used and an impractical rail link that is only of use to sight seers, oaps and rail enthusiasts.

You cannot compare high quality dual carriage style roads and railways. The basic falsehood is that there is not in any way even a half assed justification for a Limerick Galway service, especially one that stops all over the shop.

Significantly changing the alignment, ( with presumably the desire to increase speed, ) would be unlikely to make any real significant end to end reduction in travel times, it would cost significantly more and in reality achieve little more then present. Whats important to the punter is average speed and then point to point travel time, saving 15 minutes here and there on a railway isn't really going too make any real difference in perception

What has proven correct , is the Michael O leary form of rail pricing price the fares cheap enough and the punters will accept any auld nonsense, Passagners number Limerick Galway have risen from approx 29,000 to 50,000 on the back of the new fares etc. No doubt if you reduce the fares to a 1c , the trains would be jammed.

Meanwhile the rest of network struggles. try looking for a reasonable Limerick to waterford fare. or why the fare to rosslare is the same as the fare to Gorey ?

westtip

BoatMad wrote: »

What has proven correct , is the Michael O leary form of rail pricing price the fares cheap enough and the punters will accept any auld nonsense, Passagners number Limerick Galway have risen from approx 29,000 to 50,000 on the back of the new fares etc. No doubt if you reduce the fares to a 1c , the trains would be jammed.
?

Ah yes price elasticity. What you have failed to point out is Ryanair pricing varies from day to day, do you plan the same on Railways? Try getting Ryanair cheap prices the day before you travel - or on the day of travel. Also Ryanair makes a profit even on low fares, Irish Rail on the Ennis Athenry line is massively subvented. I am not sure about your numbers on Ennis/Athenry, I know they have increased - but if they have doubled and fares have halved, do the maths on the cost versus revenue. 50,000 may sound impressive: How many social freebies in that? Also the original business plan was for 100,000 in the first year - and no mention of discounting fares in the original business plan. So after three full years operation it has hit 50% of its year one volume numbers at discounted fare prices. It hasn't worked, which is why it is not getting the green light for extension. It was an interesting experiment lets move on.

BoatMad

westtip wrote: »

Ah yes price elasticity. What you have failed to point out is Ryanair pricing varies from day to day, do you plan the same on Railways? Try getting Ryanair cheap prices the day before you travel - or on the day of travel. Also Ryanair makes a profit even on low fares, Irish Rail on the Ennis Athenry line is massively subvented. I am not sure about your numbers on Ennis/Athenry, I know they have increased - but if they have doubled and fares have halved, do the maths on the cost versus revenue. 50,000 may sound impressive: How many social freebies in that? Also the original business plan was for 100,000 in the first year - and no mention of discounting fares in the original business plan. So after three full years operation it has hit 50% of its year one volume numbers at discounted fare prices. It hasn't worked, which is why it is not getting the green light for extension. It was an interesting experiment lets move on.

I completely agree, it has failed, even 50,000 passengers is a tiny amount. What it has done is effectively killed any sensible discussion about reopening rail lines and in keeping the white elephant open , it will scavenge funds from elsewhere on the network, yet in a few years time, after political face has been saved, it will be shut.

Yers lets move on , that why I support a greenway , and that greenway needs to be established on the track bed, and justified in its own right , not as a sop to future re-opening of the sligo end.

galwaycyclist

westtip wrote: »

I accept the motorway is overspecced and overkill for the population in the west; good quality seamless road, dual c/w or even 2+1 (remember that) would be perfectly ok, or even the single lane with wide hard shoulder, but a seamless road that bypasses the likes of Claregalway is essential. Transport needs in the west of ireland, due to our housing planning and dispersed population and communities is totally driven by road transport, like it or not, that is a fact of life, a new alignment for a railway may be worth considering, the existing alignment though is not suitable for a modern railway to deliver an acceptable journey time.

cgcsb wrote: »

indeed, an improved road with suitable capacity and overtaking lanes where required, coupled with a properly aligned railway with manageable gradients could have been achieved for less than half a billion. Instead we get a motorway that'll be lightly used and an impractical rail link that is only of use to sight seers, oaps and rail enthusiasts.

OK slightly off-topic but related. If we want a greenway network that integrates with our towns and cities then how we build our other roads is a key topic. Otherwise we end up with greenways that for many people are really only accessible by car - in terms of trip start and trip end.

Our towns are the nodes on our Greenways. If we want to make our towns walking and cycling friendly then the first step is to remove all through-traffic from the streets and roads. What we need is a mass program of town and village bypasses to remove this through traffic. In this regard, in my view, the decision to pursue a motorway program, instead of starting with bypasses, represents another one of the enormous mistakes of the celtic tiger years. And a mistake that like other celtic tiger mistakes, we will be paying for into the future.

The current Tuam - Gort motorway is a travesty not simply because it is overspecced but because when it is finished places like Tuam, Claregalway, Gort, Loughrea, Athenry etc will still not have proper bypasses. Trucks heading for the motorway will still have to go through the middle of Loughrea, Gort etc. When built the motorway, like its cousin linking Galway to Dublin, will be largely empty for much of the day while people in Galway Towns will still feel forced to drive their children to school etc.

We seem to have learnt nothing.

BoatMad

galwaycyclist wrote: »

OK slightly off-topic but related. If we want a greenway network that integrates with our towns and cities then how we build our other roads is a key topic. Otherwise we end up with greenways that for many people are really only accessible by car - in terms of trip start and trip end.

lets at least get them implemented, this is a car orientated society, baby steps first

Our towns are the nodes on our Greenways. If we want to make our towns walking and cycling friendly then the first step is to remove all through-traffic from the streets and roads. What we need is a mass program of town and village bypasses to remove this through traffic

.

perhaps you don't drive, the road building program has essentiality implemented a great majority of by-passes, but you can simply not exclude cars from the commercial centres of high streets unless you wish to drive everyone to out of town shopping,

In this regard, in my view, the decision to pursue a motorway program, instead of starting with bypasses, represents another one of the enormous mistakes of the celtic tiger years. And a mistake that like other celtic tiger mistakes, we will be paying for into the future.

The motorway network is a shining jewel in the otherwise mess the celtic tiger created

The current Tuam - Gort motorway is a travesty not simply because it is overspecced but because when it is finished places like Tuam, Claregalway, Gort, Loughrea, Athenry etc will still not have proper bypasses. Trucks heading for the motorway will still have to go through the middle of Loughrea, Gort etc. When built the motorway, like its cousin linking Galway to Dublin, will be largely empty for much of the day while people in Galway Towns will still feel forced to drive their children to school etc.

True, but thats an argument for a more extensive road infrastructure connected to motorways , not less.

Nor is there such thing as an " over specced " road, that the thinking that got a ridiculous under specced M50 built in the first place.

We seem to have learnt nothing.

I do not agree, anyone moving around this country cannot fail to appreciate the ease by which interurban travel by road has been immensely eased by the new roads. I can now travel with fantastic ease from coast to coast on big high quality european style roads, with the cruise control on , and now I can even pull in for me cup of Costa !.

The motorway network is fantastic N11 ( M11) extension to open soon, brill. The country needs a few more, like waterford- cork- limerick - Galway too.

Motorways are also the key to pushing out the concentration of industrial and high tech that has formed around Dublin, into other parts of the country

( and something needs to be done re the NW).

galwaycyclist

BoatMad wrote: »

perhaps you don't drive, the road building program has essentiality implemented a great majority of by-passes, but you can simply not exclude cars from the commercial centres of high streets unless you wish to drive everyone to out of town shopping,

Straw man argument. I did not state "exclude cars" I stated "through traffic" i.e traffic that does not have any business in the town or village centre involved.

The motorway network is a shining jewel in the otherwise mess the celtic tiger created

Disagree - it is a monument to the arrogance of the Irish Car lobby in my view

True, but thats an argument for a more extensive road infrastructure connected to motorways , not less.

No it is an argument for town bypasses

I do not agree, anyone moving around this country cannot fail to appreciate the ease by which interurban travel by road has been immensely eased by the new roads. I can now travel with fantastic ease from coast to coast on big high quality european style roads, with the cruise control on , and now I can even pull in for me cup of Costa !.

Why should your percieved need to use cruise control have taken priority over the needs of towns and villages up and down the country?

The same "motorway money" could have been spent to improve interurban road links to a reasonable standard and improve our towns and villages. On what basis does a small dispersed population like that of Ireland need Autobahn style infrastructure as "measure of first choice"?

BoatMad

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Straw man argument. I did not state "exclude cars" I stated "through traffic" i.e traffic that does not have any business in the town or village centre involved.

Fine, I have no real issue with that argument.

Disagree - it is a monument to the arrogance of the Irish Car lobby in my view



No it is an argument for town bypasses



Why should your percieved need to use cruise control have taken priority over the needs of towns and villages up and down the country?

The same "motorway money" could have been spent to improve interurban road links to a reasonable standard and improve our towns and villages. On what basis does a small dispersed population like that of Ireland need Autobahn style infrastructure as "measure of first choice"?

The fact is that dual carriage way roads with graded exits are the safest roads you can build. whether you call them motorways or HQDC etc is somewhat semantics. Building green field road systems has far less effect on existing traffic, minimises costs per mile, and has lest affect on surrounding communities.

Previously to that we had an appalling hooch pot of national primary roads, most unfit for purpose, travel between major urban centres was a long frustrating affair. the lack of quality roads was seen as ( and is/Was) a major disincentive to rural development and development outside dublin


There is no argument for returning to the green nonsense about over specced road ways. Building good roads is an investment for the next 200 years. As we see a shift to electric vehicles with increased driver automation, these needs good consistent roads, with standardised systems to make best use of this technology.

The argument for greenways is not an argument for hobbling the prevalent means of transport. Greenways are essentially a tourist/ leisure project, not some mis-guided attempt to displace cars.

PS: we don't have a dispersed population, we have in essence 40% crammed into the greater Dublin area, a feature that was partially the result of appalling road communications to the rest of the country. Now we have a chance to promote greater industry location diversity as truck and cars can easily reach these areas via the new road system. ( nor do we have an Autobahn, I don't see any 155mph sped limits yet!)

BoatMad

Why should your percieved need to use cruise control have taken priority over the needs of towns and villages up and down the country?

Because the primary purpose was to facilitate quick and efficient road journeys between Dublin and the other major urban centres. A side effect what that motorways also effected the very bye-passes you mentioned as a good thing, as can be witnessed by Naas, Fermoy, Ballinasloe to mention a few of the 100s so affected by the building process.

Motorways offer the most fuel and time efficient method of traversing the distance by road vehicle, are far safer then most other forms of road arrangement and result in stress free driver experience.

corktina

BoatMad wrote: »

actually 4'8 & 1/2

1600 kilograms or something isn't it?

BoatMad

corktina wrote: »

1600 kilograms or something isn't it?

no 1435mm

The victorians used 4'81/2 that good enough for me, they built the damm things.

interesting 5'3"" works out nicely in metric to your 1600mm

galwaycyclist

BoatMad wrote: »

A side effect what that motorways also effected the very bye-passes you mentioned as a good thing, as can be witnessed by Naas, Fermoy, Ballinasloe to mention a few of the 100s so affected by the building process.

Motorways offer the most fuel and time efficient method of traversing the distance by road vehicle, are far safer then most other forms of road arrangement and result in stress free driver experience.

Patently untrue. The fact that some traffic using our towns and villages may have reduced due to the availability of motorways does not equate to the removal of inappropriate traffic. This can only be done effectively by providing local ring roads around towns and then implementing traffic management measures to force through-traffic onto the ring route.

The idea that Ballinasloe is bypassed is a laugh, much local traffic trying to get to the motorway still has to come through the middle of the town.

Hence the spending of vast sums of money on more motorway standard road in Galway is a misuse of taxes.

BoatMad

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Patently untrue. The fact that some traffic using our towns and villages may have reduced due to the availability of motorways does not equate to the removal of inappropriate traffic. This can only be done effectively by providing local ring roads around towns and then implementing traffic management measures to force through-traffic onto the ring route.

The idea that Ballinasloe is bypassed is a laugh, much local traffic trying to get to the motorway still has to come through the middle of the town.

Hence the spending of vast sums of money on more motorway standard road in Galway is a misuse of taxes.

I worked in Naas, when the high street was virtually a car park and a smog filled mess. Now the centre is doing well with locals returning in a better environment.

to suggest that irelands road problems could be fixed by building bye-passes is patently nonsense, the quality, alignment and safety of single carriage interurban roads was appalling, HQDCs are the best way to fix that,

Thats not to say we shouldn't build more bye-passes. but the lack of bye-passes does not mean that motorways werent needed and appropriate,

I spend a lo tot time around Athlone and Ballinasloe, local traffic does not have to travel through the main street to reach the motorway, they can easily exit either side and pick up the east or west interchanges. The inner bypass, also removes the need to travel down the high street.
I fail to see you argument.

galwaycyclist

BoatMad wrote: »

to suggest that irelands road problems could be fixed by building bye-passes is patently nonsense, the quality, alignment and safety of single carriage interurban roads was appalling, HQDCs are the best way to fix that,

More strawman arguments. Building bypasses is about fixing problems in our towns and villages. There are more requirements to transport infrastructure than simply prioritising the highest possible level of service for inter-urban motor traffic.

Thats not to say we shouldn't build more bye-passes. but the lack of bye-passes does not mean that motorways werent needed and appropriate,

The fact that much of the existing motorways in the West and elsewhere are empty much of the time suggests that they are not needed and were not appropiate. Roads to a different standard could have provided a reasonable level of service and also allowed the allocation of funds to other pressing uses such as mass program of bypasses.

BoatMad

galwaycyclist wrote: »

More strawman arguments. Building bypasses is about fixing problems in our towns and villages. There are more requirements to transport infrastructure than simply prioritising the highest possible level of service for inter-urban motor traffic.



The fact that much of the existing motorways in the West and elsewhere are empty much of the time suggests that they are not needed and were not appropiate. Roads to a different standard could have provided a reasonable level of service and also allowed the allocation of funds to other pressing uses such as mass program of bypasses.

Let leave this , since you are not open to any reasonable argument, The motorway system was easily afforded by the state at the time,

We have it now ( thank god) , so yours is the ultimate straw argument.

corktina

Some of you have Motorways, we're still waiting in North Cork for the motorway linking the 2nd and 3rd cities of the state, meanwhile two pretty empty motorways parallel each other for many dozens of miles (M7 and 8) three if you add in the M9 farce

BoatMad

corktina wrote: »

Some of you have Motorways, we're still waiting in North Cork for the motorway linking the 2nd and 3rd cities of the state, meanwhile two pretty empty motorways parallel each other for many dozens of miles (M7 and 8) three if you add in the M9 farce

Cork isn't that somewhere beyond Dublin near Kildare like, what so ye want roads for anyway. isn't getting to Dublin enough !!

cgcsb

BoatMad wrote: »

You cannot compare high quality dual carriage style roads and railways. The basic falsehood is that there is not in any way even a half assed justification for a Limerick Galway service, especially one that stops all over the shop.

Significantly changing the alignment, ( with presumably the desire to increase speed, ) would be unlikely to make any real significant end to end reduction in travel times, it would cost significantly more and in reality achieve little more then present. Whats important to the punter is average speed and then point to point travel time, saving 15 minutes here and there on a railway isn't really going too make any real difference in perception

What has proven correct , is the Michael O leary form of rail pricing price the fares cheap enough and the punters will accept any auld nonsense, Passagners number Limerick Galway have risen from approx 29,000 to 50,000 on the back of the new fares etc. No doubt if you reduce the fares to a 1c , the trains would be jammed.

Meanwhile the rest of network struggles. try looking for a reasonable Limerick to waterford fare. or why the fare to rosslare is the same as the fare to Gorey ?

I don't know why you quoted me. Your post has ni relevance to mine.

BoatMad

cgcsb wrote: »

I don't know why you quoted me. Your post has ni relevance to mine.

indeed it does I was answering

Originally Posted by cgcsb View Post
indeed, an improved road with suitable capacity and overtaking lanes where required, coupled with a properly aligned railway with manageable gradients could have been achieved for less than half a billion. Instead we get a motorway that'll be lightly used and an impractical rail link that is only of use to sight seers, oaps and rail enthusiasts.

specifically this bit

indeed, an improved road with suitable capacity and overtaking lanes where required, coupled with a properly aligned railway with manageable gradients could have been achieved for less than half a billion

monument

MOD EDIT: First 50 posts on this new thread are off-topic posts from the disused WRC thread.

Most posts are not mainly about WRC disused section, Moving a whole load of posts is not easy and is far from an exact science so please excuse any posts which are clearly about the WRC disused section.

PLEASE feel free to continue the motorways, greenways, bypasses, railways and more general transport discussion here!

Carawaystick

galwaycyclist wrote: »

The current Tuam - Gort motorway is a travesty
...

Trucks heading for the motorway will still have to go through the middle of Loughrea, Gort etc.

Where will these trucks be coming from?
Won't traffic use the m18 m6 n65 route?

Grandeeod

BoatMad wrote: »

100million is a drop in the ocean to upgrade rail instrastructure in any meaningful way, its hardly enough to subvent CIE losses to one year.

It a hopeless case. IR is merely a bunch of public servants whose goal is efficiency. 100% efficiency of course is a completely closed railway network. Passengers, customers, service , etc what that !

100 million is more than a third of what IE need to relay the network for higher speeds. They want 50 mllion per year over 5 years.

BoatMad

Grandeeod wrote: »

100 million is more than a third of what IE need to relay the network for higher speeds. They want 50 mllion per year over 5 years.

higher speeds is a chimera. what IR need to do is to bring up the whole networks average speed

With poor track paths, excessive stops , no express traffic, congested low capacity lines mixed with commuters, IR simply can't achieve significant drops in timetabled speeds , Equally the punter is interested in his or her point to point timings , no point reducing rail speeds by 15 mins , if its takes an hour to get from Heuston to the the punters destination

High speed trains perform best in interurban high population density activities , often competing both internal air connections

They make little sense in Ireland over short distances

A punter getting a comfortable 70 mph reliable regular service that he can depend on day in day out is sufficient.

The money could then be spent on improving passengers facilities, operating more interconnecting rural and sub-rural trains and removing some poorly performing rolling stock etc.


High speed is IR trying to believe its a shiny European rail network, conveniently forgetting its based on a tiny island with few people.

galwaycyclist

Carawaystick wrote: »

Where will these trucks be coming from?
Won't traffic use the m18 m6 n65 route?

Traffic including trucks does not appear magically on Motorways (well actually it does but induced traffic is another story).

It comes from places other than motorways.

The issue is what roads does that traffic use to get to the motorways?

Specifically it should not be going through places that are towns and villages or are whose primary function is not for transport. eg roads whose primary function is residential.

BoatMad

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Traffic including trucks does not appear magically on Motorways (well actually it does but induced traffic is another story).

It comes from places other than motorways.

The issue is what roads does that traffic use to get to the motorways?

Specifically it should not be going through places that are towns and villages or are whose primary function is not for transport. eg roads whose primary function is residential.

Your argument is for bye-passes, yes

a better argument is for motorways AND bye-passes. that I could agree with , because after the traffic uses a bye-pass, it has to efficiently get to the urban centre quickly safety and efficiently , motorways do that

Grandeeod

BoatMad wrote: »

higher speeds is a chimera. what IR need to do is to bring up the whole networks average speed

With poor track paths, excessive stops , no express traffic, congested low capacity lines mixed with commuters, IR simply can't achieve significant drops in timetabled speeds , Equally the punter is interested in his or her point to point timings , no point reducing rail speeds by 15 mins , if its takes an hour to get from Heuston to the the punters destination

High speed trains perform best in interurban high population density activities , often competing both internal air connections

They make little sense in Ireland over short distances

A punter getting a comfortable 70 mph reliable regular service that he can depend on day in day out is sufficient.

The money could then be spent on improving passengers facilities, operating more interconnecting rural and sub-rural trains and removing some poorly performing rolling stock etc.


High speed is IR trying to believe its a shiny European rail network, conveniently forgetting its based on a tiny island with few people.

Im not talking about highspeed ala France , Spain or Germany. I'm talking about a road Vs Rail competitive scenario of 90 to 100 mph running across the rail network with more passing loops etc. on single line sections. I would be the first to criticise IE for being very short sighted in their initial upgrade, but with less WRC bull**** and more direct investment in the existing system, it could at the very least be "getting there".

Carawaystick

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Traffic including trucks does not appear magically on Motorways (well actually it does but induced traffic is another story).

It comes from places other than motorways.

The issue is what roads does that traffic use to get to the motorways?

Specifically it should not be going through places that are towns and villages or are whose primary function is not for transport. eg roads whose primary function is residential.

You mentioned Loughrea. Loughrea has a bypass, the N6 bypassed the town to the North. It has a second bypass, the M6.
Loughrea industrial centres and supermarkets are at the edge of the town, near the bypass.
Are you suggesting industry and hgv use should only be generated by places outside any bypass?
What through hgv traffic will there be once the M18 is built? cattle going to the mart from Killnadeema?

BoatMad

Grandeeod wrote: »

Im not talking about highspeed ala France , Spain or Germany. I'm talking about a road Vs Rail competitive scenario of 90 to 100 mph running across the rail network with more passing loops etc. on single line sections. I would be the first to criticise IE for being very short sighted in their initial upgrade, but with less WRC bull**** and more direct investment in the existing system, it could at the very least be "getting there".

first off IR needs to move away from a simplistic argument that you can compete with road transport , with simple running speeds. for a transport system now carrying virtually 0% freight and about 5% passengers, thinking you are competing is nonsense.

IR has repeatedly scavenged the network to try and keep up with European railways in some vain race of vanities.

What IR has to do is not compete , but offer an alternative. Entice those car travellers onto a comfortable, catered , regular and reliable service. It matters not if the train runs for 1:30 or 1:45, as long as it does it every day all day.

Passengers need consistent service across the network, IR needs flexible demand oriented rolling stock and sufficient track paths to offer flexibility and route options. If you have to keep dismantling and re-assembling fixed railcar sets, particular in a resource constrained railway, it can lead to inability to provide service.

electrification or peak speed increases, in reality adds nothing to the passenger experience and just massages IR engineers ego.

monument

BoatMad wrote: »

... and just massages IR engineers ego.

Cut down on this kind of mud slinging nonsense. You're arguments stand up or they don't, there's no need for such attacks on people who are doing their jobs.

-- moderator