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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

The NRA must be stopped

123457

Comments

  • #302
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,536 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    miles deas wrote: »
    A little quote from another road authority:
    "Managing Down Costs on Highway Schemes

    Idea 224 - Defer Widening By Allowing Hard-Shoulder Running"

    Its no the idea its the sentiment hundreds of radical ideas to save money. Now why can't we do the same fellas? lets design a road.

    Hard shoulder running can only work on dual carriageways with full width hard shoulders, e.g. pre mid 2000s standard DCs in this country. All it does is allow you to have 3 lanes at peak times.

    It is not an economic option except where land prices are horrendous. It requires safety zones to be built, often structures to be altered (bridges are frequently lower over the hard shoulder), gantries to be put in place, a monitoring system to be put in place, etc.

    Can I take it that you seem to assume it'd work on WS2s? If you want to kill every farmer in rural Ireland within a week, it might be an idea.


  • #303
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    A low cost alternative is to INTERSPERSE 2+2 ( guaranteeing overtaking ) with Offline Type 1 S2 or Type 2 S2 on long rural routes and at PREDICTABLE intervals.

    Hard shoulder running is for protected WS2 alignments FFS :(

    On a Road like the N5 there are sections of WS2 that can become 2+2 like the Charlestown Bypass, add some S2 and maybe a bit of 2+2 around Ballaghadereen and we are getting somewhere. Add a few laybys on the S2 bits and "Move Over" laws with enforcement/revenue raisng opportunities and we are REALLY getting somewhere. The magic word is PREDICTABLE . PREDICTABLE = SAFE.

    Same with the N21 across West Limerick and North Kerry...heck we just kinda did that in Castleisland in between 2 high quality S2 sections.

    However for safety and economy we must bypass the existing S2 Primary network because we raddled it with Bungalows B&Band Country and Western emporia instead of protecting it after we built it .....between 1965 and 1980 in the main.

    We built what should have been a reasonably good road network once, then we made ****e of it. Never let that happen again.

    But that is a discussion for another thread, starting from scratch with your 2 slides. One for S2 and one for D2 types with land take.

    Hop to it lad !!!


  • #304
    miles deas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 36 ✭miles deas


    MYOB go look up Bent Flyberg he's now a prof. at my old alma mater. Also consider this if we have no money we will have to build infrastructure using PPP's now when the private company goes to a bank and asks for money for a project in Ireland they will most likely say no as its to risky or they will charge a hefty interest rate to cover the risk of loan default that will drive up the costs on projects. Consider also this the main economic benefit for big road justification is value of time savings. That is the time saved getting to productive work or in the case of freight to destination is factored as approx. 84% of the benefit of a big road. Now CSO figures show average wages are down also freight traffic is down 40%. The balance of costs and benefits is the major contributor to justifying a big road and the Dept. of Finance when in hard times is a very big fish. It has no interest in roads it has every interest in the bottom line. Please consider the mid-sized road option. I want to make sure things tick over but in a more reasonable way.


  • #305
    miles deas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 36 ✭miles deas


    Now your talking Sponge sparse 2+1 is what the Swedes call it but it could be sparse 2+2 in places. I'm in contact with them:

    " What is the cost of an average km of sparse 2+1 compared to standard 2+1? Depends a lot of the existing road!! So far we have build it on existing 9 m wide roads and just widened it up on places with overtaking lanes. That means that w are widening the road on just approx 40 % of the length instead of 100% and off course the investment cost are much lower because of that – and we are getting nearly the same effects – we think"

    I'll do the slide now.


  • #306
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    The Swedes can do that because they protected their alignments. We cannot without GSJs on 2+2 to give turnback opportunities. It is doable....we have to do it between Limerick and Shannon where we still have median crossovers in some places IIRC despite adding GSJ turnbacks in places.

    We will not be able to do long stretches, accept that.

    Where are the feckin slides, you know the NRA are around these parts every day and you cannot even produce two simple slides for us :(


  • Advertisement
  • #307
    runway16
    Registered Users Posts: 304 ✭✭runway16


    All of the median crossings on the N18 between Limerick and Shannon have now been removed.


  • #308
    miles deas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 36 ✭miles deas


    As Promised. I hope they are. Nobody has a moretorium on good ideas and if they take something from this great. Maybe there not but your ideas will be better than mine. Here you are:

    Comparison%20UK%20Irish%20Single%20Carrigeway.png


  • #309
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    I likes that, now start a new thread on the myriad design standards and their applicability. :)


  • #310
    miles deas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 36 ✭miles deas


    Bob you start it for 2 reasons:
    1. This is the first forum I've ever really been on and I don't know the tricks to keep it going.
    2. Your the made man here with mates not me. If I do it I'll be just sitting there with no input.
    Get behind this and see where it goes.


  • #311
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Take my word for it, nobody will say boo to a thread on the subject as long as the recent 'Type 2 for the Bewildered' stuff is left here. Just start it and tell us your considered theory on the matter. That is how things work around here. I told you this is not a fractious forum because it isn't. It did not even have a moderator until an idiot with tourettes called Mysterious showed up c.2008 :(

    The twin graphics and offline land take stats are essential because the entire future model is predicated on that.

    Much easier for the NRA to browse as well ...as they do :cool:


  • Advertisement
  • #312
    miles deas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 36 ✭miles deas


    Hi, I created a new thread please invite all to put ideas in. I was hoping to populate it with a few ideas first. But up to you. Here's, the thread:

    Post IMF Road Design Standards


  • #313
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    miles deas wrote: »
    Tremelo can you point me to that Dail costings quote?

    Here you go. My figures were a little wrong (I was working from memory) but you will clearly see now the difference between Type 2 and motorway standard:
    Deputy Frank Feighan: I asked a question about the 2+2. It is effectively a single carriageway without the hard shoulder.

    Mr. Fred Barry: The road is wider and so on.

    Deputy Frank Feighan: What is the difference per yard between a 2+2 and a single carriageway?

    Mr. Fred Barry: Depending on specifics, the difference is €2.5 million or €3 million per kilometre.

    Deputy Frank Feighan: What about a single carriageway?

    Mr. Fred Barry: No, that is the difference between the two. The Deputy asked about the difference between a standard single carriageway and a 2+2. The difference in cost is between €2.5 million and €3 million per kilometre. Individual schemes vary but that is the kind of difference we are talking about.

    Chairman: Does 2+2 refer to a dual carriageway?

    Mr. Fred Barry: A 2+2 road is a dual carriageway but of a lower standard than a motorway.

    Deputy Frank Feighan: The Drumsna to Rooskey road, which is a 2+2 road, is very successful. How much does it cost per kilometre?

    Mr. Fred Barry: Approximately €8 million per kilometre.

    Link is here for more context.


  • #314
    miles deas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 36 ✭miles deas


    Thanks Tremelo have you seen the new thread?


  • #315
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    miles deas wrote: »
    Thanks Tremelo have you seen the new thread?

    Yup I have indeed, I'm delighted we're all getting on a lot better now. Great to get some new blood posting in the forum :)


  • #316
    miles deas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 36 ✭miles deas


    Thanks Tremelo,

    Signing off now, night.


  • #317
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    miles deas wrote: »
    Now CSO figures show average wages are down also freight traffic is down 40%.
    Can't let you away with that without some proof, both links or documents please.


  • #318
    KevR
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,110 ✭✭✭KevR


    miles deas wrote: »
    A little quote from another road authority:
    "Managing Down Costs on Highway Schemes

    Idea 224 - Defer Widening By Allowing Hard-Shoulder Running"

    Its no the idea its the sentiment hundreds of radical ideas to save money. Now why can't we do the same fellas? lets design a road.

    Recent story in the UK press saying the Highways Agency could have saved £1 Billion by using Hard Shoulder Running on London's M25 instead of widening the road.

    The people who were arguing that Hard Shoulder Running should have been done tried to make it seem like the end result would be the exact same and it would have saved £1 Billion. Yes, it would have saved the money right now but the end result would not have been the same and it might end up costing billions more 10/20 years down the line!!!!

    As someone else has posted - HSR is only used at peak times, safety zones have to be constructed, extensive traffic monitoring systems have to be put in place and maintained.

    By widening the road - the extra lane will be available all day, there will be less of a need for reduced speed limits (M25 has variable speed limits). They can then also implement HSR 10/20 years down the line at a reasonable cost.

    It would be very difficult, very disruptive and very costly to widen a road that is already using HSR. Doing HSR first might save money in the sort term but it's definitely the worse option in the long term.


  • #319
    miles deas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 36 ✭miles deas


    Hi antobrien, No probs. From the CSO Road Freight Transport Survey 2009:

    CSO_-Road_Freight_Transport_Survey_2009_-_page_8_Summary_Text.png

    see link, here, page 8.

    Regarding CSO Average Earnings and Labour Costs Q3. 2010:

    CSO_Average_Wage_Q3._2010.png

    See, link, page 1. Notice how the fall in wages gets worse quarter on quarter whilst the economic situation continues. This ain't good Tremelo that's why we need options.

    KevR regarding Hard Shoulder Running I think the opened hard shoulder is only for 2+ occupant vehicles. I might be wrong though. I know a guy in the HA whose in that section next time we chat I'll ask. I think the idea of the 2+ occupants in lane is some form of Travel Demand Management. The idea is you lock in the benefits of new roads by discouraging single occupant vehicle use. If it works people in the slow moving lanes watch the full cars zooming passed them in the high occupancy uncongested lane. They start to car share to gain the benefit of the lane and paradoxically congestion decreases. Tony Blair said in some transport document or other "You can't build yourself out of trouble" or something along those lines. But don't kill me for saying that.


  • #320
    miles deas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 36 ✭miles deas


    Why do none of my bloody links work? just put the titles into Google they'll be the first hit and soz.


  • #321
    veryangryman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,600 ✭✭✭veryangryman


    KevR wrote: »
    Recent story in the UK press saying the Highways Agency could have saved £1 Billion by using Hard Shoulder Running on London's M25 instead of widening the road.

    The people who were arguing that Hard Shoulder Running should have been done tried to make it seem like the end result would be the exact same and it would have saved £1 Billion. Yes, it would have saved the money right now but the end result would not have been the same and it might end up costing billions more 10/20 years down the line!!!!

    As someone else has posted - HSR is only used at peak times, safety zones have to be constructed, extensive traffic monitoring systems have to be put in place and maintained.

    By widening the road - the extra lane will be available all day, there will be less of a need for reduced speed limits (M25 has variable speed limits). They can then also implement HSR 10/20 years down the line at a reasonable cost.

    It would be very difficult, very disruptive and very costly to widen a road that is already using HSR. Doing HSR first might save money in the sort term but it's definitely the worse option in the long term.

    Wouldnt this technically (not officially guys, technically) make the M25 a 3+3 road

    or a 4+4 or 5+5 depending on the lanes

    I mean in laymans terms, a 2+2 has no hard shoulder so by removing it and using it as a lane, the road becomes an "X+X" road where X is the number of lanes


  • Advertisement
  • #322
    dubhthach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    miles deas wrote: »
    Why do none of my bloody links work? just put the titles into Google they'll be the first hit and soz.

    Miles I fixed your links, they were showing up like:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/transport/2009/roadfreight09.pdf

    instead of:
    http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/transport/2009/roadfreight09.pdf

    I'm not sure how the www.boards.ie/vbulletin/ got in on it, but given that you are new to Boards it can take awhile to get use to the functionality. ;)


  • #323
    miles deas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 36 ✭miles deas


    Thanks dubhthach.


  • #324
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    miles deas wrote: »
    A little quote from another road authority:
    "Managing Down Costs on Highway Schemes

    Idea 224 - Defer Widening By Allowing Hard-Shoulder Running"

    Its no the idea its the sentiment hundreds of radical ideas to save money. Now why can't we do the same fellas? lets design a road.
    KevR wrote: »
    Recent story in the UK press saying the Highways Agency could have saved £1 Billion by using Hard Shoulder Running on London's M25 instead of widening the road.

    The people who were arguing that Hard Shoulder Running should have been done tried to make it seem like the end result would be the exact same and it would have saved £1 Billion. Yes, it would have saved the money right now but the end result would not have been the same and it might end up costing billions more 10/20 years down the line!!!!

    As someone else has posted - HSR is only used at peak times, safety zones have to be constructed, extensive traffic monitoring systems have to be put in place and maintained.

    By widening the road - the extra lane will be available all day, there will be less of a need for reduced speed limits (M25 has variable speed limits). They can then also implement HSR 10/20 years down the line at a reasonable cost.

    It would be very difficult, very disruptive and very costly to widen a road that is already using HSR. Doing HSR first might save money in the sort term but it's definitely the worse option in the long term.

    And then you have cases like the Tuam Rd in Galway (between Galway & Claregalway, not a DC) where the hard shoulder has been used for years to create safe right turn junctions. Except the hard shoulder started subsiding and the report in the local press at the time stated that the hard shoulders weren't built to the same standards as the rest of the road. They'd to put traffic restrictions in place for months to fix it.

    We need to be very careful about suggestions like this, because they may not be suitable, and could create even more dangerous situations.


  • #325
    miles deas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 36 ✭miles deas


    I guess we need to take the best and most applicable from elsewhere and adapt it to our needs. Having said that I'm sure there are a few ideas we could dream up ourselves. Did I mention the new thread on "Post IMF Road Design Standards". Shameless plug:)


  • #326
    KevR
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,110 ✭✭✭KevR


    veryangryman wrote: »
    Wouldnt this technically (not officially guys, technically) make the M25 a 3+3 road

    or a 4+4 or 5+5 depending on the lanes

    I mean in laymans terms, a 2+2 has no hard shoulder so by removing it and using it as a lane, the road becomes an "X+X" road where X is the number of lanes

    To a degree it would an X+X but there would be lay-bys every 500m and enforced lower limits when the HS is in use.

    All the M25 is at least D3M at the moment. Some sections are already D4M and they are widening some more to D4M at the moment.

    It's D6M on the Western section near Heathrow and I think* they might also have HSR on that section as well meaning it effectively becomes a 7+7 :eek: road at peak times.


    *correct me if I'm wrong. I remember when a gas explosion closed that stretch at some stage last year, there were 7 lanes stopped traffic in one direction if I'm not mistaken.


  • #327
    Cress
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12 ✭Cress


    'Scrapping of N21 road plan welcomed' - http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0310/1224291779178.html

    Glad to hear it. Penny finally dropping on the recent orgy of unecessary road-building in Ireland?

    Tremelo wrote: »
    BTW, Cress, it would be nice if you contributed more actively in your own thread.
    Point taken, but it's not my main area of activity on the net. I just look in sometimes.


  • #328
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    Cress wrote: »
    'Scrapping of N21 road plan welcomed' - http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0310/1224291779178.html

    Glad to hear it. Penny finally dropping on the recent orgy of unecessary road-building in Ireland?


    .

    tell that to the relatives of the first person to die because this road has not been replaced with a much safer new one.


  • #329
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Cress wrote: »
    ' Penny finally dropping

    Is that you James Nix :D


  • #330
    blacktopper
    Closed Accounts Posts: 44 ✭blacktopper


    Roads are out of fashion, of the European priority transport axis/projects 21 are Rail and only 5 are road. The 5 road projects earmarked by the EU, 2 have a Irish responsibility we have all but completed our responsibilities on them. We have not met our responsibilities on completing the rail projects. Rail is the new road. Unfortunately there are few ideas to make road building more affordable, See this thread "post IMF Road Design Standards"


  • Advertisement
  • #331
    blacktopper
    Closed Accounts Posts: 44 ✭blacktopper


    Rail is far safer than roads. You should not even enter into a safety argument when comparing to rail. Its laughable.


  • #332
    celticbest
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,092 ✭✭✭celticbest


    blacktopper wrote: »
    Rail is far safer than roads. You should not even enter into a safety argument when comparing to rail. Its laughable.

    How do you get to a train station :confused: by road, so there is as much change of an accident on your commute to the train station as any other journey you may take.


  • #333
    dubhthach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    celticbest wrote: »
    How do you get to a train station :confused: by road, so there is as much change of an accident on your commute to the train station as any other journey you may take.

    There's also the point that most of the country with bad roads have next to no rail system. Donegal for example, let alone vast swathes of the country.


  • #334
    blacktopper
    Closed Accounts Posts: 44 ✭blacktopper


    If we have more stations less car commute, for example opening up new stations on existing lines that now find themselves running through newly sprung up commuter towns and settlements. You'd be surprised how cheap doing that is. Certainly the OECD research paper on the subject I was looking at said it was the way forward. Besides we have completed the upgrade of the road network now its finished people will always have that and we can start to maintain all our non-national roads that according to the last NDP make 94% of our roads.

    NDP%2007-13%20p.133.png

    There is no point continuing with larger new road projects there are no value for money more affordable options available, see this thread, "Post IMF Road Design Standards". Rail is safer, more sustainable, recommended in the T21 mid term review, public transport as recommended by our new government. Time we made a new plan. Trust me the question of building more affordable roads has been knocking around Boards.ie for months many road builders and fans troll certain boards they have been invited to offer affordable alternatives, they have none. They have no changes to the 2007 NRA road cross-sections published in the economic boom. The expert review of T21 said rail needs investment and it is government policy to move from roads to public transport and rail carries public and freight. It really is a done deal there is no alternative. Me and you chatting about it is immaterial, especially when there are no substantive changes to the NRA DMRB from the economic boom. You can't honestly say that the same manuals designed in the largest economic boom period the country has ever had will be applicable in the severest economic collapse, its stupid. Need to look to other sectors in transport if that's the case for affordable options that spread value across the country. Rail is the new roads.


  • #335
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    celticbest wrote: »
    How do you get to a train station :confused:

    An Taisce and James Nix expect you to walk or cycle :) Newcastle West train station is a wonderful building that requires careful preservation and you can appreciate its heritage value while you wait for the next train to appear. Presently !!

    6a0120a721c2d7970b01348.gif


  • #336
    dubhthach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    Blacktopper I would think most of the spend on rail that is proposed is for projects in Dublin area. Namely Metro North/Dart Underground/Kildare Rail project. The rest will be spent on commuter rail around Cork and perhaps one or two projects around Galway/Limerick.

    This still leaves the vast bulk of the country with poor infrastructure. The issue mainly been poor trunk roads (National primary/secondary). I don't think any one here would argue against the reduction in local roads. If anything all these bóthrín contribute to unsustainable one off development in the countryside.


  • Advertisement
  • #337
    blacktopper
    Closed Accounts Posts: 44 ✭blacktopper


    I've nothing against low cost improvements of existing infrastructure. It is the expensive new builds that should be off the schedule. We have a vast amount of existing roads stock including National Secondary and Regional roads. If a vision of low cost improvement could be set out I'd probably support it, hell I'd probably champion it. Unfortunately we are stuck in a rut of thinking in terms without budgetary constraint. The Rosslare-Oilgate N25/N11 scheme being a case in point it has yet another new bridge across the Slaney and lots of sections of new build in Barntown etc. etc. Now if an online upgrade and junction treatment option was to pop up with only local bypassing where absolutely necessary that would be different. If you could lay out the costings for the original ambitious scheme then show a low cost alternative like that then Minister Varadkar and the rest of us would sit up and say hey wait a minute these guys are on the same page as me, maybe we should continue to invest in roads. High cost, few schemes you'll be ignored by government they have enough to contend with without accusations of favouritism and county nepotism being levelled at Ministers who are going to be having to dish out numerous bitter pills to the public. Lower cost affordable alternatives with the implicit brief to get the best we can for less and spread the value across the country, then your suddenly in the game again. Anyone a few years out of university can design the gold standard of roads, it is when you have to find the compromise between cost and safety and function that the true experienced professional justifies his salary IMO.


  • #338
    blacktopper
    Closed Accounts Posts: 44 ✭blacktopper


    By the way that video of that guy almost getting wiped out by a car run off. I notice the road has 4 lanes is this a demonstration of how larger roads induce traffic and still end up compromising safety Spongebob??:D


  • #339
    Stark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,034 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    Good job we don't build footpaths along motorways then :rolleyes: The safety improvements with motorways aren't due to extra lanes, they're due to separation of the carriageways. So when a car goes out of control like in the above scenario, it doesn't end up in a head-on with a truck.


  • #340
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,036 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    Cress wrote: »
    'Scrapping of N21 road plan welcomed' - http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0310/1224291779178.html
    Spokesman for the group James Nix said recent cuts in local road maintenance works were due to excessive motorway construction.

    He expressed a hope that the move would “herald a change in policy to an emphasis on the maintenance, connectivity and accessibility to public transport”.
    blacktopper wrote: »
    I've nothing against low cost improvements of existing infrastructure. It is the expensive new builds that should be off the schedule. We have a vast amount of existing roads stock including National Secondary and Regional roads. If a vision of low cost improvement could be set out I'd probably support it, hell I'd probably champion it. Unfortunately we are stuck in a rut of thinking in terms without budgetary constraint.

    You and our friend Mr Nix are thinking in terms of once off costs but not considering the long term costs. Maintenance costs quickly add up when you have to go out regularly to repair the road, and even when replacing a surface entirely, the new surface wont last long if the pavement layers below it are of poor standard. New builds have significantly lower maintenance costs because the road pavement is designed to carry the loads which it will be subjected to, meaning the surface lasts longer.

    There is also a safety issue with most of the old roads, too many one off houses along the road, creating a danger at entrances and preventing widening of the road. In many cases it is simply not practical to upgrade existing roads because, regardless of how good there surface is, there will always be safety issues and speed restrictions.

    It would be interesting to compare the cost of maintaining 10km of road over 20 years v the construction and maintenance cost of 10km of new build over the same period and factor in the economic benefits and reduced number of accidents/deaths because of the new road.

    Of course we should be looking to upgrade existing roads where possible, but in some instances new build is the only option - people should judge individual projects on their merits, not dismissing them because "we have enough roads already".


  • #341
    blacktopper
    Closed Accounts Posts: 44 ✭blacktopper


    More transparency with regard to cost benefit analysis CBA of new build and 20 year maintenance vs existing build re-mediation and maintenance would be welcome. I suggest Stephen Glaister for the paper his reputation in this area is unsurpassed internationally, he is UK based so easy to get and independent.


  • Advertisement
  • #342
    blacktopper
    Closed Accounts Posts: 44 ✭blacktopper


    Your right Stark we don't build footpaths next to roads over here we let the public walk on the road.:eek: My vision is of NRA responsibility for regional roads also. But only if VFM/A (Value for Money/Affordability) can be demonstrated and I'm afraid without a significant revamp of a few guidelines that will not be possible.


  • #343
    marmurr1916
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,091 ✭✭✭marmurr1916


    blacktopper wrote: »
    More transparency with regard to cost benefit analysis CBA of new build and 20 year maintenance vs existing build re-mediation and maintenance would be welcome. I suggest Stephen Glaister for the paper his reputation in this area is unsurpassed internationally, he is UK based so easy to get and independent.

    Pity a proper CBA wasn't done for the WRC:
    PASSENGERS NUMBERS on the long-anticipated first phase of the Western Rail Corridor are falling far short of projections made in the business case for the route.

    In March last year, the €106 million route from Ennis to Athenry – connecting Galway to Limerick by rail – was opened after years of lobbying in the west.

    However, figures provided by the Department of Transport in response to a Freedom of Information request show that passenger numbers between May and September last year averaged 4,800 a month. “This translates into an annual figure of between 62,400 and 67,158 which is well below the 100,000 trips assumed in the business case,” an Irish Rail official wrote.

    The Iarnród Éireann business case anticipated the service would require an annual subsidy of €2.4 million to operate. Figures provided by Iarnród Éireann show passenger numbers from October to the end of December dropped, with a monthly average of 4,330.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0310/1224291779125.html

    The only way to encourage more passengers to use that service is to have much faster trains and lower fares, which would require a lot of investment and increased subsidies.


  • #344
    blacktopper
    Closed Accounts Posts: 44 ✭blacktopper


    I agree rail has been neglected too long. I suggest a frame shift of public investment to rail. You now are starting to get the point. If there is no new thinking in roads then rail becomes the new roads.


  • #345
    KevR
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,110 ✭✭✭KevR


    We cannot escape the fact that road users heavily subsidise public transport. If there is no thinking in roads then there is no money for rail (or public transport in general).


  • #346
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    blacktopper wrote: »
    I agree rail has been neglected too long. I suggest a frame shift of public investment to rail. You now are starting to get the point. If there is no new thinking in roads then rail becomes the new roads.

    You've shown a few times now that you know nothing about transport, road design consideration, and the constraints of population density.

    You speak on behalf of, or are affiliated with, PlanBetter - yet you didn't know the difference between Type2 DC and motorway. Why should anyone engage with you? You appear to have a default anti-road construction position, which is tedious to behold. Everyone else here adopts a more nuanced view on a case-by-case basis; but you come across as an absolutist.


  • #347
    marmurr1916
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,091 ✭✭✭marmurr1916


    blacktopper wrote: »
    I agree rail has been neglected too long. I suggest a frame shift of public investment to rail. You now are starting to get the point. If there is no new thinking in roads then rail becomes the new roads.

    I think you've spectacularly missed the point.

    The WRC is a waste of money.

    Pouring more money into it would be a waste of money.

    Ireland cannot afford to waste money.


  • #348
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Cancelling Adare Abbeyfeale because it has NO CHANCE of being built for 15-20 years is fair enough. What is ridiculous is the airtime given to self selected sociopathic green types to rabbit on about it and conflate 2+2 ( Rural Dual Carriageway is what that is) with Motorway which is a greatly different road type.

    We still have genuine motorways to build like the M11 , M18 M17 M20 and M4 and we we can look at the N15 N17 N21 N22 N5 etc to 2+2 , I do think we need to look at our intended use of thru 2+2 and consider interleaving 2+2 andc S2 ..offline on a new alignment on newly cheap land that does not have a development and site value premium on it :)

    Sure how else are we supposed to get from A to B in our electric cars before the battery runs out in a tailback outside Abbeyfeale with the nearest charge point 30 miles away, what!!


  • #349
    tharlear
    Registered Users Posts: 130 ✭✭tharlear


    I do think we need to look at our intended use of thru 2+2 and consider interleaving 2+2 and S2 ..offline on a new alignment on newly cheap land that does not have a development and site value premium on it

    I think this is a valid suggestion, and could help keep costs down while the country is broke. However new access to these S2 roads would need to be severley restricted. No one offs or petrol station belonging to the friends of local FF/FG/Lab/SF gobs

    Also the land take should be such that it allows for future upgrading of the S2 sections to 2+2 were necessary when money is available.

    I have seen this accur in the US. One half of a State highways is built and used as S2 while the land for the other half is purchased and left vacant beside it. In some locations grading is completed, no bridges or culverts, for easy competion when funds become avaibalbe.
    Generally referred to as planning ahead.
    Even where there is no cash to build a road, the land could be cpo'ed and fenced off, rent it back to the farmer on 11 month contracts. This would protect the aligment for future use. Not sure of the legality of the this option.


  • #350
    Cress
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12 ✭Cress


    To Sponge Bob and Pete Cavan:
    I am not James Nix. Request the admins to confirm by IP address or any other means.

    corktina wrote: »
    Cress wrote: »
    'Scrapping of N21 road plan welcomed' - http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0310/1224291779178.html

    Glad to hear it. Penny finally dropping on the recent orgy of unecessary road-building in Ireland?
    tell that to the relatives of the first person to die because this road has not been replaced with a much safer new one.
    Road-building means the death count goes up.

    More roads mean increased car use, more car ownership, more choice for drivers and the making of driving an easier option. Therefore you have an increase in the yearly number of people killed or maimed for life on roads, in addition to all the other ill-effects of a motor-car-borne society (non-renewable fuel consumption, inefficient use of resources, single-occupant-vehicle road congestion, time wasted commuting, social isolation, destruction of communities, obesity, increased anxiety, low sex-drive, an unequal soceity, land take, decay & degeneration of urban areas, noise & air pollution generation etc. etc.)

    No "safety features" of roads can address this and in fact the improved safety features in cars the motor industry always make hay of actually displace risks onto other, vulnerable road users - pedestrians, cyclists etc. Spongebob your video illustrates this only too well.

    Actually the future inquiries into the road-building programme of the 2000s predicted at the start of the thread should probably be changed to the trying of the NRA for mass murder.


  • #351
    blacktopper
    Closed Accounts Posts: 44 ✭blacktopper


    KevR you must be joking surely. When you consider all the externalities of roads such as ghg emissions, accidents, damage to buildings, noise pollution, congestion, scarcity of space in urban areas, and damage to the environment the single occupant car user gets a cheap deal, a really cheap deal. The external costs of transport are large (estimated at about 8 % of EU GDP (INFRAS, 2000)). When they tried to cover all those externalities into the price of fuel in Hungary the people rioted. Europe wants those externalities payed for on "the user pays principle" this is not a aspiration for tomorrow this is policy today.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement