Cork, Limerick, Galway Motorway

monument

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Of all the developed EU countries Ireland has the lowest density.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_and_population_of_European_countries

Because of this railways lack flexibility. When you have a situation that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th city's are not connected by motorway it would seem that we have an infrastructural deficit. I do not think that any other country in Europe is such a situation.

If you want to spread economic development then you have to have infrastructure. You have to prioitize you spend. The reality is that in a low population density country motorways between city's are more important than railway

That is completely nonsense -- Sweden, Norway, Finland and Iceland are all below Ireland... choosing EU countries only makes no sense when point to a list of developed countries.

Bass Reeves

monument wrote: »

That is completely nonsense -- Sweden, Norway, Finland and Iceland are all below Ireland... choosing EU countries only makes no sense when point to a list of developed countries.

Maybe so we should choose the USA. First off Sweden, Norway, Finland and Iceland are all Artic countries with large area's either unpopulated or with very low population densities. The majority of there population live in certain highly populated area's. There is no point in taking Iceland as an example. Ireland always had a population spread over the whole country.

It was interesting You pick these countries as all have very comprehensive road networks. Norway bores through mountains to accomodate road traffic and has some of the longest tunnels in the world

monument

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Maybe so we should choose the USA. First off Sweden, Norway, Finland and Iceland are all Artic countries with large area's either unpopulated or with very low population densities. The majority of there population live in certain highly populated area's. There is no point in taking Iceland as an example. Ireland always had a population spread over the whole country.

It was interesting You pick these countries as all have very comprehensive road networks. Norway bores through mountains to accomodate road traffic and has some of the longest tunnels in the world

I picked those countries because they are all examples which all disprove the main claim in your last post.

National population density is irreverent to both intercity rail and motorway networks in most countries.*

I'm not making a pro-rail or anti-car argument, I'm correcting your claim which has no bases in the how things actually work.

* The Netherlands is sometimes used as an example of what national population density you need for a rail network, but the Netherlands doesn't simply have a national rail network, they have a regional rail network spread across the county with high frequency plus intercity services. There's loads of countries with different mixes.

Bass Reeves

monument wrote: »

I picked those countries because they are all examples which all disprove the main claim in your last post.

National population density is irreverent to both intercity rail and motorway networks in most countries.*

I'm not making a pro-rail or anti-car argument, I'm correcting your claim which has no bases in the how things actually work.

* The Netherlands is sometimes used as an example of what national population density you need for a rail network, but the Netherlands doesn't simply have a national rail network, they have a regional rail network spread across the county with high frequency plus intercity services. There's loads of countries with different mixes.

No you just picked a spurious case. Like another few here you do not debate the question rather you try to counter the case you are against by dealing with one or two facts. There are a few here that seem unable to debate the question. population density has everything to do with cohesive large capacity transport systems. With out population density's you are unable to provide frequent and compeditive services.

We have one what would be classes as a city in an European or world wide context. Nobody is saying that we do not need a comprehensive high density transport system in Dublin. What we are saying is that Cork. Limerick Galway motorway is a priority as well and it is not being given the priority that it deserves. I have seen figure that the Cork Limerick axis will cost about 800 million which in the scheme of national infrastructure spend is not huge. When you consider that the Limerick Galway part is 60% complete and a lot of the preparity work is done on the remainder a billion would nearly complete the whole project.

monument

Bass Reeves wrote: »

No you just picked a spurious case. Like another few here you do not debate the question rather you try to counter the case you are against by dealing with one or two facts. There are a few here that seem unable to debate the question. population density has everything to do with cohesive large capacity transport systems. With out population density's you are unable to provide frequent and compeditive services.

We have one what would be classes as a city in an European or world wide context. Nobody is saying that we do not need a comprehensive high density transport system in Dublin. What we are saying is that Cork. Limerick Galway motorway is a priority as well and it is not being given the priority that it deserves. I have seen figure that the Cork Limerick axis will cost about 800 million which in the scheme of national infrastructure spend is not huge. When you consider that the Limerick Galway part is 60% complete and a lot of the preparity work is done on the remainder a billion would nearly complete the whole project.

HOW CLEAR CAN I SAY THIS?

I'm not making a pro-rail or anti-car argument. I am just correcting your claim. I am not making points against or for a motorway as a priority.

But I am correcting your claims which are baseless and misleading. National population density has nothing to do with viability of intercity rail between cities.

As an aside: The size of Cork, Limerick, and Galway now is next to irrelevant in the context of planning a transport system for growing these cities as some kind of linked counterbalance to Dublin.

Bass Reeves

monument wrote: »

HOW CLEAR CAN I SAY THIS?

I'm not making a pro-rail or anti-car argument. I am just correcting your claim. I am not making points against or for a motorway as a priority.

But I am correcting your claims which are baseless and misleading. National population density has nothing to do with viability of intercity rail between cities.

As an aside: The size of Cork, Limerick, and Galway now is next to irrelevant in the context of planning a transport system for growing these cities as some kind of linked counterbalance to Dublin.

No you are not you made a point that Finland Sweden and Norway have lower populuation densities and Iceland (but just about every where had a higher population density than Iceland). As I pointed out these countries are heavily populated in certain area's and have large area's (because they are artic countries) that are virtually unpopulated).

The population of Cork, Limerick and Galway are relevant as is the way population is dispersed around them. What is also relevant is that the construction of a motorway between them is the most important infrastructure project for them at present

_Kaiser_

This notion of "counter-balancing" Dublin or suggesting that places like Athlone could be a major economic force if only we put in the investment is just fantasy and GAA-style tribal nonsense

We're a small island of about 4.5 million people with a low population density and an economy that is almost entirely dependent on FDI. The country isn't big enough to support another Dublin and the companies/jobs currently there aren't just going to relocate to the midlands "just because..." We're lucky Dublin does as well as it does really and should be focusing efforts on how to improve conditions for both the residents/workers and the companies we depend on. It's this lack of focus and the aforementioned tribal nonsense that has the city gridlocked every day and more and more people forced into the surrounding counties for accommodation.

Rather than accept the reality that Dublin is the best hope for this country's prosperity and is already subsidising the rest of the country as it is, we have politicians and their electorates demanding that they too should get everything the "feckin Dubs" get, regardless of how impractical or expensive their demands are.

The priority has to be solving (or at least improving) Dublin's transport issues - and I'm not talking about the current nonsense of trying to get everyone on bikes. If there's no will to build up or re-purpose the lots of land still within/just outside the M50 for residential use, then we need to focus on the best and fastest ways to get people in and out of (and AROUND!!! It's not enough to just dump everyone in An Lar!) the city. Leaving aside the massive shortage of housing for a minute, it's the lack of this that will cost us future investment from (for example) currently UK-based companies looking at their options in a post-Brexit environment

And no, they won't want to move to Athlone or the likes either!

monument

Bass Reeves wrote: »

No you are not you made a point that Finland Sweden and Norway have lower populuation densities and Iceland (but just about every where had a higher population density than Iceland).

Your original point which I replied to was:

"Of all the developed EU countries Ireland has the lowest density."

It's fine if you want to keep avoiding backing away from that, but it's untrue.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

As I pointed out these countries are heavily populated in certain area's and have large area's (because they are artic countries) that are virtually unpopulated).

It does not matter what's in the rest of the country be it bog land or dispersed populations or forests or fields or mountains, what matter for intercity transport modes is the sizes of the cities and, more so, that size you want to grow them to.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

The population of Cork, Limerick and Galway are relevant as is the way population is dispersed around them. What is also relevant is that the construction of a motorway between them is the most important infrastructure project for them at present

So you're advocating growing on that dispersed population or promoting density? A motorway link between Limerick and Cork using a motorway link between Limerick and the M8, maybe at around Mitchelstown, makes some sense. However, in the context of growing and promoting population density and climate change, a full upgrade of the M20 would be bonkers. Cork and Galway are too clogged already for more cars to be the answer.

As for rail, the three cities: Cork at ~200,000, Limerick at ~100,000, and Galway at ~80,000 with only ~100km between each of them and hub towns directly between them, I'm not sure what's so nonviable about rail, if anybody was serious about planning a counterbalance to Dublin and really growing the three cities.

Cork's density isn't bad for a city of its size and all three have loads of potential for high-density infill and high-density growth on the edges.

(High-density in this context is high-density of cities like Dublin and Amsterdam, not New York or Paris)

marno21

I have discussed in detail why the M20 should not be routed via Mitchelstown here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057600214

Isambard

the M20 going via the M8 and Mitchelstown is of no use to North Cork towns already an hour from the Motorway network. The N20 as it stands is largely route into Cork or Limerick for it's hinterland and end to end traffic is, whilst important, secondary.

A rail link is already in place and should be developed as well rather than instead of the M20. For instance, the Cork to Mallow local trains could quite cheaply be extended to Limerick, incorporating the shuttle , with a couple of extra stops added (such as Buttevant). There's only one train an hour each way, so there is plenty of track capacity.

Bass Reeves

What most that do not travel the Cork to Limericak and the Limerick to Galways is that large stretches of these roads are unsuitable for level of traffic carried. The development of these routes were put on hold as a motorway was planned.

I think the penny has dropped with the NRA. A lot of the talk for the last few years was that the Cork to Limerick part would not be done until near 2030. If it is not I think the NRA realize that the present N20 will have to be widened and realigned from before Buttervant to where the the road to Cork widens just before the turn off for Blarney. The cost of such a project will be in the 100's of millions. It will not be much cheaper than putting a motorway on this section.

I think a lot of people who travel from Dublin out do not realize the state of this section of road. Because when they normally leave motorway a lot of the roads are of good single carriageway standard. This is not true of Buttervant to Blarney this is a dangerous piece of roadway with often only average speeds of 70km/hour because no overtaking is possible. TBH while my preference would be for motorway on this section ( the Gort to Tuam section will be completed AFAIK by 2020) if it is not going to be completed within 5 years then the Buttervant to Blarney section with bypass's at Buttervant and Mallow will have to be done.

I think this is the quandary the NRA is in if the motorways is not fast tracked then it a case of spending 300ish million on a single lane carrriageway before Buttervant to Blarney. But TBH if that is the most viable option then taht is what will have to happen.

Isambard

you're behind the times, the planning process has restarted. In any case you're wide of the mark saying the average speed is 70k and overtaking isn't possible.

marno21

Isambard wrote: »

you're behind the times, the planning process has restarted. In any case you're wide of the mark saying the average speed is 70k and overtaking isn't possible.

70k is a bit high average from Buttevant to the Blarney exit.

Slow through Buttevant, >60km/h through the Ballybeg bends, getting stuck in a queue no doubt before Mallow. 50km/h through the Mallow "bypass" and its 2 roundabouts. Then usually stuck in a queue til the beginning of the 2+1 and any time made up in the "2" sections is lost behind someone who does 70km/h on the "1" sections and 110km/h in the "2" sections and is a **** to overtake. Then there is a climbing lane south of Rathduff but it's useful 50% of the time because the queues are so long.

Bass Reeves

marno21 wrote: »

70k is a bit high average from Buttevant to the Blarney exit.

Slow through Buttevant, >60km/h through the Ballybeg bends, getting stuck in a queue no doubt before Mallow. 50km/h through the Mallow "bypass" and its 2 roundabouts. Then usually stuck in a queue til the beginning of the 2+1 and any time made up in the "2" sections is lost behind someone who does 70km/h on the "1" sections and 110km/h in the "2" sections and is a **** to overtake. Then there is a climbing lane south of Rathduff but it's useful 50% of the time because the queues are so long.

2+1 section isquite dangerous.pent up demand has drivers queing up to overtake. You have to be careful in case driver behind you is planning to rocket out to get past you and traffic ahead. You are also right about drivers that speed up on the overtaking sections. Truvksvas well trying to overtake even though it is illegal for them.

Isambard

it's only illegal for trucks to overtake on Motorways,

markpb

Isambard wrote:

it's only illegal for trucks to overtake on Motorways,

That's not true AFAIK. It's illegal fit a truck to overtake using lane 3 of a three lane motorway.

trellheim

Monument's point is valid here. It's not worth building a motorway if all you get is uncontrolled ribbon growth and a bunch more people of cars ( I mean look at the Kildare and Meath heartlands and the M9/M7 inbound to Dublin every morning.

So a proper joined up strategy that says "well actually we plan Mallow to become a regional strong population centre" so increase the commuter trains and say run them all the way to Cobh and Midleton so there's some chance of them going places people need to be.

Isambard

markpb wrote: »

That's not true AFAIK. It's illegal fit a truck to overtake using lane 3 of a three lane motorway.

my point being it is not illegal for them to pass on non-motorways.

I wasn't stating they could never overtake on motorways.

Bass Reeves

trellheim wrote: »

Monument's point is valid here. It's not worth building a motorway if all you get is uncontrolled ribbon growth and a bunch more people of cars ( I mean look at the Kildare and Meath heartlands and the M9/M7 inbound to Dublin every morning.

So a proper joined up strategy that says "well actually we plan Mallow to become a regional strong population centre" so increase the commuter trains and say run them all the way to Cobh and Midleton so there's some chance of them going places people need to be.

Motorways are there to get people to work. People have to be flexible now and move from one job to another. Getting into the center of Cork or Limerick city is ok but what if you job is in EMC in Ballincollig, in De Beers in Shannon, in Analog in Raheen, Sap AG in Galway. Maybe you work in Alcan in Askeaton. Your partner could work 30-50 miles in opposite direction.

Wake up and smell the coffee and live in the real world. It all sounds great in theory that you get out of bed in the morning and 4-500 meters from your door a bus or train collect you and drops you to the door of your workplace. This is the real world we live in. It is not just to get to work it is for all those that travel these routes with Goods and services to keep other companies going.

Electric and Hybrid cars are only 5-10 years away and will again change the ability to travel.

L1011

markpb wrote: »

That's not true AFAIK. It's illegal fit a truck to overtake using lane 3 of a three lane motorway.

Outer lane of any motorway is illegal, it's only on 3+ they can at all.

Bass Reeves

L1011 wrote: »

Outer lane of any motorway is illegal, it's only on 3+ they can at all.

My understanding was that it was the outer lane on any multi lane road such as slow climb area's and 2+1's. However I may be incorrect

Isambard

Bass Reeves wrote: »

My understanding was that it was the outer lane on any multi lane road such as slow climb area's and 2+1's. However I may be incorrect

you are

trellheim

Motorways are there to get people to work. People have to be flexible now and move from one job to another. Getting into the center of Cork or Limerick city is ok but what if you job is in EMC in Ballincollig, in De Beers in Shannon, in Analog in Raheen, Sap AG in Galway. Maybe you work in Alcan in Askeaton. Your partner could work 30-50 miles in opposite direction.

Wake up and smell the coffee and live in the real world. It all sounds great in theory that you get out of bed in the morning and 4-500 meters from your door a bus or train collect you and drops you to the door of your workplace. This is the real world we live in. It is not just to get to work it is for all those that travel these routes with Goods and services to keep other companies going.

Electric and Hybrid cars are only 5-10 years away and will again change the ability to travel.

By your argument no-one should take public transport or it should only be for the plebs or whatever and we'd have a motorway through every village in the Republic - do you not see the problem here ? The waterford -dublin motorway was built to that logic and apart from either end its empty most of the day and its not even tolled.

Just because some people work in estates that arent properly connected to joined up public transport is no reason to not properly work out a long term solution that might address the gridlock.

To take some sort of local view try and sit @Dunkettle roundabout inbound on Monday morning and wonder why a 2 lane motorway is no fking use unless its connected onto a proper system thats designed for the long haul > 20 year growth.

Its why I stopped driving to Cork for work from Dublin - it was easier and less hassle to get the train and then do a taxi ( cheaper, too ).