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

Funding Priorities - Road -v- Rail (split)

2»

Comments

  • #52
    Slice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,133 ✭✭✭Slice


    Could the N3 could have been built simply as a dual carriageway instead of a motorway at a cheaper price?

    Is there much of a difference between motorway costs and dual carraigeway costs? I thought the difference lay in speed-limits and junction designs


  • #53
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 23,006 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    Slice wrote:
    Is there much of a difference between motorway costs and dual carraigeway costs? I thought the difference lay in speed-limits and junction designs

    That is the question I keep asking and I've yet to get an answer too.

    I'm guessing that their isn't much cost difference between DC and Motorway, as the cost of purchasing land is by far the highest cost of building a road and therefore almost the same for DC and M. Therefore if an area needs a DC, you might as well make it Motorway. But that is just a guess. I'd like to actually see real comparable per km costings for DC and M.


  • #54
    Navan Junction
    Closed Accounts Posts: 721 ✭✭✭Navan Junction


    bk wrote:
    That is the question I keep asking and I've yet to get an answer too.
    There is a difference. High grade dc and motorway seem to be the same thing in reality, but "old" style dc is not.

    There is a difference in materials and foundations but I haven't a clue what the cost differences are.


  • #55
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 23,006 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    Navan Junction wrote:
    There is a difference. High grade dc and motorway seem to be the same thing in reality, but "old" style dc is not.

    There is a difference in materials and foundations but I haven't a clue what the cost differences are.

    Yes, of course, but what I'm suggesting is that material and labour costs are only a fraction of the overall cost of building a road (land mostly) and therefore insignificant. Let me give you a completely made up example.

    Lets say the cost of materials of a DC are 50% of a M.
    But lets say the overall cost of building any road is 80% land purchase and 20% materials, then the cost of a DC would be only 10% cheaper then a M and therefore you can see why you might as well build a M when you are it.

    Now I'm not saying this is correct, I would love to see real figures and do a proper analysis, it really makes a big difference to this whole argument. If DC costs not much more then M, then there it makes sense to build M in place of DC.


  • #56
    Diaspora
    Closed Accounts Posts: 213 ✭✭Diaspora


    Navan Junction wrote:
    The Blackbull junction (where trim & Rathoat roads join) is the worst bottleneck on the N3 apart from Blanchardstown outside of the summer months.

    Which the M3 will exacerbate considerably particularly if the predicted development along its route materialises

    Navan Junction wrote:
    On the run out of Dublin, there can be 2 mile tailbacks where the N3 singles at the top of the Clonee section.


    1) Where the N3 singles at Clonee

    2) Dual-c to from Clonee to Blackbull and flyovers

    3) Bypass of Dunshaughlin

    You are largely talking about one project here which would bring a DC to beyond the point where Trim and West Meath splits from the N3; an alternative strategy could be to upgrade the route from the M4 to Trim and build a wide two lane / 2 & 1 extension from the M2 at Ashbourne to Navan / North of Navan with a feeder link via the N51 to Navaneffectively creating three options where one currently exists.
    Navan Junction wrote:
    4) Bypass of Navan

    Two bypasses i.e. the existing route and a second extension of a 2 & 1 from the M2 to beyond Navan would eliminate all Cavan & Kells bound traffic.
    Navan Junction wrote:
    5) Bypass of Kells

    http://nra.ie/Transportation/TrafficDataCollection/TrafficCounterData/html/N03-13.htm

    Wide 2 lane would covert these flows which appear to be steady as opposed to commuter based deluge and drought in nature.

    Navan Junction wrote:
    Re tolls, I have no problems with tolling if it was a burden shared across the country. But consider that there are/will be 4 tolls in Meath and none in Kildare for example..

    In fairness the Kildare schemes were built or conceived in the 1980's before tolling became the norm and also relate to the main trunk route in the state. This project was designed to make a lot of money for very specific interests.
    Navan Junction wrote:
    Irrespective of this debate though, the M3 looks destined to plow ahead as planned - to a great extent this debate seems academical.

    I'm not sure there will be an election long before the archaeologists are finished.


  • #57
    Navan Junction
    Closed Accounts Posts: 721 ✭✭✭Navan Junction


    Diaspora wrote:
    Which the M3 will exacerbate considerably particularly if the predicted development along its route materialises.
    No, the M3 would bypass the blackbull...

    I'm not sure an election will change anything, tbh.

    The N51 is mostly a bog road btw. Worse than anything you'd get in Wicklow, bumpy as hell.


  • #58
    Diaspora
    Closed Accounts Posts: 213 ✭✭Diaspora


    Navan Junction wrote:
    No, the M3 would bypass the blackbull...

    I'm not sure an election will change anything, tbh.

    The N51 is mostly a bog road btw. Worse than anything you'd get in Wicklow, bumpy as hell.


    I was referring to Blanchardstown more so than Ratoath you know the big slowly moving glacial flow of cars between Kepak and the M50 but if you want to bring Ratoath into it from what I understand the locals are delighted with the M2 they now they've got something they didn't deserve on a per capita basis. They will of course mostly object to the 20,000 3 bed semis that follow suburbanising them.

    Elections are strange things they bring out amazing promises which strangely seem less relevant when they finish.

    N51 should be improved irrespective of the N3 option Navan & Drogheda need better links given their respective populations and an M2/N3 could help in that regard in tandem with the rail link receiving a once over to accomodate a Navan - Drogheda Dublin link.


  • #59
    bryanw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 284 ✭✭bryanw


    Hmmm... I really don't know where to begin, people don't seem too happy with me.
    Diaspora wrote:
    bryanw wrote:
    Read this topic from where I've linked and on a page (maybe 2). You'll find some posts which think we don't need any rail link...

    Somebody is: Link
    I speak for Diaspora please don't insult my intelligence by trying to second guess other contributors.
    I don't know what you think I meant when I posted that... where was the insult to your intelligence? Maybe I didn't word it very well, so here it is a bit clearer. On this topic - I linked to it on page 6, read pg 6 and then read on a page or 2, depending on how long the discussion about the bus instead of metro lasts. Now, I'm not trying to second guess other posters (in relation to the topic I linked). I posted several times in that topic and I know exactly what what the person was saying. I can obviously only judge their opinions on what they post. If they clearly post something against the provision of a metro, I'm not second guessing. I hope you read the other topic so you know what I'm talking about.
    Diaspora wrote:
    The M1 is not at peak capacity but carries 100,000 per day the M4 carrying a third of this has 20 to 30 years spare capacity when the surface stays on.

    As I said before a bypass of Dunshaughlin would take the N3 directly to Navan and for less than €100m you could have a rail connection direct to Connolly station or Rosslare if you wanted.
    The M3 will be almost in the centre of the M1 and M4 and a road linking say, take Navan for example, to the M1 and M4 would be about the same distance as the M3 will be. Now I'm sure some people on the N3 corridor have thought of (or do) use the M1 and M4. And obviously (before someone says it) you only need to link the N3 corridor to either the M1 or M4. Why make people travel longer distances? If the M3 was there it would take a direct route. And what about people further south where they would have to travel north to the link to the M1 or M4.

    And of course instead of the M3 there would have to be a link to the M1/4. I'm sure the N51/N52 routes aren't great, are they? Roads would either need to be upgraded or new roads be built for this link. This costs money and causes disruption. And don't expect people to give up a planned motorway for a single carrigeway - plus a motorway is the best option for road safety which is a big issue, and to save lives, no amount of money should be spared.

    I also really don't see why people think that the M2 and M3 are doubling the route. The M2 is (at least physically) is a bypass of Ashbourne which was a bottleneck - and they decided to link it to the M50 - thats what exists but its use is a commuter motorway. It's not really that long, definitely not on the scale of the M3. If anything its the M3 that should be done and people on the N2 use that. Just because the N2 was finished first doesn't mean we scrap the M3.
    markpb wrote:
    This is patently untrue. If I decide to live in Donegal and work in Dublin, should the government be expected to provide a motorway all the way between the two places? What if 100 people do the same, or 1000? What if I don't like driving for four hours, should they build an airport so I can fly to work?

    Well, as you know, thats a totally different situation to Meath. The government can't give everything to everyone. They won't build a motorway to Donegal for 100 or 1000 people. Plus even if they did, the driving times would still be quite large. In Meath, there are A LOT of people who decide to live there but work in Dublin. Besides, Navan is the 9th largest and fastest growing town in Ireland. Thing is, it's not that far away and would be cheaper than a motorway to Donegal and still serve a lot of people.

    For the alternative, there are flights from Donegal to Dublin, or use Derry if you wish. It takes about an hour. Only problem is that Carrickfinn is kinda in the middle of nowhere. Plus, instead of using the N2, go to Armagh, then Dundalk and then use the M1, journey time is less. And hey, the N3 goes to Ballyshannon, so if the want to extend the M3... they could...
    markpb wrote:
    The government cannot make decisions based soley on peoples feelings - there has to be some element of logic and feasibility.
    Well they do... they make decisions based on the feelings of getting elected again and the feelings of their constituents who will elect them again. Why do you think they are building the M3? And no matter what way you look at almost anything, there will always be logic and feasibility and the exact opposite from opposing sides of the arguement. Each side will present what they want to the public and gloss it over with their own spin.
    markpb wrote:
    All the M3 will do is make living in Navan even more feasible which is a bad thing. More people will commute, more dormatory towns will be created, the cost of providing services as urban sprawl contines will increase, the demand for public transport in Dublin will decrease and the demand for more expensive public transport between Navan and Dublin will increase. None of these are desirable despite what you might think.

    On the other hand, a combination of bad planning and poor public transport forced people to move to Navan in the first place so the government does share some responsibility.
    Well, I don't know what the problem is in this country. People complain about the urban sprawl, but then again, they won't allow more dense and high-rise developments to be built (another case of "not in my back yard"). And I don't think that the arguement that bad planning and poor public transport stands, although they are rightly pointed out issues. Those two issues don't really have any relation to people moving from Dublin to Meath. The move was the result of house prices... Why would people move to Navan where public transport would be even worse. I mean if they stayed in Dublin they'd still be closer to work and still get caught in traffic. In Navan, they're miles and miles away from work and the get stuck in even more traffic.
    Slice wrote:
    Although Luas has many failings - the concept of a light rail service for a city the size of Dublin has been proven elsewhere and I'm unconvinced a costlier Metro network would be necessary. If Luas were to be implemented properly (and it's not too late to do so) that in itself would placate the need for a Metro (apart from the already planned Metro North).
    The metro will probably be no more than Luas as far as I can see. It's light rail and should be compatible with Luas. The only thing metro will have will be higher capacity and frequency - and the technical aspects which make them work. It is completely segregated which makes this possible. But I don't even see it looking that different to Luas. The only real fundamemtal difference is that it will go underground through the inner city to avoid disruption to traffic. Should have done this with Luas. They do it elsewhere.
    Diaspora wrote:
    You are relying on International trunk routes as commuter motorways the A1 goes to Belgium and the UK A4 to Luxembourg A5 to Eastern Spain A6 to Italy and Switzerland A9 to Western Spain and Portugal. You need to get specific
    Ok, I'll point out the commuter motorways which I am refering to.

    Paris
    - A15: To Cergy/Pontoise
    - A115: Split from A15, to SE of Pontoise
    - A12: To Versailles/Trappes (not great example as was one of first FR motorways)
    - N2: To Le Plessis Belleville [midway between Senlis and Meaux]
    - N12: To west of Dreux
    - N4: To west of Rozay-en-Brie

    Others
    - A66 : Toulouse (split from A61) - Pamiers [continues on N20 to Foix]
    - N116: From Perpignan eastwards

    Anyway... on the suject of the M3, I don't think our discussions are going to change much. Besides, would the potential users give up the M3 without a fight?


  • #60
    mysterious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    bryanw wrote:
    Ok, I'll point out the commuter motorways which I am refering to.

    Paris
    - A15: To Cergy/Pontoise
    - A115: Split from A15, to SE of Pontoise
    - A12: To Versailles/Trappes (not great example as was one of first FR motorways)
    - N2: To Le Plessis Belleville [midway between Senlis and Meaux]
    - N12: To west of Dreux
    - N4: To west of Rozay-en-Brie

    Others
    - A66 : Toulouse (split from A61) - Pamiers [continues on N20 to Foix]
    - N116: From Perpignan eastwards

    Anyway... on the suject of the M3, I don't think our discussions are going to change much. Besides, would the potential users give up the M3 without a fight?


    Npw compare it too the N3, and the fecking towns we have on it, never mind the fact the N3 just spreads into the wilderness and get's a bit lost into the North of Ireland and back out to Ballyshannon??... Motorway is NOT the answer no matter what defence you come up with..

    Btw N routes in France are DC, and DCs are much the same as the old type DC in Ireland. In fact a lot of motorways in France have no hard shoulder.

    No point in comparing France a population of 60 million and more than double the amount of people live per sq Km than ireland.

    DC to Dunshaugling is Fine, as in roundabouts and junctions can be at grade. M3 is just a stupid stupid idea, that they actually want to spend a lot of money on, god's knows why.......

    Galway to Dublin is DC.
    Galway to Limerick is actually standard DC... Not HQDC....

    yet Cavan has a motorway within 10 miles outside it's doorstep, In fact it will be one of the longest motorways in Ireland for crying out loud. The figures on the N3 are purley commuter traffic, which if a rail line went ahead half the traffic would be taken of the N3 and besides even now most sections of the N3 do not even justify a DC. now your trying to compare routes like this in France, nonsense....


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    markpb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,342 ✭✭✭markpb


    bryanw wrote:
    Well they do... they make decisions based on the feelings of getting elected again and the feelings of their constituents who will elect them again. Why do you think they are building the M3? And no matter what way you look at almost anything, there will always be logic and feasibility and the exact opposite from opposing sides of the arguement. Each side will present what they want to the public and gloss it over with their own spin.

    That's exactly my point. When there is confusion about the validity of a project, a decent cost benefit analysis should at least clear up some of the issues. There can still be some doubt about the actual value of social improvements or the politicans can choose to ignore it for political reasons, but no big project should even be started without a CBA.
    And I don't think that the arguement that bad planning and poor public transport stands, although they are rightly pointed out issues. Those two issues don't really have any relation to people moving from Dublin to Meath. The move was the result of house prices... Why would people move to Navan where public transport would be even worse. I mean if they stayed in Dublin they'd still be closer to work and still get caught in traffic. In Navan, they're miles and miles away from work and the get stuck in even more traffic.

    I think the two are very related. Bad planning means big chunks of Dublin have space for a small number of low density houses. Proper planning would have encouraged (or enforced) medium density construction instead, allowing more houses to be fitted in and driving down the end cost.

    Bad planning also means public transport just doesn't stand a chance in those areas. You can drive faster to the city centre from parts of Meath faster than you can get a bus from inside Dublin. Take some of the meandering routes that try in vain to serve huge low density areas, get trapped in traffic and repeatedly cross main roads without priority and you'll quickly find that plodding along the N3 is a saner way of commuting.
    Anyway... on the suject of the M3, I don't think our discussions are going to change much. Besides, would the potential users give up the M3 without a fight?

    Of course not, they'd be mad to ;) I do think that when it's built, it'll end up clogged or, more likely, clogged at its end when it meets standard Dublin roads. Then, as people explore other exits, those areas will clog as well. It won't serve its purpose which is getting commuters into Dublin. Whether they realise it or not, upgrading the train line to Navan would have been vastly more affordable and useful.


  • #62
    Navan Junction
    Closed Accounts Posts: 721 ✭✭✭Navan Junction


    bryanw wrote:
    Hmmm... I really don't know where to begin, people don't seem too happy with me.
    Don't worry about it.
    bryanw wrote:
    Besides, would the potential users give up the M3 without a fight?
    I think posters on this board are very conscious that many of the trasnport decisions taken are based on political expediency, and very frequently don't offer value for money or hit problems, or are repromised regularly.

    In fairness, the M3 will look empty when/if it opens because the real problem along the route isn't the traffic volumes but a few congested patches.

    Blanch is the real problem stretch on the N3, and without a rail link to ease pressure, and traffic growth for further growth in Meath getting to D15 quicker it will get worse.

    As I said I'd love a motorway, but see a rail link as more important because of a 45min journey time to DubCC. The M3 will never match this.

    Really, if history has taught us anything the roads will look after themselves. It's the rail links that need fighting for.
    Diaspora wrote:
    I was referring to Blanchardstown more so than Ratoath you know the big slowly moving glacial flow of cars between Kepak and the M50
    Fair enough. Look, whatever happens the M3 in it's current proposed form is backed strongly by FF and FG.

    That is not a statement of interpretation - it is what they have said continously and continously leaflet through doors in Meath.

    It could have been designed better, it will lead to sprawl and there will be much controversy ahead.

    Maybe it will or will not be built. But I don't know of any motorway plans yet that have been downgraded to 2+1 etc.

    That may happen but the past suggests otherwise, and there are no signs that the sprawl of Dublin will cease to spill into neighbouring counties.

    What I'm asking is what is likely to be so different after the next election other than an economic meltdown which is likely to change existing plans?

    Diaspora, I would love to see a proper reassessment and at the minimum a realignment of the M3/N3 to cater for Trim but how is that likely to happen?


  • #63
    DerekP11
    Closed Accounts Posts: 524 ✭✭✭DerekP11


    mysterious wrote:
    yet Cavan has a motorway within 10 miles outside it's doorstep, In fact it will be one of the longest motorways in Ireland for crying out loud. The figures on the N3 are purley commuter traffic, which if a rail line went ahead half the traffic would be taken of the N3 and besides even now most sections of the N3 do not even justify a DC. now your trying to compare routes like this in France, nonsense....

    I was wondering how long it would take for this point to be made. If a rail line to Navan was reopened from Dunboyne onwards, it would inevitably take away from tolled traffic on the M3. Thats why MCC made sure that the forthcoming rail extension to Dunboyne/Pace was incorporated into the M3 design to include tolls. The railway extension is still very much dependent on the construction of the M3. The longer the delay with the Motorway, the longer the delay with the railway. The Pace station is actually planned to be almost underneath the motorway interchange, north of Dunboyne.

    Its a con job lads. Inter Urban motorways are a gold plated futureproofing. (I go for that) but the M3 is a very complex arrangement between Government, certain land owners and now the state rail operator, to milk it for all its worth.

    The truth is out there......


  • #64
    bryanw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 284 ✭✭bryanw


    mysterious wrote:
    Npw compare it too the N3, and the fecking towns we have on it, never mind the fact the N3 just spreads into the wilderness and get's a bit lost into the North of Ireland and back out to Ballyshannon??... Motorway is NOT the answer no matter what defence you come up with..

    Btw N routes in France are DC, and DCs are much the same as the old type DC in Ireland. In fact a lot of motorways in France have no hard shoulder.

    No point in comparing France a population of 60 million and more than double the amount of people live per sq Km than ireland.

    Well, just to point out some of the populations of the towns I mentioned. As a matter of interest, I looked them up (all are rounded off).

    Pamiers: 13,500
    Foix: 9,000
    Le Plessis Belleville: 3,000
    Dreux: 31,000
    Pontoise: 27,500
    Rozay-en-Brie: 2,500
    Ille-sur-Têt: 5,000 (N116, east of Perpignan)
    Navan: 20,000
    Dunshaughlin: 3,000
    Dunboyne: 3,500
    Kells: 4,500
    Ashbourne: 7,000

    Pontoise probably shouldn't be included because it is part of Cergy-Pontoise which is a "communauté d'agglomération" and consists of 11 other communes with a population of about that of Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown. That and its not much more than 20km from Paris proper.

    Well, N roads in France are not all DC, although a lot are. The only real difference between N roads and D roads in France is that the N roads are government funded/maintained, but now a lot of N roads are being converted to Routes Departementales. Just as an example, the D743 north of Niort is a 2+1 but the N150 is just a single carrigeway.

    On all the roads I mentioned I only included Autoroutes or either Routes pour automobiles/Voie express (which are roads with motorway restrictions).

    Just to let everyone know, the reason I brough up France is because what they have works very well. They have little or no congestion despite their large population yet we have a small population an we can't sort out our transport problems. Well - that - and the subject of tolls. The only place I have ever experienced congestion in France was in Paris, and it's not pretty, it just as bad if not worse than here at home. But when I'm in Paris I'd rather use rail because its brilliant. But for the most part everywhere else is fine. The UK has a lot of congestion problems and their population is the same as France, so France must be doing something right.
    markpb wrote:
    Bad planning also means public transport just doesn't stand a chance in those areas. You can drive faster to the city centre from parts of Meath faster than you can get a bus from inside Dublin. Take some of the meandering routes that try in vain to serve huge low density areas, get trapped in traffic and repeatedly cross main roads without priority and you'll quickly find that plodding along the N3 is a saner way of commuting.
    Dublin has a huge density problem, but it is often the case that the higher density developments in Dublin are usually the high-end, luxury apartments. I don't think the developers will let units go any cheaper despite how dense they are. They are lining their pockets. But why would the people move from Dublin if they could still drive from within Dublin, instead of moving to Meath, other than because of house prices?
    Navan Junction wrote:
    n fairness, the M3 will look empty when/if it opens because the real problem along the route isn't the traffic volumes but a few congested patches. Blanch is the real problem stretch on the N3, and without a rail link to ease pressure, and traffic growth for further growth in Meath getting to D15 quicker it will get worse.
    It would be lovely to actually see if the "freeflow" M50 junction and the rail link will ease congestion in Blanchardstown after the M3 is finished...


  • #65
    Navan Junction
    Closed Accounts Posts: 721 ✭✭✭Navan Junction


    bryanw wrote:
    It would be lovely to actually see if the "freeflow" M50 junction and the rail link will ease congestion in Blanchardstown after the M3 is finished...
    There is no question that a rail link to Navan would be a success.

    The tolls guarantee that. You could not beat 45mins to Dublin city centre. And lets face it - most cars headed that way are single occupancy.

    I don't know how long the trains will be to Navan but say an 8 car 29000 will hold what, upward of 1500 commuters?

    Similarly, the freeflow junction will allow traffic just to continue straight to the city centre and will cut the gridlock for the 40,000 cars that continue over the M50 on the N3 towards the city.

    M50 will still be **** but your time in Blanch will be much shorter.

    It's just the truth. But the M3 is part of the government's economic programme I reckon.

    Similar to what the English did in Britain in the 50's, the government is keeping the boom going by massive motorway investment.

    You have to look at the M3 in another way too. What if at some stage you just can't afford the tolls anymore, and you have to use the old N3. Have you seen the state of the old N1?

    You see the odd toll here and there is ok, but everyday and twice for some?

    I think the high level of tolling really tells the story as to the expected traffic levels on it - 2 full tolls is effectively a local subsidy for the road.

    I would have prefered a 60mph road with no bottle necks or tolls, than a 70+mph road with no bottle necks and 2 tolls.

    Re populations, CSO census figures are out today.


  • #66
    Slice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,133 ✭✭✭Slice


    Okay - I've looked up the figures: Motorways can handle up to 50,000 cars per day. The busiest motorway once completed will be Dublin-Cork. The current number of complete car journeys between the two cities is actually under 2,000 per day. Overall, once you include short distance commutes and non-interurban journeys the total projected number of journeys on the Dublin-Cork motorway will be in or around 12,000 per day. so effectively the busiest motorway in the country will only operate at 24% capacity at it's busiest. This doesn't reflect the fact that in most parts the figure will be much less than 12,000 since short distance commutes are concentrated around the two cities and don't utilise the entire motorway. Effectively motorways, which in other countries are built for inter-urban journeys and designed to discourage short distance commutes are going to be used primarily for this purpose in this country.

    What's more the proportion of journeys made between Dublin and Cork by rail as an overall total of all journeys made between the two cities is believed by CIE and the Government to be between 30-50%. So as much as half of all journeys between the two cities is by rail(!). If the Government were to put as much capital investment into the rail line as they did into the motorway then we'd all probably be travelling on Maglev trains between the two cities by now.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    bryanw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 284 ✭✭bryanw


    Is the M3 supposed to be opened all at once? Because if it is, it's a pretty big motorway... Most of the sections are opened little by little around the rest of the country. I understand what is being said about the road and rail projects having to come in together and the reasons stated for the tolls. But the road in itself is going to be expensive (as a whole).


  • #68
    westtip
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,282 ✭✭✭westtip


    DerekP11 wrote:
    I sense a merging of minds here and agreeable opinion from previously disagreeable posters. It almost seems that this thread may be workable. I'm liking it.;)

    METROBEST

    I agree with the thrust of your post (Wow!) But I would be interested in hearing how you could justify the "dupliticious" nature of the N2 and N3 upgrades.

    WESTTIP

    Ive been on the M25, like many a paddy,and I agree its not a like with like comparison with the M50, but surely you'd agree that it was a cock up at design and build stage, hence the "works" to try and alleviate the "equitable" gridlock, when one compares it to the M50. (taking into account the intention of the road and obvious similarities with the M50)

    Don't think it was entirely a cock up at design and build stage, the major changes to it have been the adding for the extra lane in the south east quartile (the M4 though to M 11 section) which has increased hugely in traffic flows since it was first built in the 1980s (yes lets not forget the m25 has been with us over 25 years now.) the new traffic management shemes I talked about would not have been possible with the technology we had back in the 1980s and believe me they have made difference On the whole bearing in mind the volume of traffic on the M25 I would say it is a succesful motorway.

    Re the duplicity of the N2/n3 both upgraded to dual carriageway/motorway within spitting distance of each other - parish pump politics I am afraid, It is a joke I know transport planners and transport economists who just scratch their heads and say why? Navan will get its motorway, the flabby white boys will puff out their chests saying look what I did for you, and the poor people of Navan will hurtle down their shiny new autobhan and come to a grinding halt on the m50 interchange, having paid for the honour on their PPP.

    Many people have argued against the M3 on the rationale that three motorways running north south through meath is overkill, it is, notwithstanding all the moral issues re Tara. Re the Tara issue I am with the greens, environmenalists and all the others the developers call loonies on this one. With regard to the route being an axial route to the north west (cavan, Leitrim, Fermananagh, Derry and Donegal) no one in the NRA or other bodies has aver suggested the trans-border route option of a good quality dual carriageway from Sligo to Dundalk via Enniskillen and Monaghan as an alternative route to Dublin from the North and North West is worth looking at. It would be no hardship for a driver from Donegal to swing East on such a route at Enniskillen and join the M1 at Dundalk, the additional mileage would be negligible based on travelling at motorway speeds - it would certainly be a better route to the airport. Such a road would also contribute greatly to the economies of the border counties on both sides of the border. A good fast road link between Monaghan and Dundalk (ie upgrade N2 and n54) would also alleviate some of the problems in that region with dispersed medical (hospital services), if this route were dualled the travel time from Monaghan to Dundalk would be about 25 minutes (it is about 25 miles - an ambulance at full pelt would do it it in between 15 to 20 minutes.

    The greatest shame about the way our new motorway system has been planned is that politicians were ever allowed to become involved. Once that happened the flabby white boys jsut wanted to be able to puff out their chests and say look at the new motorway I bought to town. The shyle thing has been based on copying the old radial routes instead of planning teh system in a holistic manner.


  • #69
    Diaspora
    Closed Accounts Posts: 213 ✭✭Diaspora


    bryanw wrote:
    Well, just to point out some of the populations of the towns I mentioned. As a matter of interest, I looked them up (all are rounded off).

    Pamiers: 13,500
    Foix: 9,000
    Le Plessis Belleville: 3,000
    Dreux: 31,000
    Pontoise: 27,500
    Rozay-en-Brie: 2,500
    Ille-sur-Têt: 5,000 (N116, east of Perpignan)

    Yes but all are coincidentally on the route of a major Euroroute and the autoroutes were all built accomodate through mostly freight traffic en route from places as diverse as Sweden and Portugal not to mention serving the regional cities such as Tolouse Metz Dijon etc.

    No-one ever called the Naas By-pass a commuter motorway because it serves a national function.


  • #70
    Andrew Duffy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 540 ✭✭✭Andrew Duffy


    westtip wrote:
    the poor people of Navan will hurtle down their shiny new autobhan and come to a grinding halt on the m50 interchange

    This interchange:

    int_m50_n3.jpg

    ...? I don't think they'll have much of a problem there, even if they want to continue into the city.


  • #71
    bryanw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 284 ✭✭bryanw


    Diaspora wrote:
    Yes but all are coincidentally on the route of a major Euroroute and the autoroutes were all built accomodate through mostly freight traffic en route from places as diverse as Sweden and Portugal not to mention serving the regional cities such as Tolouse Metz Dijon etc.

    The towns I mentioned are all at the end or the nearest destination to the end of the routes I selected. They are not on motorways that continue half-way across the country or internationally. Here are the towns I have mentioned:

    http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d101/bryanw_1988/Toulouse.jpg
    http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d101/bryanw_1988/Perpignan.jpg
    http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d101/bryanw_1988/Paris2.jpg
    http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d101/bryanw_1988/Paris1.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    westtip
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,282 ✭✭✭westtip


    Andrew Duffy wrote:
    This interchange:

    ...? I don't think they'll have much of a problem there, even if they want to continue into the city.

    I was referring to an opinion that the design of our motorway system has effectively made the M50 the national motorway interchange - it is the foolishness of the design of the entire system which funnels all motorway traffic onto the M50 interchange (ie the entire M50) and not just the proposed junciton of M3/M50 which I am glad to see is cloverleaf free flow to which I was referring


  • #73
    mysterious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    bryanw wrote:
    The towns I mentioned are all at the end or the nearest destination to the end of the routes I selected. They are not on motorways that continue half-way across the country or internationally. Here are the towns I have mentioned:

    http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d101/bryanw_1988/Toulouse.jpg
    http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d101/bryanw_1988/Perpignan.jpg
    http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d101/bryanw_1988/Paris2.jpg
    http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d101/bryanw_1988/Paris1.jpg

    Still can't compare.. N routes in France are DC... btw way most of the route stretches are not long in length and relatively close to the cities, of say Paris.. Were talking about a high class motorway that is not needed. They won't even put a proper motorway to Limerick or Cork but to Cavan..

    I told you already that even motorways in France don't even have a hard shoulder. Besides they wouldn't be stupid enough to waste money on such a scheme or put it near a national monuement.

    I bet foix is bigger than any town mentioned on the N3...


  • #74
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,493 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    mysterious wrote:
    In fact a lot of motorways in France have no hard shoulder.
    I've done Bordeaux-Paris-Calais/Belgium. Other that certain sections of specific routes, all had hard shoulders (they did however, use only 50% of the paint :)).


  • #75
    mysterious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    Victor wrote:
    I've done Bordeaux-Paris-Calais/Belgium. Other that certain sections of specific routes, all had hard shoulders (they did however, use only 50% of the paint :)).

    yes but not all motorways:) Anyway all the roads the op said, were N routes, and it's the mainn road to Spain and Andorra, so it's TOTALLY different comparison to the M3 Commuter valley:rolleyes:


  • #76
    bryanw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 284 ✭✭bryanw


    mysterious wrote:
    yes but not all motorways:) Anyway all the roads the op said, were N routes, and it's the mainn road to Spain and Andorra, so it's TOTALLY different comparison to the M3 Commuter valley:rolleyes:
    The N3 doesn't stop at the end of motorway either, it continues to Donegal. The roads I have mentioned, not all of which are N roads (I picked 4 Autoroutes and 4 N routes) have had motorway/dc upgrades as far as satellite towns, just like the N3 will.
    mysterious wrote:
    I bet foix is bigger than any town mentioned on the N3...
    Foix at (end of N20 which continues from A66) has a population of 9,000. Pamiers at end of A66 has a population of 13,000. Navan has a population of 20,000, which is almost a big as both put together.
    ME:
    Well, N roads in France are not all DC, although a lot are. The only real difference between N roads and D roads in France is that the N roads are government funded/maintained, but now a lot of N roads are being converted to Routes Departementales. Just as an example, the D743 north of Niort is a 2+1 but the N150 is just a single carrigeway.

    On all the roads I mentioned I only included Autoroutes or either Routes pour automobiles/Voie express (which are roads with motorway restrictions).
    I don't know why you think that the roads in France are in some sense substandard because they are not built to the same high-spec as we build them here with their mile wide median and super hard shoulders. I France, ok the median isn't much more that a barrier but they have higher speed limits than here an I'm sure their motorways are just as safe as ours. A lot of the motorways/dc you are talking about must have been about the time of WW2 when there where no hard shoulders. I can give you plenty of examples of high quality motorway and N roads in France. I don't think it would cost a helluva lot more over here to build motorway than it does in France, apart from that fact that everything costs more for whatever reason...
    mysterious wrote:
    btw way most of the route stretches are not long in length and relatively close to the cities, of say Paris
    Don't forget that Paris is a lot bigger than Dublin - so distances would be relatively similar. I know there were a couple of examples around Paris that weren't great because they are a bit close. But the M3 will only be 50-60km long and if you ask me, these links will benifit the wider population as well as the commuter.


  • #77
    mysterious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    bryanw wrote:
    The N3 doesn't stop at the end of motorway either, it continues to Donegal. The roads I have mentioned, not all of which are N roads (I picked 4 Autoroutes and 4 N routes) have had motorway/dc upgrades as far as satellite towns, just like the N3 will.

    Most Donegal traffic go by M1 and N2, that was just to make the N3 end somewhere, I mean have you ever travelled through, it's like 3 or four different roads from Cavan to Ballyshannon, never mind the fact your going through Northern Ireland!!!!!
    bryanw wrote:
    Foix at (end of N20 which continues from A66) has a population of 9,000. Pamiers at end of A66 has a population of 13,000. Navan has a population of 20,000, which is almost a big as both put together.
    Besides foix there are three villages just outside Foix, and serves the population of the pyreness region and Andorra, if you want to take it further, it even crosses into Spain, so it's more than just a commuter routes, not a good example Bryanw!!!!.... go look at the map again and see the concentration of population on the route., and would equal Navan as it is if not double..... that route is a trunk route to btw... N3 is a joke... apart from south of Navan to Blanch.. which needs upgrade..
    byranw wrote:
    I don't know why you think that the roads in France are in some sense substandard

    I don't think they are, the N routes are DC... and the ones you've mentioned are just standard DC.. with higher traffic than the N3, for christ sakes..
    byranw wrote:
    . I can give you plenty of examples of high quality motorway and N roads in France. I don't think it would cost a helluva lot more over here to build motorway than it does in France, apart from that fact that everything costs more for whatever reason...

    Fire ahead, France is a big country... where there is a lot of people and roads.
    bryanw wrote:
    Don't forget that Paris is a lot bigger than Dublin - so distances would be relatively similar. I know there were a couple of examples around Paris that weren't great because they are a bit close. But the M3 will only be 50-60km long and if you ask me, these links will benifit the wider population as well as the commuter.

    Now we are getting somewhere, Paris is bigger, bigger cars, bigger population and more roads..... thus means more traffic, and more reasons to have bigger roads.. about the distance don't know why your trying to compare... its stupid.

    If this route in france was to go ahead,,, it would not ahope be of same standard.. it would just DC some of it's lenght and a A road the rest of it.

    Better still they would love to build tgv. and that would solve all problems:) especially in this case. I'd say a motorway to Limerick instead.


  • #78
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,493 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    bryanw wrote:
    A lot of the motorways/dc you are talking about must have been about the time of WW2 when there where no hard shoulders.
    Even as late as 1960, France had less than 100km of autoroute, so I suspect their programme started well after WWII.


  • #79
    bryanw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 284 ✭✭bryanw


    mysterious wrote:
    Most Donegal traffic go by M1 and N2, that was just to make the N3 end somewhere, I mean have you ever travelled through, it's like 3 or four different roads from Cavan to Ballyshannon, never mind the fact your going through Northern Ireland!!!!!
    Now, on the N3, when you get into the North you literally are taking 3 or 4 roads. I don't think we can build our own roads in the North, now come on. On the N2 and M1, you also take different roads and of course they're in the North too.
    mysterious wrote:
    Besides foix there are three villages just outside Foix, and serves the population of the pyreness region and Andorra, if you want to take it further, it even crosses into Spain, so it's more than just a commuter routes, not a good example Bryanw!!!!....
    I don't think there are huge amounts of people living high up in the Pyrenees and Andorra, for God's sake, Andorra is tiny, I mean it's about the size of Galway city.

    Outside Meath there are three towns further along the N3 ... and if you want to take it further, it even crosses into Northern Ireland, so it's more than just a commuter route, not a good example also!!!!

    Listen, the N3 goes further than where the motorway will end, its that simple. Stop overlooking that. People of Virgina, Cavan and even Enniskillen have to use the N3. And let's just say if people in Enniskillen use that M1/N2 to get to Dublin now, they will definitely use the N3 once the motorway is finished. How are we supposed to improve these regions if we are denying then transport and infrastructure.
    mysterious wrote:
    I don't think they are, the N routes are DC... and the ones you've mentioned are just standard DC.. with higher traffic than the N3, for christ sakes..
    This is the 3rd or 4th time I've had to say this now. Will you stop saying the N routes are DC, not all of them are, ok?

    I am looking at Via Michelin maps, which are probably the best maps you can get. The markings on those maps clearly define the types of road. Any road I gave and example of was either an Autoroute or a "Route pour Automobiles" which has to have a name, in these cases N. These roads have MOTORWAY characteristics - they are completely GRADE SEPARATED - have HARD SHOULDERS and MEDIANS/BARRIERS - and RESTRICTED ACCESS - they are almost motorway. These roads are denoted red with a white stripe in the middle. Now, standard DC is denoted on the maps as a normal road, red with a thin black line so as to show separate sides.
    mysterious wrote:
    If this route in france was to go ahead,,, it would not ahope be of same standard...
    Listen, this is Ireland, everyone is being satisfied roads wise under Transport21. Our major towns and cities are being connected by motorway. More importantly though, it should be noted that, as you know, our country is very car dependent.

    France has their own problems, they have a lot of large cities, unlike us. If they were to build a significant motorway to a town the size of Navan, of course their would be uproar, but that is considering that they have so many towns that are much bigger.

    Navan, by our standards is quite a major urban centre. It is also one of the sources of traffic blackspots along the N3. Now our country is floating on money. We have more money than we know what to do with. We can't justify every piece of road we build on traffic volumes, because they are not high enough for most places if that was they case we would have a lot less motorway than we do now... and we don't have that much as it is. It is silly. People are giving out because a motorway is being built for people who need to use it. Oh no! it stops where high numbers of population stops oh no, you can't have that, now that's not justified spending.

    Why can't we spend our money on top-class infrastructure? The government is throwing money at things that money really can't solve, but if our motorway network is built, it is money well spent. A huge return on the investment and we are set for the future - no matter what happens to the economy, plus a greatly improved safety record for the type of road. If this isn't done and something happens, it's too late! :( And that not only goes for the roads, but the whole of Transport21.

    What do you suggest we build instead of motorway or DC?


  • #80
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Slice wrote:
    I'm unconvinced a costlier Metro network would be necessary...

    ...Distances such as the red line or the green line (with completed Cherrywood extension) should be served by commuter services such as Dart, or perhaps Metro.

    ?


  • #81
    mysterious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    bryanw wrote:
    Now, on the N3, when you get into the North you literally are taking 3 or 4 roads. I don't think we can build our own roads in the North, now come on. On the N2 and M1, you also take different roads and of course they're in the North too.
    Ok.... Your missing my point, or else your barking up the wrong tree..
    Nobody ever stated "We" "you" or "me" that we should build up there!!! I'm saying we are building a motorway to IT....
    bryanw wrote:
    I don't think there are huge amounts of people living high up in the Pyrenees and Andorra, for God's sake, Andorra is tiny, I mean it's about the size of Galway city.

    And your saying Kells or Navan is:rolleyes: Andorra is still a country, and the route is exstensive and vital for the entire region. In fact goes en route to spain.

    Outside Meath there are three towns further along the N3 ... and if you want to take it further, it even crosses into Northern Ireland, so it's more than just a commuter route, not a good example also!!!!
    bryanw wrote:
    Listen, the N3 goes further than where the motorway will end, its that simple. Stop overlooking that. People of Virgina, Cavan and even Enniskillen have to use the N3. And let's just say if people in Enniskillen use that M1/N2 to get to Dublin now, they will definitely use the N3 once the motorway is finished. How are we supposed to improve these regions if we are denying then transport and infrastructure.
    Lol... should bring to a whole new level, because we could..
    bryanw wrote:
    This is the 3rd or 4th time I've had to say this now. Will you stop saying the N routes are DC, not all of them are, ok?
    Try Google earth? btw most N routes are IN Fact standard dual carrigways, stop making "silver out to gold"

    A are M
    N are DC...

    .
    bryanw wrote:
    Listen, this is Ireland, everyone is being satisfied roads wise under Transport21. Our major towns and cities are being connected by motorway. More importantly though, it should be noted that, as you know, our country is very car dependent.

    Oh snap crackle and pop!! you've stated a lot there. Yes we are build a super highway through the Northwest, hense one of the largest Motorway schemes ever to be built in this country. Will make it EVEN more car independant. Secondly T21 is only just began after the failed NDP which is it's mother.... and I wouldn't be too optimistic.
    bryanw wrote:
    France has their own problems, they have a lot of large cities, unlike us. If they were to build a significant motorway to a town the size of Navan, of course their would be uproar, but that is considering that they have so many towns that are much bigger.
    don't know what your trying to argue here??

    bryanw wrote:
    Navan, by our standards is quite a major urban centre. It is also one of the sources of traffic blackspots along the N3. Now our country is floating on money. We have more money than we know what to do with. We can't justify every piece of road we build on traffic volumes, because they are not high enough for most places if that was they case we would have a lot less motorway than we do now... and we don't have that much as it is. It is silly. People are giving out because a motorway is being built for people who need to use it. Oh no! it stops where high numbers of population stops oh no, you can't have that, now that's not justified spending.

    Why can't we spend our money on top-class infrastructure? The government is throwing money at things that money really can't solve, but if our motorway network is built, it is money well spent. A huge return on the investment and we are set for the future - no matter what happens to the economy, plus a greatly improved safety record for the type of road. If this isn't done and something happens, it's too late! :( And that not only goes for the roads, but the whole of Transport21.

    What do you suggest we build instead of motorway or DC?
    i read your last line... I answered that already, and other's had already.. google it, if your show ignorance...

    Secondly Well...you got carried away there, , enough of your bold and capslock, as it's deemed agressive.!!!!!! your so adamant that whatever happens you want a full blown motorway regardless what happens... lol, I mean Galway is bigger than Navan, yet though it's HQDC, still isn't motorway, yet The Galway route serves better for a motorway. and if the likes od you had your way it would of being built now.

    which would you rather A rail line with the half price and a possible upgrade of a number of options to Navan from Ashbourne...


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    bryanw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 284 ✭✭bryanw


    mysterious wrote:
    Ok.... Your missing my point, or else your barking up the wrong tree..
    Nobody ever stated "We" "you" or "me" that we should build up there!!! I'm saying we are building a motorway to IT....
    When I said things like "we" "us" "our own" - what I meant was us as in "our country" - the Republic of Ireland. Otherwise I've no clue what your on about.
    mysterious wrote:
    And your saying Kells or Navan is, Andorra is still a country, and the route is exstensive and vital for the entire region. In fact goes en route to spain.
    Andorra is a country, its so small it wouldn't need motorways for it's own use and doesn't have any. I'm not sure trade links with Andorra are vital for either the economies of France or Spain, and neither one has built a motorway to Andorra. That's why the M1 finishes at the border north of Dundalk. Countries don't build motorways for other countries.

    My whole point was why the motorway finishes at towns like Pamiers. The larger towns on the route. Because they are large towns which use the route to get to Toulouse or whatever.
    mysterious wrote:
    don't know what your trying to argue here??
    I'll reword it a bit: "France has a lot of large cities, unlike us. If they were to build a significant motorway to a town the size of Navan, of course their would be uproar, but that is considering that they have so many towns that are much bigger."
    mysterious wrote:
    i read your last line... I answered that already, and other's had already.. google it, if your show ignorance..
    I read your other posts. The only thing you said about the N3 was it should be DC (not HQDC) as far as Dunshaughlin, at grade, with roundabouts. I'm not going to quote loads other posts but there aren't too many specifics from others. From what I've gathered, some people aren't opposed to the M3 but probably wouldn't care if it wasn't done, while of course others don't see the need.
    mysterious wrote:
    Secondly Well...you got carried away there, , enough of your bold and capslock, as it's deemed agressive.!!!!!!
    I had to do that because you refuse to acknowledge what I'm trying to say. I did the bold caps because it was the 3rd time I had to say it. This is the last time I'm going to mention this and unless you acknowlegde it in someway or another, I'm not talking about it anymore.

    In France, the N route I've mentioned (i mentioned A routes aswell) are what would be termed in France as HQDC. Please leave aside the fact that continental roads are less high-spec than in the UK or Ireland. The roads I've mentioned are the next standard down from motorway. I didn't mention any what would be termed standard DC. I'm not really interested how many N roads are DC or not, that's not what I wanna talk about.

    Viamichelin Maps
    Motorway:
    autoroute.jpg

    Dual carrigeway with M/way characterists and restrictions:
    type-auto.gif

    Standard DC:
    dc.jpg
    mysterious wrote:
    your so adamant that whatever happens you want a full blown motorway regardless what happens... lol, I mean Galway is bigger than Navan, yet though it's HQDC, still isn't motorway, yet The Galway route serves better for a motorway. and if the likes od you had your way it would of being built now.

    which would you rather A rail line with the half price and a possible upgrade of a number of options to Navan from Ashbourne...
    HQDC is really motorway by the standard it is being built today (you even said it yourself), and even by continental standards, would be more high-spec than their motorways. HQDC is not motorway only in the sense that it has less vehicle restrictions, slightly different road markings and different colour signs. The only reason the M3 has to be motorway is because it is being tolled (twice!).

    You can build a rail line into Meath and people will us it, I'm in no way opposed to it. But currently Iarnród Éireann don't offer the greatest transport service in the world. The rail line is planned aswell but it is more or less part of the same plan as the motorway and will be built together.

    With population in Ireland, rail becomes expensive to maintain because the density is so low in most places. The rail lines have to cover large distances and it is less easy to access because you can't built a station in the middle of nowhere. Roads are much easier to access, especially for people living in rural areas. Overall the has been much better managment of roads in this country than there has been of rail.


  • #83
    Diaspora
    Closed Accounts Posts: 213 ✭✭Diaspora


    bryanw wrote:
    The towns I mentioned are all at the end or the nearest destination to the end of the routes I selected. They are not on motorways that continue half-way across the country or internationally. Here are the towns I have mentioned:

    Sorry to be so long getting back on this but I have been on site visits for the past 3 days:

    To deal with your images individually

    1 Toulouse is as another poster pointed out the route to Andorra as well as the Pyrennese which given the gradients involved needed climbing lanes to stop trucks blocking the route and to stop boy racer types making the road completely lethal by overtaking seperation was deemed appropriate.

    2 Perpignan is a very short spur of approximately 12 miles it is also dual carriageway which is probably 20 years ago and built as a project championed by some local gombeen.

    3 Paris - Metz very obvious that this is a very old dual carriageway that has been superceded by the A4 and the fact that it goes directly through towns displays just how irrelevant this example is.

    4 Paris - Le Havre again the N14 was abandoned as the preferred route in favour of the A13 luckily for the French taxpayer this was done a mere 6 miles beyond the outer periphique.

    If your examples display anything it is that the French planned their motorway network nationally and not parochially. The French would as the maps chosen above display choose a route to serve a direction.

    This is the context of the M3


  • #84
    Diaspora
    Closed Accounts Posts: 213 ✭✭Diaspora


    Andrew Duffy wrote:
    This interchange:

    int_m50_n3.jpg

    ...? I don't think they'll have much of a problem there, even if they want to continue into the city.


    You are right the N3/M50 junction will flow a lot more freely than in previous years and will move the problem on beyond the existing roundabout.

    However the M50 even with 3 lanes has no immediate plans for a third Westlink Bridge and it is a fact that two bridges cannot cope with traffic flows at peak times without major delays to users. It is also very clear from the design of this junction with N3 access provided by a secondary slip road inbound that the Navan Road is already at capacity and access via the roundabout it is clear that this junction was deliberatley designed to give preference to those paying both M50 & M3 tolls.


  • #85
    bryanw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 284 ✭✭bryanw


    Diaspora wrote:
    You are right the N3/M50 junction will flow a lot more freely than in previous years and will move the problem on beyond the existing roundabout.

    However the M50 even with 3 lanes has no immediate plans for a third Westlink Bridge and it is a fact that two bridges cannot cope with traffic flows at peak times without major delays to users. It is also very clear from the design of this junction with N3 access provided by a secondary slip road inbound that the Navan Road is already at capacity and access via the roundabout it is clear that this junction was deliberatley designed to give preference to those paying both M50 & M3 tolls.
    The toll barriers will be gone which should be some help on the bridge, afterall that is the route of some problems as the bridge will have as many lanes as the rest of the road. I would agree though that there will still be problems that can't be solved as easily as getting rid of the barrier. Traffic is only going to get worse when the road is upgraded. And you can't go far wrong with more lanes, but I'm not sure how much room there is to spare on the rest of the road.

    As for the N3 interchange, I always say you get what you pay for, but there should be less traffic on the roundabout when the work is finshed, so it shouldn't be too bad. But I suppose its unfair that some users will be getting short changed. Some smallish alterations to the roundabout might be able to free-flow it all.


  • #86
    Diaspora
    Closed Accounts Posts: 213 ✭✭Diaspora


    bryanw wrote:
    The toll barriers will be gone which should be some help on the bridge, afterall that is the route of some problems as the bridge will have as many lanes as the rest of the road.

    Is wasn't aware that a deal has actually been agreed and at the type of sums that NTR are quoting no deal should be agreed.

    bryanw wrote:
    As for the N3 interchange, I always say you get what you pay for, but there should be less traffic on the roundabout when the work is finshed, so it shouldn't be too bad. But I suppose its unfair that some users will be getting short changed. Some smallish alterations to the roundabout might be able to free-flow it all.

    This is all based on the presumption that the N3 inbound beyond the roundabout will not gridlock which it does already and given the width of the landtake no further upgrades will be possible heading in towards the City Centre.


  • #87
    bryanw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 284 ✭✭bryanw


    Diaspora wrote:
    Is wasn't aware that a deal has actually been agreed and at the type of sums that NTR are quoting no deal should be agreed.
    Well I know nothing has been agreed, but it has been promised as part of the upgrade, so I would be inclined to expect it be done by the time the M50 is upgraded at the very latest.


  • #88
    Navan Junction
    Closed Accounts Posts: 721 ✭✭✭Navan Junction


    Diaspora wrote:
    This is all based on the presumption that the N3 inbound beyond the roundabout will not gridlock which it does already and given the width of the landtake no further upgrades will be possible heading in towards the City Centre.
    It doesn't gridlock like it does in Blanch. It keeps moving, slowly at times but it does move reasonably well most of the time.

    If you go through the Pheonix Park, the Quays can be a problem..


  • #89
    DerekP11
    Closed Accounts Posts: 524 ✭✭✭DerekP11


    This thread is a long oul read with lots of OTs, but enjoyable all the same.

    Going back to the funding of Roads Vs Public Transport. Ive already made the point that the road network is bigger and will always demand a bigger budget.(Sorry Slice) I also said that more efficient planning and project management within public transport is desirable and the current lack of it (through political interference) is a serious obstacle to its successful role within Irish society.

    Now Im going to throw in another hand grenade to the debate.

    We actively blame the Government for all our public transport woes. (nothing wrong with that) But what about Irish people themselves? How much have we contributed to the growing traffic gridlock?

    In Celtic Tiger (Maverick Pussycat) Ireland, the new status symbols are cars and houses. In our quest to achieve these items we drive up house prices, forcing the extension of "affordable" property to outlying towns, miles from cities (place of work) and without suitable forms of public transport or any other form of infrastructure. Then we buy the new car (this applies particularly to the GDR and other cities around Ireland) and we make the repayments, pay the road tax and insurance and develop this incessant need to drive it everywhere, because...hey....Im paying for it so I'll drive it. This is, in many examples, a reality, even with the existance of public transport opportunities. A good example of this in operation is the Rock Road in Dublin. It runs parallel to the DART line to Bray and has bus services, yet it is bedlam 5 days a week at peak (even without the current roadworks)

    So I suggest that Ireland has developed a new found "snobbery" to the potential use of public transport(across all classes) and that this is an important factor in our congestion problem and government priorities.

    I remember a "Today Tonight" debate many many years ago, about funding for public transport. The conclusion arrived at, was that if more people used public transport, there'd be more money available to it. But people opted for their car (obviously in a government job back then, coz my parents didn't have a car at the time) because the perception was, that public transport was crap.
    Hmmm... I'd say the effectiveness of public transport is worse now than it was back in the early 80s.

    Anyway. Might be something worth condsidering.


  • #90
    Diaspora
    Closed Accounts Posts: 213 ✭✭Diaspora


    bryanw wrote:
    Well I know nothing has been agreed, but it has been promised as part of the upgrade, so I would be inclined to expect it be done by the time the M50 is upgraded at the very latest.

    So you basically saying that regardless of the consideration demanded that the toll bridge(s) should be bought even though NTR have contributed not one cent to the €800m euro upgrade and that on current flows its DCF valaution is less than €200m. I say CPO it and rely on the principle in Point Gourde that as the bridge is gridlocked that it cannot in itself accomodate any future flows. Thus acquiring at current market value prior to the upgrade for the number of unexpired years the income stream has force which is 14.

    Re The Rock Road argument I agree to a point but there is no way of telling how many users on this route are travelling to places not on the DART route i.e. Roundwood to Ringsend. I think that DART has proven that where provision exists dropping people off at a desirable City Centre location that they will use it. I do definitely agree on car use where no rail option exisits; a neighbour of mine drives 150m to the shop and back just becuase he can.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Andrew Duffy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 540 ✭✭✭Andrew Duffy


    mysterious wrote:
    Most Donegal traffic go by M1 and N2

    With the toll motorway, Sligo inner relief road and bypasses of Edgeworthstown, Ballyshannon and Bundoran, the N4 now takes about the same amount of time for West Donegal as the N3 or M1/N2 and is less stressful due to the stretches that aren't upgraded being shorter and better. There's also no chance of a run-in with the PSNI.


  • #92
    DerekP11
    Closed Accounts Posts: 524 ✭✭✭DerekP11


    This thread is a long oul read with lots of OTs, but enjoyable all the same.

    Going back to the funding of Roads Vs Public Transport. Ive already made the point that the road network is bigger and will always demand a bigger budget.(Sorry Slice) I also said that more efficient planning and project management within public transport is desirable and the current lack of it (through political interference) is a serious obstacle to its successful role within Irish society.

    Now Im going to through in another hand grenade to the debate.

    We actively blame the Government for all our public transport woes. (nothing wrong with that) But what about Irish people themselves? How much have we contributed to the growing traffic gridlock?

    In Celtic Tiger (Maverick Pussycat) Ireland, the new status symbols are cars and houses. In our quest to achieve these items we drive up house prices, forcing the extension of "affordable" property to outlying towns, miles from cities (place of work) and without suitable forms of public transport or any other form of infrastructure. Then we buy the new car (this applies particularly to the GDR and other cities around Ireland) and we make the repayments, pay the road tax and insurance and develop this incessant need to drive it everywhere, because...hey....Im paying for it so I'll drive it. This is, in many examples, a reality, even with the existance of public transport opportunities. A good example of this in operation is the Rock Road in Dublin. It runs parallel to the DART line to Bray and has bus services, yet it is bedlam 5 days a week at peak (even without the current roadworks)

    So I suggest that Ireland has developed a new found "snobbery" to the potential use of public transport(across all classes) and that this is an important factor in our congestion problem and government priorities.

    I remember a "Today Tonight" debate many many years ago, about funding for public transport. The conclusion arrived at, was that if more people used public transport, there'd be more money available to it. But people opted for their car (obviously in a government job back then, coz my parents didn't have a car at the time) because the perception was, that public transport was crap.
    Hmmm... I'd say public transport is worse now than it was back in the early 80s.

    Anyway. Might be something worth condsidering.


  • #93
    Slice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,133 ✭✭✭Slice


    I don't agree that people use cars for most journeys in the Greater Dublin Area because of any snobbery factor or because they prefer it. In some of the richest cities such as Zurich where car ownership is actually higher than Dublin the degree to which people actually use their cars is a fraction to which Dubliner's use their cars simply because the public transport in that city is superior to Dublin's. The main reason Greater Dublin is so car dependant is because there is no viable alternative - to not own a car is to be socially excluded - this is especially true the further out you live from the city centre, and it is exactly where local and national government has failed us.

    Building more roads is a shortsighted solution that does not account for the fact that to do so is doing so at the expence of improved and integrated public transport which consequently has the effect of encouraging greater car ownership - thus compounding the problem


  • #94
    DerekP11
    Closed Accounts Posts: 524 ✭✭✭DerekP11


    Slice wrote:
    The main reason Greater Dublin is so car dependant is because there is no viable alternative - to not own a car is to be socially excluded

    Socially excleded eh? So what about drawing the "socially excluded" bit into the city area? Clondalkin, Blanchardstown or Tallaght? I lived in these areas. I got a bus to School or walked. Nowadays, its all people carriers and SUVs and driven by people who still live in the often descibed areas of "social exclusion", "povety stricken" and highlighted as areas that suffer from top notch rates of "anti social behaviour".

    As for "greater Dublin"....read my post again. I clearly stated that it was a combination of housing issues, poor infrastructure and car dependency that caused the problem.

    But, if you live in the real world, you should be able to recognise the simple fact that the "new rich" in Ireland want a car and want to drive it.

    Your age, background and whether your parents, always owned a car in your lifetime, would be great pointers to your knowledge/opinion on this subject.


  • #95
    westtip
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,282 ✭✭✭westtip


    Diaspora wrote:
    Please read previous posts.


    A link road should be built from the M1 towards Monaghan Town for Derry and North Donegal and the N4 built up for South Donegal and East Leitrim.

    Couldn't agree more and have said as much elsewhere - a route which straddles the border running west - east linking Sligo Enniskillen Monaghan Dundalk would suffice for traffic from the north west and border counties to travel to Dublin (and by the way Belfast) via the EAST/West border road to the axial east coast route of the M1. It could be achieved with a bit of cross border infrastructure spending, it would benefit counties both sides of the border. It would provide a much quicker route to the airport from the border counties and the north west, and provide a quick route from Monagahn to public health facilities (ie Dundalk hospital), which has been a huge public issue in Monaghan.

    It all comes down to the disastrous axial planning of our motorway sytem in which the M50 has become the interchange for the entire system. For example travelling from Sligo (or anywhere in the north west to catch a flight from Dublin Airport, if the flight is in the morning you are faced with the stupid decision - to come off the motorway (M4) at Kilcock and cut across country on dodgy roads (on which you do get delayed) to avoid the log jam you know you will hit at the N4/M50 interchange and the toll bridge and the M50. Whereas with the cross border route mentioned above it would be an across and down route, with probably a lot more reliable traffic flows, but not going onto the M50 (and it wouldn't be toll avoidance as these would be paid on the M1).

    It all comes down to PPP (not what you all think but Parish Pump Politics)


  • #96
    Diaspora
    Closed Accounts Posts: 213 ✭✭Diaspora


    As was said acidly by an NRA official 'He whe scream loudest gettee road' and be damned on what it costs gettee road now.

    Looking at the images of Co Meath it is complete joke that one County can receive 4 seperate motorways including two that are totally predicated on commuter flows.


    In the West of Ireland they always complain that the Jackeens get everything; they are almost right the jacks get overpriced houses in Meath & Kildare and the joys of three hours commuting a day to pay for them.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Slice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,133 ✭✭✭Slice


    DerekP11
    Socially excleded eh? So what about drawing the "socially excluded" bit into the city area? Clondalkin, Blanchardstown or Tallaght? I lived in these areas. I got a bus to School or walked. Nowadays, its all people carriers and SUVs and driven by people who still live in the often descibed areas of "social exclusion"

    I not talking about class divides and I wasn't really referring to any specific area either, the same that's said for Tallaght could be said for Foxrock insofar as it's impossible to get by without a car in both parts - say by comparison to someone who lives between the canals. I know that Foxrock is affluent compared to Tallaght but the point is that both areas promote social exclusion because it's very difficult to get to work without a car when you live in either area. Would you not consider that social exclusion? You're assuming that to travel by car is desirable or a sign of social superiority when in fact there are plenty of people living in areas of good public transport who do not have cars even though they can afford one simply because there is no need.

    This argument applies more to cities where it makes more economic sense to provide extensive public transport but neither is it an excuse not to provide public transport to places like Navan in Meath instead of several unnecessary motorways.


  • #98
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,493 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Slice wrote:
    DerekP11 I know that Foxrock is affluent compared to Tallaght but the point is that both areas promote social exclusion because it's very difficult to get to work without a car when you live in either area.
    Depends on where in each. Foxrock Church is very different from Foxrock Village.

    Foxrock Village 46N | 63 | 86 | http://www.dublinbus.ie/your_journey/viewer.asp?placeName=Foxrock

    Foxrock Church 46A | 46D | 46N | 46X | 58C | 58X | 63 | 746 | 75 | 84 | 84X | http://www.dublinbus.ie/your_journey/viewer.asp?placeName=Foxrock%20Church


  • #99
    DerekP11
    Closed Accounts Posts: 524 ✭✭✭DerekP11


    Slice wrote:
    DerekP11

    I not talking about class divides and I wasn't really referring to any specific area either, the same that's said for Tallaght could be said for Foxrock insofar as it's impossible to get by without a car in both parts - say by comparison to someone who lives between the canals. I know that Foxrock is affluent compared to Tallaght but the point is that both areas promote social exclusion because it's very difficult to get to work without a car when you live in either area. Would you not consider that social exclusion? You're assuming that to travel by car is desirable or a sign of social superiority when in fact there are plenty of people living in areas of good public transport who do not have cars even though they can afford one simply because there is no need.

    This argument applies more to cities where it makes more economic sense to provide extensive public transport but neither is it an excuse not to provide public transport to places like Navan in Meath instead of several unnecessary motorways.

    Your argument appears to be closely based on that presented by James Wickhams book, Gridlock.

    I admire greatly, Professors Wickhams book,views and rationale, but this is an area where I'd disagree with him. I think that affluency has contributed in some form to increased traffic congestion by way of people in certain areas, adopting the car despite alternative public transport. I'd go as far as saying that it requires a specific study.


  • #100
    Slice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,133 ✭✭✭Slice


    Your argument appears to be closely based on that presented by James Wickhams book

    Yes, in relation to approach to the city it would be consistent. But my opinions on public transport are my own.


Advertisement