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

The NRA must be stopped

Options
1…68101112

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    miles deas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 36 ✭miles deas


    Some Facts:

    Using all available NRA automatic traffic counters 2007-2010, traffic has reduced by 6.1%. The trend of reduction is greater year on year. The CSO freight survey 2009 showed 40% reduction in freight from 2008. in the UK traffic has also fallen for 3 consecutive years the first time since records began in 1949. The UK traffic model is run yearly and refined and quite frankly makes the NRA's model look like a child's abacus. It predicts growth of traffic of 0.5%/yr. with a sensitivity analysis accepting negative growth. So the NRA over-specifies roads on traffic forecasts designed by RTL in 2003 predicting 2-3% annual growth. NRA road layouts are funnily enough very similar to those of the UK. Something to do with the fact that of 189 documents in the NRA DMRB 173 come from the UK DMRB. Anyway the roads are the same yet UK max. capacities for say dual carriageway are 143% greater so the UK can put more traffic on the road before upgrading to expensive motorway. The NRA removed wide singles and 2+1's for greenfield constructions in 2007 so you jump straight from stand single carriageway to 4 lanes. Motorways offer the lowest number of lives saved for any road design element I know the have a BCR in terms of safety of 0.15 i.e for safety more costs than benefits. Irish roads in the last EuroRAP report had 50% at the lowest 1 star rating compared to NI 5% and Britain 2%. Fred Barry in committee on 12/01/2011 said many Irish roads where not properly designed in the first place and are substantially below international standards. You don't need 4 lanes lads you ain't got the money you need to get with the programme and start designing safe cheap middle sized roads and upgrading the 94% of roads that aren't motorway. By the way if any of you think of saying 2+2's are middle sized how come a whole load of them got reclassified as motorway in 2009. Stop wasting other peoples money and start thinking! From one of the authors of that Irish Times piece you so glibly dismissed. The jokes on you fellas not me.


  • Options
    #213
    dubhthach
    Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    Sorry no 2+2 roads were reclassified as Motorways. What was reclassified is what's called HQDC (High-quality Dual carriageway) -- in other words narrow median motorways with green signs.

    2+2 roads have:
    • no hard shoulders
    • Compact grade seperated junctions
    • Can have roundabouts at terminal/start positions
    • Wire barrier instead of concrete crash barrier

    Here's a pic of the N4, apart from the flyover it's fairly equivalent in overall roadwidth as a wide single carriageway
    800px-N4_Dromad-Roosky.jpg


  • Options
    #214
    Tech3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,010 ✭✭✭Tech3


    miles deas wrote: »
    Some Facts:

    You don't need 4 lanes lads you ain't got the money you need to get with the programme and start designing safe cheap middle sized roads and upgrading the 94% of roads that aren't motorway. By the way if any of you think of saying 2+2's are middle sized how come a whole load of them got reclassified as motorway in 2009. Stop wasting other peoples money and start thinking! From one of the authors of that Irish Times piece you so glibly dismissed. The jokes on you fellas not me.

    What is a fact is that divided roads with two carriageways are much safer than a non divided road. The reason is that it reduces head-on collisions which account for a large amount of roads deaths and provides safe overtaking leading to less frustration. 2+2's Type 2 dual carriageways (see above photo by dubhthach) cost close enough to the price of a normal wide single carriageway road. Why would you build proven unsafe roads when you can pay 1-5% more for a well known safe road.

    Has there even been a serious accident yet even on the Dromod-Rooskey N4 bypass? It been open to traffic for a few years now.


  • Options
    #215
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,179 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    dubhthach wrote: »
    Here's a pic of the N4, apart from the flyover it's fairly equivalent in overall roadwidth as a wide single carriageway

    Most later period WS2s had minor roads on flyovers/underpasses to begin with too.

    A 2+2 is the same profile as the Charlestown BP, the Kilmacthomas BP, the N30 realingment between Clonroche and Enniscorthy, etc. It is not the "motorway" that our Slane Bypass ranters seem to insist it is, nor is it upgradable to one.

    Of course, facts are thin on the ground in PlanBetter's arguments, even when they're extremely easy to find out.


  • Options
    #216
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    So lads, can anyone think where this extra 800km of motorway is planned for?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    That is not "queried in the media" that is only the biased Frank McDonald whining and talking up the green party in the elections. Shame nobody talks to Frank and the Times except An Taisce and crusties.


  • Options
    #218
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    “The recent announcement maintained a 14 per cent cut in the low-cost safety improvement programme, which is used to remove accident blackspots on dangerous roads all around the country and stands at a paltry €6 million a year.”
    Hang on a sec, didn't we try that in the late 80's & early 90's - from a road safety point of view it didn't work (the numbers of road deaths was still shockingly high until the introduction of penatly points) and hasn't helped journey times.
    PlanBetter said Ireland had 2½ times more motorway per person than Britain.
    So we have beteen 800km and 1000km of motorway all leading to our main city, nothing to connect the 2nd, 3rd and 4th cities to each other (we're trying to but it appears that these groups don't want this) - before we talk about the other large urban areas. Britain has such a motorway system - with many more major connections to boot.
    “Yet plans by the National Roads Authority to build another 800km of motorway have still not been officially shelved,”
    Why should they be shelved? There are 2 schemes due to launch this year and 2/3 more over the next 4 years. That 800 KM must relate to projects that are part of a strategic plan for the country's transport network. We can't have one of these can we - we're irish we don't do such things:mad:

    PlanBetter noted that half of the Republic’s road network scored the lowest possible safety rating by the European Road Assessment Programme, compared to only 5 per cent of Northern Ireland’s network and just 2 per cent of roads in Britain.

    It said removing accident blackspots saved far more lives
    I can't think of a better way of remving blackspots than removing traffic from the raods that shouldn't have to use them - motorways does this
    “not come close to meeting current design and construction standards” while others “were never properly designed in the first place”.
    Seems to me that the NRA believes that upgrading roads to be safe is a more expensive and time consuming proposition that - especially when there are no alternative routes available or are more dangerous than the ones being fixed (something that many serial complainants just don't comprehend)

    “Dedicated bypasses with selected enhancements along existing routes are what’s required.
    Absolute horsesh*t. I spent a couple of years driving between Dublin and Galway before the M6 fully opened. It was 220 KM door to door. The sped limit on the road was 100 KM for most of this, so I have a reasonable expectation of being able to do this in about 2.5 hours.

    Kinnegad is 100 Km from my place in Dublin, I can get there in a little over an hour, leaving in the late evening, missing all rush hour traffic. From there on the road was an absolute nightmare - it used to take 2 hours to drive 120 km - on a dry evening/night - impossible to pass die to narrow/winding stretches or traffic on the straight stretches, safety vigilantes (if I can't do any more that 65 km/h, you can't either and I'm making sure you don't get past:mad:) etc. Funnily enough it was quicker on wet days (light drizzle that wouldn't yet your hair), as if the sunday drivers and safety crew deemed it too risky to be out driving.:rolleyes:

    It situation only improve slightly as the new sections opened (always took 1 hour 10 mins to get from the carnmore cross to the d/c the far side of ballinsole, only 63km). It seemed that people were driving slower that they had been on the single carriage way roads as more DC/Motorway came on stream (wtf is up with that - the road, barring a couple of bits in ballinsaloe hadn't degraded any).

    Dedicated bypasses do not work as the rest of the road system is not up to scratch (didn't Fred Barry say that too), we need full HQDC (which are built to the same standard as motorway).

    End of rant


  • Options
    #219
    Tech3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,010 ✭✭✭Tech3


    Tremelo wrote: »
    So lads, can anyone think where this extra 800km of motorway is planned for?

    Every 2+2 road is being described as a motorway by the anti road groups around the country. The only motorways needed in the future will be the M17/M18, M11 and M20 which is enough. Also the HQDC bypass of Galway city.


  • Options
    #220
    nordydan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,105 ✭✭✭nordydan


    Tremelo wrote: »
    So lads, can anyone think where this extra 800km of motorway is planned for?

    Tyrone? :D


  • Options
    #221
    ardmacha
    Registered Users Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    All of these proposals have usual cultural cringe of Britain this and Britain that. Britain is essientially England, which has quite a different population distribution than Ireland. Why not use Denmark as a comparision which has over 1000km of motorway? Denmark has many other appealing features, they have closed a bank and burned the bondholders, for instances. But even from a transport perspective they have good cycle networks, rail and bus networks, illustrating that building motorways does not preclude these things.

    There is scope for a debate as the most urgent motorways have been completed and the exact standard (motorway, 2+2, etc) of remaining improvements should be open to debate. But dishonesty and calling non motoways roads motorway is no help.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    And it the second time McDonald wrote the same article....in effect. He wrote it in October as well.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1008/1224280636344.html

    Sounds like a stuck record to me :( Can he not do some original research himself instead of regurgitating NIMBY crap like this ? , like reading boards :D


  • Options
    #223
    KevR
    Registered Users Posts: 3,110 ✭✭✭KevR


    2+2 and HQDC are very different. It has already been explained so there is no need for me to explain it again.
    miles deas wrote: »
    Some Facts:

    Using all available NRA automatic traffic counters 2007-2010, traffic has reduced by 6.1%. The trend of reduction is greater year on year. The CSO freight survey 2009 showed 40% reduction in freight from 2008. in the UK traffic has also fallen for 3 consecutive years the first time since records began in 1949. The UK traffic model is run yearly and refined and quite frankly makes the NRA's model look like a child's abacus. It predicts growth of traffic of 0.5%/yr. with a sensitivity analysis accepting negative growth. So the NRA over-specifies roads on traffic forecasts designed by RTL in 2003 predicting 2-3% annual growth. NRA road layouts are funnily enough very similar to those of the UK. Something to do with the fact that of 189 documents in the NRA DMRB 173 come from the UK DMRB. Anyway the roads are the same yet UK max. capacities for say dual carriageway are 143% greater so the UK can put more traffic on the road before upgrading to expensive motorway. The NRA removed wide singles and 2+1's for greenfield constructions in 2007 so you jump straight from stand single carriageway to 4 lanes. Motorways offer the lowest number of lives saved for any road design element I know the have a BCR in terms of safety of 0.15 i.e for safety more costs than benefits. Irish roads in the last EuroRAP report had 50% at the lowest 1 star rating compared to NI 5% and Britain 2%. Fred Barry in committee on 12/01/2011 said many Irish roads where not properly designed in the first place and are substantially below international standards. You don't need 4 lanes lads you ain't got the money you need to get with the programme and start designing safe cheap middle sized roads and upgrading the 94% of roads that aren't motorway. By the way if any of you think of saying 2+2's are middle sized how come a whole load of them got reclassified as motorway in 2009. Stop wasting other peoples money and start thinking! From one of the authors of that Irish Times piece you so glibly dismissed. The jokes on you fellas not me.

    Where are you getting this from? Also, how exactly was the 6.1% fall in traffic on the entire network calculated? I can't look through all the traffic counts right now, but I have a feeling that the 6.1% figure is either incorrect or misleading (for this discussion).

    Anyhow, many of our motorways were not built because the N roads that they were replacing were full to capacity....
    • Economic Activity: journey times between key economic hubs were judged to be unacceptably high, and rightly so. The N6/4 was not full to capacity but Galway-Dublin journey times of up to 4 hours were not at all acceptable in economic terms; East Galway City to the M50 can now be done in 1 hour 30 mins. Cork-Belfast used to take roughly 8 hours even though most of the route was not full to capacity; it can now be done in 4 hours.
    • Future Proofing: we don't ever want roads that are full and congested. By building key routes to a high standard, we are future proofing these important routes for many decades to come. It makes sense to do this; we could spend a little less now by building roads with the capacity that we need now and in the next decade or two but it would end up costing us more in the long run.
    • Safety: I know you argue that more lives could be saved by instead spending the money on improving other non-motorway roads. However, the point still stands that motorways do improve safety a lot. Safety is just one reason for building motorways and it is not the only one, there are many more.


  • Options
    #224
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    I think we've found out why people from An Taisce, Friends of the Earth, Friends of the Irish Environment and Feasta always object to everything. They were born miserable
    Some people cannot help being pessimistic, suggests a new study that found the amount of a chemical in the brain affects how we view the world.

    Researchers discovered that levels of a molecule called neuropeptide Y (NPY) directly relates to whether we have a "glass half empty" or "glass half full" attitude towards life.

    Those with lower levels of the substance are much more negative

    Since An Taisce is supposed to be (or used to be at any rate) state backed, maybe we should test people in it for this chemical and prevent them from talking in public.


  • Options
    #225
    serfboard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,680 ✭✭✭serfboard


    ardmacha wrote: »
    All of these proposals have usual cultural cringe of Britain this and Britain that. Britain is essientially England, which has quite a different population distribution than Ireland. Why not use Denmark as a comparision which has over 1000km of motorway? Denmark has many other appealing features, they have closed a bank and burned the bondholders, for instances. But even from a transport perspective they have good cycle networks, rail and bus networks, illustrating that building motorways does not preclude these things.

    It really sickens my wick when people continuously look to England for comparisons. I agree with the point about Denmark. Also look at France - great motorway system, fantastic train system. Or Spain, with all the High-Speed Rail they're building now (now that their roads are complete - which is why you'll find them building roads here).

    Most people on this forum are not pro-roads and anti every other form of transport. Most are pro proper planning and development of infrastructure - roads first because we're so far behind, but also bus/cycle lanes, greenways (like in Mulrany, for instance), proper development of rail (and not that piece of crap called the Western Rail Corridor, that runs forty minutes slower than the bus :eek:) .

    BTW, I heard some fella called James interviewed on Drivetime last night - was that James Nix, does anyone know? It sounded a lot like what was in the Irish Times article. I was driving at the time, and I nearly crashed the car, I got so annoyed at the crap he was coming out with. I switched if off - I couldn't take any more.


  • Options
    #226
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    Tremelo wrote: »
    So lads, can anyone think where this extra 800km of motorway is planned for?

    does it include the tunnel to Liverpool at all at all?


  • Options
    #227
    Son of Stupido
    Registered Users Posts: 116 ✭✭Son of Stupido


    To all those who moan about falling road usage and motorways not needed, a couple of points;
    • First motorway built in 1924 (Milan-Varese in Italy) IS STILL IN USE!
    • Motorways are like the canals of 18th century and railways of 19th century - physical LONG TERM infrastructure
    • Road usage rises and falls periodically - year in year out stats are irrelevant when talking about long term infrastructure.
    • Of course planning for the future should continue IMO. Land prices are rock bottom. The NRA should be banking land for future schemes. Remember land costs at the height of the boom cost 35% of construction and was one of the biggest reasons for delays.
    I think we did well to get what we got, but there is still a lot of catch-up to do. Italy started in 1924, the UK in 1958, Ireland in 2001.


  • Options
    #228
    miles deas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 36 ✭miles deas


    too many queries in 1 day to answer all but I'll try a few. That is not to say I won't answer the rest because I will if you think you have me, keep posting. I'll reply once a day.

    • The re-designated motorways were some 2+2's. This is a direct cut and paste from a communication with the NRA:
    "The new roads and re-designated roads are Type 1 Dual Carriageway and
    Type 2 (2+2) Dual Carriageway."

    • The growth data came from all available NRA automated traffic counters with data between 2007 and 2010. The CSO is presently calculating traffic by a different method. They too have problems with lack of data as they use odometer readings and funnily enough they do not get read once at the beginning of the year and once at the end of the year so you get readings say in mid 2008 and beginning of 2009 that gives traffic values that partly reflect the year prior. I was asked by the CSO how to treat the data to overcome this issue. I directed them to the head of statistics at the ITF. I did that deliberately to keep myself away from the work. Anyway this should be out in a month. I too want to know the truth on the issue but an educated guess suggests traffic reduction not growth. Using UK forecasts seems very reasonable considering the team they have and the model they use.
    • Regarding being an environmentalist. Well I'm not. I just spent today with Prof. Morgenroth, head of transport economics at the ESRI working through some data on safety rates and costs for different road types. He's not an environmentalist either we both worked for free just to give you a choice, aren't you lucky. The take home message is you can build more WS2 than dual carriageway and save more lives that way across the nation. I know some of you will be choking on your night-time cornflakes with that one, but its true. Read O’Cinneide et al 2004 paper and do the maths yourself. I'm not saying go back to WS2 necessarily but a mid cost option needs to be developed and fast.
    • WS2 is not similar in cost to 2+2 or dual carriageway we used freely available UK values for DC and WS2 for the prices. The NRA got a bit sheepish and said it depends on where you build it when I asked them for prices. I countered does that mean the quoted only 10% more from 2+1 to 2+2 is equally thus rendered inaccurate they said no. You can't have your cake and eat it. Well not for long gentlemen. Be a bit more open.
    • Some of you gentlemen are clearly in the trade if you want to be sat on your arses or picking up your P45's in the next few years keep on ridiculing my work. The NRA is this countries best hope for a coherent road network. That is providing it can adapt to give value for money not gold plated vanity projects. I hope to persuade them of this. But at present I'm getting little cooperation. Many politicians talk of valuing the contribution the NRA has made and wondering if it has a future roll. I have actually argued for its existence with these people but god knows why because they give precious little out with which to promote a reasonable strategy.
    • Regarding the link to the M3 clonee/kells and Limerick Tunnel toll press. That was my work all original, many thanks. The way those contracts are written with hard numbers for traffic each successive year with the usual growth multiplier attached as opposed to offering a traffic guarantee as a percentage higher than the preceding year means we will never catch up with traffic on those contracts and pay throughout. All I did for that estimate of penalties on tolls was show the fall in traffic for this year then allow growth as predicted by the contract. I did a few scenarios with a few more years negative growth, static and below expected growth naturally the costs to you and I where and likely will be in reality higher.
    • Regarding linking the other major hubs. Sure but have some reasonable options with some reasonable forecasts and build to suit. You'll never get a descent network going for all dual carriageways you'll run out of money. People need to drive to get onto the motorway too, give them descent roads.
    • Safety, the low cost targeted safety improvement scheme run by the NRA targets collision clusters/accident blackspots and puts in remedial work the annual returns on average are 502%. Now that's value for money. At present it gets annual funding less than the money required to build 1km of motorway. I have a document showing a backlog of hundreds of these sites. Yes, that's right many poor roads having collisions year on year not responded to because we're building big roads here and there. Does that mean more people are dying by investing in motorways sadly yes. You do not build motorways for safety you build them for other economic arguments but safety is a nice by-product. But unless you have billions your better off doing something else with your money if you want to save lives.
    • Economics, Value of Time is down that affects the CBA and reduces the benefits and the BCR drops. Discount Rates need to go up in fact for a PPP who is going to lend to a company working in Ireland the risk to the lender of loosing their investment is very high so quoting low discount rates on projects is fudging the issue.
    Look this is taking a lot of time. All I'm saying is with a limited budget road strategy has to change. I have spent significant time on the subject and there is reasonable doubt that present strategy is appropriate. Do not be so hasty to demean another point of view. Those press releases which there are a number, are many hours hard research and they may well offer a good chance for us to get a truly coherent network. But unfortunately it cant all be 4 lanes we don't have the money. We aspired to perfection during the boom now is the time to be pragmatic.


  • Options
    #229
    dubhthach
    Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    miles deas wrote: »
    too many queries in 1 day to answer all but I'll try a few. That is not to say I won't answer the rest because I will if you think you have me, keep posting. I'll reply once a day.

    • The re-designated motorways were some 2+2's. This is a direct cut and paste from a communication with the NRA:
    "The new roads and re-designated roads are Type 1 Dual Carriageway and
    Type 2 (2+2) Dual Carriageway."

    Again as I stated previously no 2+2 Type 2 Dual carriageway was redesignated as Motorway. If you are aware of such please point out the relevant scheme. If you need to acquaint yourself with the particulars of Type 2 Dual carriageways then please read the relevant documentation form the NRA.

    http://www.nra.ie/Publications/DownloadableDocumentation/RoadDesignConstruction/file,11236,en.pdf

    All inter-urban roads that were redesignated as Motorway were Type 1 dual-carriageways.


  • Options
    #230
    Chris_5339762
    Registered Users Posts: 5,864 ✭✭✭Chris_5339762


    Not quite all, the Cashel and Ennis bypasses were the old style "Standard Dual Carriageway". Type 1 used to be known as "High Quality Dual Carriageway". "Standard Dual Carriageway" does not have a Type xx associated with it.

    What the difference between Standard and High Quality is I'm not sure, but they definately were seperate entities before the Type 1, 2 and 3 classification system came along.


  • Options
    #231
    Tech3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,010 ✭✭✭Tech3


    miles deas wrote: »
    WS2 is not similar in cost to 2+2 or dual carriageway we used freely available UK values for DC and WS2 for the prices. The NRA got a bit sheepish and said it depends on where you build it when I asked them for prices. I countered does that mean the quoted only 10% more from 2+1 to 2+2 is equally thus rendered inaccurate they said no. You can't have your cake and eat it. Well not for long gentlemen. Be a bit more open.

    I will take you up on just this paragraph. Firstly we should not campare UK values for DC and WS2. UK DC is two lanes and a hard shoulder which is Type 1 dual carriageway here(motorway). Do the UK even have a WS2 road type?

    Secondly, of course it can depend on land prices. A road in a rural area will be a lot cheaper than a road being built near a large urban centre. It doesnt take an NRA spokesperson to tell you that.

    Finally, a 2+2 is relatively close the cost of a WS2. Some WS2's in this country are so wide that you could fit a HQDC on it. Also it has so many benefits over a WS2 that makes it worth the extra 5% in cost. We have to upgrade our national primary network first before we look at the secondary and R roads. Do you not realise how much traffic the national primary road network carries daily.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,786 ✭✭✭SeanW


    miles deas wrote: »
    I'll reply once a day.

    • The re-designated motorways were some 2+2's. This is a direct cut and paste from a communication with the NRA:
    "The new roads and re-designated roads are Type 1 Dual Carriageway and
    Type 2 (2+2) Dual Carriageway."
    I'm not sure if the NRA ever actually said this, but the quote is inaccurate.

    Once again, 2+2 dual carriageway means: no hard shoulders, compact GSJs and on-line roundabouts, minimal spec. median, and maybe also reduced lane widths but I'm not sure about that one.

    In other words NOT A MOTORWAY. To stress, I'm pretty much certain that none of the dcs reclassified to Motorway are of the 2+2 type, which was illustrated to you earlier in this thread.

    If you can show me a 2+2 dual carriageway in Ireland that was reclassified motorway, I'll eat my hat - and post a YouTube video.


  • Options
    #233
    dubhthach
    Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    Chris_5339762 wrote: »
    Not quite all, the Cashel and Ennis bypasses were the old style "Standard Dual Carriageway". Type 1 used to be known as "High Quality Dual Carriageway". "Standard Dual Carriageway" does not have a Type xx associated with it.

    What the difference between Standard and High Quality is I'm not sure, but they definately were seperate entities before the Type 1, 2 and 3 classification system came along.

    True enough but still a very different beastie then a Type 2 2+2 road that's for sure.


  • Options
    #234
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,179 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    miles deas wrote: »
    [*]The re-designated motorways were some 2+2's. This is a direct cut and paste from a communication with the NRA:
    "The new roads and re-designated roads are Type 1 Dual Carriageway and
    Type 2 (2+2) Dual Carriageway."

    Selective quoting. There isn't a centimetre of redesignated Type 2 as Type 2 cannot be motorway. Indeed there is extremely little Type 2 built as yet, only stretches of the N3, N4 and N21.
    miles deas wrote: »
    Regarding being an environmentalist. Well I'm not. I just spent today with Prof. Morgenroth, head of transport economics at the ESRI working through some data on safety rates and costs for different road types. He's not an environmentalist either we both worked for free just to give you a choice, aren't you lucky. The take home message is you can build more WS2 than dual carriageway and save more lives that way across the nation. I know some of you will be choking on your night-time cornflakes with that one, but its true.

    I'd like to know what data you've discovered/invented on "safety rates", as WS2 is one of the inherently least safe road types around. There is a massively increased rate of fatal, high speed head on collisions on WS2 than there is on other roads.

    The figures get even worse when WS2 roads are grade-seperated for traffic flow reasons. The RSAs "free speed" surveys show this, with free running speeds often *in excess* of that on motorways. Extremely wide tarmac, sliproads and overbridges provide a false sense of security, and lead to situations such as head-ons with 250km/h closing speeds. These have happened on the N17, should you wish to go look at the memorial stones rather than some unreliable figures.

    The only choking on cornflakes is at someone preaching as if they understand road safety and road design when clearly they haven't got a clue
    miles deas wrote: »
    [*]WS2 is not similar in cost to 2+2 or dual carriageway we used freely available UK values for DC and WS2 for the prices.

    Except it is

    The UK doesn't have WS2, so I don't know what figures you pulled out of where to further invalidate your already inaccurate analysis.

    Also, UK standard DCs are of a significantly larger profile than a 2+2. More destruction to your "figures"
    miles deas wrote: »
    [*]Some of you gentlemen are clearly in the trade if you want to be sat on your arses or picking up your P45's in the next few years keep on ridiculing my work.

    I'm not "in the trade", indeed I'm a professional driver and new roads only make my job less stable - due to the massive reduction in journey times leading to jumps in efficiency, my employer has made three staff redundant since 2008.

    Your "work" is faulty and clearly driven by some agenda. You have faulty info, you're repeatedly claiming things which are utterly untrue to be true, and are accusing people who disagree of being "in the trade".
    miles deas wrote: »
    I have a document showing a backlog of hundreds of these sites

    How many of these backlogged sites would be reduced to being on low-traffic R roads if the roads project was better progressed? I'd suspect the vast majority of them.


  • Options
    #235
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    miles deas wrote: »
    t
    • The take home message is you can build more WS2 than dual carriageway and save more lives that way across the nation.

    There is a case for interspersing S2 ( not WS2) and 2+2 sections (because of the gob****e in Micra doing 60kph factor) rather than building nothing but 2+2 or indeed nothing but S2. 20km S2 and 10km 2+2 ...repeated.

    However I am pretty much the only one who has made it around here for roads like the N21 and N5.

    Pure S2 or WS2 does not give sufficient safe guaranteed overtaking opportunities. Mandatory "move over" laws would help in the interim and in future.

    WS2 is not a design standard anymore so how exactly are you reintroducing it then ???


  • Options
    #236
    KevR
    Registered Users Posts: 3,110 ✭✭✭KevR


    miles deas wrote: »
    • The growth data came from all available NRA automated traffic counters with data between 2007 and 2010.

    This data can easily be twisted if certain factors are not taken into account.

    For example, traffic on the old N6 (now the R446) has fallen dramatically since the M6 opened. The NRA traffic counter webpage doesn't seem to be working for me at the moment* but it's probably at least a 70% decline in traffic on the R446 since 2007. If you are including this (and all the other N roads which were bypassed by motorway since 2007) in your calculations then it's giving a false impression of a decline in road usage. In reality, road usage has probably increased on those particular routes (e.g. - if you add the M6 and R446 together).

    Traffic counts on the Galway-Dublin route further East (where the motorway/DC has been open a few years) have been increasing over the last few years..

    There is more capacity on the network now than in 2007 so it might seem like traffic has declined on some specific routes. In my opinion, overall traffic has increased in many regions, and remained constant in some others. There aren't many regions where overall traffic has decreased.

    *It looks like they are being updated.


  • Options
    #237
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    KevR wrote: »
    *It looks like they are being updated.
    They have been updated and whoever did it has screwed up the links. I've emailed asking them to fix it.

    The data is still accessible if you correct the url in the address bar (use / instead of %5c)


  • Options
    #238
    newmug
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,571 ✭✭✭newmug


    I hate dual carraigeways and motorways. We have too many as it is. We only have so much land. When will the NRA stop tarring it, when there's none left? Its just wrong.


  • Options
    #239
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    newmug wrote: »
    I hate dual carraigeways and motorways. We have too many as it is. We only have so much land. When will the NRA stop tarring it, when there's none left? Its just wrong.

    an opinion that most Roads regulars will surely agree with (not):rolleyes:


  • Options
    #240
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    newmug wrote: »
    I hate dual carraigeways and motorways. We have too many as it is. We only have so much land. When will the NRA stop tarring it, when there's none left? Its just wrong.

    apparently we have so little land the greens don't seem to mind converting some of it into a lake . I'd rather see roads built that will actually serves a purpose thanks.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    miles deas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 36 ✭miles deas


    Gentlemen, Below is an image I hope comes out comparing UK D2AP dual carriageway to NRA Type 1 and 2. There is 30cm, 1 foot, a child's school ruler difference in size on 2 lanes of carriageway. They are practically identical.

    Comparison%20UK%20Irish%20Dual%20Carrigeway%20Cross-Sec.png

    Links to relevant DMRB.

    DMRB U.K. TD27/05, Vol. 6, Sec.1, Part 2, page 4/14

    DMRB NRA TD27-07, Vol. 6, Sec.1, Part 2, Dec. 2007, page 15.

    The NRA DMRB is one large zipped file download.

    Also note WS2 is still on the UK DMRB page 4/14 in above document, so that's that one sorted. Looks like one of us is less than factual in our posting's so far.

    O'Cinneide's paper - I'm showing the math on how WS2 is the better investment direct to the NRA. I spent some time on the phone with one of the NRA people today I think that's the best way of making changes. Trust me it is robust work. MYOB you are in error on all of you're clever counters to selected quotes by me. Just ring the NRA they will confirm 2+2's have been upgraded to motorway. I doubt they would either lie or be factually incorrect. I question the direction they are still taking not their professionalism.

    Sponge Bob's idea on interspersing S2 and 2+2 is very good. The NRA are concerned about uniform driver experience but the UK DMRB state:

    "3.11 Sustaining a particular carriageway standard
    along an entire route is not normally acceptable if this
    is at the expense of foregone economic or
    environmental benefits."

    see, DMRB TA4697 Vol 5,-Sec. 1, Part 3, page 3/2.

    KevR's comment is correct the automated traffic counter system is incomplete so his argument is valid and I concede it. The problem is, there is no other data as up to date. They are putting more counters on the road and when data is up I will happily redo the figures. The CSO is working on traffic figures at the moment. But they too have methodological problems. They rely on odometer readings. As I said, they don't read odometers at the beginning and end of the year on an NCT. the results are a composite of a few years and as such under report changes in traffic when they start to occur. We need many more counters to accurately prioritise roads to be upgraded. In my area with no new road at present to divert traffic and be lost to data recall, traffic levels are down between 20% to 1.7%.

    Things I would like:
    • New traffic growth forecasts
    • More automated traffic counters
    • Review traffic max. traffic capacity for each road type.
    • consideration of a new mid sized road option
    • greater concentration on targeted safety works.
    Talking today to the NRA they are actually examining all the above, already. In which case this becomes a non-issue. If the NRA can adapt to the new situation re funding and economics it would have proved itself in my eyes to be the adaptable organisation providing roads uniformly across the country that we've always needed. I'll wait and see.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement