M50 - Eastern Bypass

SeanW

Last Stop wrote: »

Low weight bulk loads is a very specific and I would say niche category. In my mind, the justification for a higher tunnel would be the regular movement of heavy abnormal loads.

Toilet paper?

I find it funny that you keep trying to justify the higher high as somewhat common in the UK (simply because they don’t have a legal limit) and now, you admit that you’re not a logistics expert and don’t have any form of data on they use of these trucks in the UK. It would appear that you are making the assumption that because there is no specific Limit in the UK that logistics companies have higher vehicles and that is unfounded.

Remember that these things drove legally (presumably) on UK motorways. It seems the only rule over there is "know your height".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7g08nwEmyY

I wouldn't say I’m opposed to the Eatern Bypass, I just don’t think it should be high up the agenda. The desire to have a full ring road is another red herring given Dublin’s coastal location. If Dublin was more central (like London, Madrid etc) then of course there would be a strong argument for a full ring but given the fact that you can travel from any direction in Ireland and not have to go inside the M50 to get to any other direction, I think we’re pretty good.

I'm actually somewhat in agreement with this. To my mind, the EB is very low on the priority list. Dart U. a Metro system, more Luas lines are badly needed today and IMHO should all be before the EB in terms of priority, I'd go so far as to say it shouldn't even be on the agenda until Metro, DU, Finglas Luas etc are OPEN.

The difference that I am objecting to here, is the difference between "the Eastern Bypass is really low on the priority list, a nice-to-have once more important problems are solved" and the type of attitude Ian Paisely had to power sharing in 1974 ... NEVAAR, NEVAAR, NEVAAR! It is the latter attitude I am calling into question, apologies if I wrongly ascribed it to you.

We should be looking at prioritising measures that would reduce the commuter element on the M50 allowing it to return to its original function as a bypass.
This would include metro west and new bridges between Lucan and Blanch.

Agreed.

monument wrote: »

You think concerns about carbon emissions in 2030 will only centre on what's powering a car locally? Are you forgetting about concrete, land use, transit-oriented development vs pushing sprawl, getting the grid to zero emissions etc?

Funny, considering the insane social cost that banning ICEs is going to cause, I'd have expected it to solve most of the problems on its own.

Our government is about to embark on the worst anti-democratisation of mobility in all of modern history. Many people in the working classes drive older ICE vehicles, because ICE technology is relatively simple and the vehicles depreciate to practically nothing after ~10 years despite still being reliable transport. If you have €3000 you can buy a 10 year old Toyota, free and clear, and be able to travel wherever and whenever you need. The simpler ICEs of yesteryear were even cheaper.

When internal combustion engines are banned, this will make it impossible for a lot of poor and working people to stay on the road. This is because batteries are insanely expensive and they will most likely always will be. Now I'm sure you can find an advertisement somewhere "hey you can buy this 2011 Nissan Leaf for under €10,000" but the only reason it is so "cheap" is because the battery is banjaxed and needs to be replaced.

The main reason AFAIK why this ban/countdown is on, is because the powers that be don't give a **** about poor people. For the insane social cost the upcoming ICE ban is going to cause, we have a right to expect it to solve the "climate change" problem single-handedly. So as I see it, there are now two possibilities:

1. Electric vehicles will de-carbonise our society so much that it's worth F@#%ing over poor & working class people. The flip side is that the "climate change" argument for not building roads goes in the trash.
2. Electric vehicles won't really do that much, therefore the "climate change" argument for not building roads still holds. However, we're basically just saying "F@#% the poor and the workers" for no reason.

I'm actually more inclined to believe the latter, but since the EB will not be even considered before 2030 in any case and won't open for at least a decade more, it's appropriate to ask detractors using the "climate change" argument why that argument holds even though the last NCT certificates for internal combustion engine cars will be issued in 2044/2045. That year will likely be before the EB opens, or if later, not by much.

Last Stop

SeanW wrote: »

Toilet paper?

Even in this current pandemic it’s hardly a high quantity product. It’s typically a pallet load per store. Even then the majority of the major retailers here have distribution centres here. This means even if super cubes were used, they would likely only be used between the port and the distribution centre. In some cases, these centres are only a few km from the port so the benefits are minimal.

Remember that these things drove legally (presumably) on UK motorways. It seems the only rule over there is "know your height".

Again you’re assuming they are in use simply because there is no limit. That’s unlikely to be the case.

The difference that I am objecting to here, is the difference between "the Eastern Bypass is really low on the priority list, a nice-to-have once more important problems are solved" and the type of attitude Ian Paisely had to power sharing in 1974 ... NEVAAR, NEVAAR, NEVAAR! It is the latter attitude I am calling into question, apologies if I wrongly ascribed it to you.

I don’t think it’s as black and white as that. It could be the case that after the schemes you mentioned are built there is no demand for this and the M50 is a lot quieter anyway.

SeanW

Last Stop wrote: »

Even in this current pandemic it’s hardly a high quantity product. It’s typically a pallet load per store. Even then the majority of the major retailers here have distribution centres here. This means even if super cubes were used, they would likely only be used between the port and the distribution centre. In some cases, these centres are only a few km from the port so the benefits are minimal.

Perhaps.

Again you’re assuming they are in use simply because there is no limit. That’s unlikely to be the case.

Well, there were enough of them in use in little old Ireland to create a controversy, it would be foolish to assume no-one in the UK is using high trucks.

I don’t think it’s as black and white as that. It could be the case that after the schemes you mentioned are built there is no demand for this and the M50 is a lot quieter anyway.

Except that to some on this thread, it really is that black and white. M50 Eastern route Bad. End of story.

You are correct in that the DU, Metro and Luas, if ever built, will solve a lot of problems. Alternatives for people around Leixlip, Lucan, Clonsilla, Blanchardstown etc. such as Metro West and some other Liffey bridges would help as well. But as time passes, those problems may be replaced with new ones.

If the Docklands keeps growing it may in the decades to come have a lot of apartments. You could have tens of thousands, maybe 100,000 or more people living in a very small area with few options for driving out of the city when they need to. A tolled Port Tunnel, the Quays or city streets between the Docklands and the N11. Completing the M50 ring might help in that case, with a rule say "€20 toll for private vehicles at peak (that is, coming into the city before 9AM or leaving it between 4PM and 9PM), free for others".

Carawaystick

Last Stop wrote: »

Again you’re assuming they are in use simply because there is no limit. That’s unlikely to be the case.

The height limit of the ferries set the limit before the tunnel, and was 4.9m iirc
Trucks are paying for a linear space on a ro-ro ferry, so using the full height saves them money.