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

N7 - Newlands Cross upgrade

13567…43

Comments

  • #102
    dubhthach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    Underpasses are a flood risk. If we have a cloudburst they can turn into a lake. The Newcastle road one is on a hill above the liffey and can be drained _somehow_ ( probably back towards the Spa) but the N7 is on a plain.

    Indeed back in 2008 the underpass on the Westlink in Belfast flooded after here was a huge cloud-burst:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgQPE6QzZpY&NR=1%22]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgQPE6QzZpY&NR=1


  • #103
    oharach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 185 ✭✭oharach


    dubhthach wrote: »
    Indeed back in 2008 the underpass on the Westlink in Belfast flooded after here was a huge cloud-burst:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgQPE6QzZpY&NR=1%22]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgQPE6QzZpY&NR=1

    But mostly because there are two rivers in culverts under this underpass - there wasn't magically 10m of rain or something.


  • #104
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    The NRA will announce the contractor on 22 October and the contract will be signed in December, pending DoT approval.


  • #105
    Pablod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 489 ✭✭Pablod


    These Artist Impressions look great but just a quick question :D

    Am I right in saying that if or when this is complete that it is going to create a much bigger back log of traffic heading down the N7 southbound
    Specifically at the ball at naas where the N7 meets the M7

    Over the past few months it has already been building up and is heavier at commuting times.
    But if/when this goes ahead its going to mean a continious flow of traffic and an even bigger backlog trying to get
    (correct me if I'm wrong)
    But I can see the M7 being torn up again and spread to 3 lanes (which they should have done after the first re-vamp):confused:


  • #106
    Chris_5339762
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,963 ✭✭✭Chris_5339762


    The plan until recently was for the M7 to have had 3 lanes extended to the M9 junction, but this has been scrapped.


  • #107
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,542 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Maudlins is too far down to get made any worse by freeflowing NX. The same volume of traffic will hit it at the same time.

    There are economically-suspended plans to widen the M7 to 3 lanes between Maudlins and the M9 turnoff though.


  • #108
    Wild Bill
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,129 ✭✭✭Wild Bill


    Chris_5339762 wrote: »
    The plan until recently was for the M7 to have had 3 lanes extended to the M9 junction, but this has been scrapped.

    Was that not a suggestion rather than a plan? No record of any such plan on the NRA website. :confused:


  • #109
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,542 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Wild Bill wrote: »
    Was that not a suggestion rather than a plan? No record of any such plan on the NRA website. :confused:

    Oh, it was there. Briefly. A lot of the ones that hadn't even really got the feasibility study done just vanished around the time the Greens announced the new PfG. First schemes on the chopping block.


  • #110
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    BAM evidently did not get the Newlands contract because they cannot raise money to build it.....their having delayed signing the contract they already won on the M17/M18 project beyond the 22nd of October because they cannot raise the money to build that.


  • #111
    darkman2
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,632 ✭✭✭darkman2


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    BAM evidently did not get the Newlands contract because they cannot raise money to build it.....their having delayed signing the contract they already won on the M17/M18 project beyond the 22nd of October because they cannot raise the money to build that.

    You should be careful about what you are saying - true or not. You can get yourself into trouble with statements in public like this which may not be true.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    darkman2 wrote: »
    You can get yourself into trouble with statements in public like this which may not be true.

    I am only pointing out what the Connacht Tribune said last week Darkman


  • #113
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    I am only pointing out what the Connacht Tribune said last week Darkman

    You're not only pointing it out. You seem to be stating as a fact that BAM have no money and don't have the M11/N7 PPP, which - regardless of what the Tribune has printed - is unsubstantiated at this point and possibly completely wrong.


  • #114
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Furet wrote: »
    You're not only pointing it out. You seem to be stating as a fact that BAM have no money and don't have the M11/N7 PPP, which - regardless of what Tribune has printed - is unsubstantiated at this point and possibly completely wrong.

    I also pointed out that their 'no money' excuse in Galway could be a game seeing as BAM were shortlisted for Newlands when they won the M17/M18 scheme.


  • #115
    summer11
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37 ✭summer11


    Sponge Bob, Furet, Tech 2 et all,

    Does this junction need to be rebuilt at all and if so, to what extent?

    Before you wonder have I lost my marbles totally, please read on.

    Why not close up the Intersection with a Concrete Barrier and divert City bound traffic from the Tallaght end to the wonderfully constructed flyover (New Circular Road or something like that) 800 metres further out on Naas Road. This was constructed about 4 years ago.

    The West/Naas bound traffic from the Clondalkin end would divert to the new expensive - free flow M50 roundabout(?) and loop back to the Naas Road.

    Do we need to spend millions on this when filter lanes onto the Naas Road from both sides would suffice? Think about it... I have and I pass this way every week.

    Money could be spent better on M20, N21, N11 and M18.


  • #116
    Telchak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 888 ✭✭✭Telchak


    summer11 wrote: »
    The West/Naas bound traffic from the Clondalkin end would divert to the new expensive - free flow M50 roundabout(?) and loop back to the Naas Road.

    Can't be done ;)


  • #117
    summer11
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37 ✭summer11


    elaborate???


  • #118
    Telchak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 888 ✭✭✭Telchak


    Traffic traveling eastbound from Clondalkin cannot loop back at the Red Cow to travel westbound. The only way would be to take the Monastery Road turnoff, go over the bridge towards the Luas car park and back on to the N7, but these roads aren't designed for this kind of volume.

    See here for a picture on the junction ;)


  • #119
    veryangryman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,600 ✭✭✭veryangryman


    summer11 wrote: »
    Sponge Bob, Furet, Tech 2 et all,

    Does this junction need to be rebuilt at all and if so, to what extent?

    Before you wonder have I lost my marbles totally, please read on.

    Why not close up the Intersection with a Concrete Barrier and divert City bound traffic from the Tallaght end to the wonderfully constructed flyover (New Circular Road or something like that) 800 metres further out on Naas Road. This was constructed about 4 years ago.

    The West/Naas bound traffic from the Clondalkin end would divert to the new expensive - free flow M50 roundabout(?) and loop back to the Naas Road.

    Do we need to spend millions on this when filter lanes onto the Naas Road from both sides would suffice? Think about it... I have and I pass this way every week.

    Money could be spent better on M20, N21, N11 and M18.

    You are my new god!!

    Genius idea! :D


  • #120
    summer11
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37 ✭summer11


    Thanks Telchak for the elaboration.

    So It can be done on Monastery Road Flyover - travelled this (or Part of it ) on many occassion during construction of Mad Cow freeflows.....traffic was diverted from M50 - how much larger could traffic flows be now- I seem to remember that there were more than one lane on this flyover.........

    Surely, with disruption/budget constraints this could work and keep the NRA working a little longer.......

    How much is the cost of this contract?


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    rameire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,183 ✭✭✭rameire


    ive a better idea.
    we put the concrete median barrier on the road.
    then in the centre we place two large cranes.
    each crane deals with one flow of traffic.
    the cranes have a drive on piece that the traffic roll onto and then the crane lifts the vehice up and over to the other side of the road.
    sorted and really cheap.

    🌞 3.8kwp, 🌞 Split 2.28S, 1.52E. 🌞 Clonee, Dub.🌞



  • #122
    summer11
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37 ✭summer11


    Knob...


  • #123
    Telchak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 888 ✭✭✭Telchak


    rameire wrote: »
    ive a better idea.
    we put the concrete median barrier on the road.
    then in the centre we place two large cranes.
    each crane deals with one flow of traffic.
    the cranes have a drive on piece that the traffic roll onto and then the crane lifts the vehice up and over to the other side of the road.
    sorted and really cheap.

    Point, I'm guessing, being that if we're going to upgrade the busiest crossroad in the country then it should be done right, not directing cars and buses and trucks to a tiny junction a kilometer up the road :p


  • #124
    rameire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,183 ✭✭✭rameire


    point is exactly that.
    if we are going to upgrade the junction lets do it properly and spend the correct money on it.
    it will have to upgraded in the future to accomodate the luas/metro line that will run through it.

    the divert solution would only be a short term solution,
    the traffic that is inbound is mad at the moment and adding thousands more vehicles will just make it dire.
    the outbound traffic will be also hurrendous, the traffic volumes on the clondalkin bridge would make it a pinch point, this would cause further tailbacks on the n7 inbound.

    🌞 3.8kwp, 🌞 Split 2.28S, 1.52E. 🌞 Clonee, Dub.🌞



  • #125
    summer11
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37 ✭summer11


    This Junction is no busier North to South than any other major intersection in the Greater Dublin area - should we fly over Whites Cross on N11 and the Long Mile Road also?????

    Think before you reply - this is no busier North to South than many other junctions full stop.

    This is not a short term solution - this is money that can be better spent elsewhere.... on road projects!:)


  • #126
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Newlands by itself is not an expensive job, as a standalone it would now come in the c.€30m range , no real land take and some of that money already spent on services diversions and a €3.4m contract awarded only in the past year to supervise the real work.

    The rest of the construction contract will likely be up to 3x as much as Newlands alone would.

    There is nothing whatsoever to gain by not doing Newlands Cross, nada.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    summer11
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37 ✭summer11


    Sponge Bob,

    Easily knowing that you were not inconvenienced during €1 Billion M50 Reconstruction.

    Nada - does not describe the daily hassle for commuters when they are ripping this road up for PPP next year and again for LUAS a couple of years after again - this should be before Public Accounts as to why Newlands Junction was not done with €1 Billion M50.

    I would look forward to free flow at Newlands but this Junction flows quite freely anytime - think Gort, Adare, Castleisland (until next Friday), Claregalway, Whitescross and more that don't flow anywhere near as good at peaktime.
    :D:mad::confused:


  • #128
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,542 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    summer11 wrote: »
    This Junction is no busier North to South than any other major intersection in the Greater Dublin area - should we fly over Whites Cross on N11 and the Long Mile Road also?????

    Think before you reply - this is no busier North to South than many other junctions full stop.

    This is not a short term solution - this is money that can be better spent elsewhere.... on road projects!:)

    North to South isn't the problem

    N7 inbound to Belgard Southbound and the reverse flow in the evening IS the problem. This cannot be handled by your suggestion, nor can the (significantly smaller) Beglard Northbound to N7 inbound flow.

    The bowstring bridge does not have the capacity to cope with this, simple as.

    You can tell you've never used Belgard on to Newlands at peak, to echo your post above.


  • #129
    summer11
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37 ✭summer11


    So you can't turn to the left?

    I have used both at peak - many many times and have wondered why slip lanes were not added?

    Seeing as you are a bright spark on this - can you shed any light on why not included on €1 Billion M50 project 400 meters down the road...


  • #130
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,542 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    summer11 wrote: »
    Seeing as you are a bright spark on this - can you shed any light on why not included on €1 Billion M50 project 400 meters down the road...

    Because upgrading NX and the Red Cow at the same time would have made that entire area of the city inaccessible for huge amounts of time.

    As it happens, NX had to be used as part of diversionary routes many nights during the M50 upgrade.

    It would have been impossible and of no financial advantage as the costings for it added to the M50 Phase 1 works would have worked out more than paying for it solo now due to reducing contracting costs.


  • #131
    summer11
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37 ✭summer11


    Lucan Road was updated at same time as M50.....


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,542 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    summer11 wrote: »
    Lucan Road was updated at same time as M50.....

    1: Different contract
    2: The only junction that was altered in any way had two full-access GSJs between it and the M50, meaning that all movements could be accomadated easily.

    Not a comparable situation.


  • #133
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    summer11 wrote: »
    Knob...

    summer11, as the moderator I'm just making you aware that posts like the one above are not tolerated on this forum and would ordinarily earn you an infraction. However, as you are new to boards.ie I'll just make you aware of this here and let the matter rest. The rules of the forum are viewable here.


  • #134
    Chris_5339762
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,963 ✭✭✭Chris_5339762


    Newlands shouldnt have been done along with the M50, it should have been done with the Naas Road widening. Whoever thought leaving one set of traffic lights on the N7 would be a good idea should be shot.


  • #135
    medoc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 975 ✭✭✭medoc


    Chris_5339762 wrote: »
    Newlands shouldnt have been done along with the M50, it should have been done with the Naas Road widening. Whoever thought leaving one set of traffic lights on the N7 would be a good idea should be shot.

    Hear Hear. And maybe the Nass to M9 widening also. (But at least that M7 project should have been included with the M7 Nass bypass resurfacing)


  • #136
    Wild Bill
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,129 ✭✭✭Wild Bill


    I am convinced by the arguments that NX could not have been upgraded along with Red Cow; I'm someone who makes that journey three times a week in both directions and have for twenty years.

    I am seriously unconvinced by folk who'd rate work on the M17/18/20 ahead of this - traffic volumes should dictate priorities when money is tight; not regional pleading.

    And as for White's Cross on the N11 I thought building an underpass connecting the new Leopardstown Rd with NTP Ave should have been done when Lep road was upgraded at the height of the boom. The topography is perfect though the barristers and other wealthy folk living in the vicinity of the junction who delayed/modified the Lep Rd would no doubt have had a hissy legal fit.

    Another reason to take our planning decisions out of the legal domain.

    An opportunity lost. :(


  • #137
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    Wild Bill wrote: »
    I am seriously unconvinced by folk who'd rate work on the M17/18/20 ahead of this - traffic volumes should dictate priorities when money is tight; not regional pleading.

    When was the last time someone was killed or maimed at Newlands Cross? It is not and never was solely about AADTs Bill.


  • #138
    summer11
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37 ✭summer11


    MYOB wrote: »
    1: Different contract

    2: The only junction that was altered in any way had two full-access GSJs between it and the M50, meaning that all movements could be accomadated easily.

    Not a comparable situation.


    -
    1. Ah hello - I didn't think that the NRA could be trusted to get value for money by having 1 contract?... Yes, but both proceeded at same time

    2. You obviously had a different route to Maynooth and unlike most of us who were stuck/bogged down in construction traffic from Lucan to M50.


  • #139
    summer11
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37 ✭summer11


    Furet wrote: »
    summer11, as the moderator I'm just making you aware that posts like the one above are not tolerated on this forum and would ordinarily earn you an infraction. However, as you are new to boards.ie I'll just make you aware of this here and let the matter rest. The rules of the forum are viewable here.


    Thanks Furet.

    Just to point out though that I am only new to making posts/comments.

    The Roads section is the only Forum that I follow and I have followed it with interest and appreciation for a couple of years. I have driven most threads for work, rest and play over the last year or so.

    I don't believe that some people who have 10,000 plus pos(t)ers should be looked at with any enhanced admiration. Some of these posers probably only drive a few thousand KMs a year in just urban traffic.

    There are many many people who follow the roads section, who drive like me day in day out and see how dangerous our national/local roads are even after the major investment of the last few years.


    To see Newlands not updated at this stage with €500 Million spent on N7 and €1 Billion spent on M50 - with huge stress on commuting traffic is just completely frustrating and totally unsatisfactory.

    I do believe that the junction does need upgrading urgently and agree that other posts today have convinced me more of this.

    I just don't know if it should be a PPP over 30 years....and be another 2 years in construction with other possible options available.

    Last word on my part on this thread.


  • #140
    serfboard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,720 ✭✭✭serfboard


    Chris_5339762 wrote: »
    Newlands shouldnt have been done along with the M50, it should have been done with the Naas Road widening. Whoever thought leaving one set of traffic lights on the N7 would be a good idea should be shot.

    In one way I agree - it's similar with Cork's SRR - upgrade the Kinsale Road roundabout and leave the other two?

    But, I do take the point as people on here have mentioned that the other services (gas, and so on) needed to be re-routed first, and this would have meant that the project would never have finished. (OK, not literally, but it would have felt like never).

    Now that the services have been re-routed, you can look at NX as the end of the Naas Road widening project.

    That is, until the real end comes along - which is 3 lanes to the M9.


  • #141
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,542 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    summer11 wrote: »
    2. You obviously had a different route to Maynooth and unlike most of us who were stuck/bogged down in construction traffic from Lucan to M50.

    Firstly, I never said that the traffic management was marvellous but it was actually no worse than the traffic while the Newcastle lights were in existance. The only reason for this was the other nearby junctions - something Newlands hasn't got

    Secondly, as I said above, the traffic was no worse at any rush hour point during works than before. It was even slightly better once the surreal semi-roundabout was open.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Wild Bill
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,129 ✭✭✭Wild Bill


    Furet wrote: »
    When was the last time someone was killed or maimed at Newlands Cross? It is not and never was solely about AADTs Bill.

    Then lets put traffic lights at every major junction to reduce casualties?

    Anyway, I don't know when the last time some was injured at NX but the various roadside memorials indicate it isn't entirely safe.

    It may not be solely about AADTs but the economic justification tends to follow them, and rightly so. :cool:


  • #143
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,542 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Wild Bill wrote: »
    Then lets put traffic lights at every major junction to reduce casualties?

    Anyway, I don't know when the last time some was injured at NX but the various roadside memorials indicate it isn't entirely safe.

    It may not be solely about AADTs but the economic justification tends to follow them, and rightly so. :cool:

    The main roadside memorial at Newlands Cross is for Veronica Guerin...


  • #144
    Wild Bill
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,129 ✭✭✭Wild Bill


    Yep. And if her car wasn't stuck at the lights......


  • #145
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,542 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    ...she'd likely have a memorial in the middle of the Red Cow interchange instead!


  • #146
    Wild Bill
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,129 ✭✭✭Wild Bill


    You do realise MYOB that some folk might find this exchange a wee bit tasteless - so I'll go for the brownie points and end it. :cool:


  • #147
    luohaoran
    Registered Users Posts: 86 ✭✭luohaoran


    Wild Bill wrote: »
    I am seriously unconvinced by folk who'd rate work on the M17/18/20 ahead of this - traffic volumes should dictate priorities when money is tight; not regional pleading.

    :(

    If you only go by traffic volume you'll only ever build roads in around Dublin. But thats a vicious circle.
    Focusing on M17/18/20, not only prioritises road safety, but also encourages growth away from Dublin.
    If after the West has a basic infrastructure in place, I'd be more willing to listen to a volume based argument.

    Sorry to have to state such an obvious point, but it does appear to be missing from your logic.


  • #148
    Wild Bill
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,129 ✭✭✭Wild Bill


    luohaoran wrote: »
    If you only go by traffic volume you'll only ever build roads in around Dublin.

    Sorry to have to state such an obvious point, but it does appear to be missing from your logic.

    No, it ain't my logic you are questioning - that is impeccable. It is my opinion you seem to have a problem with.

    "If you only go by traffic volume you'll only ever build roads in around Dublin. "

    Not entirely true but even if it was, so what? :cool:


  • #149
    luohaoran
    Registered Users Posts: 86 ✭✭luohaoran


    Wild Bill wrote: »
    No, it ain't my logic you are questioning - that is impeccable. It is my opinion you seem to have a problem with.

    "If you only go by traffic volume you'll only ever build roads in around Dublin. "

    Not entirely true but even if it was, so what? :cool:

    To answer your "so what?" I'd urge you to reread the part of my last post that you cut out of your quote.

    Any chance you might substantiate or elaborate on "not entirely true"?

    On the other hand, if your opinion doesn't even follow your own logic, then there is little point in holding a conversation with you.

    Incidently, I don't have "a problem" with either your logic or your opinion, I just think you are wrong on the former, and the latter is therefore invalid.

    Finally, if you do respond, and its as goading a response as your last, I'm outta here.


  • #150
    Wild Bill
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,129 ✭✭✭Wild Bill


    luohaoran wrote: »
    To answer your "so what?" I'd urge you to reread the part of my last post that you cut out of your quote.

    Any chance you might substantiate or elaborate on "not entirely true"?

    On the other hand, if your opinion doesn't even follow your own logic, then there is little point in holding a conversation with you.

    Incidently, I don't have "a problem" with either your logic or your opinion, I just think you are wrong on the former, and the latter is therefore invalid.

    Finally, if you do respond, and its as goading a response as your last, I'm outta here.

    You accuse me of illogicality then claim my response was goading? Beam, eye, etc. OK - so let me take you through this, logically:

    (a) I said roads should be built where traffic counts are highest (an opinion). I said nothing whatever about roads in the West.
    (b) You claimed my logic was flawed because my prescription would result in no roads being built in the West. Or that they all be built in and around Dublin.
    (c) Logically speaking, that is a non-sequitur.

    I then asked "so what" if the roads were built around Dublin (where they are most needed, btw, in my opinion) - clearly you feel differently about the issue. In other words your opinion is different.

    Logic doesn't enter into it. If you wish to "get out of here" that is your choice. I am prepared to engage in a rational debate with anyone. :cool:


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    luohaoran
    Registered Users Posts: 86 ✭✭luohaoran


    Wild Bill wrote: »
    You accuse me of illogicality then claim my response was goading? Beam, eye, etc. OK - so let me take you through this, logically:

    (a) I said roads should be built where traffic counts are highest (an opinion). I said nothing whatever about roads in the West.
    (b) You claimed my logic was flawed because my prescription would result in no roads being built in the West. Or that they all be built in and around Dublin.
    (c) Logically speaking, that is a non-sequitur.

    I then asked "so what" if the roads were built around Dublin (where they are most needed, btw, in my opinion) - clearly you feel differently about the issue. In other words your opinion is different.

    Logic doesn't enter into it. If you wish to "get out of here" that is your choice. I am prepared to engage in a rational debate with anyone. :cool:

    Thats more like it!

    You were the one who said your opinion did not correspond to your logic, not me.

    I'm not sure we're working from the same definition of the word logic.
    To me, logically speaking, if you are going to base your road building on traffic counts, then the overwhelming majority of your road building will be where traffic counts are highest. Are you suggesting that does not mean near Dublin?
    My argument is based largely on the idea that you should build your roads where you want development to take place. Which unless I've completely misunderstood , you disagree with.

    Just don't see how you can describe a) and b) above, as "non-suquitor". I would have went for ergo.
    You're not going to get high traffic counts in the West like you will around Dublin, ergo, using your opinion/logic, the West will loose out to Dublin.
    And in fact, always has. Have you ever driven between the second and third largest conurbations in the Republic? It's kinda shocking.
    Despite the so-called balanced approach, and some Western Corridor development, we remain very poorly connected in the West. The only place we can get to easily, is... wait for it... Dublin.

    I'm not saying that the interurbans shouldn't have been the first to be built. But I would say, for the benefit of the entire country, the Atlantic Corridor should take precedence. With some sensible weighting against the likely higher traffic counts near Dublin.


Advertisement